|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 4:19 AM
Post #101 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
WTF? This wasn't supposed to turn into a "Curt" thread....
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
Jul 26, 2005, 4:25 AM
Post #102 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
hehe couldn't resist man... those tights are... asstounding
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:27 AM
Post #103 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: hardest sport: .12b
I thought it was clear that routes had to be led and redpointed.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 4:33 AM
Post #104 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: hardest sport: .12b I thought it was clear that routes had to be led and redpointed. -Jay
Yeah, cuz if TR and/or following counts, I'm upping my best trad route rating to 5.13 from 5.12. Who's in charge of the rules here, anyway?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 4:34 AM
Post #105 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 4:40 AM
Post #106 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
10a = 10.00
10b = 10.25
10c = 10.50
10d = 10.75
11a = 11.00
and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 26, 2005, 4:44 AM
Post #107 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
In reply to: top roping mook trad? Is this English? I have cleanly seconded 11a trad. Am drawing a blank on the mook trad though...
wow you should be really proud of yourself for picking up on other people's typos and grammatical errors.
my point which was obviously missed by some is that if we are going to skew the ratings for the ladies because there are so few out there sharing we should do the same for the guys otherwise this whole thing isn't even close to being accurate, not that its really all that accurate either way.
|
|
|
|
|
nsintros
Jul 26, 2005, 4:45 AM
Post #108 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 59
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 4:46 AM
Post #109 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
Yeah, I understand.... but that means 5.9 to 5.10 is the same difference as 5.10 to 5.11 numerically..... when infact the difficulty isn't the same change.... if you know what I mean... :?
|
|
|
|
|
chanf
Jul 26, 2005, 4:48 AM
Post #110 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2004
Posts: 75
|
gender: F
age: 22
height: 5'6"
weight: 115
hardest sport: 11c
hardest trad: 7
hardest boulder: V2
ape index: +2
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 4:53 AM
Post #111 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula?
Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm.
Well, you asked.
Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 4:55 AM
Post #112 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
^^ I kinda sensed something like that coming ;)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 5:00 AM
Post #113 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
...you lost me after "beware" LMAO!!! ...as long as someone has it under control....
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jul 26, 2005, 5:10 AM
Post #114 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay
This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint!
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:21 AM
Post #115 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
I'm kinda glad I don't speak Nerdlish. No offense intended Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:22 AM
Post #116 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint!
Don't get me started:
In reply to: [T]he problem of producing any sort of objective difficulty scale for routes becomes a statistical one, requiring some sort of averaging of the opinions of a panel of climbers. Indeed, a method for producing such an objective difficulty scale has been developed, but surprisingly, has not yet seen universal acceptance. Form a post of mine on rec.climbing: In reply to: Good idea to use a logistic model of the odds of success, conditioned on the rating of the climb. Since the probability of success at a given rating depends on the climber's level of skill, incorporating terms for skill level and the interaction between skill level and rating generalizes the model. I suggest on-sight level be the skill variable, since redpointing doesn't translate well to trad climbing. Sticking with the logistic model, but standardizing the notation and adding the skill variable: 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 rating, rescaled in some sensible way 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 I'm pretty sure that this is the system that Randy Vogel plans to use in the new Josh guide. It should put a virtual end to arguments about grades. What we climbers will still have to talk about is beyond me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 26, 2005, 5:26 AM
Post #118 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? Oh, god, beware: post-Long-Island-Iced-Tea-but-nonetheless-almost-serious answer to follow. First of all, discard the "5" prefix. For grades 5.10 and above, use .00, .25 .50, and .75 for a, b, c, and d, respectively. Thus, 5.11c becomes 11.50, for instance. For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). If one wants to make the scale objective, one way to do so is to transform a rating such that the percentage of climbers in the poplulation who can climb the particular rating is proportional to the rating. In that case, the ratings, after transforming as above, should be further transformed by taking the logarithm. Well, you asked. Edit: What is sad is that I've actually given serious thought to this question in the past. -Jay This explanation definitely involves statistical viewpoint! Don't get me started: In reply to: [T]he problem of producing any sort of objective difficulty scale for routes becomes a statistical one, requiring some sort of averaging of the opinions of a panel of climbers. Indeed, a method for producing such an objective difficulty scale has been developed, but surprisingly, has not yet seen universal acceptance. Form a post of mine on rec.climbing: In reply to: Good idea to use a logistic model of the odds of success, conditioned on the rating of the climb. Since the probability of success at a given rating depends on the climber's level of skill, incorporating terms for skill level and the interaction between skill level and rating generalizes the model. I suggest on-sight level be the skill variable, since redpointing doesn't translate well to trad climbing. Sticking with the logistic model, but standardizing the notation and adding the skill variable: 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 rating, rescaled in some sensible way 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 I'm pretty sure that this is the system that Randy Vogel plans to use in the new Josh guide. It should put a virtual end to arguments about grades. What we climbers will still have to talk about is beyond me.
I'm pretty sure this is not a system Randy Vogel will use--he's a mere lawyer. :lol:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbinginchico
Jul 26, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #119 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 3032
|
Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 26, 2005, 5:28 AM
Post #120 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish.
Nerdy? What are you people talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
davidorchard
Jul 26, 2005, 5:33 AM
Post #121 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2002
Posts: 144
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just from a statistical viewpoint.... How does one go about "number crunching" averages on the YDS grades? Is there a mathematical formula? My take on it would be, when it comes to the 10 and up grades, it goes like this: 10a = 10.00 10b = 10.25 10c = 10.50 10d = 10.75 11a = 11.00 and so on. But I got nothing for 9+ (as it should be)
this is the method i am using. logarithms just aren't my bag, and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can).
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jul 26, 2005, 5:36 AM
Post #122 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Oh my goodness, what have I started? :shock:
In reply to: For ratings less than or equal to 5.9, a three number grade difference seems to be equal to a four letter grade difference (for grades greater than or equal to 5.10). |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 5:39 AM
Post #123 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: In reply to: Good lord Jay, now I'm really glad I don't speak Nerdlish. Nerdy? What are you people talking about? |
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Jul 26, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #124 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
In reply to: and i guess i just didn't give it as much thought as jt512 (not sure i even can). |
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 26, 2005, 5:40 AM
Post #125 of 174
(13297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
gender: m
age: 45
height: 6'1"
weight: 165
hardest sport: 5.13b
hardest trad: big wall 5.11d, single pitch 5.12b
hardest boulder: thought this was a climbing poll?
ape index: +2.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
