Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
|
YDS = You gonna Die for Sure
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
|
There are probably only a couple dozen climbs rated 5.3 and below in the entire country.
Never been to the Gunks, eh?
Curt
|
|
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:07pm PT
|
-or- Camelback Mtn in Phoenix, eh Curt?
|
|
martygarrison
Trad climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:12pm PT
|
It could be that the rating should be based on the hardest move, but I can think of many climbs in the Valley where this isn't the case. The Cringe doesn't have any 5.12 moves but it sure is 5.12. Likewise with Meat Grinder and the Enduro pitch on Astroman. Lot's of other pitches that are rated 5.8 based on the hardest move that can feel like 10a. Steck-Salathe comes to mind.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:18pm PT
|
R.B.,
I think anyplace with a relatively long history of climbing will have a good number of routes with "easier" ratings. I just took a quick look and my 1980 Williams Gunks guide lists 45 climbs as 5.3 or under and my 1979 Wolfe guide to Joshua Tree lists 24 routes as F4 (5.2 or less.)
Curt
|
|
rick d
climber
ol pueblo, az
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:19pm PT
|
definitions of *easier* ratings
YDS is superseded by Granite Mountain ratings --which are more conservative than either the Gunks or Seneca and may compare to Devil's Lake, but are easier than Carderock traditional ratings)
5.6 is Weeny Roast
5.7 is Hassayampa
5.8 is Magnolia
5.9(-)is Easy Chair
5.9 is Said and Done
5.10 is Jump Back Jack
of course, 5.9 A.2 CDN rockies grade is a bag.
It should be hardest move only. Let the downratings begin!
rick "everything's cake"
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:32pm PT
|
At Tahquitz, where the rating system was developed, you still have 5.1s and 5.2s that mean something.
not many, and not many good ones, either. north rib, but hardly anyone does it. white maiden is great. and fingertip traverse is pretty cool. after that, it's a world of gullies.
curt is right-- the gunks is the one premiere site in the country i can name that has the sort of concentration of quality, steep, technical routes in the lower-to-mid 5th range that is common at many of the period european limestone centers like the dolomites.
if there had been a lot more areas like the gunks, americans might have ended up with a more literal translation of welzenbach's 1-6 system.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:35pm PT
|
There is great confusion over the UK adjectival system, and not just from beginner UK climbers, it is quite complex, having at least 3 variables, sometimes four all interplaying.
But yes, once you understand it, usually through having lots of climbing experience in the UK, it does make sense.
I like it, it's quite unique.
lol
you have a queen
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2012 - 10:49pm PT
|
Your address Russ, I emailed you, I skyped Sue...no address.. I have DVD.
M
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:57pm PT
|
welzenbach's
Kerwin, is the Welzenbach you're referring to the same guy as Willo Welzenbach, the great German ice climber from the 20's or 30's with the withered right arm?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
|
In my learning years, '68-'73, the Gunks gradings set my own thinking. Almost all routes had a short crux. The YDS in use there was too successful. Devil's Lake was next and there some routes had long cruxy sections. Then came Yosemite and it made little sense to rate cracks by hardest move.
So, you need to reserve your judgement when first climbing at a new type of cliff. As long as bigger numbers(or more emphatic adjectives) mean harder, on average, no real brainpower is needed, just a couple of trial runs will explain the system for you.
Of course, you need to know what different kinds of climbs are like and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
The best system is to form an impression of the ability of other climbers relative to your own. Then if you wonder whether you can do a route, you just need to find out who has done it previously. Note that this system may require an idea of other climbers' character as well as their technical ability.
Guidebook ratings do help tell me which climbs I should probably not consider doing.
I was surprised in South Africa, after doing a route rated 23 (after the Australians) and being asked what it felt like in YDS. Then we looked at the guide and the conversion table therein agreed. I think YDS works well.
|
|
Srbphoto
climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:42pm PT
|
Mick - I told you so!
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
you were right...
But this has been very illuminating, thanks to all..
Night,
Mick
|
|
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 12:20am PT
|
The "class" system was as an adoption of the existing Sierra Club Rock Climbing Section (SCRCS). In 1947 a unified grading system was used at Tahquitz in the Second edition of “A Climber’s Guide to Tahquitz Rock.”
The Third edition of the same guide, published in 1962 and edited by Chuck Wilts, was updated to reflect many of the contributions to climbing by the Yosemite legends of the first ascents and consensus of the climbs at Tahquitz of Royal Robbins, Tom Frost, Bert Turney, and Bill Feuerer, et. Al.
(Each Class of climbing above 4th class is differentiated into a scale of 0 being easiest and (originally 9) being hardest.) As free climbing skill levels progressed, and the climbing revolution hit Yosemite in the 60’s, the “letter” designations were adopted for the “harder” (meaning greater than 5.9) and alas, the birth of 5.10, i.e., 5.10a is harder than 5.9.
Thereafter, because of the recognized newer First Ascents beginning to push and exceed 5.9, the YDS system was devised by further modifying the SCRCS which differentiated the harder (greater than) 5.9 grades by designating a letter grade to distinguish easier or harder climbs of the same grade in an area. The letter grades are typically relative to the specific area per se. (and explains why local standards, such as a 5.10a at Yosemite may be (is) a 5.9 at Granite Mountain, AZ.) And of course, the ratings keep being pushed against an open-ended scale, with the max being now 5.14d or whatever!
In 1981, Jim Waugh published the first guidebook to Phoenix “A Climbers Guide to Central Arizona.” The ratings used in this guidebook used the +/- system instead of the abcd system for the 5th class ratings and aid ratings.
So in the late 1980’s, I proposed a morphed rating system known as the Modified Yosemite Decimal System, which combined the +/- system with the a,b,c,d system for 5th class and Aid climbing.
But, in my opinion, it was ludicrous to rate a 5.9 with an “A thru D” letter, instead: Anything less than 5.10a uses a + /– (plus-minus) system. Therefore 5.9+ is one notch below 5.10a, etc.
The + /- system is still fair game for aid climb ratings as well.
So, the “Modified Yosemite Decimal System” is a combination of several rating methods used in the western USA. I adopted this system on my maps (guides): The Granite Mountain Topo and the El Capitan Route Map.
Here is RBs' Modified YDS (the lower 5th class grades get a +/- and the 5.10 or greater get “ABCD”)
3rd Class (you are free soloing something that could bust you up if you fall – but you’d probably survive a fall)
4th Class (exposed but pretty easy, doesn’t really warrant rope or equipment, except if you are way off the deck)
5th Class
5.0 through 5.5 (no plus or minus)
5.6-, 5.6, 5.6+
thru
5.9-, 5.9, 5.9+
---the dividing line---
5.10a, b, c, or d – thru –5.13a
(Personally, I believe there is nothing harder than 5.13a, because above that grade, odds are you probably rehearsed a climb, top roped it, previewed it, and/or pulled on or weighted a piece of gear while leading it -- which all makes it A0 “A-Zero”)
Bouldering:
B0 (doable but hard - many people have done it)
B1 (really hard but has been done by a few others)
B2 (only a handful of people have ever done it or ever will!)
(the +/- is used to denote area relative difficulty similar to above)
6th Class – AKA “Aid Climbing” designated with an “A” and a relative placement difficulty from 0 – 5 using a (+/-) to differentiate relative difficulty of placement and also relative to other similar ratings in the area:
A0 Climber pulls or weights a piece for upward progress, can be considered Mixed Free/Aid AKA "French Free"
A1 You could drop a Mack Truck on this equipment placement AKA “Bomber”
A2 A little more awkward but still solid equipment placement
A3 Can be a little sketchy but a solid piece every 30-50 feet (generally)
A4 Multiple Sketchy pieces in a row, your good if you get a bomber piece in 50+ feet
A5 You may as well be free soloing with a rope, because nothing is going to hold except maybe the
Belay.
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2012 - 09:23am PT
|
I'm in upstate NY Tami.
|
|
John Butler
Social climber
SLC, Utah
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 10:35am PT
|
you probably rehearsed a climb, top roped it, previewed it, and/or pulled on or weighted a piece of gear while leading it -- which all makes it A0 “A-Zero”
RB, I think you just described my life...
:-)
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 02:35pm PT
|
Hi Mick,
Your question on which logic, the hardest move versus overall difficulty, is used in the YDS is not commonly agreed, based on nothing more than the posts and links on this thread.
While a system could be based on either set of rules, at least from the early 1960s the YDS system has been based on the rating for the hardest section, not hardest move. This way of thinking about ratings is not meaningful to climbers until the climbing gets hard: nobody calls a sustained 5.3 pitch anything other than 5.3. As such, I don't think that climbers in the 50s had much need for sustained difficulty ratings. (There may be a different history in Tahquitz in the 1950s with regard to sustained ratings, so I'll only refer to the Valley.)
With this line of thinking, I suppose it would be strictly correct that originally the YDS was based on hardest move logic. However, once there was a need for ratings based on the hardest section, once the climbing was both hard and sustained, the evidence shows hardest section logic was adopted as a natural course—there doesn’t seem to have been any point of discussion, at least in Roper’s guide book. Up until about 1963, most Valley climbers started nailing when the free climbing became hard. (One has only to look at Frank Sacherer's stellar run of FFAs in 1963-65 to see the truth in this: all those climbs he did free were originally nailed.) In this sense, ratings for sustained climbing have always been part of the guide book ratings in Yosemite. This is contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article and in several of the posts upthread.
The first piece of evidence for this is stated explicitly in Roper’s 1964 guide. Dave posted a scan of page 29, but it is worth listing the elements that Steve states should be included in the rating.
1. The difficulty on the most difficult technical free-climbing section
2. The most difficult aid section
3. The strenuousness of the climb
4. The Continuity of the climb
5. The mental problems encountered (such as lack of protection, loose rock, exposure)
6. The length of the route
7. The approach and descent required
8. The weather
Steve adds that there are probably several more.
The YDS was at that time made of three numbers:
One for the most difficult technical free-climbing section (Class 1-5)
One for the most difficult technical direct-aid section (Class 6)
One for overall difficulty (Grade)
In every instance when Steve could have stated "hardest move", he instead states "hardest section." This is about as clear as it gets that, at least in 1963-64 when Steve was writing his first guide, the YDS incorporated logic for the higher ratings for sustained sections. The next piece of evidence is to look at the actual ratings that were applied to routes in the Valley when hard, sustained pitches became more common place. The second pitch of Reeds is the most obvious example, as Peter points out in his post. (I think that Peter makes the same argument as I do here.) I have tried to reconstruct climbs in the 50s and early 60s that were hard and sustained, but there are not many. In 1956, The Arrowhead Aręte, first climbed by Mark Powell, was considered the most sustained 5th class climb in the Valley but it is 5.8, when the highest standard was then 5.9. In 1960, Pratt climbed The Crack of Doom, which he rated 5.10. Maybe someone can remember if this was a pitch rating—-lots of unprotected 5.9—-or a single move. For the most part, sustained 5th class climbing did not become common place until Sacherer and Pratt focused on all-free ascents in 1964, just about the time that Steve was writing his guide book.
From memory, this is also the way that ratings were applied to aid climbing with a clear sense that A5 was what you got if you linked a bunch of A4 placements.
In Bridwell’s 1973 article in Ascent, introducing the a,b,c,d system to 5.10 and above ratings, he clearly articulates the newness, and in his opinion the stupidity, of hardest move ratings. In his take no prisoners style:
The most common motivation behind downrating is protection of the downrater's self-image. Avoid the ridicule of having one's climb downrated. Downrate first and be safe. This type of game causes its most dedicated players to fool even themselves. Move rating is an outgrowth of this syndrome. Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!
I don’t really understand where the notion that YDS is based on hardest move logic comes from. I don't know if it is a holdover from someone who believed that the guide book writers had it wrong or if it is a newer construction without any historical basis. I personally have never seen any justification for this idea on a historical basis, although I have heard lots of arguments from individuals. I can remember that in the late 60s and early 70s, the Steck-Salathe was widely considered to be just barely 5.9 since there didn’t seem to be any moves harder than 5.8, but we all agreed with Roper's 5.9. (The rock has changed since and there are now sections that are considered 5.10 in themselves.)
Part of the arguments about ratings are based on climbers not being comfortable with consensus driven comparative ratings; it all seems so squishy and there are always quotes from famous climbers disputing the ratings in the guide book for particular climbs.
In the early 1960’s, Frank Sacherer had a reputation for under rating free climbs, but sometimes this was because he under rated specific moves rather than following a logic of only rated the hardest move: he rated just about all of his climbs 5.9. For example, on the DNB on Middle everyone except Sacherer, and maybe Eric Beck, his partner, rated the mantle on the 3rd pitch as a single 5.10 move (it is well protected by a bolt at nose level). Sacherer and Beck rated it 5.9; there was loose talk (talk I have only just recently heard about) that maybe they hadn’t even free climbed the route since that move in particular was clearly not 5.9. On Ahab, the flaring, off-width, squeeze chimney on Moby Dick, Sacherer rated it 5.9 because no move is harder than 5.9. But I don’t know of anyone seriously questioning its 5.10 rating given its sustained climbing and seriousness.
Bob Kamps had a reputation of favoring rating only the hardest move and not rating the continuousness of the climb. (Maybe Tom Higgins can weight in here.) There is a story that Royal confronted Bob after Bob and Sacherer had free climbed Salathe’s and Nelson’s Southwest Face of Half Dome, telling him that “People, who cannot rate, shouldn’t.” Bob’s wife, Bonny, has said that the story is old and well known, but she has no evidence that the exchange ever occurred. Nonetheless, the story still points up the issue of the subjective nature of ratings even amongst the best climbers.
All free climbing difficulty rating systems, whether single move or section based, are comparative and have no absolute meaning. This works just fine if it is robustly comparative and relatively fixed. Jim recognized this in his article in Ascent in the early 70s: he listed comparative climbs by type by difficulty. (Steve and Ed post links to that article upthread.)
In Yosemite, because there is a wide range of climbing styles needed to get up different routes, the comparative basis of rating climbs is tricky when comparing different kinds of climbs: a 5.9 slab on the Apron will not prepare you for a 5.9 slab on Middle much less a finger crack on the Cookie or an off-width on El Cap. Expert climbers have the skill sets to feel that a specific difficulty rating across a range of very different climbs is the same, whether it is face, normal cracks, off-width, slab, steep, etc. To this point, Yosemite’s ratings through the 1970s were controlled by a small group of climbers, at least those that ended up in guide books. As Jim did in the 1970s, Chuck Pratt and Robbins both worked hard at making explicit comparisons before assigning a difficulty rating. And all three of them rated sections or pitches on overall difficulty rather than single move (the ratings in Steve’s guides were based on Royal’s and Chuck’s ratings and Meyer’s guides were mostly based on Jim’s ratings and climbers he trained, so to speak.) One story of Chuck’s dedication to rating rigor—I hope I have the right climb—was the all free rating for the Cleft on the Cookie cliff. Chuck had done the first ascent with a bit of aid in 1958 and returned in 1965 and free climbed it. He repeated the climb three times before committing the rating to 5.9. It is a somewhat tricky set of moves, but if approached carefully they are 5.9; it quickly becomes 5.10 if done badly.
The most obvious type of climbing that is seen as badly rated is off-width cracks. But this just reflects that off-width technique and specific muscle strength are not natural: it has to be learned. Holding an oblique heel-toe and standing up on a 5.9 off-width is next to impossible if you don’t know how to do it and have not developed the specific muscles to hold it. Once both the technique and the specific strength are acquired, 5.9 off-width is clearly 5.9, just like any other 5.9.
All ratings systems work, but they only work if the comparative climbs are more or less fixed within a particular area. Since we are all a little different and we all have good and bad days, our personal sense of the difficulty of a particular climb can have a big influence on how hard we think the climbing is. As long as these personal choices don’t get into the guide books, they don’t matter. (As a seemingly contradictory aside, the Valley ratings worked very well in part because only a few climbers had any input into the guide book ratings: I always knew what to expect with a Robbins, Pratt, or Bridwell rating; and I always thought of Kamps’ ratings as a numerical variation of “You’re gonna die.” Sacherer’s rating had all been rethought by the time I starting climbing those routes.) However, if the guide book ratings change based on shifting personal reflections, then ratings become meaningless and aspiring climbers suffer. Said another way, if the comparative ratings are tightly knit across a range of climbs (without regard to how illogical it seems to an outsider) they provide a useful measure to assess the relative development of one’s skill.
Personally, I never much cared to offer my assessment of how hard a pitch was; I was happy to let more talented climbers parse the differences. People who know me know I have a particular climbing style that might not work for everyone else. However, if I climbed a pitch, and knew the rating, and it felt very different to me, I used the information to rethink how I was approaching the moves or recognized that I was being too cocky and had to pay more attention. Occasionally it went the other way, in which case, I enjoyed the sensation of having a good day. I didn’t let those variations affect my sense of how hard the pitch was from a comparative point of view.
So in summary, I think the answers to your questions are:
* As the various posts on this is thread show, Americans are clearly confused about the YDS as regards to hardest move versus hardest section. Contrary to Wikipedia, the written history and the ratings of sustained climbs in Yosemite points to guidebooks using a broader measure of section difficulty on sustained climbs rather than single move to rate the difficulty of both free and aid pitches.
* The basic Class 5 and Class 6 system was developed into the 5.1 -5.9 and A1-A5 YDS system at Tahquitz Rock in the 1950s. 5.10 was added in about 1961 or so.
* In the late 1950s Mark Powell developed the I – VI Grade system as an overall measure which mostly reflected the time to climb a route.
* Bridwell came up the a, b, c, d ratings for 5.10 and above to overcome the wide range of difficulty within a single grade. At the time Jim thought that 5.10 covered a range which was about twice the difficulty width it should be relative to the lower grades. Climbers were pushing up against the hardest 5.10 ratings but few would venture a 5.11 rating--5.10 just kept getting wider and wider. He specifically hoped that as the climbing got harder, climbers would rate newer climbs at higher standards if there were small steps between the number ratings. It seemed to have worked. Jim also clearly understood the comparative nature of ratings and made it explicit by giving multiple examples. He also forcefully argued that single move ratings were a new and false method to rate climbs.
* Jim Erickson first published the R and X protection rating (or dangerousness rating) system in his Eldorado Canyon (Colorado) Guidebook in the early 1970s. (As reported by Alan Rubin upthread. Thanks Alan; I didn’t know that.)
* Locker came up with the “You’re gonna die” on/off difficulty rating to add to the upper reaches of 5.fun and to avoid having to remember what everyone else’s word descriptions meant.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 03:04pm PT
|
Is the YDS 5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Well, if the answer is "the hardest section", that could be anywhere from the whole climb to the hardest move. So the OP question collapses.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 08:03pm PT
|
The biggest (bias)failure of rating cracks is that the ratings are male dominated. This unanimity becomes very apparent when you have one hundred feet of a consistent size that is just too small for the typical male hand to hand jam. Most females will bask in their success of having cruised a 12d (male rated)tight hand crack yet they likely will have to work very hard doing 100 ft of steep male rated 12d big fingers crack where the size is too tight for their hands to do hand jams.
For joint size dependent long cracks one rating can be off more than a number grade when we hear the contrast from someone with a perfect fit to those with a far too big or too small of a joint for the easiest jam.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!