Author Topic: objectivity to rate a route  (Read 2734 times)

Offline WharfRat

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2014, 04:38:20 PM »

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2014, 06:03:43 PM »
The problem I have with the amount of "expected" time stated instead of length is the amount of time will inevitably vary for every party.  It seems to me that someone's Grade II can be easily someone else's Grade I and vice versa.  That is why I prefer Jerry's approach of specifying the length of the route, and presumably a description of the pitches and the terrain involved.  This way, everyone can estimate the own time rather than "take someone else's word for it".  An analogy would be it takes X hours to get to destination Y.  How much over the speed limit do you drive?  How many gas/pee stops?
And on the "long" side, Grade XX is closed-ended, right?  Anything over two days would be given the same Grade. Huh?  It would be much better to state the number of pitches (+/- a few allowing for combining pitches, etc).

Edit: Reading back, I noticed that Recompense was given either II or III.  Based on personal experience, I think half-day (II) is fair for most.  Just for kicks, I looked up the 6/7-pitch 700-foot RR classics like Dream of the WT. It is given Grade III.  Most of us visitors take most of the day to go up and come down (so in my mind - IV). The take-way?  Grade XX appears to have significantly greater variability than YDS.  And we should go back to it?  :)
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 06:56:42 PM by sneoh »

"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 tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3891
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2014, 06:12:43 PM »
don't forget to allow for luke taking 20 min to build each anchor ::)

Online lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2014, 08:38:09 PM »
The problem I have with the amount of "expected" time stated instead of length is the amount of time will inevitably vary for every party.  It seems to me that someone's Grade II can be easily someone else's Grade I and vice versa.  That is why I prefer Jerry's approach of specifying the length of the route, and presumably a description of the pitches and the terrain involved.

Yes it is a problem. and the solution is not easy. What is more dangerous? someone who think that he can climb a route of 900 feet Before dark or some one who know that he need at least seven hours to do the climb. Of course, I can climb white horse slab in thre and a half hours with most climber, but the idea is what is more dangerous? In Webster, we have the number of pitch. If you climbed very often on remote area, you will know that it is not the length of the pitch that took times, it is to built the anchor, and rope manipulation at the belay, drinking and eating.

For me, time is very use full because if you climb half the route in three hours and the route is rate four hours...you are two hours to slow: you climb over your helmet. On the other side, if you take one hours for half of the route, there is a good chance that the route is too easy. So, some one who climb the classic route of an area and who has a good estimate of his time of climbing can, with the difficulty scale, decide a route where he will enjoy the day safely, even if it is not a classic. 

Whit the length of the route, it is not possible. because you know that you climb half of a route, that's all.

What is the problem with the time, it is that it is the time for the average party to climb a route. That notion of average party have to be specify to understand what is both an average climber and us as a climber. If I am faster than an average climber, What that means? The problem is in the definition of it.       

Offline M_Sprague

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2014, 09:31:17 PM »
How much to roll and smoke a doobie at each belay? Then if you drop your rack from the top of the second pitch, losing it down a hole, have to rap down single strand, run to IME to replace it, meet a girl on your way out the door and go for a long lunch only to remember your partner on the wall as the sun is going down, jumar back up and finish in the dark, does a II become a IV?
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 09:34:57 PM by M_Sprague »
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is not a path and leave a trail."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline OldEric

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
  • climb on
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2014, 09:34:27 PM »
How much to roll and smoke a doobie at each belay? Then if you drop your rack from the top of the second pitch, losing it down a hole, have to rap down single strand, run to IME to replace it, meet a girl on your way out the door and go for a long lunch only to remember your partner on the wall as the sun is going down, jumar back up and finish in the dark, does a II become a III?

Wait.  Go back to the girl for  a sec.  Was there a commitment rating?  was an x-position involved?

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2014, 10:01:07 PM »
if you climb half the route in three hours and the route is rate four hours...you are two hours too slow:
....
Whit the length of the route, it is not possible. because you know that you climb half of a route, that's all.

What is the problem with the time, it is that it is the time for the average party to climb a route. The problem is in the definition of it.       
Well, LL, reasonable people would conclude that it is best to bail in a controlled manner if one has only climbed half the route in half a day or be prepared to finish the climb/descent in the dark.
You pretty much nailed the problem on the head.  Who represents the average party?  I am pretty sure the average party 30 years ago bear little resemblence to the average party today.  Do we change Grade XX with time and ability of the average party?  That is why I think sticking to objective measures and good descriptions is the "safest".

"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

Online lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2014, 10:33:25 AM »
Well, LL, reasonable people would conclude that it is best to bail in a controlled manner if one has only climbed half the route in half a day or be prepared to finish the climb/descent in the dark.

fairview dome...the hardiest pitches are at the bottom and easier at the top. you climb half the route in more time than the second half. hardiest move and time will gave you good clue to take decision.

so, when you know deeply the system...and you don't (
Is NCCS a widely accepted system or one you are in the process of making up?
, it was made for the safety of people.

Fairview dome look like interloper at white horse. It is a III,5.9 and interloper is II,5.10. Doesn't means that if you climb interloper, fairview is accessible. It is a mix of layback and friction. very slippery. Fairview is definitely harder than interloper where the crux can be avoid by sliding board. with just 5.9 and 5.10...who knows? I was sick when I climbed the route, lead the two first pitches only. 


Offline Jeff

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2014, 11:53:04 AM »
Fairview Dome is about 9 pitches, more or less, depending on rope length and ability of the party; Interloper is 2 pitches (both full value) and then you rappel off or finish on something MUCH easier. I don't understand the comparison!! Fairview is obviously more serious (III in the outdated NCCS scale, while Interloper only gets II)! 

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2014, 01:26:38 PM »
Fairview Dome is about 9 pitches, more or less, depending on rope length and ability of the party; Interloper is 2 pitches (both full value) and then you rappel off or finish on something MUCH easier.
Honestly, one looks at information like 9+/- versus 2 pitches from Jeff and should be able to draw the correct conclusion about time required, seriousness, etc, etc without resorting to an outdated system of classification.  I do not know anything about alchemy.  Do I feel like I am really missing out on something?  It is rhetorical, LL.

Not everything old fashioned is good, and not everything new and fancy is bad.  Think (objectively) about it.

"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 JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Doing God's work
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2014, 02:28:57 PM »
I guess we've moved on from snow crystal bondage so spring must be in the air!
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

Offline xcrag_corex

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2014, 04:07:14 PM »
Bondage? X position?
-Jeremy Ballou

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

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2014, 04:51:15 PM »
The only thing that fairview and Whitehorse have in common is that they are both high quality granite...There is NOTHING the same about reg route and interloper..one is an overated pile and the other is 2 decent pitches..

You no why no one has climbed all of the 50 "classics " ?? 'cause a lot of them suck

Offline danf

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2014, 04:53:05 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?
Its not because we can't argue a point.  It's simply because we have no friggen clue what the hell he's saying. As soon as I see one of his posts, my eyes start to glaze over and I quickly scroll down to see what the response was. Many times that's the only way I have any idea what's being discussed......

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2014, 04:56:00 PM »
And people say  "why do you drink ?"