|
theclimer
Aug 19, 2002, 12:21 PM
Post #1 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 81
|
Not like I'm even remotely close to being able to climb 5.10, but is the difference between 5.10a and 5.10b the same as the difference between 5.9 and 5.10? Or is it 1/4 the difference?
In other words, when the 5.10 scale is broken down into a - b - c - d, do each of the new ratings represent a full number grade harder of a climb, or does each represent a quarter of the difficulty increase?
To put it yet another way, let's say I climb 5.8 and my buddy Big Al climbs 5.11b. Does that mean that Big Al climbs 8 grades harder than me, or just 3 and a bit?
Regards,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Aug 19, 2002, 12:41 PM
Post #2 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
Looking at a cross reference between the Yosemite Decimal System and other grading systems used around the world it appears that 5.10a and above are 1/2 the grade difference of 5.9 and below. Thus the difference between 5.8 and 5.9 is equivalent to the difference between 5.10a and 5.10c. How it feels when climbing, well... that's another matter.
|
|
|
|
|
daisuke
Aug 19, 2002, 1:30 PM
Post #3 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2001
Posts: 904
|
ratings are a relative thing at best. I've climbed an 11b, but I've never been able to finish the 11a that is right next to it, that's probably because the person that gave it the rating was quite tall and didn't have to dyno to get past the crux. gradings also vary from area to area, again depending on who rated them.
with that said, ratings aren't necesarily a linear form of rating, once you start getting into the higher numbers (12 and above) the difference between the letters starts becoming more and more noticeable.
|
|
|
|
|
phylp
Aug 19, 2002, 6:24 PM
Post #4 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2001
Posts: 175
|
Ratings are SOOOOOOO completely relative. How they feel to you will depend so much on what your personal strengths and weaknesses are, and how much experience you have on that kind of rock and that type of climb. Their greatest accuracy lies when comparing climbs of the same type (e.g. vertical finger cracks to each other, not to overhanging sport routes or thin slab routes at the same grade), and in the same area (e.g New River Gorge routes to each other not between the New and City of Rocks). Really, They are best used as a rough guide to what you want to get on or not. Not as an ego metric. I have found it useful to apply the "plus or minus two rule", which means I am never surprised if an 11a feels like an 11c or a 10c to me.
|
|
|
|
|
theclimer
Aug 19, 2002, 6:31 PM
Post #5 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 81
|
OK, I understand that ratings are relative...but that still doesn't answer my question. Is the difference between aa 5.6 and a 5.7, say (at the same area) going to be the same as the difference between a 5.11a and a 5.12a, or the difference between a 5.11a and a 5.11b?
Do you see what I mean?
- J
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 19, 2002, 6:38 PM
Post #6 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
Dude, your question was answered in the first reply. Do you need it repeated?
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Aug 19, 2002, 7:01 PM
Post #7 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
No, letter grades are not as big a difficulty jump as 5.8 to 5.9 I think they are kind of dumb myself as a plus or minus does the same job without drastically altering the scale.
They are even more irrelevant for cracks. An Indian Creek climb that is desperate off fingers for me might be solid thin hands for a girl with small hands. On the other hand, that same girl might be flailing in an offwidth where I cruised by good fist jams.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Aug 19, 2002, 7:09 PM
Post #8 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
Plus it all has no bearing or relevance on anything at all. So, as many here have said before, just climb and have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2002, 7:10 PM
Post #9 of 26
(21356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Here, it's pretty simple:Let:
i = 1 to n index n climbers' on-sight level
j = 0 to m index m + 1 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 rating, rescaled in some
sensible way
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 logit(Y) = (-b2 + b3*X1i)*X2j.
Exponentiating:
odds(Y) = exp[(-b2 + b3*X1i)*X2j]
In other words, routes become exponentially more difficult (as quantified by the odds of your sending the route) with each letter grade, but the steepness of the curve depends on the climber's skill level.
I'm sure that now that we've answered this question with the mathematical rigor it deserves, it won't have to be asked yet again.
-Jay
[ This Message was edited by: jt512 on 2002-08-19 12:47 ]
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 19, 2002, 7:14 PM
Post #10 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
jay: your a freakin' stud!! do you have an equation for the right kind of shoes or the comparison of one shoe to another so those damn questions won't have to be asked again??
|
|
|
|
|
artm
Aug 19, 2002, 7:15 PM
Post #11 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 17990
|
Rrrrriiiiggghhhhttt
what Jay said (repeat mumbo jumbo)
yeah that makes perfect sense to me too
|
|
|
|
|
radistrad
Aug 19, 2002, 7:17 PM
Post #12 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2002
Posts: 800
|
Jay, I need a tutor for my trig class, interested?
too bad you live in So Cal...
-radistrad
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Aug 19, 2002, 7:21 PM
Post #13 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
JT - Hey, I did all the math and checked my work.
It doesn't work man. Your system sucks. Oh sure it's simple, but it still doesn't work. It's got me climbing 5.4. Uh Huh! Damn. I've been climbing better than 5.4 for sometime now. Now I'm real confused. Does this mean I shouldn't climb anything over 5.4? I'm pretty sure I can still get up 5.10+ or so still if last weekend was an indication. Now what?? Can I only climb AID???
Please help!!
It starting to depress me!
Bill
Oh shit, SORRY, just checked my math, I made a mistake. I can really climb 5.11 now. (But the math indicates following only)
Forget my above message and I apologise to all the aid climbers I've undoubedly offended.
Dohh (Homer Simpson noise)
|
|
|
|
|
theclimer
Aug 19, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #14 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 81
|
Quote:In other words, routes become exponentially more difficult (as quantified by the odds of your sending the route) with each letter grade, but the steepness of the curve depends on the climber's skill level.
Finally a reasonable answer!
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
wonder1978
Aug 19, 2002, 8:28 PM
Post #15 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 250
|
Jay is definitely THE MAN.
I was laughing my ass off reading your post jay.
Given I haven't tried your equation but it still made me laugh. Its even funnier now that it seems your system actually works.
Good Job!!!!!!!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jono
Aug 19, 2002, 8:56 PM
Post #16 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 2067
|
ratings are funny
ive climbed 5.9s and then had real trouble getting through a 5.8.
|
|
|
|
|
indamtnsbj
Aug 19, 2002, 9:16 PM
Post #17 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 77
|
All this hibbish jibbish is very interesting to read, however, I am climbing in mostly uncharted and never before climbed areas here in Brazil.
Me and my buddy just head out and find stuff to climb and that is about it. I bust my ass, skin my knee and whatnot, but we hardly ever talk about ratings anyway.
My buddy uses the Brazilian system which I dont really understand anyway.
I say, "I wanna climb that wall, and I do, then I move to the next undiscovered climb. That is the way is should be.
Maybe I climb 5.6's or 5.10's, but at the end of the day, my arms are sore, I am dirty, and I feel good about my accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
|
gunked
Aug 21, 2002, 4:12 AM
Post #18 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615
|
One thing separates 5.10a and 5.10b.
POPULAR OPINION!!!
|
|
|
|
|
climbera5
Aug 21, 2002, 10:45 PM
Post #19 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 16
|
Brilliant post Jay, now refine the equation and send to R&I for publication. I see a Master's Thesis in the making . . .
As for ratings, it's all in the head. Try going to an area without a guide book and climb what looks possible. You'll surprise yourself, (besides, you're not climbing for grade but for aesthetics). That's how I climbed my first 5.12.
|
|
|
|
|
rockchick
Aug 21, 2002, 11:05 PM
Post #20 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 35
|
I realy liked what you(Mitch-climbera5)said about climbing without a guide book and getting on what looks possibe - I would like to see more people with that kind of outlook. Im sure alot of people out there would surprise themselves if they were not so caught up in how hard (or easy) someone else rated the climb
[ This Message was edited by: rockchick on 2002-08-21 16:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 21, 2002, 11:13 PM
Post #21 of 26
(21356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:I realy liked what you(Mitch-climbera5)said about climbing without a guide book and getting on what looks possibe
I sort of do the opposite: look at the guidebook and get on what I think is impossible.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
svilnit
Aug 21, 2002, 11:55 PM
Post #22 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 582
|
Jay ~ I'm right there with you... I hate looking at the damn book and saying I can do this climb. I would rather say, "there's not a chance in hell I'm going to make it up this". Guide books are useful for directions to the crag and for a paperweight for you napkins
|
|
|
|
|
neeshman
Aug 22, 2002, 1:20 AM
Post #23 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2002
Posts: 261
|
Ok, I wish I knew why you were asking this, but it seems to me that good climbers were establishing routes and could not agree on the rating, so they said "this is too hard to be a 5.10 but it does not feel quite hard enough to be a 5.11" so they added the alphabetical part to the rating as well. It does not seem like a question that needs a degree in calculus to answer. Besides, it has already been said that it is totally the opinion of the route establisher.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2002, 1:51 AM
Post #24 of 26
(21356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Quote:I wish I knew why you were asking this, but it seems to me that good climbers were establishing routes and could not agree on the rating, so they said "this is too hard to be a 5.10 but it does not feel quite hard enough to be a 5.11" so they added the alphabetical part to the rating as well.
No, that is completely wrong. The letter sub-grades were added when "5.10" was the highest rating. At that time, the range of difficulty of climbs given the 5.10 rating was felt to be too wide, so letters were added to better differentiate among 5.10s of different levels of difficulty. As the top end of the scale extended to 5.11 and beyond, the subgrading system was maintained for consistency.
Quote:It does not seem like a question that needs a degree in calculus to answer.
Well, you're right about that. It only requires knowledge of logistic regression.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
theclimer
Aug 22, 2002, 12:06 PM
Post #25 of 26
(21355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2002
Posts: 81
|
Quote:Well, you're right about that. It only requires knowledge of logistic regression.
-Jay
Well, no wonder I was getting the wrong answer. I certainly wasn't employing logistic regression. I was trying to solve the question using the calculus of variations. So much for n-tuples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
