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 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: objectivity to rate a route  (Read 2387 times)

M_Sprague

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1578
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2014, 06:48:16 AM »

LL, have you ever noticed that there are no beginner climbers who enter into discussion with you here about these topics that you obsess about? Anything informatively helpful is completely swamped by your obsessional over analyses. It is though you write 15 books about getting out of the road when a car comes; analyzing the type of car, various mental states of the driver, weather, pollutants on the surface of the road, where you should look first if a plane is flying overhead too (all with many detailed graphs and mathematical formulas), and whether you really are crossing the road if you are not skipping while doing so, all flavored with moral outrage. It is obsessional lunacy. When somebody tries to break through it all with a little humor you then get all pissy.
Logged
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is not a path and leave a trail."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

DGoguen

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2014, 08:56:23 AM »

Please rise and remove your hats.

A reading from the book of Cote 1969.

"Grade I       A few hours
 Grade II     Half a day
 Grade III   Most of the day
 Grade IV    Full day to one and one half days"

Thou shalt not complicate things.

"The second part of the rating gives the single hardest free move.
At Cathedral  F4 easy to F10 exceptionally severe."

I shall send my only son to address F11, he shall be known as Henry
Your all invited to donuts in the basement.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 09:02:30 AM by DGoguen »
Logged
Don't Climb

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #17 on: March 30, 2014, 10:49:17 AM »

I had the old Petzholt tetons guide which has the F rateings.  dosent seem to be much difference between F9 and 5.9 other than we all use 5.9 so why worry about a defunct system that did basicly the same thing as the current system.
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4633
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2014, 11:08:28 AM »

Fuck you LL..you don't know shit about me and never will....You want to start..I DO know more about climbing than you ever will and yes i am proud about my accomplishments

The nccs was bullshit when I first saw it in JT around '81  it still is and always will be..just like you

I hope you read this before it's deleted..asshole
Logged

xcrag_corex

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2014, 12:11:43 PM »

Thinking about starting a Kick Starter fund to organize a Pit Fight between Strandman And Champ.... Any takers? Wager pool to follow.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 12:15:04 PM by xcrag_corex »
Logged
-Jeremy Ballou

"know how to rock, ain't afraid to roll"

xcrag_corex

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2014, 12:19:19 PM »

Hmmmm
Logged
-Jeremy Ballou

"know how to rock, ain't afraid to roll"

DGoguen

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2014, 12:31:15 PM »

  dosent seem to be much difference between F9 and 5.9 why worry about a defunct system that did basicly the same thing as the current system.

There isn't, that's the hardest move. The second number in the rating.
The first number is the focus. It's the Roman numerals being phased out that is blowing his mind.
Apparently it's killing the children.

Webster says III 5.9
Handren says. 390' 5.9
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 12:37:18 PM by DGoguen »
Logged
Don't Climb

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1488
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2014, 01:19:35 PM »

LL, have you ever noticed that there are no beginner climbers who enter into discussion with you here about these topics that you obsess about?

There are no beginner climber who like controversy and to be insult when they bring new approach. They like to learn and understand. If they had the chance to discuss freely, they will enter the discussion. But because you insult the people who climb before us, they don't want to be "out of the gang" and they don't said there opinion or ask question.

Here it is what many very good climber from all over the nation think about the NCCS: A NCCS would obviously promote the safety of climbing, since through knowledge of the NCCS gained through local climbing, the climber would avoid to attempting in a new region a route having difficulty and problem which he could not cope.

It tooks one person to destroy all the effort of many person. But a lot of courage to keep your integrity. If you think that insulting who made the system is good, I can't do any think. If you think that the NCCS can't promote the safety of climbing, why don't you explain the reason???

On the scale difficulty of the hardiest move (YDS), you know that you can have a diedral, a face, a slab, they are all 5.8 or 5.9. You know that some one is better in over hang and other on slab. But there is one number for them all.

The rating system, identify by I to VI that Dgoguen present on his last post is a measure of time. I am sure that you have enough experience to understand that it is a measure of the time that some one take to be ready to climb at the bottom, do some route finding to know where to go, place is protection, climb to the anchor, built the anchor, belay his partner, gave the equipment to the next leader. The time for one pitch more the time of the second, third...to have an overall.

It is like the scale difficulty. Some climber will be better in rope management, than in route finding. So the rating is very interesting if you never climb in a cliff, to know what to do. You begin with a classic and adjust yourself to climb at your level.

What is bad with that???? I hope that you will have the courage to answer honestly your opinion and not just insult me of being obsess!!! As any one who like to inflict pain to other can do.

Of course, you understand that building bolt anchor is cheating as it change the rating, you may understand a difference between trad and sport.

Still, even if I am wrong on the distinction...The people who create the NCCS are person that we must respect. It is because they do some things that you have been able to climb.       
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 02:06:29 PM by lucky luke »
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2014, 01:50:51 PM »

Building a bolt anchor is only cheating if you have your head stuffed so far up your ass that you will never see daylight again, ever..  Somtimes a bolt anchor changes the charecter of a climb. sometimes for better and sometimes for worse but it has nothing to do with cheating. building a gear anchor is dead easy so there is nothing to cheat. If building gear anchors was hard then the bolt anchor  would be possibly cheating. Building gear anchors is dead easy therefore there is nothing to cheat over ::)

The only difference between a good bolted anchor and a good gear anchor is that the bolted anchor. A. tells you where to stop and make belay. B. makes retrete possible without loseing expensive gear.    neither of these are cheating. they do change the nature of the climb however. It is often fun to have to find your own belay stance and know that if you do not succed on the climb it will cost you money.  It is also fun to get on something knowing that if it rains you can bail for free.
Logged

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1488
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2014, 02:23:14 PM »

Building a bolt anchor is only cheating if you have your head stuffed so far up your ass that you will never see daylight again, ever..

I respect that opinion. I think that it is in a pure sport ethic and it could be great to have bolt anchor.

As the NCCS rating is base on time, if you climb and have a bolt anchor, you don't loose time to stop and look for the best place to belay your partner...particularly to avoid a fall factor two at the next pitch (route finding scale); you don't take time to set the pro in the rock. you don't take time to place every thing safe. So, if you take 20 minutes more by pitches, after six pitches you are 2 hours later at the top. It can make the differences between going down at night and at dust.

In the rating, the one with bolt will rate the route II 5.7...and the other will have a rating of IV 5.7. The distinction between II and IV is very important. It is the two hours longer that you take to make the route like the first climber who did the route. If you climb in a new area and the route is rate 5.7...and there is no bolt anchor...you can risk your life and have to  sleep in the cliff.

The NCCS is for safety, but it show very well the differences between sport and trad. climbing I 5.11 is no longer climbing hard as III 5.9 could or couldn't be harder. I like to climb my routes as the first one did, without bolt and with the challenge to master every dimension of the climb. Not just how to climb and how to clip a bolt. You like to do it with less stress full situation and be back sooner at the bottom. It is great. Let the people choose. Actually, they insult people if they don't agree with the sport mentality.

 
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 02:43:24 PM by lucky luke »
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2014, 03:09:59 PM »

Dude. if it takes you 20 min to build gear anchor you need to either practice your gear placeing skills or maybe take up sport climbing. should not take more than a min or two longer to build gear anchor than it does to clip the bolts. heck i have climbed with people who took 30 min to make anchor @ a two bolt  station never mind haveing to make their own anchor.  Should literaly take a max of 90seconds to make anchor at a 2 bolt station  and that includes pulling up the rope. clock stops when you put the 2nd on belay. add an additional 90 seconds to build a gear anchor. so 3 min total from arriveing at the stance to putting your partner on belay for a gear anchor. add an additional min if you need a wardrobe change.
Logged

DGoguen

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2014, 03:50:22 PM »

In the rating, the one with bolt will rate the route II 5.7...and the other will have a rating of IV 5.7. The distinction between II and IV is very important. It is the two hours longer that you take to make the route like the first climber who did the route.

In your 6 pitch 5.7 scenario, bolted and unbolted above.

If Grade II is half a day.
Adding two hours would barely make it Grade III A full day.

Grade IV is a full day to one and a half days.





« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 04:04:43 PM by DGoguen »
Logged
Don't Climb

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1488
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2014, 03:52:01 PM »

Building gear anchors is dead easy therefore there is nothing to cheat over ::)ree.

90 seconds to built an anchor??? dead easy.

take more time
Logged

tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3837
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2014, 03:58:54 PM »

No thanks. learn to do it more efficiantly and keep it simple.
Logged

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1488
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2014, 04:00:51 PM »

In your 6 pitch 5.7 scenario, bolted and unbolted above.

If Grade II is half a day.
Adding two hours would barely make it Grade III A full day.

Grade IV is a full day to one and a half days.

I took the commitment rating of Ed Webster: II about half a day, up to 5-6 pitches IV a substantial undertaking. A very long climb, possibly involving a bivouac. with a solid anchor rope finding is also easier and rope management too. So I think that, maybe if i exagerate, the serioousness of the climb change from III to IV if you have to bivouac at the top.

I do think that time have to be specify to be closer to reality. It is one of the weakness of the NCCS. a Weakness that I talk about before

you are right.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 04:07:49 PM by lucky luke »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.191 seconds with 23 queries.