|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 11, 2006, 4:21 PM
Post #26 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Who was the genius that decided to start a 5.10 or 5.11 instead of say 5.91, 5.92 or even 6.0 for the "only climbed by Sharma and superman" routes. Technically speaking, that would make the difference between 5.1 and 5.2 much more significant than the difference between a 5.9 (plain old 5.9 in your scale) and a 5.12 (5.93 on your scale?). Your proposal sounds more confusing and impractical than the current system...
You're right. The YDS, as shown below, is based on the logistic function. The OP's suggestion would complicate this straightforward model.
Let:
i = 1 to n index n climbers
j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings
Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success,
or 0 if it is a failure.
X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt
X2j = the route's YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade)
P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij
logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij)
Then:
P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j)
logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j
HTH
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Jul 11, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #27 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
WFT? ...communists. This is America, you should be used to our numerical systems by now:
There are 4 Cubits in a Fathom
There are 2.75 fathoms in a Rod
And there are 40 Rods in a Furlong
...and that’s just the way it is. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 11, 2006, 4:31 PM
Post #28 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: Let: i = 1 to n index n climbers j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success, or 0 if it is a failure. X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt X2j = the route's YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade) P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) Then: P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j) logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j HTH Jay
I was going to post this at the beginning of the thread, but I thought it would have just been stating the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jul 11, 2006, 4:37 PM
Post #29 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: You're right. The YDS, as shown below, is based on the logistic function. The OP's suggestion would complicate this straightforward model. Let: i = 1 to n index n climbers j = 0 to m index m YDS ratings Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber on the jth rated route is a success, or 0 if it is a failure. X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the time of the attempt X2j = the route's YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade) P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) Then: P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*Xli*X2j) logit(Y) = a + b1*X1i + b2*X2j + b3*X1i*X2j HTH Jay
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jay, can this formula also be used to catch murderers, like the guy on "Numb3rs?" You should contact CBS! :D
JL
|
|
|
|
|
svilnit
Jul 11, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #30 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 582
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: 6.0 (6th class) = aid That being said, why the f--- are we talking about climbing in the community forum? Seemed like the place to start a rant. I know 6.0 is aid, however, some climbers send routes that most people can only do as aid. For example almost every 5.15. It makes more sense to me to just call it an aid route and say the guy/ gal can climb 6.0 but then again I don't think like most people. Sure, except for the fact that pretty much anyone and their pet donkey can climb 5.12 with enough effort. All I'm sayin' is, from a mathematical standpoint, 5.10 and beyond doesn't make sense, but apart from that, it's perfectly reasonable. It's the lesser of one point ten evils.
my pet donkey cannot climb a 5.12, he's a noob
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 11, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #31 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Dingus beat me to it. I thought Jim Bridwell was the one who broke the decimal system.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Jul 11, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #32 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
It would be interesting to know if 'The Bird' came up with the letters or was (one of?) the first to publish that system-'73 Ascent. I was climbing sub-lettered grades in those days and unfamilar with the contemporary parlence.
Mathmatical sense? Clearly it takes the same effort to climb three 5.8's or 2 5.12's.
|
|
|
|
|
blazesod
Jul 12, 2006, 2:48 AM
Post #33 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
Yes, I can see how no one would want to change... we are so like sheep.
Or
Sometime in the far distant future, climbers might evolve and eventually learn to use computers. They would create a database of all the popular climbing routes throughout the world. The database could be analyzed, compared with different 'climber's handicaps' and routes could be re-rated automatically.
At some point the information might even become available while standing at the base of a mountain through complex future technology like radio and micro waves.
Seriously though, I see your point, thanks for the input... it works like it is and no one cares. It just seems to me like measuring based on the size of a guys foot decades after a better system was created. :)
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jul 12, 2006, 4:27 AM
Post #34 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
It's called the Yosemite Decimal System because it originally was a true decimal system. In the system 5.9 was the true end of all climbs able to be climbed without doing it on aid, and aid was given the denotation 6.0 and beyond. However as climbing evolved and the realization of what really could be climbed out there evolved the YDS became too limited, and so it no longer could stay as a true decimal system, however it could not be expanded into the 6.0 range because that was an altogether different form of "travel". And it wouldn't make sense to suddenly be going in increments of .01 when before the ratings had gone 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc. in an increment of +1. So yes, perhaps we should call it the Yosemite Ranking System now, but I believe that going 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 makes more sense then 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.91, 5.92 when compared to the already established progression.
As to someone that asked about aid climbs that are now going free. Well those climbs have two ratings attached to them often, and the climbers can decide if they want to try the pitch free or do it on aid. As stated above, climbing has evolved and what was once seen as impossible or unprotectable is now being attempted because of advances in protection and people's concept of what can and can't physically be climbed. You can aid most climbs that you can put gear in, it's just a matter of what's easier, safer, or "possible" for your current skill level. For example, someone could aid the only 5.12 pitch in their 5.8 multi-pitch climb if no one in their party can climb 5.12. It's been pretty interesting to read about all the old aid routes that are going free out in Zion right now, wish I had the skill and time to be out their pioneering so of that stuff, pretty exciting stuff in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
blitzkrieg_climber13
Jul 12, 2006, 4:44 AM
Post #35 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 288
|
In reply to: In reply to: FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today Maybe instead of trying to "fix" a system everyone else seems to understand, you should get an up-to-date guide book. :boring: JL
AGREED
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 5:04 AM
Post #36 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
Justthemaid Wrote:
In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals.
Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system.
It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals.
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 12, 2006, 6:34 AM
Post #37 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: Justthemaid Wrote: In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals. Actually Maid I Believe that system started at JT rather than Australia. Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system. It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals. Cosmiccragsman
Egad!
We had a sensible system at one point?
I guess anything that is good and works must immediately be targeted for annihilation.
It's the American way after all.
...and the Aussies are the only ones with enough common sense to latch on to this idea?
They probably consulted their kangaroo oracle.
and the roo spoke...
Go forth and grade thy climbs with numbers.
Numbers that count up.
From 1
In order
Jeezus h christ. Even kangaroos are smarter than us.
I've got dingbat-itus. All those dots and letters, and occasional Roman numerals make my head spin sometimes. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
col
Jul 12, 2006, 7:13 AM
Post #38 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 232
|
Wow, I have learnt more about the history of the US grading system in this thread then I ever bothered to before. I always wondered what the "5" was for and why you didn't just drop it... Also wondered why you alowed increments and didn't just have it open ended. That makes sense in it was origninally supposed to end at six. it does raise some questions though.
What are 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, etc for?
Whoops just answered my own question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Grade_%28climbing%29
I am pretty sure that the Ewbank system was not developed from the states, although wiki doesn't help, since the link from the climbing page goes to the wrong Ewbanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ewbank
|
|
|
|
|
tonloc
Jul 12, 2006, 7:20 AM
Post #39 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
[quote="justthemaid"]In reply to: Justthemaid Wrote: In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals. Actually Maid I Believe that system started at JT rather than Australia. Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system. It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals. Cosmiccragsman
Egad!
We had a sensible system at one point?
I guess anything that is good and works must immediately be targeted for annihilation.
It's the American way after all.
...and the Aussies are the only ones with enough common sense to latch on to this idea?
They probably consulted their kangaroo oracle.
Actually the kiwis have that system too, and they are way different from the aussies, no snakes koalas or kangaroos...fuckin snakes koalas and kangaroos, fuckin lot of possums though
|
|
|
|
|
omegaprime
Jul 12, 2006, 7:40 AM
Post #40 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Posts: 308
|
Guess you guys won't even consider adopting the French method. :wink:
I actually like YDS, but I only use 1-6 to grade terrains and skip 5.1-5.x. When it comes to climbing, we use the French method.
Make me wonder though, why we used French instead of British? :?
Maybe I'll start a thread in Malaysia section on this one. :)
Edited to add: Just found the answer. :)
|
|
|
|
|
rocketsocks
Jul 12, 2006, 7:45 AM
Post #41 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 179
|
- grades are entirely subjective and are supposed to be
- grades are designed to give people a general idea of which routes they have a reasonable chance of leading successfully
- grades aren't designed (though you wouldn't know it these days) to help people brag about how hard they can climb
- it is mathematically impossible to create a completely "consistent" linear difficulty grading system (it is very important to understand this)
This isn't exactly rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jul 12, 2006, 12:59 PM
Post #42 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
Wow, some people like the +/-? Those things scare the crap out of me since, in my experience, those distinctions usually denote whole number (not letter, as you might think) changes in grade. I read "oldschool rating," or "you better bring your cup, panty-waist" when I see those on a topo.
Wasn't 5.10 thought to be the hardest grade at one point too? I've been thinking about that kind of system lately because it would cut down on the jackasses with the pet donkey-type comments :lol: Then you'd basically have easy, hard, and really hard as your distinctions. Maybe less numbers and more route chasing? Then again, it's kind of nice to know the increments which I am sliding up (or, more likely, down), on the scale. BTW, does that donkey give lessons, because I could use some!
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 12, 2006, 2:01 PM
Post #43 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
I guess while we are consulting the oracle we can ask about the +/- thing too.
Not that anyone cares, but in my perfect world "+" would simply mean "sustained", and "-" would mean "one move wonder".
What say you roo?
Aye verily.
What the Maid said.
*(roo scratches ear with boredom)*
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 3:25 PM
Post #44 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
The NCCS,(National Climbing Classification System)came about in the early 60s as a way to try to deal with the problems at the time with the YDS. At that time 5.9 was the hardest YDS rating.
The NCCS developed the open ended F1 thru F? to try to take care of this problem. Good news for the Aussies, about the same time, Ewbanks
was developing the Aussie system, 1 thru ?, that followed along the same lines, with a few differences.
So it is a toss up as to which one was first.
AS an added note, and bit of trivia, climbers in the Gunks were at one time experimenting with a variation of the Ewbanks System.
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 12, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #45 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I can add a few historical notes. Some of my comments repeat earlier ones, although I hope I have added some additional context of interest.
Climbing was considerably more advanced in Europe than in the US in, say, the 1930's, and most of the US leading US practioners were either immigrants or, if native to the US, had extensive experience in the Alps.
Europeans were using an alpine system with grades I--VI, with VI being the hardest at the time. However, the system attempted to grade how hard the rock was to climb, not what methods were used. Grade VI climbs might or might not use direct aid of various forms, sometimes just tension from the rope, sometimes stirrups, but you couldn't really tell from grade VI how hard free climbing, as we now recognize it, was. The other grades were primarily free, or perhaps what is sometimes called "French free" nowadays. As far as pure free climbing (an essentially American invention) went, it seems that 5.9 was achieved around the turn of the century and there were certainly 5.10's in the 1930's.
European roman numeral systems were used by Kraus and Wiessner in the Gunks in this era.
When the Sierra Club devised its grading system, they decided (absurdly from a modern perspective) on an equipment-based rather than a difficulty-based system. They used the same six-grades as the alpine system, but used Arabic rather than Roman numerals to distinguish their completely different approach. Grade 1 was trail-walking with no particular equipment requirements, Grade 2 was off-trail scree and boulder-hopping requiring proper shoes, Grade 3 was scrambling, possibly exposed, requiring the use of the hands (apparently an equipment item for the purposes of this definition), Grade 4 was exposed climbing requiring the use of a rope and possibly pitons for anchors, Grade 5 was difficult exposed climbing requiring pitons for protection, and Grade 6 was direct-aid climbing in which the climber's weight was suspended from pitons.
The system was, of course, adapted to the nature of High Sierra travel, in which there is a significant amount of Grade 1, 2, 3, and 4 terrain. Everything we now call rock-climbing was just fifth or sixth-class climbing. The system was doomed to irrelevance because it took no account of climber's ability. A good climber could do a "fifth-class" pitch without a rope---thereby turning it into a "third-class" pitch, and indeed, for quite a while, soloing was called "third-classing."
As rock-climbing developed in the West in the 40's and 50's, it became evident that "fifth-class" climbing, i.e. climbing that used pitons for protection, needed to be subdivided according to difficulty rather than equipment. Things came to a head with the first Tahquitz guidebook by Chuck Wilts. His solution was to take all the "fifth-class" climbs currently in existence and place them in difficulty categories 5.0 to 5.9. This made perfect sense at the time, although, by keeping the 5 as a prefix, it confounded two systems, a difficulty-based system and an equipment-based system. The equipment-based approach naturally and inevitably disappeared, leaving the prefix 5 as a vestigial organ of with no real meaning.
The "decimal system" spread to other areas of California, most notably Yosemite. A number of climbers, including Wilts, resisted this spread, claiming that the nature of the climbs was too different in Yosemite and that the decimal system was only meaningful in the circumscribed context of Tahquitz. But no one listened and the YDS, a runaway child of the Tahquitz system, came into being. Since Yosemite climbers were the best in the country in the 50's and 60's, their authority was enough to nationalize the system. But in many areas, especially those remote from the main climbing scene, local insecurity resulted in varying degrees of undergrading, an effect still apparent today in the various "sandbagged" ratings in the East and South.
It would be interesting to know how Wilts intended to deal with the inevitable increase in climb difficulty. It seems that climbers really didn't anticipate that difficulty levels would go up high enough to render 5.9 inadequate. The so-called "mathematical" issues are, however, non-existent; the decimal point is merely a symbol separating the equipment grade from the difficulty grade. Had Wilts used 5:0 to 5:9 instead of the decimal separator, perhaps there would have been less psychological resistance to moving on to 5:10 and 5:11. But then we would have had the "colon system" with its unsavory connotation of digestive issues.
It is also interesting that American climbers insisted on holding on to the prefix 5 long after it had lost its relevance. An attempt in the 60's to devise a national climbing classification system (NCCS) that used difficulty grades similar to the decimal system (with some compression in the very lowest grades that no one can distinguish anyway) and which dispensed with the prefix 5, instead grading free difficulties F0 to (at the time) F10 and aid difficulties A1 to A5 never caught on, except for the aid gradings.
Climbers knew the "decimal system" and just weren't going to give it up. But they still had enormous difficulty in dealing with increased difficulty levels. 5.10 had been accepted as the ultimate in difficulty, but the refusal to consider more grades meant that the 5.10 grade filled up with an increasingly broad spectrum of difficulty, necessitating first plusses and minuses and ultimately the a,b,c,d sub-grades. Although the dam broke when 5.11 was finally acknowledged, by then the subgrades had been so firmly entrenched that they simply became a part of all further grading categories.
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Jul 12, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #46 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
This came straight from the Birds Camel shorty smoke filled mouth:
Yeah, originally 5.9 was supposed to be the limit of human capability, but we proved that wrong. Then it was supposed to be 5.10, but as climbers improved, there was a large variance in the difficulty of 5.10 climbs in the Valley so Bridwell suggested the a,b,c,d subratings. More progress happened, so now we have the current system. Should we change it? I think it's perfect the way it is. It takes about 30 seconds to learn and has some built in history, very nice in my opinion.
If you don't like it you can make your own if you like, let's see if it catches on. There's usually a good reason for oddities like this, the freezing and boiling points of water for example.
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 12, 2006, 4:55 PM
Post #47 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
In reply to: Guess you guys won't even consider adopting the French method. :wink:
I tend to be afraid of things (i.e., French things) that might make me look sissy. CRAP! I have all Petzle biners! :oops: You're all going to think I'm a pansy for sure.
I should think before I post.
GT
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 7:21 PM
Post #48 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
Trophy to you Rgold.
You sure know your history. :D
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Jul 12, 2006, 7:29 PM
Post #49 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
thanks to the op for starting one of the more entertaining threads i've read. sorry i can't rate today. also cool to hear some history from dingus, cosmic and the guy who wrote the historical climbing textbook.
at least one person said that we shouldn't criticize a system that 'everyone understands.' that's like saying my town doesn't need to fix freeway signs that say only '562' for a road that is called the norwood lateral. signs aren't made for locals; and systems like this help newbies more than oldbies like cosmic, who can prolly size up a seven pitch route with a good swift glare.
using the density of the rationals (the idea that between any two rational numbers (like 5.9 and 6.0) there is another rational (like 5.93)) has EXACTLY the same magnitude-lessening issue that using 5.10, 5.11 etc has, namely that 5.91 is closer to 5.9 than 5.9 is to 5.8 (5.11 and 5.10 are only .01 apart, too). and over time we rerate routes anyway. and it isn't, well, wrong.
aside: the density of the rationals is exactly the idea behind the dewey decimal system. between any two books we might need to squeeze another book, so it's a good thing you can keep squeezing those rationals in between each other.
dingus, calling it a decimal system (meaning you have a denominator of 10) does not as far as i can see justify saying that
:arrow: 6>5.10>5.1.
the two on the right are both 5+1/10. if you want to say 5.10 is 5+10/10, then you may as well call it six. on the other hand, you could just say these decimals are mod 20 (yay for the hex suggester!) and (other than that we should use letters instead of two-digit #s, and that it'll still be confusing to outsiders) all makes sense, 5.19>5.18>5.17...>5.10>5.9 and so on. but in that case nobody better climb harder than a 5.19 or we're back to the same old problem.
edited for clarity. i'm sure it's perfectly clear now.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 12, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #50 of 64
(5202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
We're climbers goddamnit, not calculators! Who says our lives have to be base 10, shit even our computers can't manage that!
I merely posted that to illustrate that 'decimal' implies base 10. It IS base 10.
But cept fpr rgold and jgill and a few others we're not mathmaticians and climbers, we're just CLIMBERS!
Face it, climbing is irrational and stupid, a dumb thing to do and an even worse thing upon which to base a lifestyle. You have to have a screw loose and an odd perspective on logic to even attempt to justify it.
It makes no sense, climbing!
And we should demand nothing less from our rating systems.
Revel in the chaos. Add some of your own! Sandbag a buddy. Misrate a climb. 3rd class 5.10. Do a Grade VI in a DAY! Don't you see???
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
We're mostly computer nerds here and have this desire to catalog everything, re-sort the world and put every little thing in its proper column and row.
But climbing ain't like that. CLIMBERS ain't like that! Don't you johnny-come-lately computer nerds think for a Yosemite Minute that we all are just going to sit back and let you tame our sport.
We take our screwed up rating systems very seriously. You should too, we're family. Just think of YDS as that crazy uncle you love to hate, that you can't escape and would miss terribly if he stopped showing up at Thx giving.
That is all.
DMT
ps. No it isn't! Are we nerds or are we CLIMBERS goddamnit! Very Hard Severe, know what I mean???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
