|
bouldersdothebodygood
Oct 25, 2005, 3:00 AM
Post #1 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 133
|
In the most recent issue of Climbing magazine which is dedicated to bouldering, the idea of having a rating system for the "regular" stumpy topout bouldering problems, and a different one for traverses and climbs longer than 20 or so moves. i was wondering what the rest of the bouldering world though about this?
|
|
|
|
|
dubforceone
Oct 25, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #2 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 83
|
Im not to concerned with what rating scale is used...ratings just tell me if something is completely over my head or worth giving a try...I do know that gunsmoke in j-tree pretty rough for a v2...although most of the moves are not that difficlult you have to be in real good shape..
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 25, 2005, 4:15 AM
Post #3 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...I do know that gunsmoke in j-tree pretty rough for a v2...although most of the moves are not that difficlult you have to be in real good shape.. Perhaps because Gunsmoke isn't really a boulder problem--it's a traversing 5.11 route that you don't need a rope for. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bouldersdothebodygood
Oct 25, 2005, 4:43 AM
Post #4 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 133
|
hey curt, that is kind of the point. should long traverses be rated in the sport climb category? or bouldering or something new?
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Oct 25, 2005, 3:09 PM
Post #5 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
Ugh... just what the world needs... one more thing to complicate a pretty simple activity and one more thing for climbers to argue and bicker about. :P :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
landgolier
Oct 25, 2005, 3:38 PM
Post #6 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 714
|
Even if you care about grades, I think once you get over about V3 the equivalency of the various V and YDS grades is pretty well established. I think the real controversy comes up because of sponsorship, where a lot of the guys who are pulling the sicko-mondo short problems feel like they have to compete for status and $$ with people who are pulling long routes close to the ground and deriving some of the difficulty from the sustained nature of the routes. Given that there are approximately zero v13+ sponsored climbers on this site and nobody involved in this discussion who can climb wheel of life or witness the fitness, I suggest we all shut our yaps and go climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
bouldersdothebodygood
Oct 26, 2005, 2:33 AM
Post #7 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 133
|
Sorry landgolier it was just a question. No need to snap dude!
|
|
|
|
|
landgolier
Oct 26, 2005, 3:17 AM
Post #8 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 714
|
not snapping, just saying, this is one step away from "batman could beat up superman."
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Oct 26, 2005, 3:34 AM
Post #9 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
There are traverse grades seperate from boulder and route grades in the french system, for what it's worth. It gets confusing when you see someone on a traversing boulder problem and you don't know if it's 8a traverse or 8a boulder, it just says "Monsieur Lefrog en La Va A Le Blahblah, 8a" I really don't think a third system is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 26, 2005, 4:57 AM
Post #10 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: hey curt, that is kind of the point. should long traverses be rated in the sport climb category? or bouldering or something new? I don't think there is an exact answer to your question, but classic old school (i.e Gill, Holloway, etal.) boulder problems were rarely more than a half-dozen or so difficult, gymnastic type moves--and often had fewer moves than that. When endurance begins to be the determining factor for success, rather than power, I would say you have departed the realm of bouldering, as it was originally defined, and moved on to something else. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
roshiaitareya
Oct 26, 2005, 5:05 AM
Post #11 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2004
Posts: 345
|
So why not just call them V2 sustained for longer V2's or V2T for long traverses or something of the sort? I don't know, I just check the tag to see if I can do it or not. If it says V2 and I can't do it I'm not going to piss and moan about how it's rated unfairly, I'm just going to move on to another problem. P.S. Superman could whip batman because superman is invincible
|
|
|
|
|
rainontin
Oct 27, 2005, 10:46 PM
Post #12 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: P.S. Superman could whip batman because superman is invincible Superman is a chump. Batman, hands down.
|
|
|
|
|
robbleebob
Oct 27, 2005, 11:39 PM
Post #13 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 16
|
I don't think there is anything wrong with a new system. There are obviously some people in the community who feel that their climbs aren't well labeled. Let them make the new system, feel special, and then we can all ignore/embrace it if we choose. I am happy that people are still developing new parts of climbing, and pushing conventional bouldering techniques to develop. I personally enjoy longer bouldering problems that require me to work on technique while pumped, and that I can do it on my own if no patner is free. However, the idea of adding on to the current "V" system, as mentioned before, does make the most sense. Hope it goes well!! PS- Batman all the way!!
|
|
|
|
|
timhinck
Nov 1, 2005, 5:55 PM
Post #14 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2001
Posts: 204
|
I agree with the Font-grade system that simply posts a description to the rating. basically, "6c traverse" means "this is a 6c if you like traverses but probably will feel harder if you don't". I think there is really only one other factor that could make a difference in the grade noticable enough to warrant a grade change or specification: endurance. I agree with the common consensus that height or scare factor should NOT change the grade, but only be considered by the boulderer before he hops on the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
gnat
Nov 1, 2005, 6:11 PM
Post #15 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2004
Posts: 85
|
Superman could whip batman because superman is invincible
|
|
|
|
|
gnat
Nov 1, 2005, 6:14 PM
Post #16 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2004
Posts: 85
|
Superman could whip batman because superman is invincible
|
|
|
|
|
jupalon
Nov 1, 2005, 6:22 PM
Post #17 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2005
Posts: 10
|
I thought that there were to separate approaches to grading straight ups and traverses, at least as far as Font-grading goes. So there are to separate grading systems in one sense, but they are pronounced the same way: E.g. 7A, but then there's a difference between a 6A traverse and a 7A straight up. That's at least my experience :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
jupalon
Nov 1, 2005, 6:23 PM
Post #18 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2005
Posts: 10
|
I thought that there were to separate approaches to grading straight ups and traverses, at least as far as Font-grading goes. So there are to separate grading systems in one sense, but they are pronounced the same way: E.g. 7A, but then there's a difference between a 6A traverse and a 7A straight up. That's at least my experience :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
gnat
Nov 1, 2005, 10:51 PM
Post #20 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2004
Posts: 85
|
Famous quotes by iltrip: "I have no clue....." Thu Sep 15, 2005 After a brief chuckle at the decent rope, we walked on down the gully Tue Sep 27, 2005 learn to spell you clueless gumby.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Nov 1, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #21 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
I've always used the YDS system for crack boulder problems and V for more traditional. For me, the problem is already solved. Rate it what it feels like.
|
|
|
|
|
jemco
Nov 1, 2005, 11:31 PM
Post #22 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2005
Posts: 77
|
I think in these discussions it is important to check the history of ratings. The whole concept of rating a climb (long, short, boulder, traverse, whatever) stems from two things: 1)the desire to quantify our accomplishments 2)the desire to choose routes that were reasonable (and perhaps safer) for climbers that would follow. Verm, for instance didn't need to call Local Flakes V2 for his benefit, he clearly knew how hard that problem was, but instead labeled it V2 for others that would later climb it (or not waste their time as it was too hard, etc.) I believe the current V scale still accounts for both of these issues even with traverses. Certainly a V9 "move" after 46 other moves would not be simply called V9 because it would "feel" harder after all those moves. Additionally, most traverses say "traverse" in their description and make it quite obvious they will be longer. Really we need to remember that all climbers choose problems (even within each grade) based on any number of criteria beyond the grade. When Lisa Rands wants to send a V12, you can be certain that she investigates which V12 is most likely to go for her--based on style of climbing (slopers, crimpers, reachy, powerful, etc) as well as the grade. Before too long we'll need a sloper grade, a crimpy grade, a reachy grade, a powerful grade, a technical grade, a..... you get the point. I say NO, we don't need a "new" rating system, we simply need to use the one we have. jemco
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 2, 2005, 12:27 AM
Post #23 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: I don't think there is an exact answer to your question, but classic old school (i.e Gill, Holloway, etal.) boulder problems were rarely more than a half-dozen or so difficult, gymnastic type moves--and often had fewer moves than that. When endurance begins to be the determining factor for success, rather than power, I would say you have departed the realm of bouldering, as it was originally defined, and moved on to something else. But that doesn't necessarily mean a single rating system is incoherent. Should short power routes get V grades instead of YDS grades? (You know better than I do that there are plenty of old school boulder problems originally rated using the YDS.) What about comparing 5-10 meter power-endurance routes with 110ft endurance routes? How many rating systems do we need? To me it's all the same, and the problems of having a single rating system are fewer than the problems and confusions of having multiple rating systems (cf. the font traverse grade stuff mentioned earlier).
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Nov 2, 2005, 12:33 AM
Post #24 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
There seems to be a bit of misconception here about the French grading system. Here is my attempt to clear it up a small bit! The French sport grade is for routes and is a measure of the overall difficulty of a particular route not the hardest move. It is normally written 7a (in your money YDS 5.11d). Below is a conversion table. http://www.rockfax.com/.../trad_grade_safe.pdf The Font grade originated in Fontainbleau and is used for boulders. Although easily confused with the sport grade it is totally different. The convention http://8a.nu uses is to write it 7A (in your money V6). It is also written as Font 7a. http://www.rockfax.com/...fs/boulder_grade.pdf Where it gets confusing is long traverses (which share more in common with routes really) are normally given a sports grade not a Font grade. So our traverse that is given a sports grade of 7a could also be given as Font 6a+. Where I climb in the UK on the south coast, we use English trad grades for trad climbs, French sports grades for sports routes and your very own V grade for boulder problems. Confusing! :)
|
|
|
|
|
iltripp
Nov 2, 2005, 1:56 AM
Post #25 of 48
(7021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1607
|
In reply to: Famous quotes by iltrip: "I have no clue....." Thu Sep 15, 2005 After a brief chuckle at the decent rope, we walked on down the gully Tue Sep 27, 2005 learn to spell you clueless gumby. Dude... get a fvcking life. I jokingly responded to your idiocy about superman and batman and you decided to look up my past posts and find a single spelling error. Are you an adolescent or just retarded? Grow up, fvcktard.
|
|
|
|
|
gnat
Nov 2, 2005, 4:09 PM
Post #26 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 21, 2004
Posts: 85
|
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: insects have a very short life span; so we have to take everything seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 2, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #27 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
The British system already incorporates hardest move and severity. As for the systems in general, I feel that everything worked well when boulder problems were rated like routes - by the hardest move or sequence of moves. The V system, in my opinion, is pointless. Climbing is climbing, so why not use a consistent system throughout all of it, so that correlations can be made from one discipline to another. I can easily rate every problem that I've ever done by the YDS system. The way to make that complete would be to add either a T (technical), E (Endurance), P (power), or any combination of the three to it, e.g. 12E+, 14P, 15TE-, etc. It's that simple, and then you could relate it to roped climbing. You would know that 12E had no 5.12 moves, but that the lengthy sequence equaled that, and 14P would easily represent a 5.14 move or short sequence - just like on routes. We humans are so funny. We get bored too easily, so we feel that we have to constantly reinvent things. Sometimes that's necessary, although sometimes the old maxim "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" applies perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
bensnyder
Nov 4, 2005, 1:06 AM
Post #28 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 183
|
I do like the idea of the british system, however it doesn't describe a route well if that route has more than one crux and (i think) takes manky gear into account. I think the best system would be something that rates the sustained sections and cruxs seperatly. For example: a 5.13 route with a v7 crux, a v5 crux, and sustained 5.10b climbing could be rated: 5.10 v5,7 This rating shows whether the route is a power or endurance route and better describes its difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 4, 2005, 2:19 AM
Post #29 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: and sustained 5.10b climbing could be rated: 5.10 v5,7 This rating shows whether the route is a power or endurance route and better describes its difficulty. Sorry, Ben. Your logic is a bit off. If V5 is 5.12, and V7 is 5.13, then how can a route be rated 5.10 V5,7? I'll assume that you type-o'd or were taking advantage of the new Denver measure. As I said before - if V5 means 5.12, then why not just call it 5.12T,E, or P? If you need to feel original, reinvent your own identity. You don't need to reinvent things that already work perfectly well.
|
|
|
|
|
bensnyder
Nov 4, 2005, 3:15 AM
Post #30 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: Sorry, Ben. Your logic is a bit off. If V5 is 5.12, and V7 is 5.13, then how can a route be rated 5.10 V5,7? I'll assume that you type-o'd or were taking advantage of the new Denver measure. As I said before - if V5 means 5.12, then why not just call it 5.12T,E, or P? If you need to feel original, reinvent your own identity. You don't need to reinvent things that already work perfectly well. We're both reinventing something that works well. To say it is perfect is far from the truth.
In reply to: if V5 means 5.12, then why not just call it 5.12T,E, or P Because V5 doesnt mean 5.12 - it means V5. They are two seperate scales and cannot be compared well (as evidenced by all the bickering that takes place on this site over Vscale/YDS conversions). My logic elaborated: a 5.12 with a V5 crux would be a physical route with easy sustained climbing and one or two hard moves. If the 5.12 had a V2 crux, it would be more of an endurance route because the sustained climbing is harder. The hypothetical ratings for these two routes might be: 5.9 v5 and 5.11 v2 These ratings both suggest similar difficulty, but they also suggest why the route is difficult. The reason I feel my system is better than yours (which is more or less the same)? Mine is more descriptive...
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 4, 2005, 4:32 AM
Post #31 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Because V5 doesnt mean 5.12 - it means V5. They are two seperate scales and cannot be compared well (as evidenced by all the bickering that takes place on this site over Vscale/YDS conversions). I was well into the sport long before and when the V ratings were being developed. We all compared them to YDS for a time. They can all be compared quite easily to YDS ratings.
In reply to: My logic elaborated: a 5.12 with a V5 crux would be a physical route with easy sustained climbing and one or two hard moves. If the 5.12 had a V2 crux, it would be more of an endurance route because the sustained climbing is harder. The hypothetical ratings for these two routes might be: 5.9 v5 and 5.11 v2 Not only is your rating system convoluted, but your ratings are still incorrect. V5 is considerably harder than 5.9,10, or 11, so a 5.9 V5 would be illogical. Sand cannot be water. Your most accurate term for your rating is "hypothetical". If you are trying to say that your route would be 5.9 overall, but that it involved a crux section of V5, the route would in reality be called 5.12. That is how routes have always been rated - by the hardest move or sequence. It has worked for decades without a problem. This is not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 4, 2005, 4:05 PM
Post #32 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Because V5 doesnt mean 5.12 - it means V5. They are two seperate scales and cannot be compared well (as evidenced by all the bickering that takes place on this site over Vscale/YDS conversions). It cracks me up how often this assertion is immediately followed by:
In reply to: My logic elaborated: a 5.12 with a V5 crux would be a physical route with easy sustained climbing and one or two hard moves. If the 5.12 had a V2 crux, it would be more of an endurance route because the sustained climbing is harder. The above looks exactly like Vscale/YDS conversions to me.... ;) V5 means 5.12, precisely because of the first hypothetical route example you give. Irrelevant easier climbing plus a V5 gets a route rating of 5.12. The same with V7 gets a rating of 5.13-, etc.
In reply to: The reason I feel my system is better than yours (which is more or less the same)? Mine is more descriptive... Yours is no improvement over the current system. Additional description about a route can be done in English, like it always has been (e.g., "That one-move-wonder 5.12 over there"). And your system leaves us doing math in our head to figure out if a given 5.7 V2,7 is as hard as that 5.11+ V5 over there---when both would just be rated 5.13a today.
|
|
|
|
|
bensnyder
Nov 5, 2005, 3:30 AM
Post #33 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: V5 is considerably harder than 5.9,10, or 11, so a 5.9 V5 would be illogical A 5.9 V5 would be about equivalent to a YDS 5.12. Did you even read my post? Besides - 100 feet of good sustained 5.11 is certainly harder than V5. A climb where every move was about 5.11 would get 5.12 or harder.
In reply to: The above looks exactly like Vscale/YDS conversions to me.... If there was any hint of a YDS conversion there, there would be no need to seperate the two ratings would there?
In reply to: Additional description about a route can be done in English, like it always has been (e.g., "That one-move-wonder 5.12 over there"). And your system leaves us doing math in our head to figure out if a given 5.7 V2,7 is as hard as that 5.11+ V5 over there---when both would just be rated 5.13a today. Whether or not people can make a conversion between this hypothetical grading system and the YDS system is irrelevant. The point of my system can be demonstrated as follows. Person sees in their guidebook that the route they are looking at is rated 5.11 V2. The person sees this rating and thinks "I am a good endurance climber and can pull down on V2...should be cake". Then he sees a route rated 5.8 V5 and thinks "I have no problem with sustained 5.8, but I often get whipped on V5 - this might be impossible for me at the time." In a YDS guidebook he would just see two routes rated 5.12, and have no idea which one his time would be better spent on. That seems like a pretty simple train of thought. That wouldn't confuse you too much, would it? I hope not...
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 5, 2005, 4:11 AM
Post #34 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Person sees in their guidebook that the route they are looking at is rated 5.11 V2. The person sees this rating and thinks "I am a good endurance climber and can pull down on V2...should be cake". Then he sees a route rated 5.8 V5 and thinks "I have no problem with sustained 5.8, but I often get whipped on V5 - this might be impossible for me at the time." In a YDS guidebook he would just see two routes rated 5.12, and have no idea which one his time would be better spent on. That seems like a pretty simple train of thought. That wouldn't confuse you too much, would it? I hope not... Dude, There is nothing confusing to me or fracture about your system except that it sucks. Calling a 5.12 5.8 V5 is a perfect way to mislead most 5.8 climbers into thinking that a 5.12 route is somehow 5.8. What you are suggesting is that routes be rated by their easiest moves and an extra rating be added for the crux - basically putting the cart before the horse. It is completely unnecessary. Part of being able to climb at a certain grade is to be able to climb everything at that grade. That is what makes one a well rounded climber. You are trying to turn the grading system into the crux of climbing. I gave you the very simple solution to your dilemma. The route is either 5.12 T,E, or P. Your system also implies that people are too stupid to understand plain english. So what if you don't know everything about a route for the onsight attempt. That is the beauty of onsight climbing. If the route is dangerous or deadly, you add r,s, or vs. These are also very easy for people to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 5, 2005, 4:15 AM
Post #35 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: V5 is considerably harder than 5.9,10, or 11, so a 5.9 V5 would be illogical (just noting that the above was not a quote from me, since ben snipped attributions)
In reply to: In reply to: The above looks exactly like Vscale/YDS conversions to me.... If there was any hint of a YDS conversion there, there would be no need to seperate the two ratings would there? First, there is no need to seperate the two ratings. Second, when you are saying things like "A 5.12 with a V5 on it would be like ...", you simply are defining some sort of relationship between the two scales. You can't claim they are completely uncomparable at the same time as you make such comparisons and expect it to make any real sense.
In reply to: The point of my system can be demonstrated as follows. Person sees in their guidebook that the route they are looking at is rated 5.11 V2. The person sees this rating and thinks "I am a good endurance climber and can pull down on V2...should be cake". Then he sees a route rated 5.8 V5 and thinks "I have no problem with sustained 5.8, but I often get whipped on V5 - this might be impossible for me at the time." In a YDS guidebook he would just see two routes rated 5.12, and have no idea which one his time would be better spent on. In a YDS guidebook they would both be listed as 5.12, but the first one would say something like "great sustained route with crux near the top", and the latter one would say something like "piece of shit one-move-wonder." You are attempting to solve a problem which does not exist. But, at the same time, you are creating other problems. (How would a listing by ratings in the back look?)
In reply to: That seems like a pretty simple train of thought. I agree. I suggest you think about it a little more. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Nov 5, 2005, 4:19 AM
Post #36 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: The route is either 5.12 T,E, or P. I'd argue it is fine to simply call it "5.12". Details about whether it is a power route, an endurance route, a crack, short, tall, or whatever else, can easily be described in plain English. I don't think you can bring everything down to three categories of "technique", "endurance", and "power" (especially since what people ambiguously refer to "technique" is a huge part of both endurance and power), and don't think there are major gains in any of the areas where rating systems are useful that can be made by attempting to do so. (I agree with a lot of the rest of your post though.)
|
|
|
|
|
grover
Nov 5, 2005, 4:36 AM
Post #37 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 569
|
If technique, endurance and power are to be incorporated into some new rating system, why not include sobriety as well? Don't forget to include a rating system for no-hands problems, the blind and those who cannot read topos. Better yet, create an audio-visual guide so all problems can be thoroughly studied and rehearsed from the safety of ones home/car/hut. Oh and last but not least a rating for problems with chalk already on the key holds. If all else fails we can fall back on the ole B system................................ 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 5, 2005, 4:52 AM
Post #38 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: The route is either 5.12 T,E, or P. I'd argue it is fine to simply call it "5.12". Details about whether it is a power route, an endurance route, a crack, short, tall, or whatever else, can easily be described in plain English. I don't think you can bring everything down to three categories of "technique", "endurance", and "power" (especially since what people ambiguously refer to "technique" is a huge part of both endurance and power), and don't think there are major gains in any of the areas where rating systems are useful that can be made by attempting to do so. (I agree with a lot of the rest of your post though.) We are in complete agreement. You neglected to quote the rest of my statement, where I offer those designations in order to assuage Ben's apparent need for the minute details of a every route. I have been fine with YDS for years. I do feel that the a,b,c,d designations are useful, especially on unprotected routes. I have done several 5.12a or b (s) routes, although I would not be happy about unwittingly getting on a 5.12d (vs) route.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Nov 5, 2005, 11:34 AM
Post #39 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: ...were rated like routes - by the hardest move or sequence of moves. Rating routes by the hardest move in my opinion is not helpful at all and is not really done in any system (at least ones I am familiar with) except the YDS, at least how it was originally devised. French sports grades, UIAA grade, British adjectival grade etc., are all an overall measure of the difficulty of the route not the hardest move. These grades are a lot more of an accurate description of the difficulty of the route. I presume the YDS as applied today is more of an overall measure not just the hardest moves. I'm guessing this from fracture's posts and also comments like this from another thread,
In reply to: There is a climb that is listed as a 5.11 finger crack but in the descripton of the route it says no move is harder than 5.10. Having never climbed in the US and therefore never used your system I have no idea. Is this normally how the YDS is applied?
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 5, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #40 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...were rated like routes - by the hardest move or sequence of moves. Rating routes by the hardest move in my opinion is not helpful at all and is not really done in any system (at least ones I am familiar with) except the YDS, at least how it was originally devised. I presume the YDS as applied today is more of an overall measure not just the hardest moves. I'm guessing this from fracture's posts and also comments like this from another thread, I said hardest move or "sequence" of moves, and it has worked just fine. Some routes are in fact rated by they're overall difficulty, but the YDS rating still works in either case. In thirty years, I have probably done well over a thousand routes, on all types of rock and in many different areas, and I have never had a problem rating them.
In reply to: Having never climbed in the US and therefore never used your system I have no idea. Is this normally how the YDS is applied? On routes, yes, but not so much on boulder problems, although I always give problems a route rating, for my own reference. It works just fine, whiich is why I think the V scale is unecessary for me.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Nov 5, 2005, 5:22 PM
Post #41 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
Here it is, your moment of zen: Rating systems: They aren't for rating routes. They are for rating humans. The climb is simply as hard as it is. When someone says "How hard is that climb?", they are really asking "How hard am I?" I have no idea if this is relevent. But then neither does anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Nov 5, 2005, 5:32 PM
Post #42 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: hey curt, that is kind of the point. should long traverses be rated in the sport climb category? or bouldering or something new? I don't think there is an exact answer to your question, but classic old school (i.e Gill, Holloway, etal.) boulder problems were rarely more than a half-dozen or so difficult, gymnastic type moves--and often had fewer moves than that. When endurance begins to be the determining factor for success, rather than power, I would say you have departed the realm of bouldering, as it was originally defined, and moved on to something else. Curt Stop making sense, you'll give the internet a bad name.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Nov 5, 2005, 6:28 PM
Post #43 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
In reply to: ... it just says "Monsieur Lefrog en La Va A Le Blahblah" That's a great name for a problem, I'm gonna steal it for my next V1++ proj brah. 8^) d.
|
|
|
|
|
bensnyder
Nov 5, 2005, 7:11 PM
Post #44 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: You can't claim they are completely uncomparable at the same time as you make such comparisons and expect it to make any real sense There is a loose correlation, but that is given. The reason V and YDS don't mix is because they are attributed to different styles of climbing - power and endurance.
In reply to: Calling a 5.12 5.8 V5 is a perfect way to mislead most 5.8 climbers into thinking that a 5.12 route is somehow 5.8. What you are suggesting is that routes be rated by their easiest moves and an extra rating be added for the crux - basically putting the cart before the horse. No you really don't get it. The YDS part of my rating is the rating of the sustained climbing sections not the easiest move - do you even understand what sustained climbing is? Because you seem to have demonstrated a lack of understanding, i'll explain for you: sustained climbing is a (long) series of moves with very similar difficulty... Any halfbrained 5.8 climber would know that they couldnt climb a 5.8 V5 without splitting too many brain cells; they will know that they can climb the sustained sections, but not the crux. Oh, and anybody saying that YDS grades are based solely on the hardest move of the route is full of shit. Example: to bolt or not to be, the first 5.14 established in america, which doesn't have a single move harder than V4/5
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 5, 2005, 7:27 PM
Post #45 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: ...I can easily rate every problem that I've ever done by the YDS system. The way to make that complete would be to add either a T (technical), E (Endurance), P (power), or any combination of the three to it, e.g. 12E+, 14P, 15TE-, etc. It's that simple, and then you could relate it to roped climbing. You would know that 12E had no 5.12 moves, but that the lengthy sequence equaled that, and 14P would easily represent a 5.14 move or short sequence - just like on routes... I think if you're really bound and determined to have just one rating system, you could go "oldskool" and just go back to rating boulder problems B 5.10, B 5.11, B 5.12.......etc. The (B) designates it as a boulder problem and implies it is a power vs. endurance climb. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 5, 2005, 7:47 PM
Post #46 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: No you really don't get it. I got it the first time you said it.
In reply to: The YDS part of my rating is the rating of the sustained climbing sections not the easiest move - do you even understand what sustained climbing is? I probably understood it before you breathed air.
In reply to: Oh, and anybody saying that YDS grades are based solely on the hardest move of the route is full of s---. You are correct, and that is not what I said, several times. Here is the operative word that you keep missing: sequence, meaning any number of moves in a sequence.
In reply to: Example: to bolt or not to be, the first 5.14 established in america, which doesn't have a single move harder than V4/5 And you know anything about To Bolt, how? Have you ever even climbed near or at The Dihedrals? I have, and I also have three friends who have done To Bolt. If you are going to use examples, use examples that you know from personal experience. You just don't get it, and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. As for my not understanding the grading systems - sure :wink: By the looks of you, I was probably already climbing 5.13 when you were still carrying your lunch box to school or before. Your system is completely unnecessary. That is all I need to know.
|
|
|
|
|
bensnyder
Nov 5, 2005, 8:27 PM
Post #47 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 183
|
Alright. I see this is going nowhere - no need for us to keep arguing. I know I came off as (quite) acidic in my posts, but I don't mean you any personal disrespect - I've just been in a bad mood for the past couple because of my workload. I do not doubt your climbing prowess, I was just getting frustrated with the argument at hand...
|
|
|
|
|
rufusandcompany
Nov 5, 2005, 9:10 PM
Post #48 of 48
(5792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Alright. I see this is going nowhere - no need for us to keep arguing. I know I came off as (quite) acidic in my posts, but I don't mean you any personal disrespect - I've just been in a bad mood for the past couple because of my workload. I do not doubt your climbing prowess, I was just getting frustrated with the argument at hand... Don't be too worried about it. It's all just about differences of opinion anyway, although I do believe that experience accounts for a lot in these debates. Too much emphasis on ratings takes the adventure out of climbing. When I consider routes, now, I get within a reasonable number grade for onsight potential and just dig in. Otherwise, I'll jump on anything way beyond my level to increase my skill and fitness. The worst that can happen is that I'll fall off. Big deal, as long as the route isn't a death route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|