|
blazesod
Jul 10, 2006, 3:46 AM
Post #1 of 64
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
(5192 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
