|
blazesod
Jul 10, 2006, 3:46 AM
Post #1 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today
If the taquitz/ J-tree/ Yosemite decimal system was started as
5.0 means "must use your hands"
and 5.9 means "The most difficult to climb without artificial aid"
Who was the genius that decided to start a 5.10 or 5.11 instead of say
5.91, 5.92 or even 6.0 for the "only climbed by Sharma and superman" routes.
It seems like someone wasn't paying attention in the 4th grade when they made that decision. Now that it is broken, is there any chance of re-assembling the original system?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jul 10, 2006, 4:53 AM
Post #2 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 10, 2006, 5:19 AM
Post #3 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
6.0 (6th class) = aid
I don't really know who started the 5.double digits. 5.10 is slightly illogical, but practical. If you've climbed in older areas, you'll notice that most 5.0s are of a similar difficulty in a given area just as most 5.8s are of a similar difficulty, as are all grades in between. 5.9, however, really only means 'anything harder than 5.8.' There can be huge variation in difficulty between one 5.9 and another.
When you consider that YDS was introduced because there's so much variation in the difficulty of 5th class climbs, it hardly makes sense to just leave 5.9 as simply 'anything harder than 5.8', especially when the other grades on the same scale are so specific, so more grades were intoduced. Since 6.0 is not really an option it's really a choice between retro-grading everything or just adding 5.10 and beyond.
That being said, why the fuck are we talking about climbing in the community forum?
|
|
|
|
|
blazesod
Jul 11, 2006, 1:18 AM
Post #4 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down.
Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work?
In reply to: 6.0 (6th class) = aid That being said, why the f--- are we talking about climbing in the community forum?
Seemed like the place to start a rant.
I know 6.0 is aid, however, some climbers send routes that most people can only do as aid. For example almost every 5.15. It makes more sense to me to just call it an aid route and say the guy/ gal can climb 6.0 but then again I don't think like most people.
|
|
|
|
|
colotopian
Jul 11, 2006, 2:02 AM
Post #5 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 518
|
In reply to: FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today If the taquitz/ J-tree/ Yosemite decimal system was started as 5.0 means "must use your hands" and 5.9 means "The most difficult to climb without artificial aid" Who was the genius that decided to start a 5.10 or 5.11 instead of say 5.91, 5.92 or even 6.0 for the "only climbed by Sharma and superman" routes. It seems like someone wasn't paying attention in the 4th grade when they made that decision. Now that it is broken, is there any chance of re-assembling the original system?
Maybe we could find a conversion and use dewey decimal system.:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 11, 2006, 3:55 AM
Post #6 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: In reply to: 6.0 (6th class) = aid That being said, why the f--- are we talking about climbing in the community forum? Seemed like the place to start a rant. I know 6.0 is aid, however, some climbers send routes that most people can only do as aid. For example almost every 5.15. It makes more sense to me to just call it an aid route and say the guy/ gal can climb 6.0 but then again I don't think like most people.
Sure, except for the fact that pretty much anyone and their pet donkey can climb 5.12 with enough effort.
All I'm sayin' is, from a mathematical standpoint, 5.10 and beyond doesn't make sense, but apart from that, it's perfectly reasonable. It's the lesser of one point ten evils.
|
|
|
|
|
macherry
Jul 11, 2006, 4:06 AM
Post #7 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848
|
macherry moved this thread from Community to General.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jul 11, 2006, 4:13 AM
Post #8 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down. Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work? |
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 11, 2006, 4:36 AM
Post #9 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down. Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work? You start at 0, and count up in increments of 1 until you hit a number that no one has yet climbed :wink:
Whoa, slow down there. This is getting complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
king_rat
Jul 11, 2006, 12:08 PM
Post #10 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down. Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work? You start at 0, and count up in increments of 1 until you hit a number that no one has yet climbed :wink: Whoa, slow down there. This is getting complicated.
No systems can beat the English for aaah simplicity. The adjective grade and Technical grade.
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Jul 11, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #11 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
I think you are confused between aiding a route vs. an aid route (i.e. has not been freed).
hyhuu
In reply to: I know 6.0 is aid, however, some climbers send routes that most people can only do as aid. For example almost every 5.15. It makes more sense to me to just call it an aid route and say the guy/ gal can climb 6.0 but then again I don't think like most people. |
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jul 11, 2006, 1:01 PM
Post #12 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down. Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work? You start at 0, and count up in increments of 1 until you hit a number that no one has yet climbed :wink:
Ummmm, 3?
|
|
|
|
|
tb69hikeclimb
Jul 11, 2006, 1:08 PM
Post #13 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2006
Posts: 158
|
Sure, except for the fact that pretty much anyone and their pet donkey can climb 5.12 with enough effort.
GOOD POINT! but where can I get a helmet and harness for my pet donkey? and do donkeys really make good belayers? :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jul 11, 2006, 1:56 PM
Post #14 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today
JL
|
|
|
|
|
blazesod
Jul 11, 2006, 2:44 PM
Post #16 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
In reply to: In reply to: FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today Maybe instead of trying to "fix" a system everyone else seems to understand, you should get an up-to-date guide book. :boring: JL
Yes, I also have an up-to-date guide book which basically rates all the same routes a little harder. 'Hard 5.9' becomes 5.11b etc... My bitch was with who ever decided the next decimal after 5.9 was 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12. It seems like someone was learning to count, wrong.
I do completely understand this system as it is very simple, however, it seems like counting in 'something else' and calling it decimals to me. Not a big deal but seems like something we could improve upon.
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 11, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #17 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: In reply to: Well we did in Oz. It's called the Eubanks system and I reckon it trumps the Yosemite Decimal system hands down. Seriously, or are you making it up? How does it work?
The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them.
It just counts up with no decimals.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 11, 2006, 2:48 PM
Post #18 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: Who was the genius that decided to start a 5.10 or 5.11 instead of say 5.91, 5.92 or even 6.0 for the "only climbed by Sharma and superman" routes.
Technically speaking, that would make the difference between 5.1 and 5.2 much more significant than the difference between a 5.9 (plain old 5.9 in your scale) and a 5.12 (5.93 on your scale?). Your proposal sounds more confusing and impractical than the current system (even with the bastardizing of the decimal system). Not even the physics and engineering geeks I know care that the YDS doesn't make mathematical sense.
In reply to: It seems like someone wasn't paying attention in the 4th grade when they made that decision. Now that it is broken, is there any chance of re-assembling the original system?
It makes sense to have an open-ended grading system (which the YDS has become). Locking back into a fixed system and adjusting every grade throughout the states every time the new standard for 5.9 is set would be absolutely ridiculous. You might get a better discussion if you proposed a switch to one of the other established rating systems. Of course, it seems you haven't done much research in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 11, 2006, 3:02 PM
Post #19 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
Let's think about your question: Since 6th class was already in use, wouldn't it be logical (not idiotic) to think,
"What should we call something harder than 5.10? Crap! 6.0 is already used for aid. Hey, let's call it 5.11."
In math 5.11 is higher than 5.10 try it on your calculator sometime.
5.11 - 5.10 = 0.01
No way! That's brilliant! The guys who made the rating system actually were using valid math! And all this time I thought they were just idiots.
:lol:
GT
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 11, 2006, 3:05 PM
Post #20 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
Let's think about your question: Since 6th class was already in use, wouldn't it be logical (not idiotic) to think,
"What should we call something harder than 5.10? Crap! 6.0 is already used for aid. Hey, let's call it 5.11."
In math 5.11 is higher than 5.10 try it on your calculator sometime.
5.11 - 5.10 = 0.01
No way! That's brilliant! The guys who made the rating system actually were using valid math! And all this time I thought they were just idiots.
:lol:
GT
|
|
|
|
|
chalkfree
Jul 11, 2006, 3:34 PM
Post #21 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Posts: 512
|
It doesn't need to make mathematical sense, it's a qualitative value. You're not doing any math on it so what's the point? The point as I understand it is to allow gumbies and noobs to spray about how hard they climb.
As long as it's understood by everyone it's not a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 11, 2006, 3:37 PM
Post #22 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: Let's think about your question: Since 6th class was already in use, wouldn't it be logical (not idiotic) to think, "What should we call something harder than 5.10? Crap! 6.0 is already used for aid. Hey, let's call it 5.11." In math 5.11 is higher than 5.10 try it on your calculator sometime. 5.11 - 5.10 = 0.01 No way! That's brilliant! The guys who made the rating system actually were using valid math! And all this time I thought they were just idiots.
I can't tell if you're joking, so excuse if I missed your mark. 5.1 and 5.10 are the same thing mathematically, and not the same thing in the YDS. As you stated, 5.11 is bigger than 5.1, but it's smaller than 5.2. That said, I haven't met a math geek that jumped on a 5.14 because he thought it was the easiest line at the crag.
|
|
|
|
|
double
Jul 11, 2006, 4:08 PM
Post #23 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 136
|
It makes perfect mathematical sense...it just doesn't use the typical base 10 scale for numbers. Maybe we should drop the 5 off the grade. There's no 4.9. Why not just 12a.
My question...who started adding all the damn letters? I prefer the +/-.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Jul 11, 2006, 4:17 PM
Post #24 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
I heard a reliable rumor that the sport climbers wanted to go to the hexidecimal counting system which yields 16 subdivisions of a class:
5.0, 5.1, ..., 5.9, 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 5.D, 5.E, and 5.F.
The math geeks said: "Hey, why didn't we think of that. Overlaps nicely with the existing and more limited system."
And the trad climbers grunted and didn't know what to do - they climb multiple pitches because they don't no how to read the road signs. ... and so it didn't happen. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 11, 2006, 4:19 PM
Post #25 of 64
(5190 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: It makes perfect mathematical sense...it just doesn't use the typical base 10 scale for numbers.
Its called the YDS... Yosemite Decimal System (actually coined in Taquitz but whatever). The emphasis for us is the word 'decimal' which has some inherent meanings:
decimal fraction: a proper fraction whose denominator is a power of 10
numbered or proceeding by tens; based on ten;
"the decimal system"
a number in the decimal system
divided by tens or hundreds; "a decimal fraction"; "decimal coinage"
In reply to: My question...who started adding all the damn letters? I prefer the +/-.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 11, 2006, 4:21 PM
Post #26 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Who was the genius that decided to start a 5.10 or 5.11 instead of say 5.91, 5.92 or even 6.0 for the "only climbed by Sharma and superman" routes. Technically speaking, that would make the difference between 5.1 and 5.2 much more significant than the difference between a 5.9 (plain old 5.9 in your scale) and a 5.12 (5.93 on your scale?). Your proposal sounds more confusing and impractical than the current system...
You're right. The YDS, as shown below, is based on the logistic function. The OP's suggestion would complicate this straightforward model.
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 YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade)
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
HTH
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Jul 11, 2006, 4:23 PM
Post #27 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
WFT? ...communists. This is America, you should be used to our numerical systems by now:
There are 4 Cubits in a Fathom
There are 2.75 fathoms in a Rod
And there are 40 Rods in a Furlong
...and that’s just the way it is. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Jul 11, 2006, 4:31 PM
Post #28 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
In reply to: 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 YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade) 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 HTH Jay
I was going to post this at the beginning of the thread, but I thought it would have just been stating the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jul 11, 2006, 4:37 PM
Post #29 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: You're right. The YDS, as shown below, is based on the logistic function. The OP's suggestion would complicate this straightforward model. 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 YDS rating (after dropping the 5-prefix and decimalizing the letter subgrade) 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 HTH Jay
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jay, can this formula also be used to catch murderers, like the guy on "Numb3rs?" You should contact CBS! :D
JL
|
|
|
|
|
svilnit
Jul 11, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #30 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 582
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: 6.0 (6th class) = aid That being said, why the f--- are we talking about climbing in the community forum? Seemed like the place to start a rant. I know 6.0 is aid, however, some climbers send routes that most people can only do as aid. For example almost every 5.15. It makes more sense to me to just call it an aid route and say the guy/ gal can climb 6.0 but then again I don't think like most people. Sure, except for the fact that pretty much anyone and their pet donkey can climb 5.12 with enough effort. All I'm sayin' is, from a mathematical standpoint, 5.10 and beyond doesn't make sense, but apart from that, it's perfectly reasonable. It's the lesser of one point ten evils.
my pet donkey cannot climb a 5.12, he's a noob
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jul 11, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #31 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Dingus beat me to it. I thought Jim Bridwell was the one who broke the decimal system.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Jul 11, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #32 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
It would be interesting to know if 'The Bird' came up with the letters or was (one of?) the first to publish that system-'73 Ascent. I was climbing sub-lettered grades in those days and unfamilar with the contemporary parlence.
Mathmatical sense? Clearly it takes the same effort to climb three 5.8's or 2 5.12's.
|
|
|
|
|
blazesod
Jul 12, 2006, 2:48 AM
Post #33 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 27, 2002
Posts: 249
|
Yes, I can see how no one would want to change... we are so like sheep.
Or
Sometime in the far distant future, climbers might evolve and eventually learn to use computers. They would create a database of all the popular climbing routes throughout the world. The database could be analyzed, compared with different 'climber's handicaps' and routes could be re-rated automatically.
At some point the information might even become available while standing at the base of a mountain through complex future technology like radio and micro waves.
Seriously though, I see your point, thanks for the input... it works like it is and no one cares. It just seems to me like measuring based on the size of a guys foot decades after a better system was created. :)
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jul 12, 2006, 4:27 AM
Post #34 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
It's called the Yosemite Decimal System because it originally was a true decimal system. In the system 5.9 was the true end of all climbs able to be climbed without doing it on aid, and aid was given the denotation 6.0 and beyond. However as climbing evolved and the realization of what really could be climbed out there evolved the YDS became too limited, and so it no longer could stay as a true decimal system, however it could not be expanded into the 6.0 range because that was an altogether different form of "travel". And it wouldn't make sense to suddenly be going in increments of .01 when before the ratings had gone 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc. in an increment of +1. So yes, perhaps we should call it the Yosemite Ranking System now, but I believe that going 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 makes more sense then 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.91, 5.92 when compared to the already established progression.
As to someone that asked about aid climbs that are now going free. Well those climbs have two ratings attached to them often, and the climbers can decide if they want to try the pitch free or do it on aid. As stated above, climbing has evolved and what was once seen as impossible or unprotectable is now being attempted because of advances in protection and people's concept of what can and can't physically be climbed. You can aid most climbs that you can put gear in, it's just a matter of what's easier, safer, or "possible" for your current skill level. For example, someone could aid the only 5.12 pitch in their 5.8 multi-pitch climb if no one in their party can climb 5.12. It's been pretty interesting to read about all the old aid routes that are going free out in Zion right now, wish I had the skill and time to be out their pioneering so of that stuff, pretty exciting stuff in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
blitzkrieg_climber13
Jul 12, 2006, 4:44 AM
Post #35 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2005
Posts: 288
|
In reply to: In reply to: FYI- this is just my rant after reading an older guide book today Maybe instead of trying to "fix" a system everyone else seems to understand, you should get an up-to-date guide book. :boring: JL
AGREED
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 5:04 AM
Post #36 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
Justthemaid Wrote:
In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals.
Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system.
It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals.
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 12, 2006, 6:34 AM
Post #37 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
In reply to: Justthemaid Wrote: In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals. Actually Maid I Believe that system started at JT rather than Australia. Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system. It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals. Cosmiccragsman
Egad!
We had a sensible system at one point?
I guess anything that is good and works must immediately be targeted for annihilation.
It's the American way after all.
...and the Aussies are the only ones with enough common sense to latch on to this idea?
They probably consulted their kangaroo oracle.
and the roo spoke...
Go forth and grade thy climbs with numbers.
Numbers that count up.
From 1
In order
Jeezus h christ. Even kangaroos are smarter than us.
I've got dingbat-itus. All those dots and letters, and occasional Roman numerals make my head spin sometimes. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
col
Jul 12, 2006, 7:13 AM
Post #38 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 232
|
Wow, I have learnt more about the history of the US grading system in this thread then I ever bothered to before. I always wondered what the "5" was for and why you didn't just drop it... Also wondered why you alowed increments and didn't just have it open ended. That makes sense in it was origninally supposed to end at six. it does raise some questions though.
What are 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, etc for?
Whoops just answered my own question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...Grade_%28climbing%29
I am pretty sure that the Ewbank system was not developed from the states, although wiki doesn't help, since the link from the climbing page goes to the wrong Ewbanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ewbank
|
|
|
|
|
tonloc
Jul 12, 2006, 7:20 AM
Post #39 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 249
|
[quote="justthemaid"]In reply to: Justthemaid Wrote: In reply to: The Aussie system makes more sense than any of them. It just counts up with no decimals. Actually Maid I Believe that system started at JT rather than Australia. Back in the 70s and early 80s The rating system out at JT was the F system. It went from F1 to F15 with no decimals. Cosmiccragsman
Egad!
We had a sensible system at one point?
I guess anything that is good and works must immediately be targeted for annihilation.
It's the American way after all.
...and the Aussies are the only ones with enough common sense to latch on to this idea?
They probably consulted their kangaroo oracle.
Actually the kiwis have that system too, and they are way different from the aussies, no snakes koalas or kangaroos...fuckin snakes koalas and kangaroos, fuckin lot of possums though
|
|
|
|
|
omegaprime
Jul 12, 2006, 7:40 AM
Post #40 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2004
Posts: 308
|
Guess you guys won't even consider adopting the French method. :wink:
I actually like YDS, but I only use 1-6 to grade terrains and skip 5.1-5.x. When it comes to climbing, we use the French method.
Make me wonder though, why we used French instead of British? :?
Maybe I'll start a thread in Malaysia section on this one. :)
Edited to add: Just found the answer. :)
|
|
|
|
|
rocketsocks
Jul 12, 2006, 7:45 AM
Post #41 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 179
|
- grades are entirely subjective and are supposed to be
- grades are designed to give people a general idea of which routes they have a reasonable chance of leading successfully
- grades aren't designed (though you wouldn't know it these days) to help people brag about how hard they can climb
- it is mathematically impossible to create a completely "consistent" linear difficulty grading system (it is very important to understand this)
This isn't exactly rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jul 12, 2006, 12:59 PM
Post #42 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
Wow, some people like the +/-? Those things scare the crap out of me since, in my experience, those distinctions usually denote whole number (not letter, as you might think) changes in grade. I read "oldschool rating," or "you better bring your cup, panty-waist" when I see those on a topo.
Wasn't 5.10 thought to be the hardest grade at one point too? I've been thinking about that kind of system lately because it would cut down on the jackasses with the pet donkey-type comments :lol: Then you'd basically have easy, hard, and really hard as your distinctions. Maybe less numbers and more route chasing? Then again, it's kind of nice to know the increments which I am sliding up (or, more likely, down), on the scale. BTW, does that donkey give lessons, because I could use some!
|
|
|
|
|
justthemaid
Jul 12, 2006, 2:01 PM
Post #43 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2004
Posts: 777
|
I guess while we are consulting the oracle we can ask about the +/- thing too.
Not that anyone cares, but in my perfect world "+" would simply mean "sustained", and "-" would mean "one move wonder".
What say you roo?
Aye verily.
What the Maid said.
*(roo scratches ear with boredom)*
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 3:25 PM
Post #44 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
The NCCS,(National Climbing Classification System)came about in the early 60s as a way to try to deal with the problems at the time with the YDS. At that time 5.9 was the hardest YDS rating.
The NCCS developed the open ended F1 thru F? to try to take care of this problem. Good news for the Aussies, about the same time, Ewbanks
was developing the Aussie system, 1 thru ?, that followed along the same lines, with a few differences.
So it is a toss up as to which one was first.
AS an added note, and bit of trivia, climbers in the Gunks were at one time experimenting with a variation of the Ewbanks System.
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 12, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #45 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I can add a few historical notes. Some of my comments repeat earlier ones, although I hope I have added some additional context of interest.
Climbing was considerably more advanced in Europe than in the US in, say, the 1930's, and most of the US leading US practioners were either immigrants or, if native to the US, had extensive experience in the Alps.
Europeans were using an alpine system with grades I--VI, with VI being the hardest at the time. However, the system attempted to grade how hard the rock was to climb, not what methods were used. Grade VI climbs might or might not use direct aid of various forms, sometimes just tension from the rope, sometimes stirrups, but you couldn't really tell from grade VI how hard free climbing, as we now recognize it, was. The other grades were primarily free, or perhaps what is sometimes called "French free" nowadays. As far as pure free climbing (an essentially American invention) went, it seems that 5.9 was achieved around the turn of the century and there were certainly 5.10's in the 1930's.
European roman numeral systems were used by Kraus and Wiessner in the Gunks in this era.
When the Sierra Club devised its grading system, they decided (absurdly from a modern perspective) on an equipment-based rather than a difficulty-based system. They used the same six-grades as the alpine system, but used Arabic rather than Roman numerals to distinguish their completely different approach. Grade 1 was trail-walking with no particular equipment requirements, Grade 2 was off-trail scree and boulder-hopping requiring proper shoes, Grade 3 was scrambling, possibly exposed, requiring the use of the hands (apparently an equipment item for the purposes of this definition), Grade 4 was exposed climbing requiring the use of a rope and possibly pitons for anchors, Grade 5 was difficult exposed climbing requiring pitons for protection, and Grade 6 was direct-aid climbing in which the climber's weight was suspended from pitons.
The system was, of course, adapted to the nature of High Sierra travel, in which there is a significant amount of Grade 1, 2, 3, and 4 terrain. Everything we now call rock-climbing was just fifth or sixth-class climbing. The system was doomed to irrelevance because it took no account of climber's ability. A good climber could do a "fifth-class" pitch without a rope---thereby turning it into a "third-class" pitch, and indeed, for quite a while, soloing was called "third-classing."
As rock-climbing developed in the West in the 40's and 50's, it became evident that "fifth-class" climbing, i.e. climbing that used pitons for protection, needed to be subdivided according to difficulty rather than equipment. Things came to a head with the first Tahquitz guidebook by Chuck Wilts. His solution was to take all the "fifth-class" climbs currently in existence and place them in difficulty categories 5.0 to 5.9. This made perfect sense at the time, although, by keeping the 5 as a prefix, it confounded two systems, a difficulty-based system and an equipment-based system. The equipment-based approach naturally and inevitably disappeared, leaving the prefix 5 as a vestigial organ of with no real meaning.
The "decimal system" spread to other areas of California, most notably Yosemite. A number of climbers, including Wilts, resisted this spread, claiming that the nature of the climbs was too different in Yosemite and that the decimal system was only meaningful in the circumscribed context of Tahquitz. But no one listened and the YDS, a runaway child of the Tahquitz system, came into being. Since Yosemite climbers were the best in the country in the 50's and 60's, their authority was enough to nationalize the system. But in many areas, especially those remote from the main climbing scene, local insecurity resulted in varying degrees of undergrading, an effect still apparent today in the various "sandbagged" ratings in the East and South.
It would be interesting to know how Wilts intended to deal with the inevitable increase in climb difficulty. It seems that climbers really didn't anticipate that difficulty levels would go up high enough to render 5.9 inadequate. The so-called "mathematical" issues are, however, non-existent; the decimal point is merely a symbol separating the equipment grade from the difficulty grade. Had Wilts used 5:0 to 5:9 instead of the decimal separator, perhaps there would have been less psychological resistance to moving on to 5:10 and 5:11. But then we would have had the "colon system" with its unsavory connotation of digestive issues.
It is also interesting that American climbers insisted on holding on to the prefix 5 long after it had lost its relevance. An attempt in the 60's to devise a national climbing classification system (NCCS) that used difficulty grades similar to the decimal system (with some compression in the very lowest grades that no one can distinguish anyway) and which dispensed with the prefix 5, instead grading free difficulties F0 to (at the time) F10 and aid difficulties A1 to A5 never caught on, except for the aid gradings.
Climbers knew the "decimal system" and just weren't going to give it up. But they still had enormous difficulty in dealing with increased difficulty levels. 5.10 had been accepted as the ultimate in difficulty, but the refusal to consider more grades meant that the 5.10 grade filled up with an increasingly broad spectrum of difficulty, necessitating first plusses and minuses and ultimately the a,b,c,d sub-grades. Although the dam broke when 5.11 was finally acknowledged, by then the subgrades had been so firmly entrenched that they simply became a part of all further grading categories.
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Jul 12, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #46 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
This came straight from the Birds Camel shorty smoke filled mouth:
Yeah, originally 5.9 was supposed to be the limit of human capability, but we proved that wrong. Then it was supposed to be 5.10, but as climbers improved, there was a large variance in the difficulty of 5.10 climbs in the Valley so Bridwell suggested the a,b,c,d subratings. More progress happened, so now we have the current system. Should we change it? I think it's perfect the way it is. It takes about 30 seconds to learn and has some built in history, very nice in my opinion.
If you don't like it you can make your own if you like, let's see if it catches on. There's usually a good reason for oddities like this, the freezing and boiling points of water for example.
|
|
|
|
|
flipnfall
Jul 12, 2006, 4:55 PM
Post #47 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2004
Posts: 717
|
In reply to: Guess you guys won't even consider adopting the French method. :wink:
I tend to be afraid of things (i.e., French things) that might make me look sissy. CRAP! I have all Petzle biners! :oops: You're all going to think I'm a pansy for sure.
I should think before I post.
GT
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 7:21 PM
Post #48 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
Trophy to you Rgold.
You sure know your history. :D
Cosmiccragsman
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Jul 12, 2006, 7:29 PM
Post #49 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
thanks to the op for starting one of the more entertaining threads i've read. sorry i can't rate today. also cool to hear some history from dingus, cosmic and the guy who wrote the historical climbing textbook.
at least one person said that we shouldn't criticize a system that 'everyone understands.' that's like saying my town doesn't need to fix freeway signs that say only '562' for a road that is called the norwood lateral. signs aren't made for locals; and systems like this help newbies more than oldbies like cosmic, who can prolly size up a seven pitch route with a good swift glare.
using the density of the rationals (the idea that between any two rational numbers (like 5.9 and 6.0) there is another rational (like 5.93)) has EXACTLY the same magnitude-lessening issue that using 5.10, 5.11 etc has, namely that 5.91 is closer to 5.9 than 5.9 is to 5.8 (5.11 and 5.10 are only .01 apart, too). and over time we rerate routes anyway. and it isn't, well, wrong.
aside: the density of the rationals is exactly the idea behind the dewey decimal system. between any two books we might need to squeeze another book, so it's a good thing you can keep squeezing those rationals in between each other.
dingus, calling it a decimal system (meaning you have a denominator of 10) does not as far as i can see justify saying that
:arrow: 6>5.10>5.1.
the two on the right are both 5+1/10. if you want to say 5.10 is 5+10/10, then you may as well call it six. on the other hand, you could just say these decimals are mod 20 (yay for the hex suggester!) and (other than that we should use letters instead of two-digit #s, and that it'll still be confusing to outsiders) all makes sense, 5.19>5.18>5.17...>5.10>5.9 and so on. but in that case nobody better climb harder than a 5.19 or we're back to the same old problem.
edited for clarity. i'm sure it's perfectly clear now.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 12, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #50 of 64
(5231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
We're climbers goddamnit, not calculators! Who says our lives have to be base 10, shit even our computers can't manage that!
I merely posted that to illustrate that 'decimal' implies base 10. It IS base 10.
But cept fpr rgold and jgill and a few others we're not mathmaticians and climbers, we're just CLIMBERS!
Face it, climbing is irrational and stupid, a dumb thing to do and an even worse thing upon which to base a lifestyle. You have to have a screw loose and an odd perspective on logic to even attempt to justify it.
It makes no sense, climbing!
And we should demand nothing less from our rating systems.
Revel in the chaos. Add some of your own! Sandbag a buddy. Misrate a climb. 3rd class 5.10. Do a Grade VI in a DAY! Don't you see???
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!
We're mostly computer nerds here and have this desire to catalog everything, re-sort the world and put every little thing in its proper column and row.
But climbing ain't like that. CLIMBERS ain't like that! Don't you johnny-come-lately computer nerds think for a Yosemite Minute that we all are just going to sit back and let you tame our sport.
We take our screwed up rating systems very seriously. You should too, we're family. Just think of YDS as that crazy uncle you love to hate, that you can't escape and would miss terribly if he stopped showing up at Thx giving.
That is all.
DMT
ps. No it isn't! Are we nerds or are we CLIMBERS goddamnit! Very Hard Severe, know what I mean???
|
|
|
|
|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 7:53 PM
Post #51 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 778
|
Dingus Wrote:
In reply to: ps. No it isn't! Are we nerds or are we CLIMBERS goddamnit! Very Hard Severe, know what I mean???
Good Post Dingus!
Long Live the British :lol: :lol:
Cosmiccragsman
Edited 07/12/06 5:55 pm to add,
Trophy for Dingus's post.
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Jul 12, 2006, 8:03 PM
Post #52 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
uh oh. i might be a nerd.
..but i like to climb...!
|
|
|
|
|
duckbuster_13
Jul 12, 2006, 9:25 PM
Post #53 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 154
|
In reply to: We're climbers goddamnit, not calculators! Who says our lives have to be base 10, s--- even our computers can't manage that! I merely posted that to illustrate that 'decimal' implies base 10. It IS base 10. But cept fpr rgold and jgill and a few others we're not mathmaticians and climbers, we're just CLIMBERS! Face it, climbing is irrational and stupid, a dumb thing to do and an even worse thing upon which to base a lifestyle. You have to have a screw loose and an odd perspective on logic to even attempt to justify it. It makes no sense, climbing! And we should demand nothing less from our rating systems. Revel in the chaos. Add some of your own! Sandbag a buddy. Misrate a climb. 3rd class 5.10. Do a Grade VI in a DAY! Don't you see??? ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE! We're mostly computer nerds here and have this desire to catalog everything, re-sort the world and put every little thing in its proper column and row. But climbing ain't like that. CLIMBERS ain't like that! Don't you johnny-come-lately computer nerds think for a Yosemite Minute that we all are just going to sit back and let you tame our sport. We take our screwed up rating systems very seriously. You should too, we're family. Just think of YDS as that crazy uncle you love to hate, that you can't escape and would miss terribly if he stopped showing up at Thx giving. That is all. DMT ps. No it isn't! Are we nerds or are we CLIMBERS goddamnit! Very Hard Severe, know what I mean???
HIP HIP.......!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
jstan
Jul 12, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #54 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Posts: 37
|
I have always thought the British system was superior because of its efficiency. Just by rearranging a limited number of descriptors you can get as large a number of difficulty levels as you want. For example:
Moderately god awful
is entirely different from
God awfully moderate
See?
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jul 12, 2006, 11:17 PM
Post #55 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
Damn, Dingus, you just wrote the mission statement for climbing! Or maybe the anti-mission statement...I don't know, but it's an antidote to all the rhetoric, overanalyzation, and general over-emphasis of an essentially silly pursuit we engage in here everyday. It's when we're not climbing is when we all turn into a bunch of nimble-fingered jackasses adding up numbers so it looks like we're "accomplishing" something. Thanks :D !
|
|
|
|
|
namoclimber
Jul 13, 2006, 12:03 AM
Post #56 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 118
|
Ok here it is just forget about the decimal and make it a backslash or better yet parentheses. The instead of being 5.10 it would be 5(10) problem solved!
8^)
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Jul 17, 2006, 7:48 PM
Post #57 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
In reply to: Damn, Dingus, you just wrote the mission statement for climbing! Or maybe the anti-mission statement...I don't know, but it's an antidote to all the rhetoric, overanalyzation, and general over-emphasis of an essentially silly pursuit we engage in here everyday. It's when we're not climbing is when we all turn into a bunch of nimble-fingered jackasses adding up numbers so it looks like we're "accomplishing" something. Thanks :D !
dingus is very funny. this site would suck without him. but just so you know (and because i feel like the particular target of your post), i analyze things here (especially things related to math) because i enjoy it. if it's too much for you or you DON'T enjoy it, feel free to block my posts, and those of all the other 'nimble-fingered jackasses adding up numbers.' you can't climb on a website, you can only talk. and i like talking about numbers!
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Jul 17, 2006, 10:32 PM
Post #58 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
Ok, now I'm really confused. I thought that the difference between 5.10a and 5.10b was the same as the difference between 5.8 and 5.9, but the difference between 5.9- and 5.9+ plus was only half a grade.
But then my son asked me if 5.9- wasn't actually a grade down from 5.9 (it is a minus after all) which would mean that it's a half grade from 5.8 to 5.9- and a full grade from 5.9- to 5.9+ and a grade and a half from 5.9+ to 5.10a...
aaarrrghhhhh (runs away screaming) ...drool...
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 17, 2006, 10:59 PM
Post #59 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: But then my son asked me if 5.9- wasn't actually a grade down from 5.9 (it is a minus after all) which would mean that it's a half grade from 5.8 to 5.9- and a full grade from 5.9- to 5.9+ and a grade and a half from 5.9+ to 5.10a... aaarrrghhhhh (runs away screaming) ...drool...
OK, a couple of fine points and then to the bitter truth (you knew I'd circle back, right?)...
1. The plus/minus 'system' and the YDS are two distinct sub rating systems.
2. The a,b,c,d sub grades are not equiv in gap to 5.8 > 5.9. They were invented as a salve for those of us who refused to believe that the upper 5.10 range really wasn't 5.11. 5.10 WITHOUT those subgrades is way to hard on the ego. Like, we'd do the 1st pitch of Serenity and go, so THAT'S 5.10. Then jump on something like the Good Book and say NO WAY THAT'S 5.10!!!111 Bridwell says WAY!
Now the bitter truth part, this is for your son. OK, its more to keep your son from sandbagging ya, hah!
In practice, a 5.8+ is almost always harder than a 5.9-.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jul 17, 2006, 11:20 PM
Post #60 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
In reply to: In reply to: Damn, Dingus, you just wrote the mission statement for climbing! Or maybe the anti-mission statement...I don't know, but it's an antidote to all the rhetoric, overanalyzation, and general over-emphasis of an essentially silly pursuit we engage in here everyday. It's when we're not climbing is when we all turn into a bunch of nimble-fingered jackasses adding up numbers so it looks like we're "accomplishing" something. Thanks :D ! dingus is very funny. this site would suck without him. but just so you know (and because i feel like the particular target of your post), i analyze things here (especially things related to math) because i enjoy it. if it's too much for you or you DON'T enjoy it, feel free to block my posts, and those of all the other 'nimble-fingered jackasses adding up numbers.' you can't climb on a website, you can only talk. and i like talking about numbers!
Nothing personal, man :D I was agreeing with Dingus more as a general sentiment. You aren't even on my radar screen for annoying people, and I certainly wouldn't block your posts. I am speaking of myself as much as anybody else with the jackass comment. Looking back on your post, I'm positive my response wasn't directed at you. Just wanted to clear that confusion. I prefer my vendettas not be accidental.
|
|
|
|
|
ter_bee
Jul 18, 2006, 1:55 AM
Post #61 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 418
|
thanks for the reply. i did notice that you said "we" and not "ter_bee." i'm not usually that whiny or self-centered (hahaha, WHAT a lie) but the metaphor in your criticism described my favorite activities. tear it down, build it up, use as much math as possible. (and if they PAY you to do it, be really happy.)
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jul 18, 2006, 2:25 AM
Post #62 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
In reply to: Ok, now I'm really confused. I thought that the difference between 5.10a and 5.10b was the same as the difference between 5.8 and 5.9, but the difference between 5.9- and 5.9+ plus was only half a grade. But then my son asked me if 5.9- wasn't actually a grade down from 5.9 (it is a minus after all) which would mean that it's a half grade from 5.8 to 5.9- and a full grade from 5.9- to 5.9+ and a grade and a half from 5.9+ to 5.10a... aaarrrghhhhh (runs away screaming) ...drool...
Hope this helps!
JL
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 18, 2006, 2:25 AM
Post #63 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I have always thought the British system was superior because of its efficiency. Just by rearranging a limited number of descriptors you can get as large a number of difficulty levels as you want. For example: Moderately god awful is entirely different from God awfully moderate See? Cheers,
I've often applied adjectival ratings to climbs here in the US. Pretty fucking hard, fucking hard, and really fucking hard are just a few examples.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 19, 2006, 5:35 PM
Post #64 of 64
(4826 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
In reply to: In practice, a 5.8+ is almost always harder than a 5.9-.
I was told that if I ever encountered a 5.9+, I should tuck in my tail and run in the opposite direction. Dingus, should I also whistle loudly until at a safe distance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
