Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
classification versus scale difficulty
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 


jacques


Mar 29, 2014, 11:17 PM
Post #1 of 64 (16473 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

classification versus scale difficulty
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

A beginner don't know what means NCCS. But most guide book use that classification system.

YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

But other scale exist: rope management technique from bolt user to A-5 users, route finding scale, from rap down route to onsight; ease of escape from half a rope cliff to mt everest. etc.

What is the differences? You will found some information on the blog: http://tradpartner.blog.com/?p=3. For me, the national classification climbing system is a classification to make climbing accessible for every one. You can climb a route in north conway, and you will find a similar difficulty rating on the west coast. But the YDS system, is not a classification system. It is a scale of difficulty.


JimTitt


Mar 30, 2014, 2:35 AM
Post #2 of 64 (16436 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dear Beginners.
As a climber of over 40 years experience who regularly uses 5 different grading systems I would advise you DO NOT read any of Jacques thoughts on grading, you will only become as confused as he is.


chadnsc


Mar 30, 2014, 8:58 AM
Post #3 of 64 (16355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I respectfully disagree with the OP.


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 10:55 AM
Post #4 of 64 (16330 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [chadnsc] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.
+1
The OP has a woeful misunderstanding of what NCCS conveys and what it does not.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 11:01 AM
Post #5 of 64 (16329 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [chadnsc] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.

The question is: What is the difference between yosemite decimal system (YDS) and national classification climbing system (NCCS)?.

In Ed Webster guide book, they wrote: "Placed just after the name of a climb[..] is the commitment rating" So it is in use in many area accross the United State

note: the NCCS is often call the commitment rating.


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 1:52 PM
Post #6 of 64 (16305 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.

The question is: What is the difference between yosemite decimal system (YDS) and national classification climbing system (NCCS)?.

Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty. Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty. IOW you can have a one pitch 5.13c route that has an NCCS grade of I and a 25 pitch 5.9 that gets an NCCS of IV.

From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

In reply to:
National Climbing Classification System (USA):

NCCS grades, often called “commitment grades,” indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.

I and II: Half a day or less for the technical (5th class) portion of the route.
III:Most of a day of roped climbing.
IV: A full day of technical climbing.
V: Typically requires an overnight on the route, or done fast and free in a day.
VI: Two or more days of hard climbing.
VII: Remote walls climbed in alpine style.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 3:02 PM
Post #7 of 64 (16288 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
jacques wrote:
[quote
Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty.

A little bit more complicate than that, from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

So, if you have two routes of 5.7 and 1200 feet, one can have a rating of "II, 5.7" and took three hours to climb and the other a rating of "IV, 5.7" and took more than a day to climb. With the YDS you know about the hardiest move, but you don't know about the overall difficulty.

I found many I, 5.11 easier than a III, 5.8 at Canon (i.e. british where comming).

so, what means climbing hard?


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 4:09 PM
Post #8 of 64 (16271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:

Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty.

A little bit more complicate than that, from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

So, if you have two routes of 5.7 and 1200 feet, one can have a rating of "II, 5.7" and took three hours to climb and the other a rating of "IV, 5.7" and took more than a day to climb. With the YDS you know about the hardiest move, but you don't know about the overall difficulty.

I found many I, 5.11 easier than a III, 5.8 at Canon (i.e. british where comming).

so, what means climbing hard?
First, you totally cheese-titted your post and what I wrote - fixed above.
Second, if you had not cherry picked my post and included the next sentence:
Marc801 wrote:
Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty.
...you'd see that I addressed your point.
Actually, what the hell is your point? You're trying to compare apples and oranges and it seems like you're trying to make an argument where there is none.

As far as "...what is climbing hard?", that's been generally agreed upon for decades - the difficulty of the moves.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 6:12 PM
Post #9 of 64 (16249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

Marc801 wrote:
Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty.
marc801 wrote:
As far as "...what is climbing hard?", that's been generally agreed upon for decades - the difficulty of the moves.

The author of the system himself told you that the system was made to identify two kind of difficulty. He is supported by pratically most of the climber at this time. The system is still in used in many guide book and many area.

The NCCS is made of three number. One is the YDS scale or the difficulty of the hardiest move. The other is an other kind of difficulty that we don't find in sport climbing


(This post was edited by jacques on Mar 30, 2014, 6:18 PM)


rocknice2


Mar 31, 2014, 7:51 AM
Post #10 of 64 (16158 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

National Climbing Classification System (USA):
http://aaj.americanalpineclub.org/...s/grade-comparisons/
NCCS grades are often called the “Commitment Grade”; they primarily indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.
Grade I: Less than half a day for the technical portion.
Grade II: Half a day for the technical portion.
Grade III: Most of a day for the technical portion.
Grade IV: A full day of technical climbing, generally at least 5.7.
Grade V: Typically requires an overnight on the route.
Grade VI: Two or more days of hard technical climbing.
Grade VII: Remote big walls climbed in alpine style.

This is in addition to the YDS and gear ratings.
It most definitely applies to sport routes. Just go to an area that has long long sport routes and you'll see it.

This thread is so fucked up. :-(


dagibbs


Mar 31, 2014, 11:58 AM
Post #11 of 64 (16127 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 921

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.


gunkiemike


Mar 31, 2014, 2:52 PM
Post #12 of 64 (16104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dagibbs wrote:
jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.

Agreed, I thought that "YDS is just the hardest move" misconception was put to rest years ago. Quite simply: how hard is one pull-up? OK, now do 40 of them. Not so easy...right? Sustained and enduro affect the "difficulty" rating.


dagibbs


Mar 31, 2014, 8:28 PM
Post #13 of 64 (16072 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 921

Re: [gunkiemike] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gunkiemike wrote:
dagibbs wrote:
jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.

Agreed, I thought that "YDS is just the hardest move" misconception was put to rest years ago. Quite simply: how hard is one pull-up? OK, now do 40 of them. Not so easy...right? Sustained and enduro affect the "difficulty" rating.

Sadly, like anything "traditional" it is very very hard for it to be truly put to rest. As we see here.

And, there is at least one system out there (British technical grades) which is, still, a "single hardest move" grade. Of course, it is (almost) always combined with an adjectival grade that gives over-all difficulty of the climb (including gear risk, exposure, endurance, etc.)


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 12:19 AM
Post #14 of 64 (15958 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

The reference explain what they used in the book to rate a route. It is not the project propose as we find it in ed webster in north conway, shawagunk, and many other place in the US. http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1039859

I think that sport climber try to diminish the commitment to concentrate on the move, and that the trad like commitment more than a hard move. It is like alpine and cross country skying. Two are on sky, but one is more cardio and the other faster.


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 4:17 AM
Post #15 of 64 (15936 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:
From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

The reference explain what they used in the book to rate a route. It is not the project propose as we find it in ed webster in north conway, shawagunk, and many other place in the US. http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1039859

I think that sport climber try to diminish the commitment to concentrate on the move, and that the trad like commitment more than a hard move. It is like alpine and cross country skying. Two are on sky, but one is more cardio and the other faster.

I have no idea what you are saying
Je n'ai aucune idée ce que tu dis


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 6:30 AM
Post #16 of 64 (15919 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [rocknice2] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rocknice2 wrote:
marc801 wrote:

I have no idea what you are saying

Read "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

Understand what is the two difficulty identify in the text.

and you will understand that when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition) these guy are sport climber.

a climber who lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and who climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh) those guy are more trad.

So, it is not because you place cam that you are a trad climber and some trad used bolt when the consequences of a fall are too hight


(This post was edited by jacques on Apr 2, 2014, 4:09 PM)


marc801


Apr 2, 2014, 6:45 AM
Post #17 of 64 (15911 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
rocknice2 wrote:
jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:

I have no idea what you are saying

Read "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

Understand what is the two difficulty identify in the text.

and you will understand that when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition) these guy are sport climber.

a climber who lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and who climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh) those guy are more trad.

So, it is not because you place cam that you are a trad climber and some trad used bolt when the consequences of a fall are too hight
Please stop writing gibberish and for fuck sake learn how quotes work.

Edit: the original was cheese-titted so badly that it spilled over into this post - had to add 3 closing quote tags.


(This post was edited by marc801 on Apr 2, 2014, 7:56 AM)


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 8:06 AM
Post #18 of 64 (15887 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Everyone Else wrote:
jacques wrote:
Something that didn't make sense...

...then made cheese-tits of everything


Didn't understand a word but tried to explain

5.11a 800' GradeII vs 5.11a 800' GradeIII

The grade2 will a lot of easy pitches with probably one single pitch of 5.11
The grade3 will have several pitches of 5.11 or many pitches near that level


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 8:13 AM
Post #19 of 64 (15884 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
The NCCS is made of three number. One is the YDS scale or the difficulty of the hardiest move. The other is an other kind of difficulty that we don't find in sport climbing

This is wrong on so many levels


marc801


Apr 2, 2014, 9:03 AM
Post #20 of 64 (15872 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [rocknice2] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rocknice2 wrote:
Everyone Else wrote:
jacques wrote:
Something that didn't make sense...

...then made cheese-tits of everything


Didn't understand a word but tried to explain
Alas Jacques' English is just a bit too lacking for anyone to understand well, including others from Quebec.
Jacques: I suggest you either post in French or vastly improve your written English. Right now it's just painful. Yeah, maybe that's a bit harsh, but we're having a really tough time trying to figure out what you are saying.


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 8:40 PM
Post #21 of 64 (15799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dagibbs wrote:
Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. .

fun house is a 5.7 with more sun than campanule in quebec, 5.7???

What is the difference between campanule and fun house as over all difficulty???


dagibbs


Apr 3, 2014, 6:15 AM
Post #22 of 64 (15768 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 921

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
dagibbs wrote:
Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. .

fun house is a 5.7 with more sun than campanule in quebec, 5.7???

What is the difference between campanule and fun house as over all difficulty???

Never climbed either of those climbs, so have no idea.

But, for an example, at Montagne d'Argent on the M+M wall are two crack climbs: M + M (5.8) and Krakabra (5.7). The single hardest move on both is about a 5.7 move -- there is no move on M+M that is harder than the hardest move on Krakabra. But Krakabra has lots of little ledges for rests as you climb, while M + M has a sustained (about 12m) section of 5.7 crack moves without the rests, and that's why it is graded 5.8 rather than 5.7. It is a harder climb because of the sustained sequence of easier moves, rather than the single hardest move.


marc801


Apr 3, 2014, 9:25 AM
Post #23 of 64 (15720 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Two other examples:
Reeds Pinnacle Direct - the crux 2nd pitch is rated 5.9 - there is no move harder than 5.7 in 120' of crack. There is also no move easier than 5.7 in that 120'.

Hot Line - when Barber did the FA, he rated it the then outrageous and non-existent 5.11. In a magazine interview he justified the new grade by saying that there were so many 10d moves in a row that it was harder than any other 10d.


olderic


Apr 3, 2014, 10:29 AM
Post #24 of 64 (15703 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Some thread drift here - not unusual. But I think the original point was not about whether or not the YDS grade reflected the substainess or if it was simply a snapshot of the 1 most difficult move, but the point was whether the YDS or any system based on rating the most difficult part of the climb was adequate for describing the difficulty/danger of the climb. Of course its always a dubious practice to assume you know what Jacgues is talking about.

But I think his point is that there are a lot of other factors that go into characterizing the over all difficult of a climb. Jacques is constantly bashing sport climbers and loves to present scenerios where some with a sport climbing mentality will get into trouble when they attempt to trad climb (which for him ultimately means a long multipitch climb with a complex approach and descent). He was trying to claim that a more sophisticated rating question is needed for more complex climbs (several exist) but because we don't typically use them that we are leading beginners into danger. I think this conclusion is bonkers for several reasons:

1. Most sport climbers are perfectly happy climbing hard and have little/no interest in slogging up some trad routes - it isn't something that they are all aspiring to do.

2. Grades are never that accurate to start with. Most people learn that the grade is an approximation and that there are other factors involved the first day in the gym.

3. If you are going to blame a description for getting yourself hurt/killed you shouldn't be climbing anything anywhere. Rule # 1 is self reliance. Same rule for trad or sport (what if you make that final committing dyno on your sport route and the anchors are gone?)


JimTitt


Apr 3, 2014, 10:44 AM
Post #25 of 64 (15699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [olderic] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yup, the German speaking world (and most other countries) seem to have no problem using one grading system for sport and trad and everything in between same as the USA. That the walk in/descent or whatever is 3 hours should be apparent to everyone with a brain and anyway that is what guide books are for.
An often overlooked aspect is that grades are subjective and not only for the grader but the climber as well so precision is impossible despite what the less experienced climber might wish.


marc801


Apr 3, 2014, 1:33 PM
Post #26 of 64 (5644 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
An often overlooked aspect is that grades are subjective and not only for the grader but the climber as well so precision is impossible despite what the less experienced climber might wish.
Adding to that thought - a given climber who sucks at offwidth may well find a 7" wide 5.11 crack to be far more difficult than a 5.11 finger crack and 5.9 Yosemite chimneys regularly spit out 5.12 climbers unfamiliar with climbing polished chimneys with little protection.


csproul


Apr 3, 2014, 3:01 PM
Post #27 of 64 (5637 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
Two other examples:
Reeds Pinnacle Direct - the crux 2nd pitch is rated 5.9 - there is no move harder than 5.7 in 120' of crack. There is also no move easier than 5.7 in that 120'.

Hot Line - when Barber did the FA, he rated it the then outrageous and non-existent 5.11. In a magazine interview he justified the new grade by saying that there were so many 10d moves in a row that it was harder than any other 10d.
No move harder than 5.7 on Reeds Direct....that's funny. Like laughable.


marc801


Apr 3, 2014, 3:06 PM
Post #28 of 64 (5635 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [csproul] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

csproul wrote:
No move harder than 5.7 on Reeds Direct....that's funny. Like laughable.
That's why I specifically restricted it to the 120' of P2, which really doesn't have any 5.9 moves. That 10'-ish stretch on P1 is certainly 5.9 as is that annoying 4" wide bit at the end of P2. Damned few folks do P3, which is probably more like 10b from what I hear (never did it).


csproul


Apr 3, 2014, 3:13 PM
Post #29 of 64 (5630 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
csproul wrote:
No move harder than 5.7 on Reeds Direct....that's funny. Like laughable.
That's why I specifically restricted it to the 120' of P2, which really doesn't have any 5.9 moves. That 10'-ish stretch on P1 is certainly 5.9 as is that annoying 4" wide bit at the end of P2. Damned few folks do P3, which is probably more like 10b from what I hear (never did it).
Dunno, Ive done that 5.9 pitch a couple times, including just a month or so ago and I certainly thought it was full value 5.9 and not just in an enduro sense. I can definitely do 5.7 and 5.8 moves of almost any kind all day long, but that pitch was hard for me. Not much easier than Lunatic Fringe for me.


jacques


Apr 3, 2014, 4:19 PM
Post #30 of 64 (5626 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [olderic] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

olderic wrote:
[..]But I think the original point was not about whether or not the YDS grade reflected the substainess or if it was simply a snapshot of the 1 most difficult move, but the point was whether the YDS or any system based on rating the most difficult part of the climb was adequate for describing the difficulty/danger of the climb. Of course its always a dubious practice to assume you know what Jacgues is talking about.

But I think his point is that there are a lot of other factors that go into characterizing the over all difficult of a climb. Jacques is constantly bashing sport climbers and loves to present scenerios where some with a sport climbing mentality will get into trouble when they attempt to trad climb

I think that honnold, who made the three big 2 500 feet wall in a day is a sport climber. I saw him in a video and he describe how he brush his hold before and how he practice some dubtious move to make it ounce in solo. I think that it is a kind of practice well describe by the NCCS. He climb the nose in 3 hours approximately, so he is rating I, with a difficulty of 5.11, A_2...write I,5.11,A-2.

Is it a model. Who have the time to climb a route, clean the hold, etc. And do we have the obligation to climb like that?

If you think that you have the obligation, you will try to climb like them. One guy aid climb with two feet in his aider, a technique for bolt lader extend to other situation, If his pro pop, and we know that the cimetery have many client with bump proof pro, he had felt on his back. He didn't even ralize what will happen. He just try to climb by obligation.

Hopefully, we can also climb remote area with an other ethic than sport. If you like better higher overall difficulty than the hardiest difficulty of a move, For example, the nose, the same as Honnold, is a grade V, 5.9, A2... it can also be hard...and fun. So, the goal is not to perform by obligation or competition, the goal is to master your technique and your soal, your mind and your arms. No comparaison, you start at your level and you progress in many way of your personality.

I think it is the heart of trad climbing. I can climb a bolt route in trad. But the ethic will be different and it the ethic could be understand and describe with the NCCS classification.


(This post was edited by jacques on Apr 3, 2014, 6:08 PM)


rocknice2


Apr 3, 2014, 5:31 PM
Post #31 of 64 (5622 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

We can't help it if it takes you all day to climb a 250 foot 5.6 and Alex climbs a 3000 foot 5.11 in a few hours!

It doesn't make your route grade 4 as much as it doesn't make Alex's route grade 1. Alex makes us all look like weenies.

Everything is rated for the onsite or is supposed to be rated that wayway.

I had to read your post 8 times and I still don't understand most of it!


dynosore


Apr 4, 2014, 6:20 AM
Post #32 of 64 (5596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

How did people ever climb before reams of beta, guidebooks, and ratings Unimpressed

Some of my funnest days have been just wandering around until I see something that catches my eye. So what if you have to bail or yank on a cam now and then? If you can't tell the difference between a 2 pitch climb and a grade IV, you don't belong on either.


jacques


Apr 4, 2014, 9:01 AM
Post #33 of 64 (5576 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [dynosore] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dynosore wrote:
How did people ever climb before reams of beta, guidebooks, and ratings Unimpressed [..]
If you can't tell the difference between a 2 pitch climb and a grade IV, you don't belong on either.

One difficulty of climbing is the variability of the skill of climber. How rating a route work?


took one climber and let him climb three routes at the gunks. Shockley ceiling, Bonnies roof and Fat city. He will rate it 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10. A second climber will rate them 5.5, 5.9 and 5.11, a third 5.7, 5.7 and 5.10... when you will have the results of one hundred, you will have a means of 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10 for the hardiest move for each climb. It is statistical.

For the overall difficulty, the problem is that the time will vary with the skill of the climber. If you are a 5.11 climber, you will rate Shockley ceiling I, Bonnies Roof I and Fat city II. If you are a 5.8 climber, you will rate Shockley ceiling I, Bonnies roof II and fat city could take you a day because you will hangdogging before finally you make the move. So it will rate III. If you are a 5.6 climber, it will be II for shockley, III for Bonnies and IV A-3 for fat city.

So, I am pretty sure that you didn't understand the rating system that way, and recognize the differences between a two pitches and the over all difficulty of a climb.

If you do fat city in A-3, you are climbing hard. I don't know what you are going to find to go to the pin, I don't even know if it is possible.

If you climb fat city in three hours, you are climbing hard. If you climb fat city in six hours you climb hard moves, but you are weaker than the one who climb it in three hours.

Sport climber like to do hard moves, come back after to show to every body that he is good...indeed some are very strong and you find them in competition ordinarly. One guy work a route for three month before he free all the pitches. So, for his first ascent he took 2160 hours!!! He claim after that he do the route in 9 hours because after he memorize all the moves, place the pro, he was able to do a fixe programation of the climb, like a dance in a competition. He his a climber for hard difficulty...I won't say a hard climber for the overall difficulty.

So, next time you choose a trad route. Look at the rating time and try to be as close as you can to it with your partner. If you choose a sport route, go to cathedral and do hangdogging. People will admire you, but???


marc801


Apr 4, 2014, 9:30 AM
Post #34 of 64 (5569 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
dynosore wrote:
How did people ever climb before reams of beta, guidebooks, and ratings Unimpressed [..]
If you can't tell the difference between a 2 pitch climb and a grade IV, you don't belong on either.

One difficulty of climbing is the variability of the skill of climber. How rating a route work?


took one climber and let him climb three routes at the gunks. Shockley ceiling, Bonnies roof and Fat city. He will rate it 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10. A second climber will rate them 5.5, 5.9 and 5.11, a third 5.7, 5.7 and 5.10... when you will have the results of one hundred, you will have a means of 5.6, 5.8 and 5.10 for the hardiest move for each climb. It is statistical.

For the overall difficulty, the problem is that the time will vary with the skill of the climber. If you are a 5.11 climber, you will rate Shockley ceiling I, Bonnies Roof I and Fat city II. If you are a 5.8 climber, you will rate Shockley ceiling I, Bonnies roof II and fat city could take you a day because you will hangdogging before finally you make the move. So it will rate III. If you are a 5.6 climber, it will be II for shockley, III for Bonnies and IV A-3 for fat city.

So, I am pretty sure that you didn't understand the rating system that way, and recognize the differences between a two pitches and the over all difficulty of a climb.

If you do fat city in A-3, you are climbing hard. I don't know what you are going to find to go to the pin, I don't even know if it is possible.

If you climb fat city in three hours, you are climbing hard. If you climb fat city in six hours you climb hard moves, but you are weaker than the one who climb it in three hours.

Sport climber like to do hard moves, come back after to show to every body that he is good...indeed some are very strong and you find them in competition ordinarly. One guy work a route for three month before he free all the pitches. So, for his first ascent he took 2160 hours!!! He claim after that he do the route in 9 hours because after he memorize all the moves, place the pro, he was able to do a fixe programation of the climb, like a dance in a competition. He his a climber for hard difficulty...I won't say a hard climber for the overall difficulty.

So, next time you choose a trad route. Look at the rating time and try to be as close as you can to it with your partner. If you choose a sport route, go to cathedral and do hangdogging. People will admire you, but???

And what of the trad routes that took as long or longer than the hard sport routes to either free or establish? Stannard spent 40 weekends working to free Foops. Supercrack was originally called Wunsch Upon a Climb, due to the number of days Steve Wunsch worked the route. Look at the months of effort Steve Burke put in to freeing The Nose.

Your entire argument is pointless.


JimTitt


Apr 4, 2014, 10:10 AM
Post #35 of 64 (5561 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:

Your entire argument is pointless.

Told you that at the start!


rocknice2


Apr 4, 2014, 2:21 PM
Post #36 of 64 (5537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
marc801 wrote:

Your entire argument is pointless.

Told you that at the start!
Yeah but this is the best thread on rc.com at the moment. How far the mighty have fallen.

Clearly someone has feelings of inadequacy because it takes him two days to climb Thin Air at Cathedral Ledge.


jacques


Apr 4, 2014, 4:28 PM
Post #37 of 64 (5528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
And what of the trad routes that took as long or longer than the hard sport routes to either free or establish? Stannard spent 40 weekends working to free Foops. Supercrack was originally called Wunsch Upon a Climb, due to the number of days Steve Wunsch worked the route. Look at the months of effort Steve Burke put in to freeing The Nose.

I never say that it is good or bad to work a route...

I said that it is not in the trad mentality. Those route was climb in aid with the rating of NCCS.


marc801


Apr 4, 2014, 5:11 PM
Post #38 of 64 (5524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
I never say that it is good or bad to work a route...

I said that it is not in the trad mentality. Those route was climb in aid with the rating of NCCS.
Frankly, that's absolute bull shit. And no, they were not "with the rating of NCCS" when they were first done, either on aid or free.


JimTitt


Apr 4, 2014, 11:46 PM
Post #39 of 64 (5510 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:
And what of the trad routes that took as long or longer than the hard sport routes to either free or establish? Stannard spent 40 weekends working to free Foops. Supercrack was originally called Wunsch Upon a Climb, due to the number of days Steve Wunsch worked the route. Look at the months of effort Steve Burke put in to freeing The Nose.

I never say that it is good or bad to work a route...

I said that it is not in the trad mentality. Those route was climb in aid with the rating of NCCS.

The trad mentality (at least in the UK where I come from and most of Europe) includes practicing the route on a top rope, cleaning on abseil, practicing gear placements, using pitons (and the occasional bolt), aid, mats and just about anything else you can think of. We´ve even introduced the H prefix before the grade to show the route was worked to death before the FA such as Rhapsody which took a couple of years to beat into submission. This has been going on since long before I started climbing and no doubt will continue long after I´m dead.


jacques


Apr 7, 2014, 4:46 AM
Post #40 of 64 (5474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
The trad mentality (at least in the UK where I come from and most of Europe) includes practicing the route on a top rope, cleaning on abseil, practicing gear placements, using pitons (and the occasional bolt), aid, mats and just about anything else you can think of.

And what is the definition of trad, the definition of sport???

You already said that it is different because you place a H!!!


marc801


Apr 7, 2014, 5:23 AM
Post #41 of 64 (5465 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
And what is the definition of trad, the definition of sport???
Gee, that's something that's only been discussed here about 12000 times....

This thread has now lost what little shred of relevance it may have had.


JimTitt


Apr 7, 2014, 7:10 AM
Post #42 of 64 (5456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
The trad mentality (at least in the UK where I come from and most of Europe) includes practicing the route on a top rope, cleaning on abseil, practicing gear placements, using pitons (and the occasional bolt), aid, mats and just about anything else you can think of.

And what is the definition of trad, the definition of sport???

You already said that it is different because you place a H!!!

The H is added to a trad graded route to indicate the first ascent was done using sport-climbing attitudes and methods even though the route itself is protected using leader placed protection. A subsequent ascent without working the route would give a new trad grade without the H. This is a modern idea and older routes just appear in the guide with no indication as to whether working them was the normal or original method. Since it´s only climbing anyway who really cares?
If it was a pure sport route with the normal level of bolt protection it would have been given a sport grade (the British use the French grades for this)since working sport routes is considered standard practice and so grades are given for redpoint not onsight around a grey area somewhere in the French 7´s.
Traditional climbing is using any method to get up, pitons and bolts, standing on your buddies shoulders and so on were the method of choice for previous generations before movable protection appeared.
Adventure climbing (what you call trad I expect) is climbing to have a feeling of adventure, sport climbing is treating the movement of climbing as a sport in it´s own right. How you achieve either is entirely up to you and the commitment is the same, just concentrates on different aspects.


Partner camhead


Apr 7, 2014, 10:56 AM
Post #43 of 64 (5433 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
...Look at the months of effort Steve Burke put in to freeing The Nose.

Your entire argument is pointless.

Scott Burke. And yes, I agree that Jacques is trying to argue something that makes no sense.


marc801


Apr 7, 2014, 11:30 AM
Post #44 of 64 (5427 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [camhead] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
marc801 wrote:
...Look at the months of effort Steve Burke put in to freeing The Nose.

Your entire argument is pointless.

Scott Burke. And yes, I agree that Jacques is trying to argue something that makes no sense.
Oops. Of course. Scott. I work with a Steve Burke.


jacques


Apr 9, 2014, 6:44 AM
Post #45 of 64 (5385 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
The H is added to a trad graded route to indicate the first ascent was done using sport-climbing attitudes and methods even though the route itself is protected using leader placed protection. A subsequent ascent without working the route would give a new trad grade without the H. This is a modern idea and older routes just appear in the guide with no indication as to whether working them was the normal or original method. [..]
How you achieve either is entirely up to you and the commitment is the same, just concentrates on different aspects.

So, there is a difference and modern idea is going on.

The important point is that some people want to make climbing and olympic sport and it is not every body who had time to train for olympic.

And some people want to spend good time doing a challenging sport. They want to climb and remember the adventure after. As they think that sport is there way to achieve there goal...they train for hard move and neglect difficulty. They try to imitate olympic level guys and forget the basic.

As I am a trad climber concern by safety. I promote that new idea of the differences between both activity to make a clear understanding that safety most be learn first and climbing after.


marc801


Apr 9, 2014, 9:39 AM
Post #46 of 64 (5370 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
The important point is that some people want to make climbing and olympic sport and it is not every body who had time to train for olympic.
Not everyone has time to train for an Olympic sport - what a news flash. What relevance does that have to anything in this thread?


JimTitt


Apr 9, 2014, 11:08 AM
Post #47 of 64 (5355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:


As I am a trad climber concern by safety. I promote that new idea of the differences between both activity to make a clear understanding that safety most be learn first and climbing after.

Tie-in properly and clip into something every now and then which keeps you off the ground, climbing´s that simple, sport, trad, big wall, alpine etc. If you are a boulderer it´s simpler still.
The commitment doesn´t change with the genre, only the person. That´s why a "commitment" grade is about as stupid an idea as it gets.


jacques


Apr 9, 2014, 6:35 PM
Post #48 of 64 (5332 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
Tie-in properly and clip into something every now and then which keeps you off the ground, climbing´s that simple,[..] The commitment doesn´t change with the genre, only the person. That´s why a "commitment" grade is about as stupid an idea as it gets.

The commitment rating is not a good term to describe the overall difficulty of the climb. It is not a synonyme and, as trad, it have a conotation to discourage people to climb, You committ a crime, it is old style of climbing, etc...

The over all difficulty of the climb is more valuable. Route finding: on a sport route, you follow the white hold...it is easy, but when you have to decide between left and right, between a 5.9 and a run out in 5.11 and a 5.9 with good protection...the idea of overall difficulty is understandable.

Longer of the route: six pitch of an hour and six pitch who take you nine hours will change a lot of think for a climber. One most bring a head lamp to be safe and there is also the fatigue. After nine hours at 50 degree, it is colder than after six. Difficulty to place protection: if you have to place three rp"s thread together and do a blind move after, it will take more time to do the move and place the pro than if you have to put a cam into a large crack. etc.

So, you have a false interpretation of the overall difficulty of a climb. The route finding change with the route you climb, not with the climber.

It is to avoid that people forget about the danger that we have to make a clear distinction between trad and sport.


JimTitt


Apr 9, 2014, 11:29 PM
Post #49 of 64 (5313 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
Tie-in properly and clip into something every now and then which keeps you off the ground, climbing´s that simple,[..] The commitment doesn´t change with the genre, only the person. That´s why a "commitment" grade is about as stupid an idea as it gets.

The commitment rating is not a good term to describe the overall difficulty of the climb. It is not a synonyme and, as trad, it have a conotation to discourage people to climb, You committ a crime, it is old style of climbing, etc...

The over all difficulty of the climb is more valuable. Route finding: on a sport route, you follow the white hold...it is easy, but when you have to decide between left and right, between a 5.9 and a run out in 5.11 and a 5.9 with good protection...the idea of overall difficulty is understandable.

Longer of the route: six pitch of an hour and six pitch who take you nine hours will change a lot of think for a climber. One most bring a head lamp to be safe and there is also the fatigue. After nine hours at 50 degree, it is colder than after six. Difficulty to place protection: if you have to place three rp"s thread together and do a blind move after, it will take more time to do the move and place the pro than if you have to put a cam into a large crack. etc.

So, you have a false interpretation of the overall difficulty of a climb. The route finding change with the route you climb, not with the climber.

It is to avoid that people forget about the danger that we have to make a clear distinction between trad and sport.

So you´re saying the NCCS number tells me how long it will take to climb the route, how difficult the route finding is, how cold it is, whether I need to carry a head torch, how hard it is to get 3 RP´s in, that there are blind moves and how dangerous the route is? Dream on.


jacques


Apr 10, 2014, 8:52 AM
Post #50 of 64 (5286 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
So you´re saying the NCCS number tells me how long it will take to climb the route, how difficult the route finding is, how cold it is, whether I need to carry a head torch, how hard it is to get 3 RP´s in, that there are blind moves and how dangerous the route is? Dream on.

The NCCS was proposed for accessibility

The NCCS is a model for all around climber, versus sport climber who are very good to do the hardiest move.

Doing the hardiest move is a very good think. People who have children can go climbing in control area like rumney, with bolt to protect them, and climb like the guy in the cover page of a magazine.

hardiest move is one difficulty. often, I brought people who was confirm 5.11 climber in white horse slabs direct and they where not able to do the first move. It is normal that some one can be good at face climbing, crack, bridging...and can't place a feet over the other on slab, mantle or roof.

It is the same with the over all difficulty of the climb. One can be good at the hardiest move and have bad technique in route finding, placing pro and run out, rope management, protecting his second, etc...

So, NCCS was made by comparing similar difficulty for different climb all over the area. If you climb a 5.10, it is not wrote if it is a slab, face or diedral. In the same way, the NCCS told you what will be the highest move, but don't told you if the problem is route finding, placing pro or other thing.

The use of time can be questionable, after thought, I think that I understand why they used it and why they use different other system for protection rating.


rocknice2


Apr 10, 2014, 9:08 AM
Post #51 of 64 (3831 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:

So, NCCS was made by comparing similar difficulty for different climb all over the area. If you climb a 5.10, it is not wrote if it is a slab, face or diedral. In the same way, the NCCS told you what will be the highest move, but don't told you if the problem is route finding, placing pro or other thing.

The use of time can be questionable, after thought, I think that I understand why they used it and why they use different other system for protection rating.

That's exactly what the NCCS is. A time rating! How much time it takes the average climber of that routes grade to finish the route.

protection has little to do with it and it certainly doesn't tell you if the route is slab or roof.


JimTitt


Apr 10, 2014, 11:10 AM
Post #52 of 64 (3812 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

How come I´ve never seen a classification system that´s been around 50 years in a guide book? Could it be it´s useless and failed to make the transition in the 60´s from rock climbing being a sub-discipline of Alpine climbing to a sport in it´s own right with it´s own set of priorities? The UIAA had a crap system the same which lasted until about 1968 when they dicovered that one mans heroic grade 6 done over days or weeks of suffering on some Alpine wall was another climbers afternoon cruise.
(Read Messners the Seventh grade for some insight onto how a grade system of this type fails to work).
I´ll just carry on being a sport and trad climber and on my visits to the USA use the YDS like usual, it seems as erratic as any other system around which is o.k. The rest of the stuff I´ll just guess.


Partner rgold


Apr 10, 2014, 9:58 PM
Post #53 of 64 (3785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Allow me to recapitulate some of the comments I made on the SuperTopo thread.

The NCCS system was primarily an attempt to standardize ratings over the entire country, by providing national lists of example climbs at each grade level from different areas. It was used in a few guidebooks, notably of course Ortenburger's, and in some climbing accounts in the AAJ.

The free-climbing difficulties ranged from F1 to F10 ("F" for free.) From F7 up, the grades were identical to the YDS, but below F7 there was some compacting of grades, which made a lot of sense.

Then there were the aid-climbing grades A1 to A5, which I think may have been an innovation of the system. Previously, the aid ratings were on the same decimal system as the free ratings, which is to say 6.0 to 6.9. It became clear pretty quickly that ten aid grades were far too many and cutting the number in half was a sensible solution that has stood the test of time.

Finally, there were the "overall commitment" grades I - VI (and a VII added later) which were supposed to convey something about how long and committing the climb is, analogously to the alpine adjectival grades in France. These too have survived, to some extent, in areas with differences in length and commitment substantial enough to merit explicit distinctions.

What happened to the total package? The decimal system was already too established and won out over the more sensibly compressed F-system, even though the F-system was mostly the same. I think Roper's Yosemite Guide was the nail in the coffin.

The idea of standardizing grading via example routes, in spite of its obvious value, never caught on, not even at the local level. So it is that in addition to the inevitable variability in a system based on rather subjective judgements, we added all the local variations in the application of the grades, introducing further inconsistencies that require one to somehow factor in the perceived local bias.

As to what exactly 5.8 or F8 meant (hardest move or total strain), that was a matter for animated debate at the time and has never really been settled in an explicit way, although I think nowadays most people think the grade represents an evaluation of total effort and not the difficulty of the hardest move.


jacques


Apr 15, 2014, 12:29 PM
Post #54 of 64 (3702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
How come I´ve never seen a classification system that´s been around 50 years in a guide book?.

Ed Webster guide book use that classification
Don mellor in the dask use it too
in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too.

Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it


Gmburns2000


Apr 15, 2014, 5:55 PM
Post #55 of 64 (3679 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15253

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
How come I´ve never seen a classification system that´s been around 50 years in a guide book?.

Ed Webster guide book use that classification
Don mellor in the dask use it too
in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too.

Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it

That's probably because sport climbing areas tend to be mostly single-pitch with relatively easy approaches. I'm not saying they're all like that, but it's not as common to find grade II sport climbs let alone grade IV compared to, say, alpine routes. It kind of makes sense.


Partner camhead


Apr 16, 2014, 4:45 AM
Post #56 of 64 (3661 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
How come I´ve never seen a classification system that´s been around 50 years in a guide book?.

Ed Webster guide book use that classification
Don mellor in the dask use it too
in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too.

Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it

Jacques, here is what you need to do:

1. Read rgold's post that is RIGHT above your last one.
2. Stop posting in this thread.

You're welcome.


sbaclimber


Apr 16, 2014, 12:07 PM
Post #57 of 64 (3628 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
JimTitt wrote:
How come I´ve never seen a classification system that´s been around 50 years in a guide book?.

Ed Webster guide book use that classification
Don mellor in the ['dacks] use it too
...only what rgold referred to as "overall commitment":
(image reference: Climbing In The Adirondacks, Don Mellor, 1988)

...which in hindsight seems far from necessary, seeing as (short of maybe Wallface) nothing in the 'dacks is more than a half day climb.


(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Apr 16, 2014, 12:08 PM)
Attachments: mellor.jpg (54.3 KB)


jacques


Apr 16, 2014, 4:23 PM
Post #58 of 64 (3611 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 318

Re: [sbaclimber] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sbaclimber wrote:
[quote "jacques...only what rgold referred to as "overall commitment":
(image reference: Climbing In The Adirondacks, Don Mellor, 1988)

The commitment rate is the NCCS, it is three number: first is the overall difficulty, second the hardiest move and third the aid climbing rating.

The over all difficulty is route finding, rope management, weather, and some other difficulty that I dont remember.

The time was used because if you are weak at rope management, you will take more time as well as if you ar weak at route finding.

The classification was proposed in 1963, but in the dack, if you look at fastest gun, it will be rate II or III, 5.10. It is the NCCS or rating system.

That people don't learn how to used it is more than a problem in safety.


sbaclimber


Apr 17, 2014, 12:45 AM
Post #59 of 64 (3587 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
That people don't learn how to used it is more than a problem in safety.
Who exactly are these "people"? If guide books don't contain these grades (calling them "ratings" is only serving to confuse you more...) then there is no reason to learn them.
As both JimTitt and rgold pointed out, (almost) nobody uses these grades in a cragging guide any more. Even the fact that Don Mellor used them is now pretty much moot, seeing as the now 2nd edition of the guide that replaced his (Adirondack Rock) is coming out relatively soon, and only contains specific mention of the grade for the few IVs on Wallface.


(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Apr 17, 2014, 7:22 AM)


JimTitt


Apr 17, 2014, 9:59 AM
Post #60 of 64 (3557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002

Re: [sbaclimber] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I´m impressed that Jacques climbs in an area where beginners climb 4 pitch 5.10b´s and therefore need a ´commitment´ grade to make the route more accessible and increase safety, on the other hand it´s a bit depressing that even he has forgotten the criteria which go to make up the grade.
Judging by the bumblies I encountered at RR the other week it would be impossible to think of an adequate conventional system which covers the slowness, ineptitude and downright faffing about I saw, perhaps a NooB grade is called for.

Walk-in X 1.5, young and fit but carry too much shit and talk a lot. Busy texting and walk into a cactus.
Find Route X 10 as they don´t know what an obvious diedre is.
Gear Up X 10 as they carry 10 times more gear and partner check everything.
Climb 1st Pitch X 5 as they place all the gear they´ve got. Get pumped as the pitch is 5m longer than down the gym.
Build Belay X 10, placed the ideal pieces lower down, forgotten how to tie a cordalette. Can´t use guide mode as belay is too low so have to what they were taught about remember normal belaying. Drop belay plate but carry spare.
Climb second pitch X 5, go off route three times until they work out you climb the chalked, polished holds going the easiest way up. Run out of energy bars/isotonic drink.
Descent X 5 Can´t find the trodden out path to the collection of rap tat. Worry about the old rap tat. Forgot how to tie the klemheist required for a 6m rap. Pull rope down with knots still in end. Miss the trodden out path back to their sacks.
Walk Out X 1.5 Get lost, tired, hungry and dehydrated. Lack the ability to smell beer from 10 miles away.
Bonus grade for:- Lose car keys, forgot the rope at the bottom of the route. Crying.


JohnCook


Apr 17, 2014, 11:40 AM
Post #61 of 64 (3547 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 26, 2006
Posts: 221

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Excellent.
Sounds just like Wales last weekend.
On 5 pitch HS 4c. Party of three had left member 3 on a ledge with no rope or gear because he couldn't do next pitch. Their rope was too short to ab off, so they left him!!. When we got to him he was shaking and in shock, couldn't tie a rethread figure eight knot, had no belay device, and even if he had didn't know how to use one, and he had never heard of any back-up to his ab device.
His friends were quite adament that he could easily lead 6b/+ indoors! We were no too pleased about lowering him off, but if we hadn't it seems their next action was to call out the rescue team.
They would have scored highly on the bumbly scale, and would score even higher as they were planning on doing an E1 5b next.
(I suggested that they didn't, but not very politely!)
A simple grading system like the UK is easy and simple, and let the wierd Jacque sort himself out! He seems to want someone to tell him everything about the climb, does that include gear, where to put it, what to hold and where to put his feet?


sbaclimber


Apr 17, 2014, 12:09 PM
Post #62 of 64 (3538 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
Lack the ability to smell beer from 10 miles away.
If nothing else says, "you're gonna die" and "bumbly", than this...
Next to the long turn goal of returning to friends and family, nothing is more important than the short term goal of post-climb beer(s)! Smile


marc801


Apr 17, 2014, 2:00 PM
Post #63 of 64 (3526 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

JimTitt wrote:
...young and fit but carry too much shit and talk a lot. Busy texting and walk into a cactus.
The single best line I've read in this thread and perhaps all of rc in recent weeks.


Partner rgold


Apr 17, 2014, 3:54 PM
Post #64 of 64 (3512 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804

Re: [JimTitt] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hahaha! That's one of the funniest posts I've read on any site ever.


Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook