Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mouse from merced
Trad climber
merced, california
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 03:17pm PT
|
I think what I think about how relatively hard one climb is to another based on what type of climb, first. Face, crack, chimney, OW, hand. I don't bother with "finger" cracks, ever, as I am unequipped for them with no left thumb for leverage.
To say that all you need is experience to tell how bad ass something is going to be is simplistic, but in the main, check with someone who's done it. They have the experience, and if not a total boob, can give you advice. I hate having to rely on new guides. When we went to JT in 70 Dillis and Mathis and I got totally sandbagged on the Damper, for example, due to the frickin guide book. "Desert rats" eat what coyotes leave!
For your edification, here's "A New Climbing Classification Proposal".
It is authored by good old school Al MacDonald and appeared in the Sierra Club Bulletin in June, 1961, prior to the appearance of the Red Guide.
[I wish I could scan this instead of typing it out and I hope someone appreciates that].
Chuck Pratt {notice how authoritative that sound!] and I are presently putting together a "Climber's Guide to Yosemite Valley," separate and independent of the Climber's Guide to the High Sierra. We expect to include more than 200 routes, nearly 85% of which will be above 4th-class in difficulty.
The present grading system used in the High Sierra Guide--a system which classifies climbs as class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 according to the difficulties of the climb, as determinged by the type of equipment needed--is adequate for most mountain [emphasis added] areas of the Dierra, but has little value in Yosemite Valley; for here almost all of the routes are 5th and 6th class. It has therefore become meaningless for climbers to call a route simply "class 5" when there are more than 100 class 5 routes--all differing to some extent in difficulty. A need has arisen for a more descriptive and detailed grading system.
Aabout 100 questionnaires were sent recently to climbers in California, and a meeting of the Sierra Club Mountaineering Committee was held to discuss this problem. As a result, the following system has been almost unanimously agree upon and we expect to use in the future Yosemite Valley guide:
~The Decimal System rates the physical difficulty of individual 5th- and 6th-class pitches--5.0, 6.0 being the easiest 5th and 6th class; 5.9, 6.9 being the most difficult. Classes 1 through 4 are the same as in the High Sierra Guide. They have no cecimal breakdown. This system is presently in use in Southern California at Tahquitz Rock, a climbing area that parallels Yosemite Valley. The decimal standards for Yosemite will conform, as closely as possible, with those in use at Tahquitz.
~The Grade [sic] refers to the over-all difficulty of the complete climb. It considers length of climb, route finding, climbing time, number of difficult pitches, etc. Roped climbs will be grouped into six categories, each of inreasing difficulty and designated by Roman Numerals I through VI (similar to the Alpine System). All unroped climbs have the Grade 0.
Listed below are Yosemite climbs which are characteristic of the Grades. These standard climbs have been agreed upon by the majority of the more experienced climbers active in the past few years in Yosemite and will be used to rank the other climbs.
GRADE------- CHARACTERISTIC CLIMB
I------- Sunnyside Bench, Monday Morning Slab West Side
II------ Royal Arches, Lower Cathedral Rock Overhang Bypass
III----- Phantom Pinnacle, El Capitan Tree Traverse
IV------ El Capitan Buttress, Worst Error
V------- Sentinel North Face, MCR North Face
VI------ Half Dome NW Face, El Capitan South Face
O------- Half Dome via Cables, routes up Tenaya Canyon
(NOTE: In the guide only one standard for each grade will be shown. Final selection of standards is still under discussion. Those climbs listed above are intended as examples only. The Decimal System will be handled in like manner.)
We recognize that border cased will occur in grading systems of theis type. The ecitors will discuss these routes with the persons who have climbed them before making a final decision.
In the guide, after the name of the climb and prededing the actual route description, will be the Grade and a decimal representation of the most difficult 5th and 6th class pitches as shown in the following example:
AWIYAH POINT
Buttress. IV (5.7, 6.3) First ascent...
This will enable the climber, at first glance, to get an idea of the difficulty of the climb and to compare it to his own ability. Within the route description, the difficulties of key pitches will be shown.
We feel this grading system is especially suitable in Yosemite Valley for three reasons: First, the Southern California climbers have found it extremely helpful in classifying the climbs at Tahquitz, and it has been used in the climbing guide to that area. Second, the grading system is already in popular use in Yosemite Valley and is familiar to nearly all Valley rock climbers. Thire, there is no other system at the present time that can be applied to Yosemite climbs as easily as this one. It is designed for technical rock climbing areas.
-
I find the last three points very relevant to why this and not the NCCS is the norm today. It had proven to be beneficial, it was in YV already unofficially, and the timing was right--there were no other systems being foisted on us other than the Decimal System at the time.
--
It's worth noting that the controversial Tioga Road through the northern part of Yosemite National Park was dedicated in June, 1961. For the last 50 years and more both ratings and roads have been accepted. It's history.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 03:49pm PT
|
Read the Tahquitz guide and Reid Yosemite guide descriptions. Go with those.
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 04:23pm PT
|
5.#d is usually harder than 5.(#+1)a
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 04:27pm PT
|
I'm not explaining jack squat until you explain the Brit system!!
|
|
SicMic
climber
across the street from Marshall, CO
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:21pm PT
|
The best one I've heard is that "5.6 is like life. Not that difficult, but hard enough that you want to use protection". Consensus is fleeting depending on body/ finger size, but we can all agree that 5.9+ and 5.10+ will always be tougher than advertised. Dolomite IV+ seemed to range from 5.7 to 5.10. I'm not sure if I saw it above, but Rocky Heights by Erickson is 1980.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:54pm PT
|
For me, Roger nailed it (so to speak). Ratings are a means to compare climbs, not climbers. They make sense only if the "standard" climbs retain their definition.
I found it interesting, for example, to read Mark Powell's description of the FA of the Powell-Reed on Middle Cathedral as being comparable in overall difficulty to the North Face of Sentinel [i.e. the Steck-Salathe]. This was before Powell explicitly introduced the I-VI grade system, but in any case, if you climbed one, you knew what to expect on the other.
I also found it interest that Sacherer and Fredricks rated their route on Middle Cathedral provisionally 5.10, awaiting confirmation by other climbers. The idea was that until there was a consensus, the rating was subject to change.
John
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
"Bumped for a better iced tea."
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Here's the truth.
If every move on a pitch is 5.9, the last 5.9 move is much harder than the first one.
What?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Only if you're not capable of climbing 5.9 aerobically.
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
Is the YDS ...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Yes.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
The best one I've heard is that "5.6 is like life. Not that difficult, but hard enough that you want to use protection"...
Hmm. I'm thinking my life is about 5.11. Plenty of people deal with more difficult stuff, but without protection I'm out of my comfort zone.
On topic, I've felt for years that the YDS is a lousy way to grade sport climbs. The French system works well. I like YDS for traditional pitches, grade by the hardest move or moves. How about using 5.11aS, the S means sustained. We use R&X to signify danger, an S is ideal for sustained.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
You can always count on The Big Stopper...always
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
Great thread! Thanks for all the thoughtful and well informed posts! And the funny ones too.
I believe the YDS was borrowed from the Tahquitz system, as Might Hiker mentioned. I remember Royal putting up the first route there which he arbitrarily classified as 5.10. Some of us objected to 5.10 as being mathematically illogical. But what did we know? We were impressed anyway.
I'd like to know if any changes in the system(s) were made when sticky rubber climbing shoes became widely available. Seems to me that made a HUGE difference in what free climbers were capable of. If you've ever worn RRs or EBs - or boots - and then did the same climb in modern shoes - you know what I mean.
Same goes for the transition from pins to chocks and especially cams. Hell of an endurance difference between hanging on while placing a pin or popping in a cam.
|
|
Highgloss
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
There is a big difference from a 1977 5.9 FA and a steaming pile of 2016 5.9, the older climbs tend to be much more of a test of mind than body and just barely safe enough to make you think about trying to get up it.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
I'd like to know if any changes in the system(s) were made when sticky rubber climbing shoes became widely available. Seems to me that made a HUGE difference in what free climbers were capable of. If you've ever worn RRs or EBs - or boots - and then did the same climb in modern shoes - you know what I mean.
The short answer is no, although perhaps some slabby granite climbs got easier by half a grade in sticky rubber. For steeper climbs, sticky rubber made things easier but not enough to change the grade, at least for the climbs I know about, and there are quite a few that I've now done in the full spectrum of footwear from late 1950's mountain boots and kletterschue to the very latest downturned velcro-strapped innovations.
From my perspective, the main contribution of sticky rubber/modern shoe construction (slip- vs. board-lasted) has been to make the system far more forgiving of foot motion while a hold is weighted. BITD, if you moved your foot on a small hold, you'd be off in a flash. Now you can not only be sloppier (compared to the old days), but in fact foot motion, as embodied in the pivots required by various drop-knee techniques, has become an integral part of climbing technique.
Nuts and cams made protection easier, faster, and better on most climbs. By significantly reducing the pump factor, many steep climbs probably did get close to a grade easier, but the discussion makes it clear that the endurance factor vs. move difficulty has never been fully sorted out anyway (and may not be able to be sorted out in the end).
I think modern protection gear lowered the anxiety level on lots of routes. One of the big differences is the amount of protection you placed. I still remember the feeling of delight in loading up my early "clean" leads with two to three times the number of protection points I would have placed with pitons. People spoke of "overprotecting" with pitons; that phrase and concept have vanished from the scene.
All that said, the trend is not for climbing grades to be lowered because of better gear, but instead the opposite; climbing grades have generally stayed the same or been raised, in some cases significantly.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
Peoples Republic Of Boulder
|
|
C'mon, Mick, you know the answer...
It's all VB [or perhaps 5.0 in the context of YDS ratings] until you fall.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!