NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: objectivity to rate a route  (Read 2265 times)

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
objectivity to rate a route
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:39:31 PM »

As a beginners, most of us think about what means the rating systems. As we don't want to under estimated ourselves, if they told us that climbing 5.9 is a beginer level, I will try to climb 5.10. But it is true or right?

I am a 5.10 climber onsight after 25 years of climbing. Can I climbed 5.11 or 5.12...I still have to try it. When I won't have the ball to go over my stopper, I will do some sport to push myself. Actually, trad climbing is my major concern.

I analyze two rating systems used in north conway that you can found in Ed webster guide book and the recent guide book. I found that one is wrote for the elite and the other to the average climber. One is wrote if you are already good, and the other is wrote if you like to have a nice climbing day, like lake view at canon, or royal arches in yosemite.  Accessibility, it is all what the trad climber want...no bolt, no reserve area...just enjoy a full day of climbing. You will find a discussion of it at: http://tradpartner.blog.com/?p=3. It is for people who want a deep understanding of the system to choose what they like.

The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber? 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 03:59:50 PM by lucky luke »
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2014, 05:40:17 PM »

Only do new routes..then you can decide everything
Logged

cjdrover

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2014, 10:27:00 PM »

I read these posts and just scream "WHY?!??!"



Here's a tip: 5.9 is 5.9, except when it isn't. Welcome to the northeast.
Logged

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2014, 11:17:38 PM »

Not quite sure why this thread is in the Beginner's section.
To objectively give a route an approximately accurate grade takes quite a bit of experience and familiarity with the local grading "system".  A beginner will typically feel that a steeper 5.8 with obvious holds is easier than a 5.8 slab which requires balance and friction and less actual pulling.  Quite difficult to be objective then.
Logged

"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

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2014, 07:15:31 PM »

Not quite sure why this thread is in the Beginner's section.

The thread is in the beginer section because a beginer can choose between the yosemite decimal system (YDS) and the national classification climbing system (nccs).

If you read my blog (http://tradpartner.blog.com/?p=3) you will have some starting point to see the differences and decides which one you like.

I will say, for you, that the you prefer the YDS
Logged

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2014, 07:53:12 PM »

Is NCCS a widely accepted system or one you are in the process of making up?
YDS is OK, not perfect but I honestly cannot say I have been let down by it.
But, hey, if there is a better system out there, I am not opposed to switching or mixing it up with YDS.
Logged

"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

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2014, 10:43:31 PM »

Is NCCS a widely accepted system or one you are in the process of making up?

I wrote: "I analyze two rating systems used in north conway that you can found in Ed webster guide book and the recent guide book."

So, it is a system still in use because you can find the book of Ed Webster in store. You didn't know those system? I have the chance to find the first paper on the NCCS system. It is interesting.

I think that I can bring some thing to the system to make it more accessible to every body. The time to climb a route can be very different from one person to an other. Hennold climb the nose in three hours and for most people we take five days. So it is hard to evaluate a time to a route that is not one of the average climber, but reflect what a 5.some thing climber can took on a route. Time can be very important as if I am supposed to climb a route in five hours and I took every time six or seven hours, Maybe that means that I am climbing over my head.

So the NCCS system, as proposed, can be a very interesting tool for climber who want to be able to climb a mountain by themselve.

Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2014, 12:09:08 AM »

new and exciting
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2014, 07:11:29 AM »

never fckin heard of it? YDS is what we use here in the states. pretty accurate everywhere except the easier climbs in the daks and the southeast where a severe case of penis envy led to some serious sandbagging ::)
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4629
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2014, 10:03:07 AM »

nccs ? that old F5 and F8 bullshit ?? You know what the f is for ?
Logged

DGoguen

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2014, 11:10:40 AM »

Just as a reference
Recompense over the years.

Joe Cotes 1969 guide
NCCS II, F9

Joe Cotes  1972 guide
II 5.9

Paul Ross and Chris Ellms  1978 guide
III  5.9

Ed Websters  1982, 1987,1996 guide
III  5.9

Jerry Handrens  1996 and 2012 guide
390'  5.9
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:06:50 PM by DGoguen »
Logged
Don't Climb

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1964
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2014, 12:10:09 PM »

I find Jerry's most informative of the whole lot while no disrespect to the rest. 
Logged

"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

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2014, 02:38:08 PM »

nccs ? that old F5 and F8 bullshit ?? You know what the f is for ?

I do think that you are part of the elite. Very strong climber that people respect. Climbing in many places with grate partner and chalenge.

You are a danger for a beginner. You gave the idea that you know every think, but you just climb. If you read the note of DGoguen
 Joe Cotes 1969 guide, NCCS II, F9
 Joe Cotes  1972 guideII 5.9

So, nccs and yds is the same difficulty rating,  they open the grade, accordingly to the Welzenbach scale, from 9 to 10 as the climber perform stronger route. It  was just a question of how to wrote it.

In the NCCS, they have a number for the hardiest move. So, if you climb 450 feet in 5.3 and one move at 5.12, you will take for ever to make the route. If you have a route at 5.7 all the way to the top...you can climb faster. The hardiest move is just physic, it doesn't means that you can't have fun or be at your limit if you climb a more sustain route.   

You are a danger because you don't know about the second number and third number of the classification. You just know that you can climb it and who care about the other who can't!!!  You said: "Only do new routes..then you can decide everything" and in other thread you asked me to be as good as you and to not shadow your glory.

You are a danger because people follow you or that mentality. Sneoh said: 'Is NCCS a widely accepted system or one you are in the process of making up?" Not sure either that he knows what means the second number of the NCCS. So when you make comments on the objectivity of the rating...I am sure that people read enough to gave so bad answer. I climbed bombardment ounce and I was just before Joe Cote. He started as I was climbing. I looked at my moved, and looked how he climbed... he was so good. Joe Cote know how to describe a 5.6, 5.7 and 5.10 objectively. I said M. Cote but there is many others. Some doesn't have facility to wrote on a computer because it is not a technology that exist before. Maybe Joe Cote can't describe what is a 5.8 move with accuracy...there is still work to do to describe many of those very good climber who make local history of climbing. That work is not done yet.

There is those who climb and try to understand the basic of climbing (look Joe Long, art of leading is all about the movement of climbing), and those who want to be the best...an elite who just wrote how they don't care about classification system that can help a mother and father to see his child alive after a day of climbing.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 07:11:32 PM by lucky luke »
Logged

DLottmann

  • Guest
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2014, 10:11:00 PM »

You should put all this effort into your blog LL...

Yes, people should also understand what a commitment rating is (most trad climbers do).

You don’t understand how insulting “you are a danger to new climbers” sounds... try:

“I am concerned how new climbers might miss the point” rather than pointing fingers...

Logged

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2014, 01:27:48 AM »

You don’t understand how insulting “you are a danger to new climbers” sounds... try:

“I am concerned how new climbers might miss the point” rather than pointing fingers...
insulting: disrespectful or scornfully abusive

Yvon Chouinard, Warren Harding, Royal Robins...and many other was supporting the NCCS. As some one said: nccs ? that old F5 and F8 bullshit ?? You know what the f is for ?... They insult all those climber who create the spirit of the climbing.

I don't say that the system can't be critic. But insulting those very great climber, the pioneer of our sport, even SA is insult. when he said: More than half the people bail because of the mental problem, rather than the lack of technical skills, for me SA understand the NCCS rating and it is an insult to him. I am not against competition and it can be stimulating. But competition is not a psychological war where you have to insult people of fucking bullshit as strandman did.

I respect Strandman as a climber with a different ethic than mine. In the post, the action was made by him, not by the climber who follow the advice of the best climber. In safety, knowing what is F8 and knowing why it is 5.8 today is help full because a new climber could learn about weather problem, ease to escape, average difficulty of all pitches, difficulty of the hardiest pitches, route finding, rope management, degree of protection, etc. All "glue" together by the time. It is to understand that you have a scale for the difficulty rating (YDS in US, an other in france, an other in australia, all the same with different letter); a scale for the average difficulty of all pitches; a scale for...and more. It is the basic of safety in climbing as technique is the art of leading.

The danger is that because some one influence negatively the other by using is statue of elite... the other climber try to imitate what he do easily as an expert climber. If he had bring argument to said why the sytem is not good, if he didn't insult people to convinct the other of his point, I would have used term like "I am concerned how new..."

Ed Webster in rock climbs in the mountains of new hampshire (2nd)wrote: "Placed just after the name of a climb[...] is the commitment rating. This rating is an estimate of the climb's seriousness,..." So, for many years, by many local climber...the NCCS is not fucking bullshit.

   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.18 seconds with 23 queries.