|
|
|
|
stroker
Jan 31, 2003, 3:13 AM
Post #1 of 4
(1170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 116
|
In all the confusion that surrounds aid ratings, we need to find a more simple way to define a particular aid pitch. I thought up the idea of In A Row Aid Rating. In this rating system, you count the number of bad pieces of gear , while cleaning a pitch. If there are eight crappy pins IN A ROW, the pitch would rate in at A8. Another consideration I took into the idea of this rating system, is whether or not you'll hit something on a fall. With this in mind, simply end the rating for a pitch with the letter "h". To repeat myself and bore you all, a pitch that has 20 rotton beaks in a row would rate A20. If you could hit something, or swing into something the pitch would rate A20h. When deciding the overall rating of a particular route, simply rate with the hardest pitch of the route. Yes, I realize that this rating system remains subjective, because some gear may seem bomber to you yet seems scary as hell to me. Although, I personally believe that this new rating system would provide more direct insight towards a routes actual rating. People are getting sick of being criticized and being confused of their rating manner, so they are adapting PDW or PDH. This adds to the adventure, yet supports the idea of not even rating at all. We'll its just an idea, and I'm going to use it on a upcoming first ascent. I'm probably wasting my time. I'll just call it A3+
|
|
|
|
|
copperhead
Jan 31, 2003, 5:37 PM
Post #2 of 4
(1170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 668
|
If your rating system is based off of how many body-weight or ‘dicey’ (yes, subjective) pieces you place in a row, then how do you differentiate between a pitch led by a tall person vs. the same pitch led by a short person? The short person will obviously place more pieces; does this make their lead more difficult?
With regard to the “h” sub-rating, you might also want to include “l” for loose and “e” for expando, etc.
Let’s say, for example, that we have two very different sections on two different aid pitches. One consists of 10 poor, thin head, beak, and pin placements in a row while the other consists of 10 back-cleaned hook placements in a row. Your rating system states that both pitches should be rated A10. Equalization trickery can be used on thin seams; if you fall, you will begin ripping pieces, which thus, slows you down to the point where one of the placements might hold (provided you have a significant amount of rope out). In the situation with the hooks, there is nothing to slow you down; you will accelerate until the next piece below catches you or rips. These two situations seem a bit different to me and would warrant different ratings.
I personally feel that the ‘no rating’ system is currently the most accurate.
Rate as you will.
|
|
|
|
|
socalclimber
Feb 1, 2003, 2:27 PM
Post #3 of 4
(1170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437
|
There is a guy named Jim Breyer (sp?) who has apparently been running around putting up some hard routes. He is using a rating system some what close to what you are proposing. I don't know Jim, this is only what I have heard. Anybody know the scoop on this???
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bigwalling
Feb 1, 2003, 10:59 PM
Post #4 of 4
(1170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 728
|
Beyer uses the A1-A6 system. His ratings are a bit different. His A5 pitches have bolts. Total badass climber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
