NEClimbs.com forum

General => Beginners Area => Topic started by: lucky luke on March 26, 2014, 12:39:31 pm

Title: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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? 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on March 26, 2014, 05:40:17 pm
Only do new routes..then you can decide everything
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: cjdrover 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DLottmann on March 28, 2014, 12:09:08 am
new and exciting
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz 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 ::)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on March 29, 2014, 10:03:07 am
nccs ? that old F5 and F8 bullshit ?? You know what the f is for ?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DGoguen 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on March 29, 2014, 12:10:09 pm
I find Jerry's most informative of the whole lot while no disrespect to the rest. 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DLottmann 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...

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.

   
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: M_Sprague 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DGoguen 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: xcrag_corex 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: xcrag_corex on March 30, 2014, 12:19:19 pm
Hmmmm
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DGoguen 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.       
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.

 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DGoguen 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.





Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz on March 30, 2014, 03:58:54 pm
No thanks. learn to do it more efficiantly and keep it simple.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: WharfRat on March 30, 2014, 04:38:20 pm
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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?  :)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz on March 30, 2014, 06:12:43 pm
don't forget to allow for luke taking 20 min to build each anchor ::)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.       
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: M_Sprague 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?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: OldEric 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?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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".
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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. 

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff 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)! 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: JBro 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!
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: xcrag_corex on March 31, 2014, 04:07:14 pm
Bondage? X position?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: danf 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......
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on March 31, 2014, 04:56:00 pm
And people say  "why do you drink ?"
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: eyebolter on March 31, 2014, 05:24:46 pm
Not sure that I want to wade in here but....

Don't forget anchors.  Routes that you had to top out on have been reduced in commitment due to rappel anchors (Royal Arches, for example).  I had to sleep on a ledge after blowing the North Dome gully descent.   It was a grade III, but is it still a III given that most people rap the route without even doing the jungle pitches at the top?

I think the overall grade has some merit, but with the addition of rap anchors (don't get me wrong, I'm all for them) it does make it "easier."

Forget girdle traverses.  A commitment rating is silly since you can generally rap to the ground and be drinking beer within an hour.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on March 31, 2014, 05:33:01 pm
I dunno..i did the Big Plumb and it was pretty hard..I was wishing to rap off a few times
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DGoguen on March 31, 2014, 06:56:31 pm
Not sure that I want to wade in here but....
(Royal Arches, for example). 

Steve Ropers 1964 guide
Royal Arches
III 5.6 with two pendulums

Chris McNamara/Steve Roper 2003 Supertopo guide
Royal Arches
5.7 A0
Time to climb the route: 7-10 hours
Descent time 2-3 hours
Height of route: 1400 '

But either way you couldn't walk off in that time.
Friends of mine who will remain nameless spent the night on a ledge less than a rope length from the ground without realizing it until morning on that one.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on March 31, 2014, 07:17:10 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. I don't understand the comparison!! Fairview is obviously more serious (III in the outdated NCCS scale, while Interloper only gets II)!

There is two crux in interloper...and maybe a direct finish. I have to ask. I did it in nine pitch or so, avoiding the last duifficulty.

If you look just at the YDS system, it is a 5.10...harder than a 5.9

If you look at the overall difficulty, interloper is a II and fairview a III for pratically the same length. So, fairview is harder.

It gave an idea that the length and YDS rating is, maybe, not as good as the NCCs with YDS and time.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on March 31, 2014, 07:20:58 pm
Don't forget anchors.  Routes that you had to top out on have been reduced in commitment due to rappel anchors (Royal Arches, for example).  I had to sleep on a ledge after blowing the North Dome gully descent.   It was a grade III, but is it still a III given that most people rap the route without even doing the jungle pitches at the top?

Not sure that the NCCS take consideration for rap anchor. It does when you climb and don't have to do it with your gear, but the descent time is not in the rating as much as the approach time. Most be verify.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on April 01, 2014, 12:28:14 am
Sure, throw it all in there for good measure and follow up with pitch by pitch plus descent description!
Example - Dream of Wild Turkeys YDS: 5.10a French: 6a Ewbanks: 18 UIAA: VI+ British: E1 5a  Type:  Trad, 7 pitches, 700', Grade III
and then http://mountainproject.com/v/dream-of-wild-turkeys/105732275

"Safe enough", LL? 
We got our rope stuck on this one. I was an idiot. :)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 01, 2014, 09:36:44 am
If one does Royal Arches in just over an hour..is that grade I ??.....like Bombardment maybe ?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff on April 01, 2014, 10:38:01 am
Luke: I can't do it, but there is a climb at the Gunks with your name all over it ---"Persistance"!
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 01, 2014, 10:46:14 am
Stannard is rumored to have taken 160 tries..grade VII i guess
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 02, 2014, 09:31:04 pm
Luke: I can't do it, but there is a climb at the Gunks with your name all over it ---"Persistance"!

Yes. Maybe you know that references: "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

They identify two difficulty in the text. One is when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition). I think that it best describe sport climber

and the other lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh). The trad climber.

So, it is not because some one place a cam that he is a trad or bolt to be a sport. It is when you lower the commitment rating to one for sport or prefer a hight commitment for trad.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: JBro on April 08, 2014, 07:11:33 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/JkI5j.gif)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Pete Jackson on April 10, 2014, 05:58:37 pm
So, it is not because some one place a cam that he is a trad or bolt to be a sport. It is when you lower the commitment rating to one for sport or prefer a hight commitment for trad.

To answer your original question, "Which system do you prefer?", I'd say the YDS with commitment ratings and star ratings for aesthetics does the trick. This is the method in use by almost all modern guidebook authors in the US, and I feel like it works for me. I don't think there's any reason to change it just to suit someone else's preference.

It gives me all of the information I need, while preserving the adventure. I've onsighted at grades 1-2 grades harder than I should be able to, and I've bailed off of 5.5s that scared the shit out of me (I'm looking at you, Whitehorse Ledge).  I wouldn't want the guidebooks in either of those cases to be any different.

There isn't a perfectly objective way to grade a route. They're all different, and so are the people who climb them. If you were to be successful at coming up with a totally objective system, you'd kill the magic.



Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 10, 2014, 11:21:14 pm
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. [...] The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber?

Then we moved uphill and my partner climbed on his 5.14a project for an hour or so, which is a challenging route for him to climb.

you are part of the elite...


Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Pete Jackson on April 11, 2014, 12:52:36 am
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. [...] The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber?

Then we moved uphill and my partner climbed on his 5.14a project for an hour or so, which is a challenging route for him to climb.

you are part of the elite...

No, I most certainly am not elite, and that was my point (on the other thread)!

You took me a little out of context there. I was pointing out that I can climb at a sport crag with elite climbers, in spite of the fact that I struggle to get off the ground on 5.11s that they'd warm up on. (True story)

But that has nothing to do with the YDS vs NCCS thing, though I feel like you're using it to discredit my position on the YDS because it's convenient.

I feel like the NCCS wouldn't help me choose routes any better or worse than the YDS does today. This would be true regardless of any change in my skill level, up or down. It's all subjective within a range. The YDS keeps me from getting in way over my head, but only when used in combination with my brain.

And if I am elite, then strandman is a sporto and Al wears a suit to work. :-). Seriously, have you seen my tick list? Full of 5.9s.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 11, 2014, 10:18:37 am
LL..Pete said his PARTNER climbed his 14a project 

the nccs is shit  and always will be..

I'm off to bolt some 5.6's
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 11, 2014, 09:20:29 pm
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. [...] The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber?
You took me a little out of context there. I was pointing out that I can climb at a sport crag with elite climbers, in spite of the fact that I struggle to get off the ground on 5.11s that they'd warm up on. (True story)

If you point out that every body can climb at rumey and enjoy doing sport climbing, I agree with you. As I pointed out, it is always question of 5.xxxx when people do sport. You said that you climb with the elite, as I prefer to climb with a partner at my level or a good friend. But those are not relate to the rating systems. It is some distinction between too ethic.

As you climb at rumney, the NCCS rating is pratically always I, so , you don't talk about rating over, like rate three or four. Today, I admit that some people try to bring all the climb to a rate I. The nose in 2 hours 56 minutes is a good example of that. The rope of 70 meters...Working the route, etc.  I admit that for that kind of climb, the NCCS rating is not very usefull as they work the route previously and the adventure is not to climb the route for the first time, but to realize an exploit in climbing faster, without rope or to win a conmpetition.

For those people who like to climb 5.9 and prepare the information...

Oups... if I bring you in a 5.9 you won't know if you have to bring a pack with food and headlamp or just your shoes and harness.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Pete Jackson on April 13, 2014, 10:11:25 am
I broke my New Years resolution and engaged on this thread.

I said that the YDS with commitment ratings and star ratings for aesthetics do fine for me. I don't feel like the I II III IV V VI VII grades help me choose more or less appropriate routes than knowing how hard the route climbs. They're good to know, but since I always read the route description and talk to people who have climbed the routes that are my multi pitch goals, what does it really add?

If anything, they're confusing. Half day commitment? For whom? Is that because of a long approach or a because it's a lot of pitches? Is it a half day for me but only if I don't miss a critical rappel anchor that requires a swing on rap #3? Only the route description and the experience of others can tell you this for sure.

And I always pack food and a headlamp. Even when climbing at the Parking Lot Wall! I went out to 5.8 crag yesterday and climbed 6 hours. I brought food  and a headlamp. But I didn't climb any grade II-IIIs.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 13, 2014, 11:39:10 am
So a place like the captain..has a pretty long approach.. 3-4 hours if the road is closed..then maybe 4-5 hours climbing and a 2-3 for the way out is that grade IV ?  NO because the climbing part is what should count
Mt Watkins in Yosemite has a pretty long approach and longer descent..but the climbing is still very time consuming..so VI still

I'm going crazy
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Pete Jackson on April 13, 2014, 11:53:34 am
So a place like the captain..has a pretty long approach.. 3-4 hours if the road is closed..then maybe 4-5 hours climbing and a 2-3 for the way out is that grade IV ?  NO because the climbing part is what should count
Mt Watkins in Yosemite has a pretty long approach and longer descent..but the climbing is still very time consuming..so VI still

I'm going crazy

Right, exactly! There is no "grade" -- subjective, objective, or blended -- that can properly prepare someone for a route without any other information. That's why I am so glad that guidebooks have words in them, and that veteran climbers are usually willing to share route beta! :)

Telling me that we're going out to do a 10-pitch 5.8 with a short, but difficult approach is much more useful information than telling me we're going out to climb a Grade II-III. But in neither case do I have enough information to pack my pack, make my plans, select my approach shoes, or decide to do something else that day instead.

How'd we get started on this topic, anyway?

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on April 13, 2014, 06:36:01 pm
I did not want to broach the subject of approach but it is a real factor.
Eric and I got killed on the approach to L29 because we did not get directions for the most efficient/fast approach.  I was half dead and had nasty scratches up and down my limbs by the time we got to the base.
Epic ensued.  'Nuff said.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 13, 2014, 11:00:19 pm
If anything, they're confusing. Half day commitment? For whom? Is that because of a long approach or a because it's a lot of pitches? Is it a half day for me but only if I don't miss a critical rappel anchor that requires a swing on rap #3? Only the route description and the experience of others can tell you this for sure. [...]

There is no "grade" -- subjective, objective, or blended -- that can properly prepare someone for a route without any other information. That's why I am so glad that guidebooks have words in them, and that veteran climbers are usually willing to share route beta! :)

With the half day commitment I can compare a route that I climb in east to a route that I climb in west. Of course, time is maybe the best, but can create some confusion. If you miss the rap#3 and it is in your ascent, like vertigo, it is because you had a problem with route finding. It can be because you miss it or because you are not train for that. it is the same as when you climb a 5,10. You can miss a hold and not be able to climb the move or you can not be at the level to climb the route. So, it is two kind of difficulty (route finding and the hardiest move.

As many don't know about the NCCS system, I most say that the approach and descent time was not in the rating. It is just the time to go from the bottom to the top. It is a confusion to use the approach as it is a confusion to discuss about route finding. If every body miss the rap #3, the route will take longer for every body. Other way, those you made a mistake will take longer.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DaveR on April 14, 2014, 07:32:10 am
Bla-bla-bla,

Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

Do the approach to L29 with a local and it is not bad at all. I got hosed the first time like Sneoh did. Which time should I put in the book because there was a 2 hour difference each way?

When Bouchard and Richie were training for Shivling we watched them simul-climb the Prow faster than most people could climb Thin Air. We talked with them afterwards and thier rack consisted of a few runners and 2 cams! Should we now give it a commitment rating of 1? :P
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: xcrag_corex on April 14, 2014, 11:38:36 am
Hope the Romans at least held on to the X position....
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 14, 2014, 12:39:44 pm
Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

First, one can ask how the guy did the rating systems in 1963. There is a lot of misunderstanding because people don't take the time to read and explain what the other did, before being able to decide what is good or what is bad. Ordinarly, people try to keep there idea even if they don't know the other theory.

For your knowledge only, we can describe the rating objectively. If you take one hundred climber and bring them to new cliff to climb route that they never heard about it, you are going to be able to do statistic. It is what people call a common agreement I think. But it is measurable. In fact, each person as there limit. One climber do all 5.6, 70% of the 5.7, 50 % of the 5.8, 30% of the 5.9 and 0 5.10. it is a normal curve. With those data, you can say the level of the climber as he climbed 50% of the route easily and he didn't know for the other 50% if he is good enougth. If you take all the climber who climb 50 % of the 5.8 route, you can analyse the difficulty of the route that they climb and describe objectively the limits of those climber, as most of the time, climber fall at the same place. It look complicate, but there is many complicated things that we can oversimplify for convenience. For example, the rope. all the theory about the rope is very sophisticates, but we can resume it with the fall factor for all climber.

Statistically, one person could compare his performance with the one of the population by climbing on sight a route of the same grade in an other area, without asking all the beta to avoid any problem and climb one or two grade over his limits. 
   

 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: JBro on April 14, 2014, 12:54:36 pm
.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DaveR on April 14, 2014, 01:54:38 pm
Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

First, one can ask how the guy did the rating systems in 1963. There is a lot of misunderstanding because people don't take the time to read and explain what the other did, before being able to decide what is good or what is bad. Ordinarly, people try to keep there idea even if they don't know the other theory.

For your knowledge only, we can describe the rating objectively. If you take one hundred climber and bring them to new cliff to climb route that they never heard about it, you are going to be able to do statistic. It is what people call a common agreement I think. But it is measurable. In fact, each person as there limit. One climber do all 5.6, 70% of the 5.7, 50 % of the 5.8, 30% of the 5.9 and 0 5.10. it is a normal curve. With those data, you can say the level of the climber as he climbed 50% of the route easily and he didn't know for the other 50% if he is good enougth. If you take all the climber who climb 50 % of the 5.8 route, you can analyse the difficulty of the route that they climb and describe objectively the limits of those climber, as most of the time, climber fall at the same place. It look complicate, but there is many complicated things that we can oversimplify for convenience. For example, the rope. all the theory about the rope is very sophisticates, but we can resume it with the fall factor for all climber.

Statistically, one person could compare his performance with the one of the population by climbing on sight a route of the same grade in an other area, without asking all the beta to avoid any problem and climb one or two grade over his limits. 
   

I like most people here do not need you explaining the grading system. Many here have been climbing longer than you have  been on the planet and know more climbing history than you ever will! Ratings are very subjective and if you have climbed in many different areas you would realize that.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 14, 2014, 04:03:17 pm
LL- i have been climbing a long fucking time and have no idea what you are talking about. How are beginners supposed too ?

Maybe you should climb more and chill the fuck out !
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 14, 2014, 09:25:03 pm
I like most people here do not need you explaining the grading system. Many here have been climbing longer than you have  been on the planet and know more climbing history than you ever will! Ratings are very subjective and if you have climbed in many different areas you would realize that.

We are in a beginer forum and we discuss about the objectivity of the rating. The method used by Leight Orternberger exist(http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859). It most ber very similar as they used comparaison method. There is also some other method used in France for the skill of the climber. With competition, they study the sport very deeply. I think that it is great that some people keep the NCCS system as it make the sport more accessible for many of us.

That doesn"t means that  people most know that, but at least that the theory exist. And it is normal, to be able to discuss that in a climbing forum.

Some people, like Brochu, are very agressive, it is pratically intimidation.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff on April 15, 2014, 09:23:57 am
Luke, I have to agree with Dave and Strand-- and JBrochu is trying to say it in pictures--this horse is dead!!! (English expression= there is no point in continuing to beat a dead horse==cette discussion continue bien trop longue!) 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. Those of us who traveled a lot in the late 60s and 70s found that certain areas were "stiff for the grade"--ex. the Gunks and CT  here in the northeast. It was also accepted general knowledge that Yosemite granite, because of the continuous nature of the difficulties of its cracks, and the slipperiness of the "glacial polish", took some getting used to. THIS IS STILL TRUE today. 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 15, 2014, 09:30:28 am
Jeff..don't you try to get all wordy and logical   :)

Can you beat a horse before you kill it ?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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.

     
     

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: DLottmann 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman 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.

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff 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!!
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz on April 16, 2014, 09:31:23 am
Not nearly as dangerous as trying to talk sense to Champ :o
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke 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
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: tradmanclimbz 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???
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: neiceclimber 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: steve weitzler 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Jeff 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  ;)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: neiceclimber 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.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: steve weitzler on April 17, 2014, 12:35:23 pm
Well we could sub-divide the grades ie: hard..harder than hard...hardest. Sort of like 12a, 12b......
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on April 17, 2014, 07:24:59 pm
Or cotton tee shirts for that matter :)
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: Pete Jackson on April 21, 2014, 09:46:02 pm
I climbed recently at rumney, it was great, but not my style.

Why didn't you stop by and say hello? We may have our differences, but when you're visiting someone's backyard, you should take an invitation to bury the hatchet over a beer.

Besides, I could show your ten or twenty of Bradley White's adventure routes. No bolts, no solid pro, just pure licheny fear. Many of them have not seen an second ascent. Some would argue that a few haven't seen a first ascent. Dude: it'd have been a golden opportunity. (Bradley is a friend of mine. I'm not making fun of him. There is no denying that his routes are scary, and many are incomplete.)

Alas. Next time.
 
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on April 21, 2014, 09:58:27 pm
That's right!  Those Bradley scarefest will have more than enough FA "spirit" for LL.
But I am willing to bet you a 120 that he appreciates well-traveled routes as much as anyone.  Why else he has not asked about going into those back-wood places Mark frequents to get a few primo FA of his own?
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 22, 2014, 10:10:24 am
Why didn't you stop by and say hello? We may have our differences, but when you're visiting someone's backyard, you should take an invitation to bury the hatchet over a beer.
I was with my partner and do some easy stuff. I working out for September and don't want to injure myself at the beginning of the season. I like Rumney as a workout for crimp, finger work and different kind of movement. It could be fun to go climbing with you as you know the place and we can do some amusing stuff that you didn't climb for a long time. Not as some one who guide the other, but as sport partners. 

My game is not to be better than other or to have my name on a route for glory. I want to go where I never been and push my limits. I wont lead nutcracker at cathedral as much as I won't lead any thing that don't worth it...for me, as well as I don't go cycling because I don't like that. I try a 5.11d and fail on the last move at my second try (just left of nest crowd I think; althought not easy stuff). So, there is places for fun.   
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: sneoh on April 22, 2014, 10:44:06 am
St Elmo's Fire on the left (but not far left side) of Crow's Nest?  Nice place to send time at on a beautiful, sunny day before the leaves appear.
Good choice, LL.  Nice.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 22, 2014, 05:41:00 pm
St Elmo's Fire on the left (but not far left side) of Crow's Nest?  Nice place to send time at on a beautiful, sunny day before the leaves appear.
Good choice, LL.  Nice.

Was on seasick I think. Look at St Elmo's fire...nice.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: ed_esmond on April 22, 2014, 10:02:15 pm
My game is not to be better than other or to have my name on a route for glory.

Somehow I just don't believe you….

In fact, I think your "game" is all about how much "better" you are than others…

respectfully,

ed "in it for the glory" e

Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: strandman on April 22, 2014, 10:30:20 pm
Good one Ed..i only do new routes for fame and glory ! Look where it has gotten me  :o

and of coarse to give people and lline they can aspire to do someday   :-*


Now where is that new 5.6 i've been looking at ???
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on April 23, 2014, 12:47:11 am
My game is not to be better than other or to have my name on a route for glory.

Somehow I just don't believe you….

Socrate said: do what you did yesterday and a little bit more: improve

to improve from a 5.6 to a 5.7 is as good as improving from a 5.12 to a 5.13. I like to climb at my level.
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: kenreville on May 04, 2014, 11:03:51 am
My game is not to be better than other or to have my name on a route for glory.

Somehow I just don't believe you….

In fact, I think your "game" is all about how much "better" you are than others…

respectfully,

ed "in it for the glory" e

ferchissakes ed- looks too me that you're one of the "elite".

LL- if you're as badass as your garbled posts make you out to be, and you apparently strive for on-site "pure" "trad" climbing, you wouldn't give a damn about ratings at all. The fact that you do, at the same time attempting to look down on every climber who placed/used a bolt, goes to show how fragile your whittle ego is.

Man up ya pussy!
Title: Re: objectivity to rate a route
Post by: lucky luke on May 05, 2014, 02:00:00 pm

LL- if you're as badass as your garbled posts make you out to be, and you apparently strive for on-site "pure" "trad" climbing, you wouldn't give a damn about ratings at all. The fact that you do, at the same time attempting to look down on every climber who placed/used a bolt, goes to show how fragile your whittle ego is.

Man up ya pussy!

I wrote on this forum for safety and some understand it and some other don't

I don't want to be better than other, I want that other climb like if they climb a first ascend and take all the safety precaution to come back down safe. Climbing and thinking that you can't fall before a bolt, or that a stopper is good after a full day at the bottom of the cliff is not, for me, be a safe climber.

objectivity to rate is good and the NCCS was made to climber to climb knowing as much of the route as a local who spend time at the bottom of the cliff looking where he is going to go and to avoid that a climber try a route over is helmet, with the challenge to climb without previous knowledge.