Author Topic: objectivity to rate a route  (Read 10063 times)

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2112
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #75 on: April 15, 2014, 11:18:23 am »
Beginners (or people who haven't traveled to many different areas) are wise to climb grades well below their imagined max until they get an idea of the local relative grades. That should be enough beta to keep some "adventure " in climbing. The NCCS is useful today as an historic footnote--trying to bring it back is as useful as beating that horse! ;D
+1.  Right on the money.

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #76 on: April 15, 2014, 01:03:49 pm »
For beginners today, the fact that Leigh Ortenberger used a rating system in the 50s and 60s is of historical interest only. I remember the NCCS system as do some few of the other "old farts" regularly on here. The YDS came into use to better unite the various idiosyncratic grading systems used or misused around North America and became the most generally used because the majority found it the most helpful way to compare climbs from one area to another.

Respect your opinion as an adept of sport climber. As you can read on an other article of the same reference that i gave earlier, and as DaveG present on one of his post, and as it is write in Webster book, the YDS is a measure of the hardiest move in a pitch...not a national rating system. In the book of Joe Cote, they used the F and 5.x in his first and second book.

I understand that if some one climb without beta and previous knowledge a III, 5.9 at cathedral and a III, 5.9 at glacier point, he will understand that he most learn friction better than layback to climb. But I saw many people who can on sight recompense and was not able to leave the anchor on slab direct 5.7 (pillar at glaciar point is 5.9). So, you can see that the YDS alone is not enough to describe a route when no body is with you: i.e. weather problem, ease of escape, average difficulty of all pitches, route finding, etc. As one can climb an easy route to know is level in the Yosemite, he can: a) if he can't climb the hardiest move, lower his level; b) if he took too much time, workout different technique at a lower over all difficulty.  So he can be safe without paying a guide (N.B. guide or climbing with an experience climber to learn route finding, manage overall difficulty of the climb, etc are preferable in your area, but the goal most be to be able to be autonomous in other area).

In the thread, we talk about how to rate a route objectively and the statistical method of NCCS can be used for that. In doing so, we understand that all move can be describe as a body placement with certain strenght to do the move (computerized model of a climber). That we can rate a climb objectively.

This is not what sport like to have because in sport the only skill need is the hardiest move of the pitch. Some of you think that if you remove route finding and overall difficulty by a description of all hard move in a pitch, if we solve weather problem and rope management by using bolt anchor, the degree of protection by drilling bolt every where and by using the same method for all, we can save life as nobody will climb any thing else that an outdoor gym.

Is it still trad climbing? I don't think so. Climbing hard can be to have to solve hard route finding problem or to manage the rope in a way that it will not be cut. is it sport climbing....I think so. And it is what bother you the most with the NCCS rating system. it show that the difference exist.

The reaction of sport climber is to "beat the horse"... Brochu make intimidation, you gave the impression that we can't find the NCCS rating in the webster guide book, Strandman can compete with every trad climber and win... You invade the place as the russian invade an other country actually, trying to control every idea that it is not sport climbing.

I climbed recently at rumney, it was great, but not my style.

     
     


DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2014, 01:08:59 pm »
You invade the place as the russian invade an other country actually, trying to control every idea that it is not sport climbing.

I climbed recently at rumney, it was great, but not my style.
   

Jeff takes the time to read your gibberish, and provides a well thought out respectful response, and you compare them to invading Russians.

Your style sucks. (not talking about climbing style here either).

Guidebook descriptions solve all your concerns with the rating system. Keep flogging that horse.

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2112
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2014, 01:40:43 pm »
In the thread, we talk about how to rate a route objectively and the statistical method of NCCS can be used for that. In doing so, we understand that all move can be describe as a body placement with certain strenght to do the move (computerized model of a climber). That we can rate a climb objectively.

This is not what sport like to have because in sport the only skill need is the hardiest move of the pitch. Some of you think that if you remove route finding and overall difficulty by a description of all hard move in a pitch, if we solve weather problem and rope management by using bolt anchor, the degree of protection by drilling bolt every where and by using the same method for all, we can save life as nobody will climb any thing else that an outdoor gym.

Is it still trad climbing? I don't think so. Climbing hard can be to have to solve hard route finding problem or to manage the rope in a way that it will not be cut. is it sport climbing....I think so. And it is what bother you the most with the NCCS rating system. it show that the difference exist.
Let's for the moment assume these are indeed the weaknesses of the YDS system.  So, how does the NCCS system (Grade III, F8, for example), absent any route description, help me figure out the weather for the day and rope management on the fourth pitch?

The more you try to convince the NA climbing community to abandon the very widely (note I am not saying universally) accepted YDS system, the more you are going to frustrate yourself.  It is probably akin to visiting Font and proposing the use of the B rating for boulder problems instead of the accepted French system.

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 5829
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2014, 07:05:58 pm »
L...L- in case you don't get it..and I doubt you do..I don't compete with anyone anymore.I'm to old and not so healthy I will however always state my case about climbing style..ie how you climb in a certain area. your pressure about youre alleged purity of ascent and onsight shit sickens me..

Do you only climb with beginners ? or deaf people ?  You don't know shit

When ortenger wrote about the nccs , YDS was already 5 years old...i totally respect history, but he was wrong.Robbins was right.


Offline Jeff

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2014, 10:36:38 pm »
Luke: you and I have talked on several occasions at Cathedral, yet you say the following "Respect your opinion as an adept of sport climber." Apparently you don't know me. I've tried to be respectful, while disagreeing. I also have nothing against sport climbers or sport climbing. HOWEVER, I have been a trad climber since back when we only referred to the game as "climbing" , having started climbing in 1964 in Grenoble, France. I have spent no more than 5 days (total) climbing at Rumney, and have probably spent a total of fewer than 20 days climbing on bolted sport crags since the term "sport climbing" came into common usage. (past 20 years maybe?) I am hardly "an adept of sport climber". My friends would tell you I'm hopeless at it!! The NCCS will NOT bring greater safety into the climbing world, no matter how long you argue in its favor, nor will the beginners you're trying to protect have a clue what we've been talking about. To describe it as a Statistical Method is patently absurd. Continue to be a voice crying in the wilderness if you wish; I've tried, I'm done!! :-X

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2014, 11:11:43 pm »
To describe it as a Statistical Method is patently absurd. Continue to be a voice crying in the wilderness if you wish; I've tried, I'm done!! :-X

I asked you some places your opinion as I know that you work with the mountaineer. I was hopping a good discussion about the system as you had probably to deal with it.

Ortenberger study his system during two years. He made list of many climb  and as fellow climber to do the same.

Can you told us what he does during those two years before he propose a system that can be used nation wide? Statistic can be a good model for that.

Can we understand the system and decide after or just follow superficial rules?

Offline Jeff

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2014, 08:28:08 am »
Luke, I understand the NCCS system, I just don't use it; I have also climbed extensively in Great Britain and "understand" their grading system (pretty well, :P); I also don't use it in North America, because I find the YDS more useful. It took Ortenberger 2 years of study to get  a large enough opinion sample 50 years ago because climbers didn't travel from area to area like they do today. In the past two weeks I have had climbing friends in action in JT, Red Rocks, Yosemite, S. Colorado, Chamonix, Squamish, N. Conway, Quincy Quarries, Boulder, and Rhode Island. I have personally climbed in all of those except RI and JT in the past 20 years, so by talking to them I can more easily make route decisions and comparisons. I don't need another classification system to keep me safe, nor do I believe that ANY such system keeps ANYONE safe. Climbing is dangerous!!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 08:29:44 am by Jeff »

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2014, 09:31:23 am »
Not nearly as dangerous as trying to talk sense to Champ :o

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #84 on: April 16, 2014, 09:40:14 am »
so by talking to them I can more easily make route decisions and comparisons. I don't need another classification system to keep me safe, nor do I believe that ANY such system keeps ANYONE safe. Climbing is dangerous!!

and if you can't talk to them and climb???

And it is not an answer to the question of how statistic with the list they made can be used with statistic to objectively rate a route. it not explaining either the computer model to be more efficient when you climb a route and how they can use computer to rate route.

Today, climber learn how to do the harder move in a climb. Before they learn about weather, overall difficulty, rope management, etc. That is the reason why climbing is more dangerous than before.

Sport is great, as you just have to do the harder move. And fewer people do trad climbing, or they do just the classic where the gear placement is as evident as a bolt. As I over trained, I experience myself what it is when you don't trust your hand and have to place a nut. It is very scary and many people gave up when the challenge begin to be fun.   

I most say that my partner is better than me to rate a route. For me, if I do it easily, it is 5.8. If I stop a couple of place it is 5.9 and if I take too long it is 5.10. But as my strength change from day to day...I have to stop and talk with my partner to admit that the rating is good for some one who just have the book to make there decision
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 09:45:48 am by lucky luke »

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4530
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #85 on: April 16, 2014, 10:36:45 am »
most important  info in any rock climbing guide is.
 length of approach and difficulty of approach.
 Climbing grade of route by pitch and length of climb in ft or meters.
 Protection rateing.
 Size of protection.
 descent info.
 aspect of cliff. N,E,W or S.

The new ADK guide does a good job on the start of each section telling you how long and difficult the  approach is, height of cliff, descent info and number and grade of climbs at that cliff. not certain if it tells aspect of cliff?

Get yer head out of your ass (good luck) and stop worrying about a 40yr old defunct system.

The single most important piece of info about an ice climb is how much sun it gets yet cliff aspect is often missing in ice climbing descriptions???

Offline neiceclimber

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #86 on: April 16, 2014, 12:49:37 pm »
most important  info in any rock climbing guide is.
 length of approach and difficulty of approach.
 Climbing grade of route by pitch and length of climb in ft or meters.
 Protection rateing.
 Size of protection.
 descent info.
 aspect of cliff. N,E,W or S.

Correct, although I can do without difficulty of approach and size of pro unless it's an unusual piece. Speaking of guide books, I'm not a huge fan of the star system. I prefer the old Mellor method of the + if the route is worth while. Seems to me, once stars are added only the top tiered climbs get done with regularity and others that are just as enjoyable creep back to moss and lichen.

Offline steve weitzler

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #87 on: April 16, 2014, 12:56:47 pm »
I always liked Rick's original ice grades in Shades of Blue. Easy, Hard, Moderate. I suggest we adopt those for all climbing.

Offline Jeff

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #88 on: April 16, 2014, 01:17:31 pm »
My old friend Rocky Keeler (RIP) used to grade ice as H (Hard), VH (Very Hard) and  PFD (Pretty F..king Desperate)--seemed to cover things pretty well. Also suggested it might be dangerous! 8)

Note to Luke: this is not an objective system; Rocky's VH was PFD in my opinion  ;)

Offline neiceclimber

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #89 on: April 16, 2014, 04:16:25 pm »
I always liked Rick's original ice grades in Shades of Blue. Easy, Hard, Moderate. I suggest we adopt those for all climbing.

Just think what this would do to the internet, a whole community only able to spew they climb hard, I like it.