|
|
|
|
jpearl
Jan 16, 2004, 4:10 AM
Post #1 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
In many of the threads analyzing/criticizing climbing gyms, one of the many topics to constantly be mentioned is that of ratings and how they may or may not reflect true outdoor ratings.
I was thinking of the possability of a new standard of ratings for gym routes that can be a more accurate reflection of the unique demands of gym routes and the techiques and skills required to climb them. I figured that a new standard of rating measurement can be established, either denoted by colour or by a new numbering/lettering system (i.e. if there is "5.10" for rocks, "V10" for boulders, maybe there can be "G10" for gym routes).
Here are some points I thought about:
1. Safety: One problem is that sometimes a "5.10" in a gym can be much easier or not a true reflection of an outdoor "5.10". A climber who sends 5.10 in a gym might find themselves overly confident and dangerously in over thier heads attempting a 5.10 outdoors.
2. Progress: I've found sometimes that an indoor 5.10 can be easier than an indoor 5.8. In my gym, I've almost always found "red" routes to be more difficult than "green" or "blue". A climber can more accuratelly gauge thier progress on our coloured rating than on a numbered rating as found at other gyms in the city.
3. Route Setting: A percentage of route setters in a gym never climb outdoors, so how can they know if what they are setting is really "5.10" and not "5.7"? They can however know that a route they set is very, say, crimpy and is thus more difficult than one that is juggy.
So these are some thoughts I had regarding the subject. What does everyone else think? Is it worthwile or just wishful thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 16, 2004, 4:19 AM
Post #2 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I don't think it's necessary, just another system to have to learn, and convert to the outdoors.
Besides, even when people are climbing indoors, it's nice to think about climbing outdoors. G10 just sounds depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
funkmeister
Jan 16, 2004, 4:49 AM
Post #3 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 3
|
I pulled a G13 from my pipe earlier....
Couldn't resist that one....
The one and only Funkmeister
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Jan 16, 2004, 7:15 PM
Post #4 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
In response to the "color" gauge, though it is a good idea, it's not entirely practical. In an area where many routes overlap, what if the route setter decides to put 2 or maybe 3 similar climbs near each other? It'll get a bit confusing to find your line. And the whole purpose of rating a climb in the gym is so you can gaguge your progress and know about where you stand. It's certainly not for fun (wow, climbing a "5.3" is so much fun!) or bragging (though many use it for that). Ok, I admit, it is fun to have bragging rights... But still, adding a new scale just for gym rats seems a bit like creating a whole new judging criteria for BMXing with training wheels. I mean, why stop at creating a new rating system for gym climbing? Why not have one scale for trad (I just climbed a wicked T12.8-10 [t=trad 12=number of pitches 8=easiest pitch; 5.8 10=hardest pitch;5.10]) and a new system for sport (wow, that S11.6 was a real peice of crap! [S=sport, 11=5.11, 6=nuimber of clips]) or a new aid scale (wait, isn't there already a scale for that?) or hey, what about the outdoor top-rope scale? (Oh, I'm so tired after my mommy freed that TR4.0 for me so I could second [TR=top-rope, 4=5.4, 0=number of balls it takes to watch your mommy free solo a pitch to set up a top-rope for you]). I don't know, it jsut seems a bit silly to me, don't you think?
Oh, and about setters not climbing outside, I set and I'm outside every chance I get. If fact, now that I think of it, every setter I've ever met has been outside enough to know what's up. I can't think of a single setter that's never been outside. Maybe the gym you're at sucks or something.
|
|
|
|
|
djnibs
Jan 16, 2004, 7:35 PM
Post #5 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 464
|
I think that would be a cool idea, but a lot of work. All the outdoor climbers know that a 5.10 indoors is no where as difficult as outdoors. I work in a climbing gym, I set routes, and I can climb all the 5.10s we have. Outdoors I can climb about 5.9. Its funny to listen to all the people bragging that they did that 10 in the gym. Regardless, the new routes I have put up have been made difficult, but given a much lower rating. The other problem we have is that climbs that have been put up before have a bizare rating on them, which screws up the whole rating system. Either way, I think that we could just add an I (like 5.10-I) for indoors, and O (5.10-O) for outdoors.
|
|
|
|
|
usmc_2tothetop
Jan 16, 2004, 8:01 PM
Post #6 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2002
Posts: 661
|
I would have to agree with Hosh. He had a great point, up untill the point he got cocky at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
petro
Jan 16, 2004, 8:12 PM
Post #7 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 176
|
I climbed at the Spot last night. Boulder's trendy bouldering gym. They didn't have much rated. Usually 1-5 Spots, last night, almost nothing.
I had one of the greatest bouldering sessions ever, some felt easy, some felt hard, but I sent most of what I tried. It was way cool to see what I could do without the mental limitations of a rating system.
Gyms are safe, why rate them? It's not like you will lose gear or get hurt (in most situations) if you get on something a little harder than you have the bones for, so what, you might surprise yourself. Down with ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
daryl314
Jan 16, 2004, 8:30 PM
Post #8 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 102
|
The problem with creating a new rating scale so that people won't compare it to outdoor climbs is that people will quickly figure out the conversion to YDS ratings. And then you have the same problem all over again. I doubt the V scale was intended to be converted to YDS, but I'm sure we all know someone who would send a V7 and think "Whoa. I can climb 5.13!"
|
|
|
|
|
jpearl
Jan 16, 2004, 9:02 PM
Post #10 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
Just some points to make:
1. My gym doesn't "suck". It was the very first to open in New York City. It is the smallest and least expensive in the city, but everyone agrees that it has the most creative routes and friendliest and most dedicated climbers. Some of the best NYC area climbers to be found at the Gunks all cut thier teeth at our gym. We have produced many outdoor climbers, and full-well know the difference between indoor and outdoor climbing.
2. I mentioned that "a percentage" of route setters never climb outdoors, being that I can't give an actual number. My reasoning is that some gyms exist in places where there is no natural outdoor climbing (such as south Florida) or in places where people just don't have the means or time to climb outdoors, but climb religiouslly at gyms (such as New York City).
3. I only created this post to build on a thought I had. My initial points were not intended to be final, but just something to build on to see if it is worthwile or not. I am aware of the issue involved with ratings, how they are written in sand more than they are carved in stone.
Thank You.
|
|
|
|
|
adampaiva
Jan 16, 2004, 9:30 PM
Post #11 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 76
|
my vote is to change the U.S. to the metric system. Our system just sucks. 10s are nice. 12s, 16s, 5280, etc. those are not nice numbers.
,adam
|
|
|
|
|
youmeanupthere
Jan 16, 2004, 9:37 PM
Post #12 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 205
|
I work at a gym and I see this rating dilemma first hand everyday. It bugs me most because I have to sit and explain why ratings aren't so straight forward. If you don't believe me just climb at different outdoor destinations and you will find that ratings vary outside just like they do at any gym. Now Im not opposed to a new gym rating scale although I think it is completely unecessary but if I were to develop a new scale it would go something like this:
Give a route a number rating without a prefix such as 1-15 which would coincide with verm scale or yosemite decimal.
Then have a reasonable sample of climbers climb it and see what they think
Afterwhich you would apply one of three prefixes.
Give it a "v" or "5."followed by the # if it seems pretty accurate.
Give it a "sb" if it is an obvious sandbag.
Give it a "ri" if the rating is inflated.
It would be possible to have a v4 or an sb4 or an ri4. It would reflect the route setters fellings followed by consensus opinion.
Now this was in jest. I dont think anybody wants another rating system to haggle with since a new system will bring a whole new host of problems,
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
Jan 16, 2004, 9:37 PM
Post #13 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
In reply to: my vote is to change the U.S. to the metric system. Our system just sucks. 10s are nice. 12s, 16s, 5280, etc. those are not nice numbers. ,adam
Reminds me of the movie Brazil... Quote: "Bloody typical, they've gone back to metric without telling us"...
This problem of rating will never go away. Thankfully. Must have something to discuss between climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
djmeat
Jan 16, 2004, 9:43 PM
Post #14 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 4497
|
Trying to make direct comparison between ”my gym" and outdoors is really a pretty silly thing to do. Since all gyms have different rout setters and all route outdoors are rated by different individuals. Striving for consistency is nice. But we all know that ratings are subjective and open to interpretation, indoors and out.
|
|
|
|
|
tonithegreat
Jan 16, 2004, 9:53 PM
Post #15 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 51
|
I guess my gym is just "special" because while I don't have loads of expereince outside, I've found our gym 5.8s and 5.9s to be much harder than the 8s and 9s I've done outdoors. But like someone else said, the routes outdoors have a lot of variation, too.
I usually attribute it to the fact that most of our route setters are much better than 5.8 or 5.9 climbers, and I think they've lost thier feel for what should fall into that "easy" end of the spectrum.
I don't think that a new rating system would help a lot of the most common rating problems, like that one mentioned above. The best thing would be to only allow people with a solid grasp of ratings to rate climbs, but since that's never going to happen anyway, it doesn't much matter what system is used.
Toni
|
|
|
|
|
frolic
Jan 16, 2004, 9:55 PM
Post #16 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 31
|
I don't think it's a question of indoor vs outdoor ratings, so much as an issue of subjectivity:
1) a 5.11c in one gym is not equivalent to a 5.11c outside. it is also not equivalent to a 5.11c in any other gym.
2) it may not even be equivalent to another 5.11c in the same gym, set by someone else.
3) it depends what makes a route "hard". is it reachy? tough if you're 5'1". crimpy? tough if your strength aint in your forearms. stemmy? tough if your hips aren't flexible... etc etc etc. the beauty of climbing is that it's an individual game - the ratings -- or the beta for that matter -- are only a guide. you won't know till YOU get up there what specific moves will challenge you.
my point? know your body, know your strengths and weaknesses. take ALL ratings with a grain of salt - after all, it was rated by a subjective human being... :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
litleclimberchick
Jan 16, 2004, 10:02 PM
Post #17 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2003
Posts: 1254
|
i don't believe that indoor routes need another rating scale, it would just confuse people even more. all oudoor ratings vary like those indoors so there is really no need. everything is subject to opinion right, ratings is just another one of those things that people cannot agree upon.
|
|
|
|
|
crazygirl
Jan 16, 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #18 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 595
|
this new system would require for the gym setters to learn it and be able to accurately grade the routes. that might be tough. they will have to compare their routes to other gym routes, rather than comparing it to the ratings they are used to
|
|
|
|
|
the_crawler
Jan 17, 2004, 12:02 AM
Post #19 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2003
Posts: 90
|
qeustion #1: Are grades outside perfectly consistant from area to area?
NO!
Question #2: Are some routes, at a given grade, easier or harder than another route at the same grade at the same area?
YES!
Why then then do some people require or even expect route grades inside to be consistant with grades outside? Or how they could be. I don't understand!
I know some gyms inflate grades to pump egos of there clientele. If they wish to do so, so be it. Would you choose to climb at one gym over the other because you climb "harder ratings" there. (personal question)
Why do you climb in a gym? To work out? There is no local rock? To have something to pump your ego so you can brag to your friends? (another personal question)
I had a discussion with a member and friend of mine from the gym about ratings. My gym used to use a color scale green= <5.8, yellow= 9ish, etc... His comment was similar to those already given, it limits the number of routes at the same grade in the same area.
My friends comments on idea that indoor and outdoor ratings might not be perfectly consistent went something like:"when I go to the lift free weights and I see 45lbs on the plate, I know what 45lbs is. I don't care if the plate "truly" weighs 43lbs or 47lbs. Any where I go I know ABOUT what the 45lb plate will be."
He continued on the idea of a "new" gym rating system: "I hate those numbers they use on the plate machines, they don't relate to anything. If I know I can bench 130 lbs 10 times with the free weights, when I get on a plate machine bench press that 130lbs could be the number 10 plate or the 15 plate or the 20 I have know idea."
What this left me with was, what's important to most gym climbers. What I hear from my clients is MORE routes, consistency within the gym, and interesting moves!
Ratings are ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE inside or out! If you can't understand the differences and similarities between indoor routes and outdoor routes, come take a class with me we'll go over it. I'd love to help!
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Jan 17, 2004, 12:51 AM
Post #20 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: qeustion #1: Are grades outside perfectly consistant from area to area? NO! Question #2: Are some routes, at a given grade, easier or harder than another route at the same grade at the same area? YES! Why then then do some people require or even expect route grades inside to be consistant with grades outside? Or how they could be. I don't understand! . . . Ratings are ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE inside or out!
Excellent observations.
Using color to denote grades? That's just stupid given that most gyms use colored flags to mark the routes. The Solid Rock gyms in San Diego use a 1-6 system. In fine print at the bottom of the card that displays the route flag and rating for three or four routes set for each rope is a key. 2 is equivalent to 5.7-5.8; 3 to 5.8-5.9; 4 to 5.9-5.10, etc.
It's way squishy, on purpose. They are trying to avoid arguments about the difference between a .9 and a .10. Some 3s feel like 4s and vice versa, but on a good night, all the 4s are harder than the 3s, and so forth. You learn to look at the course setter's initials (also on the card for each route) and to know the setters who have a feel for the system, and who don't.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
calgaryclimber
Jan 17, 2004, 3:56 AM
Post #21 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 8
|
I don't think gyms need another rating system but the ratings needs to altleast be consistant within the gym. Reality is that some routesetters will rate their routes incorrectly but hopefully all the routes are rated the same. The gym I occasionally climb at has some 5.10s that I can easily onsight and others that I can't do at all. I know this might be because of different types of routes but what I am trying to say is that the main reasons to have ratings is to keep track of ones progress. It doesn't matter whether gyms use color, numbers, letters or the ratings are completely wrong. Each gym needs to be consistant.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 17, 2004, 11:19 AM
Post #22 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
my gym rating system:
warmup
easy
moderate
hard
not climbed
|
|
|
|
|
jpearl
Jan 18, 2004, 1:59 AM
Post #23 of 23
(4141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Posts: 517
|
"my gym rating system:
warmup
easy
moderate
hard
not climbed"
That's the best answer yet, since that is how I look at the routes in my gym. Then again, my gym is small and simple and we rate routes by colour. You basically just described our white-blue-green-red-black rating system to a T (though a noobie might think otherwise!).
Anyway, thanks everyone for the feedback, I guess gym routes are WAY to vague and diverse for a standard rating system. Oh well, as long as I can hit the green-red route in this gym, the "5.10" in that gym, and the "G10-SB.4%I@20" in the other gym, well then, as long as I'm climbing it's all good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
