|
cosmiccragsman
Jul 12, 2006, 7:53 PM
Post #51 of 64
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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
(4827 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
