|
rocknice2
Apr 10, 2014, 4:08 PM
Post #51 of 64
(4666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1221
|
jacques wrote: So, NCCS was made by comparing similar difficulty for different climb all over the area. If you climb a 5.10, it is not wrote if it is a slab, face or diedral. In the same way, the NCCS told you what will be the highest move, but don't told you if the problem is route finding, placing pro or other thing. The use of time can be questionable, after thought, I think that I understand why they used it and why they use different other system for protection rating.
That's exactly what the NCCS is. A time rating! How much time it takes the average climber of that routes grade to finish the route.
protection has little to do with it and it certainly doesn't tell you if the route is slab or roof.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Apr 10, 2014, 6:10 PM
Post #52 of 64
(4647 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
How come Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book? Could it be itīs useless and failed to make the transition in the 60īs from rock climbing being a sub-discipline of Alpine climbing to a sport in itīs own right with itīs own set of priorities? The UIAA had a crap system the same which lasted until about 1968 when they dicovered that one mans heroic grade 6 done over days or weeks of suffering on some Alpine wall was another climbers afternoon cruise.
(Read Messners the Seventh grade for some insight onto how a grade system of this type fails to work).
Iīll just carry on being a sport and trad climber and on my visits to the USA use the YDS like usual, it seems as erratic as any other system around which is o.k. The rest of the stuff Iīll just guess.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Apr 11, 2014, 4:58 AM
Post #53 of 64
(4620 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Allow me to recapitulate some of the comments I made on the SuperTopo thread.
The NCCS system was primarily an attempt to standardize ratings over the entire country, by providing national lists of example climbs at each grade level from different areas. It was used in a few guidebooks, notably of course Ortenburger's, and in some climbing accounts in the AAJ.
The free-climbing difficulties ranged from F1 to F10 ("F" for free.) From F7 up, the grades were identical to the YDS, but below F7 there was some compacting of grades, which made a lot of sense.
Then there were the aid-climbing grades A1 to A5, which I think may have been an innovation of the system. Previously, the aid ratings were on the same decimal system as the free ratings, which is to say 6.0 to 6.9. It became clear pretty quickly that ten aid grades were far too many and cutting the number in half was a sensible solution that has stood the test of time.
Finally, there were the "overall commitment" grades I - VI (and a VII added later) which were supposed to convey something about how long and committing the climb is, analogously to the alpine adjectival grades in France. These too have survived, to some extent, in areas with differences in length and commitment substantial enough to merit explicit distinctions.
What happened to the total package? The decimal system was already too established and won out over the more sensibly compressed F-system, even though the F-system was mostly the same. I think Roper's Yosemite Guide was the nail in the coffin.
The idea of standardizing grading via example routes, in spite of its obvious value, never caught on, not even at the local level. So it is that in addition to the inevitable variability in a system based on rather subjective judgements, we added all the local variations in the application of the grades, introducing further inconsistencies that require one to somehow factor in the perceived local bias.
As to what exactly 5.8 or F8 meant (hardest move or total strain), that was a matter for animated debate at the time and has never really been settled in an explicit way, although I think nowadays most people think the grade represents an evaluation of total effort and not the difficulty of the hardest move.
|
|
|
|
|
jacques
Apr 15, 2014, 7:29 PM
Post #54 of 64
(4537 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2008
Posts: 318
|
JimTitt wrote: How come Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book?.
Ed Webster guide book use that classification
Don mellor in the dask use it too
in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too.
Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 16, 2014, 12:55 AM
Post #55 of 64
(4514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jacques wrote: JimTitt wrote: How come Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book?. Ed Webster guide book use that classification Don mellor in the dask use it too in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too. Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it
That's probably because sport climbing areas tend to be mostly single-pitch with relatively easy approaches. I'm not saying they're all like that, but it's not as common to find grade II sport climbs let alone grade IV compared to, say, alpine routes. It kind of makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 16, 2014, 11:45 AM
Post #56 of 64
(4496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jacques wrote: JimTitt wrote: How come Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book?. Ed Webster guide book use that classification Don mellor in the dask use it too in the yos, some older bible with more than double the number of climb than sport use it too. Only in sport climbing mentality book that they never use it
Jacques, here is what you need to do:
1. Read rgold's post that is RIGHT above your last one.
2. Stop posting in this thread.
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Apr 16, 2014, 7:07 PM
Post #57 of 64
(4463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
jacques wrote: JimTitt wrote: How come Iīve never seen a classification system thatīs been around 50 years in a guide book?. Ed Webster guide book use that classification Don mellor in the ['dacks] use it too
(image reference: Climbing In The Adirondacks, Don Mellor, 1988)
...which in hindsight seems far from necessary, seeing as (short of maybe Wallface) nothing in the 'dacks is more than a half day climb.
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Apr 16, 2014, 7:08 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
mellor.jpg
(54.3 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
jacques
Apr 16, 2014, 11:23 PM
Post #58 of 64
(4446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2008
Posts: 318
|
sbaclimber wrote: [quote "jacques...only what rgold referred to as "overall commitment": (image reference: Climbing In The Adirondacks, Don Mellor, 1988)
The commitment rate is the NCCS, it is three number: first is the overall difficulty, second the hardiest move and third the aid climbing rating.
The over all difficulty is route finding, rope management, weather, and some other difficulty that I dont remember.
The time was used because if you are weak at rope management, you will take more time as well as if you ar weak at route finding.
The classification was proposed in 1963, but in the dack, if you look at fastest gun, it will be rate II or III, 5.10. It is the NCCS or rating system.
That people don't learn how to used it is more than a problem in safety.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Apr 17, 2014, 7:45 AM
Post #59 of 64
(4422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
jacques wrote: That people don't learn how to used it is more than a problem in safety.
As both JimTitt and rgold pointed out, (almost) nobody uses these grades in a cragging guide any more. Even the fact that Don Mellor used them is now pretty much moot, seeing as the now 2nd edition of the guide that replaced his (Adirondack Rock) is coming out relatively soon, and only contains specific mention of the grade for the few IVs on Wallface.
(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Apr 17, 2014, 2:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Apr 17, 2014, 4:59 PM
Post #60 of 64
(4392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 1002
|
Iīm impressed that Jacques climbs in an area where beginners climb 4 pitch 5.10bīs and therefore need a īcommitmentī grade to make the route more accessible and increase safety, on the other hand itīs a bit depressing that even he has forgotten the criteria which go to make up the grade.
Judging by the bumblies I encountered at RR the other week it would be impossible to think of an adequate conventional system which covers the slowness, ineptitude and downright faffing about I saw, perhaps a NooB grade is called for.
Walk-in X 1.5, young and fit but carry too much shit and talk a lot. Busy texting and walk into a cactus.
Find Route X 10 as they donīt know what an obvious diedre is.
Gear Up X 10 as they carry 10 times more gear and partner check everything.
Climb 1st Pitch X 5 as they place all the gear theyīve got. Get pumped as the pitch is 5m longer than down the gym.
Build Belay X 10, placed the ideal pieces lower down, forgotten how to tie a cordalette. Canīt use guide mode as belay is too low so have to what they were taught about remember normal belaying. Drop belay plate but carry spare.
Climb second pitch X 5, go off route three times until they work out you climb the chalked, polished holds going the easiest way up. Run out of energy bars/isotonic drink.
Descent X 5 Canīt find the trodden out path to the collection of rap tat. Worry about the old rap tat. Forgot how to tie the klemheist required for a 6m rap. Pull rope down with knots still in end. Miss the trodden out path back to their sacks.
Walk Out X 1.5 Get lost, tired, hungry and dehydrated. Lack the ability to smell beer from 10 miles away.
Bonus grade for:- Lose car keys, forgot the rope at the bottom of the route. Crying.
|
|
|
|
|
JohnCook
Apr 17, 2014, 6:40 PM
Post #61 of 64
(4382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: 221
|
Excellent.
Sounds just like Wales last weekend.
On 5 pitch HS 4c. Party of three had left member 3 on a ledge with no rope or gear because he couldn't do next pitch. Their rope was too short to ab off, so they left him!!. When we got to him he was shaking and in shock, couldn't tie a rethread figure eight knot, had no belay device, and even if he had didn't know how to use one, and he had never heard of any back-up to his ab device.
His friends were quite adament that he could easily lead 6b/+ indoors! We were no too pleased about lowering him off, but if we hadn't it seems their next action was to call out the rescue team.
They would have scored highly on the bumbly scale, and would score even higher as they were planning on doing an E1 5b next.
(I suggested that they didn't, but not very politely!)
A simple grading system like the UK is easy and simple, and let the wierd Jacque sort himself out! He seems to want someone to tell him everything about the climb, does that include gear, where to put it, what to hold and where to put his feet?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Apr 17, 2014, 9:00 PM
Post #63 of 64
(4361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
JimTitt wrote: ...young and fit but carry too much shit and talk a lot. Busy texting and walk into a cactus.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Apr 17, 2014, 10:54 PM
Post #64 of 64
(4347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Hahaha! That's one of the funniest posts I've read on any site ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
