|
camhead
Nov 5, 2001, 8:41 PM
Post #1 of 16
(31788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Doc--
The other day me and my friend decided to hone our aid skills on a very thin roof crack near my home. Despite the fact that I was scared sh**less at the time, IT RULED!!!
However, like many climbers, I am probably over-obsessed with ratings. Is there any sort of brief overview you could give concerning A-ratings (specifically with clean placements)? This may be a lame question, but I really want to know how stupid I was yesterday.
Thanks,
Paul
[ This Message was edited by: camhead on 2002-12-14 09:23 ]
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Nov 14, 2001, 5:16 AM
Post #2 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
I have held off on answering Camhead's post because I want to talk about a different kind of aid climbing grading system called the Casual Rating System. It is something proposed by Jim Bridwell back in the days when I subscribed to Mountain Mag and devoured every word he wrote, and it is in my opinion, a far far better way to grade aid routes than the traditional A1 to A5, new wave vs. old wave crap that confuses the heck out of everyone, even Dr. Piton. This too is a post well worth waiting for.
When I last spoke with Jim, we discussed his Casual Rating System for aid, and I told him how much I preferred it to the traditional way. When I repeated my understanding of the grades to him, I was very surprised to learn that the version published in the magazines was edited! While there may even be a few Big Wall Theorists nodding their heads as they read this because they [think] are familiar with the CRS, they would be best advised to wait. For it is only here in Dr. Piton's forum where you will receive the unedited version of CRS directly from the mouth of the Bird himself!
Note: It is important to distinguish between the Casual Rating System CRS and the Other CRS,
a malady which Dr. Piton's ex-wife
frequently accused him of suffering from - Can't Remember $#!&.
This would be evidenced by my constantly forgetting to take out the garbage, or to remember to buy some milk on the way home from the office, at least on those days I actually chose to go to the office.
It is in fact a skillfully-crafted illusion that Dr. Piton suffers from CRS, the same disinformation that caused her to say with some frequency, "you don't know which end of a hammer to hold!"
This was in reference to my apparent complete incompetence when faced with the prospect of actually having to do some work around the house.
As his readers are by now familiar, Dr. Piton is exceptionally deft in the use of his hammer, as long as it is used for driving pitons, and not for home improvement.
At the same time, Dr. Piton would also like to elucidate on some of the fallacies behind the "clean aid" or C-grade system, and the really great exception that Dr. Piton takes to so-called clean ascents and the climbers who purport to make them.
In the meantime, you can check out these links to traditional aid ratings. If you have been following Dr. Piton's writings, you will know that the word traditional has a very special meaning around here. To better understand the inner workings of the twisted mind of this big wall aid soloist, it is fundamental to know what traditional really means. You might want to try a word search here on those two words if you're not familiar with their usage.
In fact, I'm going to answer the first half of Camhead's posts with some links. Please go there to read them.
In the meantime, and to allow everyone to get up to snuff on the basics, you can read about aid ratings here. Much has been published
on traditional aid ratings, but it is certainly time to lobby for a renaissance of the Casual Rating System.
Aid Ratings Explained
John Middendorf's Aid Ratings Guide
Cheers,
Dr. Piton
[ This Message was edited by: passthepitonspete on 2002-12-13 23:14 ]
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Nov 14, 2001, 6:48 AM
Post #3 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Hmmmm
Those two links say nothing of the 'C' scale for Clean Aid. I know that you may not do this Pete, but please explain these as well. Since the current trend is moving toward Clean Aiding so as not to mar the rock by hammering in countless pins and such. Over time this ruins options for placement due to degradation of the rock in the weeakness. i.e. pinscars and such.
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Nov 14, 2001, 7:14 AM
Post #4 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Yes, when I talk about CRS I will talk about clean aid.
Please note: Dr. Piton highly favours clean aid for its rock-preserving nature. What Dr. Piton objects to is the way it is graded and the way Certain People purport to make Clean Ascents.
Stay tuned, kiddies, and study your traditonal aid grades. I truly believe that CRS is indeed the better way of grading aid.
Cheers, Pete
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Nov 16, 2001, 4:36 PM
Post #5 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
There is no magic to clean aid ratings versus
regular aid ratings. A "C" rating is the clean equivalent of the same "A" rating. Because clean aid placements are sometimes less solid than they would be if you used a piece of hammered gear in the same situation, it is unusual for the clean rating of a wall to be harder than its regular aid rating. For instance, a wall that goes at A2 using hammered gear might go at C4 using clean gear, because the clean gear is not as good and you are risking longer falls when using it.
When I write that I take exception to clean aid ratings, it does not mean that I take exception to clean aid. I will almost always use clean aid whenever possible for two reasons. The first reason is that clean aid like a cam or hook or stopper does not damage the rock [as] hammered aid like a piton or head. This is a good thing to do.
The second reason I will use clean aid is
because it is usually easier to place, and usually easier to clean. I say" usually" because some clean aid placements can be much trickier than their hammered equivalent, and some stoppers and cams can be real buggers to get out! But usually it's easier to place and remove clean aid. This is an important consideration for People Like Me who never want to do any more work than we absolutely have to! Soloing a big wall is the most physical work you will ever do in your life, so there is validity to the concept of conserving your energy. You do not want your wrists to hurt so much after funking over-driven pins that you cannot lift your beer. [Note: While soloing big walls requires a tremendous amount of physical work, it is the mental and emotional strains that turn back more wannabee soloists than the actual physical or technical difficulty of the climb itself. It is equally important (if not more important) to possess these latter two components in sufficient amounts.]
The problem with claiming a clean ascent of
virtually any big wall aid route is that at some point or other, you will almost always have to use someone else's pre-existing hammered gear!. This is because somewhere along the way you will come to a section of rock that can be climbed in no other way than by using hammered gear. You can't clean aid a copperhead seam, unless the copperheads are already in place. Ditto for a rurp seam. Frequently a piton scar will accept only a piton - a cam hook, cam or stopper simply will not work. If you are highly skilled this will happen less frequently since you will be a better climber and better able to use clean gear where climbers of lesser ability will have to use hammered gear. This is a good way to be. But there will be times when nothing else but hammered gear will work. On big wall aid routes, this is very often the case. So how can you claim a clean ascent if you used fixed hammered gear?
Now there are three possibilities you must
consider when you are faced with the nearly
inevitable situation where your only recourse for upward movement is to place hammered gear. The first and best possibility is that you will try harder and actually find a way to make the placement clean, thus improving your aid climbing skills. This is a good thing.
The second possibility is for you to cheat and use a "cheat stick" to bypass the hammered aid move and reach a pre-existing fixed piece above, which is usually a hammered piece anyway! This saves you the actual work of hammering in a piece of gear, and allows you to truthfully say you did all the moves clean. But you cheated. Cheat sticks are cheating. I used to use one when I was a beginner aid climber because I didn't have the skill to figure out all the moves. Now that I am experienced, I have always been able to figure out what the person ahead of me did to make the move that is currently stumping me. Sometimes this can take a long time - I have been stumped with difficult moves for an hour or even two hours before I finally found something that would work. I have not used a cheat stick in many years since I now have the skill to climb without cheating. But this skill takes time to acquire. I encourage people not to use a cheat stick, but to figure out what the climber ahead of you did. This might mean climbing easier routes until you figure stuff out.
Another option is to make the move by placing
hammered gear, but say you climbed it clean.
This third option is known as lying, and is used by clean aid climbers from time to time. [Note: Most other climbers have also used this third option from time to time]
Sometimes climbers who want to make a
so-called clean ascent of a wall will first climb that wall and pre-place fixed gear in convenient places so that when they return to climb the route "clean", their fixed gear is already in place. This has also been a common practice in speed ascents - to rehearse the route ahead of time and leave behind some hammered gear fixed in place to save time and make easier the subsequent ascent. Enterprising and brave booty hunters will therefore make a point of climbing routes that have been thusly pre-equipped.
There is another dilemma concerning the use of clean aid, and this is the artificial inflation of the route's rating. As discussed above, a big wall may go at A2 using hammered gear but go clean at C4. This is because using clean aid forces you to avoid hammered aid placements when possible, and use what may well be body-weight-only placements which will not hold a fall. So you generally risk longer falls when trying to climb fully clean, and this is why a clean grade is generally higher for a wall than its equivalent aid rating.
There are some walls that simply do not require any hammering because all of the fixed hammered gear is already in place, or the rock lends itself to clean climbing the whole way because of natural cracklines. The Nose and Salathe Wall are examples of the latter, but you will of course find bolts and other fixed pieces on both. For instance, The Nose might be graded A1+, but it will also be graded C1+.
With regard to the artificial inflation of an aid climb's grade by climbing it clean instead of using hammered gear, you may have a different outlook on the situation when facing it in your aiders than you do when reading this post. What do you do when you are faced with a potentially clean aid placement after a series of difficult moves, where the clean placement is marginal but the hammered aid would be better?
Picture yourself here. You are on either the fifth pitch of Zenyatta Mondatta or the eighteenth pitch of Sea of Dreams, and you have just made ten hook moves in a row. I use these two pitches as examples - they come to mind first since I climbed them both this year. If you are a Real Aid Climber, your hands will now be sweating, as mine are, at the thought of being in such a situation. [Note: It is inconceivable to the more sane why we would ever knowingly want to place ourselves in such a situation. But those of us who "get it" fully understand.]
So after ten hook moves in a row, you are now
faced with the following dilemma. When
confronted with the option of using a marginal clean piece or using a bomber hammered one, which do you choose? Do you choose to artificially inflate the rating of the pitch by using the clean piece? Does this make sense to you? If this is your aim, then why leave behind any gear at all? Why not purposely skip clipping good pieces simply in order to inflate the rating? Assuming you will not skip leaving gear for pro, are you willing to risk your own life and limb merely to make a clean move, especially in light of fact that you cannot make a legitimately clean ascent since you are certain to clip fixed hammered gear? Are you gonna make a cam hook move or use a dicey stopper when you could use a piton instead?
When faced with this situation after ten hook
moves in a row, there is no second thought for me - I will grab a fat juicy Lost Arrow and pound that m*therf*cker home! Yeah, baby! To not do so would be to artificially inflate the grade of the climb, and I would consider this inappropriate behaviour.
There is a school of thought that says, if you have to drill, you might as well stick a rivet in the hole. I agree with this. I feel it is inappropriate to artificially increase the rating of a climb by drilling bat hook holes instead of placing rivets. If you have to drill because there was no other way to climb this blank section of rock to reach the next line of weakness, then you have to. The rating of the pitch will have to decrease. That is because that's the way things are. It would be
silly to make the climb harder just for the sake of making it harder.
If you follow this logic through to the situation above, there is some justification for using the solid hammered piece in place of the marginal clean piece.
In conclusion, it is always desirable to use a clean piece of gear instead of a hammered
piece. This is because it is usually faster, and usually doesn't hurt the rock as much. It will often make the climb harder, especially if you use a lot of marginal clean pieces in place of good hammered pieces. But is it worth it? There is no such thing as a clean ascent since somewhere along the way you will be using someone's fixed hammered gear. You must determine for yourself how silly and inappropriate you are prepared to be.
And you know my stance concerning
this!
I hope this sheds some light on the clean
climbing dilemma, and explains how the ratings work.
Yours etc.,
Dr. Piton
P.S. The next post I will write below concerns the Casual Rating System, which I believe to be a better way to rate aid climbs than using the traditional "A" or "C" grading system.
[ This Message was edited by: passthepitonspete on 2002-12-13 23:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Nov 17, 2001, 11:06 PM
Post #6 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
Now, before I describe the Casual Rating System, I have to discuss the controvery in aid climbing ratings, and this is the debate between New School Aid Ratings and Old Wave Aid Ratings. What has arrived along with New Wave Aid Ratings is a lot of confusion! About the only thing you can be certain of with aid ratings is that there is no certainty!
For instance, when Rick Lovelace made the first ascent of The Shortest Straw on El Cap's Southeast Face, he graded the route A1+. This is because, "it's all A1 until you fall." He happens to be right! But that doesn't tell subsequent ascensionists much, does it? The route now is graded A4 on the old system. I haven't done it, so I don't know what the new wave aid grading would be.
Part of the new wave concept is the mind game. It is an attempt to use grading to make you look more %!#@#in'. This is a concept with which I am well familiar. It is also a way to manipulate and confuse those who would follow in your footsteps. Aid climbers seem to enjoy a good sandbag even more than free climbers!
For instance in the days when I used to put up trad free climbs in Ontario, I would purposely grade them just a shade lower than what I thought they really were. I would far rather that subsequent ascensionists and guide book authors upgrade my routes than downgrade them.
The idea is this - if someone climbs my route, a route that after many ascents has arrived at a consensus grade of say 5.10c, but which I had graded 5.9 after the first ascent, this climber will think, "wow, Pete must be pretty %!#@#in' if he thought this route was only 5.9!" On the other hand, if I graded this actual 5.10c route 5.11 after its first ascent, subsequent climbers would think, "man, that Pete must have been quite the wussy if he thought this route was 5.11." Undergrading climbs is of course a thingly disguised attempt by People Like Me with fragile egos to attempt to make ourselves look more %!#@#in'!
You might be interested to know that this particular argument was once used against me by a detractor, who incidentally is now a supporter. He wrote in 1984 that "in the last year, all of the R.O.C.C.'s climbs of 5.10 or harder have been downgraded." The truth of the matter was that five of the routes were in fact downgraded, but twelve were upgraded. Subsequent editions of the guidebook kept upgrading some of the climbs by yet another letter grade, and in quite a few cases, by several letter grades. Climbs we originally graded 5.8+ are now considered 5.10c, and so on. You might be amused to know that the former detractor who is quoted above is the very same person who subsequently upgraded my routes several times in successive guidebook editions which he himself edited!
I'm speaking of course about Dave Smart. A couple years ago I ran into him and apologized for some unnecessary and personal attacks I made on him in 1984. I told him I felt very bad about what I had written about him, I apologized, and I asked him to forgive me which he told me he did. This was one less burden lifted from my heart. It takes a man of great character to forgive his detractor.
I digress. I bring up the story of the upgrade/downgrade because I believe this is one of the ideas behind new wave aid ratings. New Wave Ratings are always lower than their Old Wave counterpart. For instance, a climb that is graded A4 under the old system might be considered new wave A2+. This may be an attempt by the ascensionists to purposely
undergrade a climb for the reasons outlined above. It also may not be.
When Warren Hollinger and Miles Smart made the first ascent of Disorderly Conduct, they gave an overall grading of the wall, but they did not grade each individual pitch, a significant departure from the time-honoured standard. They did this I believe to raise the standard of adventure for those who would follow them, as you can read in the link above. Obviously the adventure is going to be magnified if you don't know where you're going to find the crux pitch! I believe Miles wanted to rate one of the hardest pitches new wave A2+, which is the STANDARD NEW WAVE SANDBAG RATING! If you see this marked on any topo, watch out! It's probably really at least A4! I really hope this non-grading of individual pitches doesn't catch on - I like to know what I'm up against. There is enough adventure soloing big walls! Then again, a bit more adventure might not hurt either. At least when you know the grade you know when you should be really scared as opposed to merely scared.
Another benefit of the new wave system is that it opens up the grades towards the top end by bringing the grades down, thus leaving more room in the top end for distinguishing the really really really hard pitches from the really really hard ones.
In Canada, weather forecasts and current temperatures are quoted in degrees Celsius, which has been the case here for the last twenty years or so. Even people like me with engineering backgrounds who are fully capable of "thinking in Celsius" still routinely convert to Fahrenheit!
This is the case with new wave ratings - most people want to know what it is on the "old scale".
Most people want to know what it is period! The "actual grade" of an aid climb is always open to debate! One of the reasons for this, besides the difficulty with the grading system, is because the true grade of an aid climb, whatever the hell that's supposed to be, is constantly changing with each subsequent ascent. This is because hammered protection permanently scars the rock. For instance, cracks that were originally rurp seams on Charlie Porter's first ascent of The Shield have evolved, thanks to repeated nailing, into knifeblade cracks and even cracks where you can hand place sawed-off angles or cams! Needless to say, The Shield is no longer the A5 Death Route it was on its first ascent. Repeated nailing has lowered the grade to old A3 according to Chris McNamara's superb guidebook, Yosemite Big Walls Supertopos. Under the new wave system this might translate to A2- or thereabouts. Please don't quote me on this - I'm far better converting from Celsius to Frankenstein! At least in the latter conversion, there is a pre-defined arithmetic formula. Too bad we can't get one for aid ratings, eh?
One thing about aid ratings is that they are not open-ended like free climb ratings. Eventually 5.15 will be climbed and accepted. It may already have been climbed. With aid ratings, however, you're not "allowed" to go higher than A5! So when real live death route A5's get climbed, they will still only be considered A5. In the old Reid guidebook to El Cap, Wyoming Sheep Ranch is graded A5+, and I believe this was because some of the belays were very poor. Fortunately this notion, that a climb is harder and hence better if its belays are suspect, has not really caught on! This wall is now considered A4 on the old scales, and you'll have to ask someone what the equivalent new wave rating would be - I don't know, and I don't really care! I still think under the old scale. It would appear, though, that even today's real new wave A5 routes have bomber belays. Thank goodness.
So the new way does allow more space to open up in a close-ended system, to allow hard pitches to be merely A2 or A3, and allow really hard pitches to be new wave A4.
About the only pitch on El Cap that I am certain is new wave A5, or at least it was when I was up there, is the crux pitch on Reticent Wall. The bit that was climbed with beaks on the first ascent needed heads when I was up there because of increased nailing. It's possible this pitch is no longer new wave A5, though I suspect it may well be. The crux is well above there, and involves unprotectable hooking for a long long way. It is possible on this pitch to take a fall from nearly two hundred feet above the belay and rip every single piece on the pitch, striking the belay ledge as you fly past on your four-hundred-foot fall! Clearly, this pitch is A5 no matter what grading system you use! At least it used to be. The only way it would no longer be new wave A5 would be if some good pro somehow got manufactured in the hooking section. Perhaps if you bring enough hooks, enough duct tape and enough screamers, you could downgrade this pitch yourself! Up in the hooking bit, the real crux part of the crux pitch, there were a few pin placements, and clearly they were only for psychological purposes. When Chris Geisler led this pitch, he put the pins in behind him because he was too afraid to weight them and actually use them for aid! Sheesh. Blow it on this pitch in the wrong spot and you're a dead man.
One thing I am certain of is this: If you drill or chisel or enhance the rock in ANY way whatsoever (head placements are sometime chiseled), the pitch by definition cannot be new wave A5. To have that magic grade, there cannot be any manufactured placements.
The pitch above Wino Towers on Reticent Wall is "only" new wave A4. It's a real live death pitch, too, except that there is a drilled rivet partway up. But that means it can't be A5. I asked Steve Gerberding why he drilled instead of figuring a way past, and he told me that the feature he would have had to have used, while it might have held him or the first few followers, would not have lasted, and someone would later have had to have drilled anyway. So Steve drilled.
Steve is so %!#@#in' he doesn't need to artificially overgrade his pitches. He was "rewarded", if you want to call it that, by the unarguable A5 crux pitch higher on the route. I doubt Steve gives much thought or heed to his detractors.
If you want to know what to expect on a given aid rating, and say what to expect the dif- ference to be between say A2 and A4, then check out the links above.
But I repeat, the only thing you can be certain of with with aid ratings is uncertainty!
It is for these reasons that Jim Bridwell proposed the Casual Rating System. I have outlined my reasons why I think the new wave system was developed, and when I get a moment, I'll write about CRS.
Cheers,
Dr. Piton
[ This Message was edited by: passthepitonspete on 2002-12-13 23:18 ]
|
|
|
|
|
passthepitonspete
Dec 22, 2001, 6:15 PM
Post #7 of 16
(31786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 2183
|
CRS stands for the Casual Rating System, an excellent system of rating aid climbs devised by Jim Bridwell and friends in the late 70's/early 80's, and is a rating system that unfortunately just didn't catch on. I believe it to be a superior rating system to the one currently used, be it old school or New Wave. It's something I read about in the now-defunct Mountain Magazine, and I record it here from memory, but my memory was refreshed recently when I had an opportunity to talk with Jim. Please do not confuse the CRS with the malady from which I occasionally suffer, which is also known as "CRS" - Can't Remember Sh*t.
The Casual Rating System dispenses with the usual A1 to A5 ratings, and simplifies things greatly.
Easy aid is rated NBD, which stands for "No Big Deal." I would consider something really easy like The Nose, which is A1- or A1 to be NBD-. The "minus" and "plus" gives you all the precision you really need. But in rating aid climbs, precision of grading is never the problem - it's the accuracy of the rating that is so hard to determine!
Moderate aid is rated NTB, which stands for "Not Too Bad." I tend to rate hard aid as NTB+, saving the next rating for the really hard stuff.
Really hard aid is rated PDH, which stands for "Pretty Damn Hard. You will know that the aid is really hard when you are fearing for your very life. Merely being scared sh*tless does NOT qualify a pitch to be graded PDH, since being scared sh*tless is a normal part of everyday aid climbing.
It is interesting to note that in Mountain Magazine, a somewhat sanitized version of CRS was published. PDH was said to stand for Pretty Darn Hard. This is what I believed until Jim straightened me out. In the Mountain Mag, a special rating was sometimes appended where blowing it was particularly hazardous to your health. RHU stood for "Real Heads Up", or so I thought. When I mentioned the rating of RHU to Jim, he laughed and said, "it's really DFU - Don't F*ck Up!
Words from the Master.
I would consider the A5 heading pitch on Jolly Roger to be PDH/DFU and I would consider the crux pitch of Reticent Wall to be PDH+/DFU. Stuff like the Coral Sea on Native Son and the Hook or Book Pitch on Sea of Dreams would be PDH-/DFU to me. Ditto for the sick hook moves above the body-cleaving pinnacle on Jolly Roger.
Note that the DFU rating can occur on pitches which are not necessarily rated PDH! I would consider both the ten hook moves in a row on the fifth pitch of Zenyatta Mondattaand the eleven hook moves in a row up high on the Sea of Dreams to be NTB but still definitely DFU.
If you look at any of my annotated route topos, you will see that I actually use the Casual Rating System, because this is what I prefer.
Probably the most important thing to remember if you are climbing pitches graded DFU is just this - Don't F*ck Up!
Cheers,
Dr. Pee'd On
|
|
|
|
|
artifoatope
Aug 20, 2007, 6:53 PM
Post #8 of 16
(24935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2007
Posts: 4
|
The technical difficulty and the exposure have to be separate to be able to assimilate the evolution of the materials (gear)
?The technical difficulty has to be an open scale, while the exposure has to indicate the risk and the gravity of the fall.
It would also be necessary to indicate the ethics of the climbing with a letter (classical A=, C Clean =…)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 21, 2007, 3:05 AM
Post #9 of 16
(24867 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
They probably somehow managed to figure it out over the last six years.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Aug 21, 2007, 3:54 AM
Post #10 of 16
(24837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
no one rocked the bold print harder than PTPP though.. i do suppose thread revivals are our own fault by telling people to do a search.. Search + date check! new standard?
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Aug 22, 2007, 2:00 AM
Post #11 of 16
(24772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
sometimes a little deep-thread-revival is good for the soul.
this particular one would rate a DTR6- (the minus inferring that it wasn't particularly important to echo to the front page, but perhaps still worth reading once again for those who were lucky enough to miss it the first time) with my soon to be proposed and formalized Casual Reanimation System when discussing the bumping of archaic threads.
It has more to do with how old the OP is, with a minor consideration of how many follow-up posts it may have received and when the last post occurred.
This particular post received a (-) due to the fact that the OP had no follow-up posts, taking into account the OP himself.
Please excuse any weak-sauce attempt to poke fun at the OP. Due to his own actions (and the response of the previous ownership), he is no longer able to defend himself on this forum. It was purely in jest.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Aug 22, 2007, 6:14 AM
Post #12 of 16
(24731 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Careful with the zombie dust, n00b. No telling what else you might get to raise from the dead around here. But this thread is a doozie.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
domu888
Aug 22, 2007, 7:57 AM
Post #13 of 16
(24715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
This is a nice system, like the old British climbing grades, but the problem comes when people run out of inspiration for the next acronym: where do you go after PGDLMFU, Please God Don't Let Me F**k Up?
Numerical systems have a deceptively simple elegance when it comes to expansion: you just keep going. They also translate better, that's why in Japan pretty much all free-climbing uses the YDS, despite early attempts to use the Saxon system. Unfortunately, most Japanese climbers have no real idea of what a 5.9 YDS climb actually is, and few seem to attempt such allegedly weak lower grades .
That is the problem, none of the grades are coherently applied and while a catch-all system of wide descriptive grades is often more accurate by default, numerical grading systems are much easier to handle on a large scale.
The CRS seems like a good system, but I think the justification for applying a particular grade should be given whenever a route was graded, as you did for your examples. Then we would know you were honest and had ****** of steel when we upgraded your routes.
|
|
|
|
|
artifoatope
Aug 23, 2007, 3:42 AM
Post #14 of 16
(24663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2007
Posts: 4
|
There are two well differentiated points of view.
1- the experts and those that they have been climbing for many years do not need much information. With an approximate datum already they have enough, because they have many resources.
2- those that do not dominate the aid climbing he will go to them a lot well all the information, even if she is complex.
For whom does she graduate? who tea more needed of a new graduation?
The new generations of aid climbers.
It can be thought. If we have achieved it, because not them.
The answer him clear. Nowadays the new generations have everything much easier and hardly struggle for nothing.
If him very difficult they change of goal.
Because of that the sport climbing triumphs so much
|
|
|
|
|
domu888
Aug 23, 2007, 3:44 AM
Post #15 of 16
(24661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Posts: 111
|
Is that you Majid?
|
|
|
|
|
artifoatope
Aug 24, 2007, 2:07 AM
Post #16 of 16
(24612 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2007
Posts: 4
|
Excuse my ignorance Mahid? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
