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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


rocknice2


Apr 10, 2014, 9:08 AM
Post #51 of 64 (3794 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 (3775 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 Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book? Could it be itīs useless and failed to make the transition in the 60īs from rock climbing being a sub-discipline of Alpine climbing to a sport in itīs own right with itīs 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).
Iīll 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 Iīll just guess.


Partner rgold


Apr 10, 2014, 9:58 PM
Post #53 of 64 (3748 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 (3665 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 Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs 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 (3642 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 Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs 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 (3624 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 Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs 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 (3591 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 Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs 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 (3574 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 (3550 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 (3520 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

Iīm impressed that Jacques climbs in an area where beginners climb 4 pitch 5.10bīs and therefore need a īcommitmentī grade to make the route more accessible and increase safety, on the other hand itīs 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 donīt 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 theyīve 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. Canīt 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 Canīt 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 (3510 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 (3501 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 (3489 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 (3475 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.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

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