|
jakedatc
Jul 13, 2004, 12:21 AM
Post #51 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Nah just getting out what i gotta say before i killfile all your BS
|
|
|
|
|
ninjaslut
Jul 13, 2004, 1:37 AM
Post #52 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 260
|
Where you not breastfed as a child, or something? I mean, you jumped right into this thread to taunt me with what I can't climb and call me a dumbass noob. But at the very first time I'm not polite and genial to you, you immediately flip out with that most popular, attention-starved, puling "I'm going to ignore you!" routine. Sorry, Pal, but if you don't want the fruit, don't shake the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
crazywacky
Jul 13, 2004, 1:39 AM
Post #53 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2002
Posts: 409
|
In reply to: Sorry but you don't have a clue how ratings work. Pitches are rated by how hard they are to climb, not how hard the hardest move is. When you start climbing anything reasonably hard you'll understand how hard 5.10 moves are after 100' of overhanging terrain, how a 5.13 route can have no move harder than 5.11, and how 100 feet of 5.13 climbing to a 5.14 crux gives you a supposed 5.15. Multi-pitch routes receive the grade of the hardest pitch. So climbing three pitches of 5.12a back to back is still only 5.12a, but when Dean Potter linked the two pitches of Tombstone and skipped the hanging belay (essentially an arbitrary no hands rest in the middle of the route), the resulting pitch was harder than the sum of it's parts, obviously. If you still want to argue, knock yourself out, but if you ever start climbing harder, you'll understand. ..josh
Well actually, I have climbed "harder".. back when I was climbing pretty much full time I was getting up easy 12's.. though they are not nearly as hard as kids are climbing these days, they weren't cakewalks either..
They guys I started climbing with back then (all climbing for 10-15 years themselves back in 92), as well as the books I had read, all described the rate/grade a climb got as the difficulty of the hardest move on the route, or as you stated, hardest pitch on multi-pitch routes. And pitches were still graded concerning their hardest move.
I understand the "sum of its parts" deal. And I think that is what NS is talking about.
Mainly the EGOs of those climnbers that want to rate their routes multiple grades harder than even the "greater than the sum of the parts" deal would make it.
I can see how it all adds up. that's no big deal a really makes no real difference to me.. Those guys need to stop boosting their egos and start enjoying the climb.
Later,
Scott
PS: Thanks for schooling me on grades.
edited for clarity and crappy spelling.. not that I got it all of course.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanpfleger
Jul 13, 2004, 3:19 AM
Post #54 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 243
|
Well, I gotta say I read the first page of the thread and then skipped right to page 4, so I'm probably missing out on a lot of wonderfully cultured and urbane discussion. Seems to me ninjaslut IS talking out of his ASS. No offense ninjaslut, I have read a lot of your other posts and think you are a great guy. Honestly though, I think you have to climb somewhere near 5.13 to comment on it. By that standard I have no place to judge either. Once upon a time I almost hangdogged a 12 into submission. My proudest redpoint is an 11a. Anyway, someone put it best in saying they can tell a the difficulty of a climb within a few letter grades, soooo if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also shorty... your initial post was a thing of beauty, it brought tears (of laughter) to my eyes.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
deafears
Jul 13, 2004, 4:18 AM
Post #55 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2003
Posts: 103
|
Ninjaslut, as you see, there really is no debate like a grading debate in our sport. Congrats on your progress so far ... sounds like you're making real improvements in your climbing, which is a great feeling.
Don't let insecure fools tell you to "stop worrying about grades," because everyone likes to see themselves progressing in an activity they love. John Tomac, the mountain bike racer, said that it's "hard to know where you are if you don't know where anybody else is." Vis a vis, we grade routes.
The fundamental notion that a (YDS/French/British/Aussie) grade can be assigned to a pitch is undeniably correct. These scales are still around, and are used every day, because most climbers find them to be practical and informative -- at both ends of the difficulty range. Grading systems that don't function well (like the goofy B bouldering scale) get dropped from popular useage.
Grading will always be more art than science, and discrepencies are unavoidable. And, yes, there are more reasons to climb than to tick the next number. Like most longtime climbers, my favorite climbs are not the biggest numbers I've hit. But I do remember my first 5.9 (and my first 5.13), and it makes me smile (both of them, equally) to think of how much dedication it took to ascend each step of the ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
benpullin
Jul 13, 2004, 8:45 AM
Post #56 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Posts: 360
|
Something to think about for all those who believe that routes are only graded as to their hardest move...
In an interview of Chris Sharma regarding his progress in a little route called Realization (pre-redpoint), he explains that the route is hard to the first chains (Biographie -- 14c) but then must face the crux, which he describes as a nasty v10 boulder problem higher up on the wall. (See Dosage Vol. 1)
Now, if routes were only rated for the hardest single move, Realization would weigh in around 14a, depending on your assessment of the v scale...
Hmm...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 13, 2004, 2:50 PM
Post #57 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I can't help but think that this rating was given with more than a little satirical intent. *Hillary pinches thumb and forefinger a few centimeters apart* just a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit ;) I like gin! With tonic, of course. But I prefer vodka martinis. I don't recall seeing you drink anything but really bad pink wine from a box!!!!!11111 Curt
I have. It can be quite entertaining.
"Heyyyyyyy!"
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 13, 2004, 2:53 PM
Post #58 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: And all the scotch I've had is younger than you... oh, that's not very funny the other way around. And what ISN'T younger than you? /hijack
Thank God for Curt. If it wasn't for him, she'd be saying these things about me.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 13, 2004, 3:27 PM
Post #59 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Folks, please listen up: The single hardest move of a route does NOT determine the YDS grade. I think, based on my previous post, that the best way to put this is "The single hardest move of a route no longer determines the YDS grade.
That is my understanding, as well. When I started climbing (in the '80s) I was taught that the single hardest move determines the rating of the pitch, and looking at guidebooks of the day seems to confirm this. A pitch would be rated 5.9, and the topo would show a little "9" where the 5.9 move was. There is no question, however, that newer routes are rated by their overall difficulty. The majority of sport climbs I have done do not have a single move as hard as the rating of the climb. One local route, for instance, consists of 80 feet of continuous, overhanging mid-5.11 moves, and it is rated 5.12d.
However, at the lower grades, there is not much difference between the overall difficulty of a pitch and that of its hardest move. "Sustained 5.7" is something of a contradiction. A route consisting of continuous 5.7 climbing is not much more difficult than a route with a single 5.7 move because, at the lower grades, you can rest after most every move. At the higher grades, however, the cumulative effect of the moves becomes more pronounced, and usually becomes a much more important determinant of the route's actual difficulty.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ninjaslut
Jul 13, 2004, 3:56 PM
Post #60 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 260
|
jt512, that's a really helpful and informative explanation. In fact, I think you've managed to put into simple terms what most of the egoists on this thread have failed to convey, having instead decided to simply say "You can't understand because you can't climb that hard."
So, if I properly understand you, at some point in the high range, the inital YDS "hardest move" judgment style became unfit because resting on moves above a certain difficulty is impractical or impossible. At that point, the hard end of the scale became a relative comparison of climbs in the hardest class. Given your explanation, I can see why that makes sense, and although I have some reservations about the abitrary size of steps from one letter to another, I am satisfied, and will go away.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Jul 13, 2004, 4:28 PM
Post #61 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: At 5.7, for instance, it seems like the handholds stop being placed directly above footholds, so core strength and body position become a factor. At 5.8, the same is true, but the holds require better grip strength. At 5.9, many elements of technique are introduced as small ledges need to be properly crimped and sidepulls need to be, well, "sidepulled"
Next time you're in Vegas, check out Joe Herbst's ancient classic, Cold September Corner (5.8). There are manky bail slings threaded below the crux -- I picture some leaders getting up there, looking for handholds placed above footholds, and thinking "WTF -- I give up!"
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Jul 13, 2004, 4:34 PM
Post #62 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
NS, that was either a fantastic troll or you are a very ignorant climber. Your main problem is trying to define a pitch of rock climbing with words. It can't always be done. And that reference to descriptions provided by Freedom of the Hills is obviously tongue-in-cheek (e.g. 5.9=The move has only one reasonable hold which may be for either a foot or a hand. 5.10=No hand- or footholds. The choices are to pretend a hold is there, pray a lot, or go home.)
PS: the whole concept of many easy moves (e.g. 5.7) leading to an overall higher rating due to pump occurs even at the 5.9 level. You should have figured this out by now. Enjoy your armchair climbing!
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Jul 13, 2004, 5:01 PM
Post #63 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: Nah just getting out what i gotta say before i killfile all your BS |
|
|
|
|
ninjaslut
Jul 13, 2004, 5:38 PM
Post #64 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 260
|
In reply to: NS, that was either a fantastic troll or you are a very ignorant climber. Your main problem is trying to define a pitch of rock climbing with words. It can't always be done. And that reference to descriptions provided by Freedom of the Hills is obviously tongue-in-cheek (e.g. 5.9=The move has only one reasonable hold which may be for either a foot or a hand. 5.10=No hand- or footholds. The choices are to pretend a hold is there, pray a lot, or go home.)
Fred, you clearly have a stellar career ahead of you: pointing out the obvious. Of course I know that the verbage of FotH's decimal descriptions is toungue in cheek...my god, it even says so in the page I referred to! This is why I did not directly quote an example, and in fact, made up my own serious descriptions. Rather, I said that FotH descriptions imply a type of description which should be possible for each decimal.
Everything can be defined with words. Perhaps I will never satisfy your impression of a climb with my definition, but I can surely acurately describe anything that has specific properties. Whenever anyone referrs to anything as "undescribable" they do so because they personally lack the words, not because no words exist. I submit that you are an ingnorant user of language.
In reply to: PS: the whole concept of many easy moves (e.g. 5.7) leading to an overall higher rating due to pump occurs even at the 5.9 level. You should have figured this out by now.
If so--according to my initial, documented, understanding of the YDS and the new impression of grading I received today--then any 5.9s you may be thinking of which are composed of a series of 5.7 moves, are inaccurately graded, or perhaps featherbagged, because resting between moves is quite possible on most 5.7 moves...even I have experienced this!
In reply to: Enjoy your armchair climbing!
Pardon me for thinking and talking about the sport I love while I'm stuck at work. I'm not sure why anyone at rockclimbing.com would find this objectionable, but, to each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Jul 13, 2004, 6:58 PM
Post #65 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
Hey NS, sorry if I harangued you so hard. You're absolutely right that language could probably describe most of these climbs. Hell, authors have for centuries been describing many ethereal concepts such as love, hate, and fear. But it does seem to get more difficult to describe the routes as they get harder and inevitably more complex. Thus, people will spend hours posting why they think route X is 5.12b and not 5.12a. It's usually so useless that the simple "it's harder" argument is usually the basis of their decision.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 14, 2004, 3:46 AM
Post #66 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: ...I have some reservations about the abitrary size of steps from one letter to another...
The steps between letter grades might actually be more consistent than one might intuitively think. New routes (including first routes at a new grade) are graded by consensus. Now, arguing about grades is a sport unto itself, but still, market-like forces come into play in determining the grade of a route.
Although the idea of mathematically modeling the size of the steps between letter grades started out as a joke, someone on rec.climbing actually took their own climbing record, and mathematically modelled his odds of onsighting a route, based on the rating of the route. What he found was surprising: the steps in difficulty between letter grades (as measure by his odds of onsighting routes at those grades) were regular, on the log scale. That is, there was a very close linear relation between the grade of the route, and the log of the odds of onsighting it. I'll post the numbers when I get back to my office.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rispo
Jul 14, 2004, 6:26 AM
Post #67 of 67
(5169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 124
|
I think reading this thread has made me realize why the system is the way it is. Its SIMPLE. Some of these ideas about rating based on age, type of equipment and a whole assortment of other standards would just make me go nuts, I just want to climb. Being a short guy I could agree that in many cases I feel if I was a few inches taller many climbs would be a lot easier but thats life it can be done. I also agree that some overhanging 5.7's are harder than slabby 5.9's but to other people overhangs may be easier than slabs, it all depends on who's climbing it. I think it would be cool to throw the whole system to the wind and just climb the unknown. Right now we use ratings as guidlines for progress and boundaries for what we can do. I think it would be cool to go out and have to decide whether or not you're going to attempt a climb just by looking at it, an adventure just as the original climbers had to do it. When you think about it they had it harder, they had no idea what was in store for them and they had to lead it with extremely sub par equipment, not just boots and no chalk, but no cams and for some no hexs or nuts. They could get stuck in something they just couldn't climb and not have the luxury or lowering on bomber pro. I mean climbing it the way it was originally done goes a lot farther than better shoes. Either way I like the simplicity of the rating system the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
