Cliches you're tired of hearing in Climbing?

"Squeeze handholds until water comes out"

"instant classic"

What's yours?

Maybe not a cliché, but "Gumby"

Seriously, who came up with that ridiculous expression? When I hear someone use it about a new climber, they go way down in my estimation.

Maybe not a cliché, but "Gumby"

Seriously, who came up with that ridiculous expression? When I hear someone use it about a new climber, they go way down in my estimation.

Maybe not a cliché, but "Gumby"

Seriously, who came up with that ridiculous expression? When I hear someone use it about a new climber, they go way down in my estimation.

Maybe not a cliché, but "Gumby"

Seriously, who came up with that ridiculous expression? When I hear someone use it about a new climber, they go way down in my estimation.

I have never heard the first cliche.

Me neither. must be region-specific.

--I dislike "alllez-allez" yelled as encouragement by anybody other than French speakers.

--The infinite variety of phrases that include "bro" and "brah"

--I dislike "alllez-allez" yelled as encouragement by anybody other than French speakers.

--The infinite variety of phrases that include "bro" and "brah"

Been called gumby a few too many times, eh?

Don't know who, but you're talking about a term that's been entrenched in US climbing vernacular for well over 25 years...... In fact, the way you worded your objections suggests that you may well be a Gumby.

Me neither. must be region-specific.

--I dislike "alllez-allez" yelled as encouragement by anybody other than French speakers.

--The infinite variety of phrases that include "bro" and "brah"

If you include "Take" then you need to include On Belay, Belay On, Climbing, Climbing On, Take On and Ready to Lower. I thought these were standard. Who new?

If you include "Take" then you need to include On Belay, Belay On, Climbing, Climbing On, Take On and Ready to Lower. I thought these were standard. Who new?

Don't forget "tension"

Who says "climbing on" and "take on"?

If you can't tell your partner has taken, then they haven't.

But if you believe your partner has taken, he hasn't necessarily, as many accidents have suggested; so a verbal confirmation from the belayer isn't a bad idea. I say "Got."

At my gym, belayers are instructed to say "Lower on" in response to "Lower." Now, that's retarded.

Jay

LOL.. actually, no. At least not to my face
Oh, wait......There's a first time for everything.


Thanks for the history lesson. I'm a little bit aware of US climbing vernacular as my first trad lead was in 1971 - using pitons for pro. And I've been pretty active since then.

We were all new climbers once. When I see someone new that might be a danger to himself or others, I prefer to offer help instead of ridicule. But, I'm not as cool as a lot of other people. After all, my first climbing partner was "Pokey"

Don't know who, but you're talking about a term that's been entrenched in US climbing vernacular for well over 25 years. It was used extensively in the Gunks and the Valley in the 80's. In the UK there's an even longer history of calling new climbers "bumblies". Since Gumby is green and someone new to an endeavor is also "green", it fits well. It was also helped by the Eddie Murphy sketches on SNL. Don't fight it. In fact, the way you worded your objections suggests that you may well be a Gumby.

Of course there are also these definitions: http://www.urbandictionary.com/...erm=gumby&page=4

http://books.google.com/...ge&q&f=false

From Wikipedia: Gumby
An inexperienced, unknowledgeable and oblivious climber; is a derogatory term. Gumbies are incapable of learning.

In the US military, specifically the Marines, the phrase "semper Gumby" is used to describe their demolition teams - meaning always flexible. It's a riff on the Marine motto semper fidelis - always faithful.

[Edit to fix botched link]

Still using pitons in '71? In Colorado we'd switched to home-made stoppers by '68.

Yeah, the lower on is a bit over the top, but I still believe the other commands are standard when teaching to new climbers, correct? Or am I missing something, you wouldnt just let go without confirmation?

"send"

and

"send it"

Curt

I think a lot of climbers were still using pins in '71.

"trad is rad"

all the variations of describing moderate nature hikes as an excuse for not wanting to try hard. exposure, mental challenge, blah blah

How about the cliche that because you climb trad, you don't want to (or are scared to) climb hard. Some of us traddies are trying harder stuff.

Josh

Agreed.

I was having a convesation with a climber here who does very routes where the gear needs to be placed. I was asking him about a route he did about 5 hours from Surabaya, and asked how difficult it was.

He answered with maybe 5.12, I was bit surprised considering I onsigthed every single pitch. (15 of them) and rated the route about 5.10d or 5.11a.

He explained that because the climber needed to place the gear, the route should be rated harder. I asked him, what would you rate the route if you were following, he said roughly 5.11b.

He didn't agree when I explained that placing or not placing the gear wasn't the determining factor in route rating, just the moves.

I was having a convesation with a climber here who does very routes where the gear needs to be placed. I was asking him about a route he did about 5 hours from Surabaya, and asked how difficult it was.

He answered with maybe 5.12, I was bit surprised considering I onsigthed every single pitch. (15 of them) and rated the route about 5.10d or 5.11a.

He explained that because the climber needed to place the gear, the route should be rated harder. I asked him, what would you rate the route if you were following, he said roughly 5.11b.

He didn't agree when I explained that placing or not placing the gear wasn't the determining factor in route rating, just the moves.

And I don't agree either.

In my guidebook to Vedauwoo, I wrote: “Hooker 10c. …. The rating takes into account the effort needed to protect the first 15 feet.”

On Mountain Project, a commentator on the route wrote,

” Heel & Toe [i.e., the guidebook] makes the comment that the 10c rating takes into account the difficulty in protecting the first 25 feet. This didn't make any sense to me until I led it.”

For another climb I rated 5.10a, I wrote, “No move is harder than 9. Protection is adequate. The rating takes into account the effort needed to set it.”

Your comment is OK for a sport climb with preplaced quick draws but does not take into account the subtleties that can arise in a traditional climb. Hanging out to place gear, and in these 2 climbs, small tricky gear, makes the climbing more difficult. Since the moves on toprope would be easier, I informed the reader of that. If the 10a in question were bolted (God forbid!), I would rate it 9.

Also, the ratings reflect what the difficulty level would be for someone climbing them for the first time and going ground up, which is the way I first climbed them. No top rope practice or anything like that.

Ratings for an area are not universal but reflect the history and traditions of the area.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

And I don't agree either.

In my guidebook to Vedauwoo, I wrote: “Hooker 10c. …. The rating takes into account the effort needed to protect the first 15 feet.”

On Mountain Project, a commentator on the route wrote,

” Heel & Toe [i.e., the guidebook] makes the comment that the 10c rating takes into account the difficulty in protecting the first 25 feet. This didn't make any sense to me until I led it.”

For another climb I rated 5.10a, I wrote, “No move is harder than 9. Protection is adequate. The rating takes into account the effort needed to set it.”

Your comment is OK for a sport climb with preplaced quick draws but does not take into account the subtleties that can arise in a traditional climb. Hanging out to place gear, and in these 2 climbs, small tricky gear, makes the climbing more difficult. Since the moves on toprope would be easier, I informed the reader of that. If the 10a in question were bolted (God forbid!), I would rate it 9.

Also, the ratings reflect what the difficulty level would be for someone climbing them for the first time and going ground up, which is the way I first climbed them. No top rope practice or anything like that.

Ratings for an area are not universal but reflect the history and traditions of the area.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

In response to Guangzhou and Blueeyed:

The essence of your arguments are given by Blueeyed’s statement

“Ratings are meant to convey free climbing ability, not protection rating. There are separate protection ratings for that …(G, PG, R, X)….”

If one took that literally, why not just rate a route by how it feels on toproping it?

This is an aside: In my guidebook, I state in the introduction that I do not use G, R, X (which works very well in many venues), because it’s pointless at Vedauwoo where the overwhelming majority of routes protect well. When routes do not protect safely, I state explicitly what the danger is, and I agree that being dangerous per se does not influence the rating.

However, I feel you are missing the distinction between a route that cannot be protected well and is inherently dangerous compared to a route that protects just fine but the time and energy required to place the protection adds to the difficulty of climbing. This is where a difference lies in grading a sport climb versus grading a traditional climb. In fact, there are some routes for which I down grade the rating because of the protection, e.g., if the hardest move is a well protected boulder problem getting off the ground, I may discount that in the rating. In rating Cat’s Cradle, 5.8+, I state that “The start of the second pitch is a well-protected 5.9 boulder problem… .”

Let me be even more adversarial: the rating should be attuned to the ability level of the climber. For example, on the 10a (Neon Madman) I mentioned earlier, the climb might appear as 5.9 to a 5.11+ leader, since they would run out a lot of it rather than place gear. It would definitely appear as 10a to a 5.9 or 10- leader who would require not just more endurance to climb the route but the need to find and hang out at stances for placing gear. and then actually placing it.

Anyway, realizing that not everyone agrees with my opinions , whenever the protection influences the rating in a significant way, I state that explicitly.

I first thought about this maybe 25 years or so ago when climbing the first pitch of Tagger at Eldorado. At that time, it had two pitons in it near the crux. I felt the climb was 5.9-. A couple of years later I climbed it after the pitons had been removed. The hanging out time for placing the gear definitely made the climb half grade harder. Clip and go is not the same as stop, get a stance, place gear and then go.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus

Really interesting discussion! Until now, I would always have taken Guanshou's position. But I actually think rob.com is right - there are situations where the gear can change the rating. Not on most climbs, but it does occasionally happen.

For example, you may have to get into a different more strenuous position to place the one piece of gear that protects the crux than you would if you were toproping the climb. And if you then have no rest between the placement and the crux, it could easily mean a letter grade difference.

P1 of Tagger is a pretty good example, in which you have to get in a really awkward position to see into the low slot by your feet to place gear there.

Cheers,

GO

Really interesting discussion! Until now, I would always have taken Guanshou's position. But I actually think rob.com is right - there are situations where the gear can change the rating. Not on most climbs, but it does occasionally happen.

For example, you may have to get into a different more strenuous position to place the one piece of gear that protects the crux than you would if you were toproping the climb. And if you then have no rest between the placement and the crux, it could easily mean a letter grade difference.

P1 of Tagger is a pretty good example, in which you have to get in a really awkward position to see into the low slot by your feet to place gear there.

Cheers,

GO

But isn't that precisely why most people (if not all) cannot climb the same grade on trad as they can on sport? And i'm talking on-sight, not using sport tactics. Do we need to change the grades because of that? When I check out a grade, I either know that I have the physically ability to do it or it's out of my league. How would you combine both the physicality of a route and the technical in one grading system? I would think you would still have to explain it in the route description, which would eliminate the need to do it in the first place. If I look at two 10a's, how would I know one is actually a 5.9 with tricky gear at the crux. And what does tricky gear mean? Would you explain that in the description? Would that be too much beta?

It just seems way too complicated.

Josh

However, I feel you are missing the distinction between a route that cannot be protected well and is inherently dangerous compared to a route that protects just fine but the time and energy required to place the protection adds to the difficulty of climbing. This is where a difference lies in grading a sport climb versus grading a traditional climb. In fact, there are some routes for which I down grade the rating because of the protection, e.g., if the hardest move is a well protected boulder problem getting off the ground, I may discount that in the rating. In rating Cat’s Cradle, 5.8+, I state that “The start of the second pitch is a well-protected 5.9 boulder problem… .”

I've been waiting for someone else to mention tyhis but since they haven't...

The YDS as it was defined almost 60 years ago was simple - climbs were rated by their single hardest move. Period. All these attempts to adjust (bump) the grade by factoring in the endurance required, the head required, the gear required.. are futile. If there is a 5.x move either you can do it or not. Doesn't matter TR or solo - you can do it or not.

Except--there is no way to precisely measure the grade in the first place - its all subjective. And inconsistent. Who cares?

I've been waiting for someone else to mention tyhis but since they haven't...

The YDS as it was defined almost 60 years ago was simple - climbs were rated by their single hardest move. Period. All these attempts to adjust (bump) the grade by factoring in the endurance required, the head required, the gear required.. are futile. If there is a 5.x move either you can do it or not. Doesn't matter TR or solo - you can do it or not.

Except--there is no way to precisely measure the grade in the first place - its all subjective. And inconsistent. Who cares?

The most common motivation behind downrating is protection of the downrater's self-image. Avoid the ridicule of having one's climb downrated. Downrate first and be safe. This type of game causes its most dedicated players to fool even themselves. Move rating is an outgrowth of this syndrome. Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!

I will never consider the gear required as part of the grade unless you have to traverse through harder terrain to get to it. I will never, ever factor the 'head' factor into a climb. What I will always factor in, however, is endurance. If you can't understand that a 100 foot climb of v4 moves without reasonable rests is not 5.12a you are totally hopeless.

I do, however, agree that there is no way to measure grades accurately. It will always be a simple guess, largely based on a momentary feeling right after the climber has finished.

com a mão - in portuguese literally means "with your hand," but when it's said quickly it sounds like "come on."

How about the cliche that because you climb trad, you don't want to (or are scared to) climb hard. Some of us traddies are trying harder stuff.

Josh

Yes, some traddies are trying harder stuff. Just not Jake.

Yes, some traddies are trying harder stuff. Just not Jake.

Wait, so what you're saying is that this term means "Come with your hand?"

Thanks, but I'm married.

But isn't that precisely why most people (if not all) cannot climb the same grade on trad as they can on sport? And i'm talking on-sight, not using sport tactics. Do we need to change the grades because of that? When I check out a grade, I either know that I have the physically ability to do it or it's out of my league. How would you combine both the physicality of a route and the technical in one grading system? I would think you would still have to explain it in the route description, which would eliminate the need to do it in the first place. If I look at two 10a's, how would I know one is actually a 5.9 with tricky gear at the crux. And what does tricky gear mean? Would you explain that in the description? Would that be too much beta?

It just seems way too complicated.

Josh

What's wrong with simply grading the route based on how hard it is to climb it? That's really all I'm saying, it's simply that there are occasional routes in which you literally have to pull a harder move to lead it.

For example, there is a route in North Conway (can't remember the name offhand) that follows a feature for a whole pitch, in which to place nearly every piece you need to move out right on shit feet, do a hard layback, lock off while fighting the barn-door, and place your piece. Those moves are harder than the ones required to actually move up. It would be silly to ignore those moves when grading the pitch - they're part of the climb, aren't they?

GO

PG, R, and X capture the difficulty in placing pro, que no?

Sounds like the diagonal crack on Intimidation?

And speaking of which, the crux first pitch is considerably more scary and harder to protect if you don't have the beta to protect the bottom of the corner with two wired stoppers linked together, or taping one to a short cheater stick.

The moves all remain the same, though, as opposed to Jack the Ripper, which is hella more strenuous to hang out and protect vs firing through with no gear and protecting once you hit the bottom of the hand crack.

Not really, these describe the consequences of a fall using the available pro. These do nothing to describe an increase in the difficulty of climbing a route while placing pro. The pro can be good, i.e. it is a g rated route, but still have the difficulty increase when you alter the sequence to stop and place gear (vs. the moves required to make upward progress).

....because that's how it feels for the follower, then so be it. No point in using a system no-one else uses, if the objective is to communicate.

GO

My approach is a bit different, I roam the crags, look up and see lines that are interesting, climb them, then look them up in the book.

"'PG, R, and X' .... describe the consequences of a fall using the available pro"

Is there a specific consequence for each? Where I've seen R, it meant that a ground fall would result from missing a particular clip.

.

For example, there is a route in North Conway (can't remember the name offhand) that follows a feature for a whole pitch, in which to place nearly every piece you need to move out right on shit feet, do a hard layback, lock off while fighting the barn-door, and place your piece. Those moves are harder than the ones required to actually move up. It would be silly to ignore those moves when grading the pitch - they're part of the climb, aren't they?

GO

Sounds like the diagonal crack on Intimidation?

Okay, I had to look it up. The climb I'm thinking of is Intimidation.


I didn't have the beta, I was climbing with a local, we were under the route, and he said we should climb Intimidation. I said where is it, he pointed up, off we went. No idea what it was rated when I started, and had never climbed with the guy before that day, we had just finished another route together. I did figure out the nut placement thing, but I'd done it elsewhere prior. Lead every pitch because he had been on the route so many time. The last pitch was dirty nd exciting.







Not familiar with that one, sorry.

GO

You can't develop an eye any other way. Skip the book - eyeball and epic - you'll be that much better climber for it. Use the books and you'll become dependent on them. It's just another form of stepping out to risk and what FAs are all about - something catching your eye that you just have to get on. Forget the books, forget the chalk and find your own way.

But then I suppose even that's almost a cliche these days...

"'PG, R, and X' .... describe the consequences of a fall using the available pro"

Is there a specific consequence for each? Where I've seen R, it meant that a ground fall would result from missing a particular clip.

.

Sounds like the diagonal crack on Intimidation?

And speaking of which, the crux first pitch is considerably more scary and harder to protect if you don't have the beta to protect the bottom of the corner with two wired stoppers linked together, or taping one to a short cheater stick.

The thing that would weigh on my mind in the other direction is the importance of consensus. If I were to rate a climb, say 5.10, because it felt mid 10 to lead, but everyone else thinks that it should be rated 10- because that's how it feels for the follower, then so be it. No point in using a system no-one else uses, if the objective is to communicate.

GO

Beat me to it.

I didn't have the beta, I was climbing with a local, we were under the route, and he said we should climb Intimidation. I said where is it, he pointed up, off we went. No idea what it was rated when I started, and had never climbed with the guy before that day, we had just finished another route together. I did figure out the nut placement thing, but I'd done it elsewhere prior. Lead every pitch because he had been on the route so many time. The last pitch was dirty nd exciting.

Love Jack the Ripper, an excellent route.

No, these rating assume you are using the protection that is available on the climb, not "missing a clip".

I'll quote from my Seneca guidebook (Tony Barnes):

"R-Longer runouts or runouts with groundfall potential; protection widely spaced or dubious in quality. In the event of a fall there is significant danger of injury or death.

X- Unprotected routes or climbs with no protection over long stretches of difficult rock. A fall would most likely result in serious injury or death."

IMO, there is no such thing (or at least shouldn't be) as an R/X rated sport climb. If a climb truly is a sport climb, then it should have been bolted in a manner that keeps the climber safe assuming they correctly use the available protection. I like to think of R/X bolted climbs more as bolted trad climbs and not sport routes. More often than not, these "bolted trad lines" were bolted ground-up anyway.

Well I don't know why both of you came up with that. I've also done Intimidation, and, to the best of my recollection, it does not have any moves that would qualify for what I'm talking about. Again, the route I happened to be thinking of was Retaliation.


The last pitch had some very cool routefinding IIRC. The moves are all there at the grade, and the pro is adequate. I suspect it helps to have the eye of a first ascentionist, otherwise you're going to look around and not see a clear direction.


Cool, I'll have to check it out next time I'm back in the area.

GO

The YDS as it was defined almost 60 years ago was simple - climbs were rated by their single hardest move. Period. All these attempts to adjust (bump) the grade by factoring in the endurance required, the head required, the gear required.. are futile. If there is a 5.x move either you can do it or not. Doesn't matter TR or solo - you can do it or not.

You can't develop an eye any other way. Skip the book - eyeball and epic - you'll be that much better climber for it. Use the books and you'll become dependent on them. It's just another form of stepping out to risk and what FAs are all about - something catching your eye that you just have to get on. Forget the books, forget the chalk and find your own way.

But then I suppose even that's almost a cliche these days...

Your statement postulates that an historical event, viz., the invention of the YDS system took place 60 years ago and that the YDS rules stated that a climb was to be graded by the single hardest move. No information was presented to verify the validity of this assertion, which got me interested in seeing what I could find out about how the YDS originated. My search isn’t comprehensive, and Google wasn’t of much help so that if anyone has further information, I’d like to see it. Maybe some rainy day, I’ll go to AAC Library in Golden and see what else I can find out about this.

There’s validity to your assertion “climbs were rated by hardest single move.” They “were” then in the Tahquitz Decimal System (TDS). The Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), is derived from TDS . (Curiously, neither is decimal). When TDS started being used in Yosemite, it morphed into YDS at which point the historical evidence indicates that being rated by “hardest single move” had been modified.

In Ref. 1, p. 23, it is stated, “The decimal rating [in TDS]indicates the technical difficulty of the most difficult pitch (more accurately the most difficult move) on a particular route.” Since Chuck Wilts was an early Tahquitz climber knowledgeable about the origin of the TDS, one can safely assume that was part of the original definition. However, James Erickson has a modification of this, Ref 2., p. “ [TDS] graded the routes according to their hardest move (or series of moves between resting points).” [italics mine]. So early on the notion of “single hardest move” was in question because it’s not always easy to define what is the single hardest move, and, anyways, is there a difference in rating between having one hard move versus three hard moves in a row.

By the time the YDS evolved from the TDS, the definition had changed, with the strenuous or sustained quality of a pitch influencing the rating. In his book written in 1981, Ref. 3, p. 123-4, long time southern California climber Michael Loughman provides a good summary of the development of the TDS and its morphing into the YDS. He writes, “ As climbing standards advance…newer routes are often of more sustained difficulty than earlier routes. An early-day 5.7 pitch likely involved one or two 5.7 moves. Today a pitch may require 5.7 move after 5.7 without let-up…Reed’s Pinnacle Direct in Yosemite, for example. Is such a pitch 5.7? The Reed’s Direct Crack was originally rated 5.10 and later demoted to 5.9. There are no individual 5.9 moves on it. But if it were rated 5.7, it would be the most strenuous 5.7 pitch around.” Along these same lines, the doyens of Yosemite guidebook authors, George Myers and Don Reid, wrote, Ref. 4, p. 37, “Yosemite has usually addressed the difficulty of its continuously strenuous cracks as a pitch-by-pitch problem, not one of move-by-move. Thus an incredibly sustained route like Meat Grinder, which has no single move over 5.9 is rated 5.10c.” And now even for Tahquitz, Randy Vogel writes (Ref. 5, p.3), “In general, the rating given a climb rates the most difficult move or series of moves on a climb. Sometimes a route with sustained climbing at a particular grade will be given a higher overall rating.” In Ref. 6, p. 8, Scott Kimball wrote, “Climbs are usually rated by their hardest technical move. The exception is where twenty or more feet of continuous climbing at one grade is encountered; the bumps the rating of the pitch up to the next highest grade.”

My conclusion is that for at least the last 40 years, many respected guidebook authors have realized that more accuracy is achieved by considering factors other than the single hardest move in rating a climb. The most difficult move on a climb may be predominant in rating a climb but, the rating also depends on everything else, as I was told at Lovers Leap in 1973 when first learning about ratings.

Thus, the assertion that by factoring in items other than the difficulty of the single hardest move is “futile” does not appear to be the case. Respected first ascensionists and guidebook authors have been doing it successfully for over four decades.

And the average climber also understands this. In 1989, I led Illusion Dweller (10b) at Joshua Tree. This thread made me think about that because of the discussion I had with my partner atop the climb about the rating. Given the brief description in the old guidebook, I didn’t know much about it. Looking at if from the ground, I saw a long, wide, right-leaning crack that finished with what looked like an easy finger crack. Since I’m used to climbing wide cracks, that section went smoothly. When I got to the exit crack, it proved much harder than it looked from the ground. Fortunately, there was a good stance below it. I climbed up a few times setting gear working out the moves, and then carefully down climbed to the stance. I did this about 3 times and having wired the opening moves finished the crack briskly. Sitting atop the climb, my partner said the exit seemed 10d. I said only 10b since there was a good stance from which to boulder-out the moves. If there had been no such stance, the exit would have been at least 10d. Thus how this exit crack is rated depends on what is at its base and not just how hard the climbing is in some abstract sense. Given the discussion here, I looked at Mt. Project yesterday to see what comments there were on Illusion Dweller by ordinary climbers. Here are some of the 4 comments

• Each one of the several cruxes is well protected, mostly by medium-sized stoppers. Each crux has a nice rest afterwards as well, to keep someone pressing the grade from getting too pumped

• The final 10b boulder move at the top regularly spits out leaders, probably because they're pretty tired.

• The roof crux wasn't bad at all. Definitely would be a lower grade if it was at the start of the climb.

• I never thought the start was that tough, and the "crux" finish is only the crux because of fatigue.

• The top crux protects perfectly and isn't that hard depending on how much rodent/bird poop is in the dish you're going for [r.c: never considered that]

• Ultimately, the roof did prove to be the crux for me I guess; I blew my onsight here. Fatigue was definitely a factor!

• Only pushes 10b because of the length, 10a overall with the main crux at the bottom.

Since the 1960s, distinguished first ascensionists and authors as well average climbers do not find the YDS, which takes into account more than the single hardest move, to be complex and experience no futility in its use.

Rob.calm

P.S. Here’s a link to the full article by Bridwell (From Ascent, Volume 2 Number 1, July 1973) on the rating of climbs that was referenced by Shotwell

http://home.comcast.net/...uni/doc/Ignorant.txt

References

1. Wilts, Chuck, Tahquitz and Suicide Rocks, 6. ed., The American Alpine Club, New York, 1979.
2. Erickson, Jim. Rocky Heights, A Guide to Boulder Free Climbs, self published, Boulder CO, 1980.
3. Loughman, Michael, Learning to Rock Climb, Sierra Club Book, San Francisco, 1981.
4. Meyers, George and Don Reid, Yosemite Climbs, Chockstone Press, Denver, 1987.
5. Vogel, Randy and Bob Gaines, Tahquitz and Suicide Rocks, Chockstone Press, Evergreen, Colorado, 1993.
6. Kimball, Scott, Lumpy Ridge and Estes Park Climbs, Chockstone Press, Denver, 1986.

Your statement postulates that an historical event,
...

Since the 1960s, distinguished first ascensionists and authors as well average climbers do not find the YDS, which takes into account more than the single hardest move, to be complex and experience no futility in its use.

Rob.calm

Thank you for such a well-researched, well-written response on this.

[T]here is no way to measure the difficulty of a climb. It's incredibly subjective.

Shouldn't I get any credit for being the antagonist?

Here is my entry for a climbing cliche that I'm tired of seeing:


Jay

...Typically a pejorative, "clichés" are not always false or inaccurate...

cliche: platitude: a trite or obvious remark.