Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
Ratings - 2+2=1?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 


donwanadi


Feb 18, 2012, 9:07 PM
Post #1 of 15 (2045 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 19, 2011
Posts: 170

Ratings - 2+2=1?
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I am noticing a lot of G rated climbs that consist of all PG pitches. Could someone explain the logic behind this?

Examples:

William's Guide

Red's Ruin 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.0PG
Pitch 2: 5.1PG
Pitch 3: 5.2PG

Sudoriferous. 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.1PG
Pitch 2: 5.2PG


USnavy


Feb 19, 2012, 12:57 AM
Post #2 of 15 (1998 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2661

Re: [donwanadi] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have never noticed a guidebook saying a climb is G in the title than listing the pitches as PG. But I see screw ups like that all the time in wall climbing books. Most of the A2 or C2 graded climbs in the SuperTopo Big Walls 3rd edition book have A2+ or C2+ pitches. But then again wall climbing involves all kinds of mindfucks, so its expect the topo would be jacked.

Maybe the author meant put PG in the title and just put G on accident? I dont know of any reason why someone would list a climb as being G rated, if its G you just dont list the rating. Normally safety ratings are not even listed unless they are R or X.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 19, 2012, 1:01 AM)


shockabuku


Feb 19, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #3 of 15 (1975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4862

Re: [donwanadi] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

donwanadi wrote:
I am noticing a lot of G rated climbs that consist of all PG pitches. Could someone explain the logic behind this?

Examples:

William's Guide

Red's Ruin 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.0PG
Pitch 2: 5.1PG
Pitch 3: 5.2PG

Sudoriferous. 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.1PG
Pitch 2: 5.2PG

From what I've seen, it's odd to see a 5.2PG pitch and an overall 5.2G rating but it's not unusual to see a 5.2PG pitch and an overall 5.3G (or higher difficulty) overall rating. Apparently the greater difficulty rating of some other pitch makes the higher danger rating of an easier pitch obsolescent. The assumption is that if you can climb the 5.3 then the 5.2 isn't of concern.


Partner j_ung


Feb 19, 2012, 6:24 AM
Post #4 of 15 (1971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [donwanadi] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

That's an error. Guidebooks aren't infallible.


USnavy


Feb 19, 2012, 7:16 AM
Post #5 of 15 (1948 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2661

Re: [shockabuku] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
donwanadi wrote:
I am noticing a lot of G rated climbs that consist of all PG pitches. Could someone explain the logic behind this?

Examples:

William's Guide

Red's Ruin 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.0PG
Pitch 2: 5.1PG
Pitch 3: 5.2PG

Sudoriferous. 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.1PG
Pitch 2: 5.2PG

The assumption is that if you can climb the 5.3 then the 5.2 isn't of concern.
That sounds ludicrous, who said that? That may be fine for a 5.2 grade. But what if a 5.12a climb had a X rated 5.11d pitch, would you think its fair to call it 5.12a (G)? I think not, its still X rated.


charlie.elverson


Feb 19, 2012, 8:23 AM
Post #6 of 15 (1918 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2009
Posts: 131

Re: [USnavy] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
That sounds ludicrous, who said that? That may be fine for a 5.2 grade. But what if a 5.12a climb had a X rated 5.11d pitch, would you think its fair to call it 5.12a (G)? I think not, its still X rated.

I've seen this in a handful of guidebooks before. There's an X rated 5.7 pitch, but the route is rated plain 5.11 or something to that effect. You're example of 12a and 11d is a bit of an exaggeration. Those two grades are pretty close and the assumption is less reasonable. Think about Snake Dike (as you seem to love Yosemite so much, it seems an apt example). Although some books may have it as 5.7 R/X, I don't believe all do. Besides, most people would feel pretty comfortable calling it just 5.7 as the runouts are on terrain where you're almost walking.


shockabuku


Feb 19, 2012, 8:45 AM
Post #7 of 15 (1901 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4862

Re: [USnavy] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
shockabuku wrote:
donwanadi wrote:
I am noticing a lot of G rated climbs that consist of all PG pitches. Could someone explain the logic behind this?

Examples:

William's Guide

Red's Ruin 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.0PG
Pitch 2: 5.1PG
Pitch 3: 5.2PG

Sudoriferous. 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.1PG
Pitch 2: 5.2PG

The assumption is that if you can climb the 5.3 then the 5.2 isn't of concern.
That sounds ludicrous, who said that? That may be fine for a 5.2 grade. But what if a 5.12a climb had a X rated 5.11d pitch, would you think its fair to call it 5.12a (G)? I think not, its still X rated.

Who says that? Well, I wrote it but it's what I've heard. I guess people who interpret the Williams guides to the Gunks probably say it.

I don't think it's an issue of fairness. In a technical sense yes, it is fair - it applies to everyone equally. I don't think that's really the point however.

Do I think it's smart? It makes some sense, but I don't really like it; I just know that's the way the books are written.

Example:
Rock and Brew, 5.9+ PG, with pitch 3 being 5.8 R

What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget.

With Sudoriferous maybe it's the way the book is written using bold print. The recommended climbing is in bold print, the non-bolded is not recommended. The Sudoriferous entry has the route name and grade bolded (5.2 G), as well as pitch 1 (5.1 PG), but pitch 2 is not bolded and therefore not recommended and so may not be included in the overall recommended climbing and rating.

Personally I think the thing to take away from this is to read the entire route description before you start climbing.


Partner j_ung


Feb 20, 2012, 5:42 PM
Post #8 of 15 (1753 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [shockabuku] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
USnavy wrote:
shockabuku wrote:
donwanadi wrote:
I am noticing a lot of G rated climbs that consist of all PG pitches. Could someone explain the logic behind this?

Examples:

William's Guide

Red's Ruin 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.0PG
Pitch 2: 5.1PG
Pitch 3: 5.2PG

Sudoriferous. 5.2 G
Pitch 1: 5.1PG
Pitch 2: 5.2PG

The assumption is that if you can climb the 5.3 then the 5.2 isn't of concern.
That sounds ludicrous, who said that? That may be fine for a 5.2 grade. But what if a 5.12a climb had a X rated 5.11d pitch, would you think its fair to call it 5.12a (G)? I think not, its still X rated.

Who says that? Well, I wrote it but it's what I've heard. I guess people who interpret the Williams guides to the Gunks probably say it.

I don't think it's an issue of fairness. In a technical sense yes, it is fair - it applies to everyone equally. I don't think that's really the point however.

Do I think it's smart? It makes some sense, but I don't really like it; I just know that's the way the books are written.

Example:
Rock and Brew, 5.9+ PG, with pitch 3 being 5.8 R

What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget.

With Sudoriferous maybe it's the way the book is written using bold print. The recommended climbing is in bold print, the non-bolded is not recommended. The Sudoriferous entry has the route name and grade bolded (5.2 G), as well as pitch 1 (5.1 PG), but pitch 2 is not bolded and therefore not recommended and so may not be included in the overall recommended climbing and rating.

Personally I think the thing to take away from this is to read the entire route description before you start climbing.

And that guidebooks—and grades for that matter—are subjective.


curt


Feb 20, 2012, 6:39 PM
Post #9 of 15 (1730 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18230

Re: [shockabuku] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
...What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget...

I don't believe there have been 1/4 inch bolts on that thing for years, have there?

Curt


justroberto


Feb 20, 2012, 6:42 PM
Post #10 of 15 (1725 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [USnavy] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

USnavy wrote:
I have never noticed a guidebook saying a climb is G in the title than listing the pitches as PG. But I see screw ups like that all the time in wall climbing books. Most of the A2 or C2 graded climbs in the SuperTopo Big Walls 3rd edition book have A2+ or C2+ pitches. But then again wall climbing involves all kinds of mindfucks, so its expect the topo would be jacked.

You know, people might consider taking you seriously if you could just stop trying to convince us all you're a serious big-waller in every single one of your posts


USnavy


Feb 21, 2012, 3:05 AM
Post #11 of 15 (1664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2661

Re: [justroberto] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
USnavy wrote:
I have never noticed a guidebook saying a climb is G in the title than listing the pitches as PG. But I see screw ups like that all the time in wall climbing books. Most of the A2 or C2 graded climbs in the SuperTopo Big Walls 3rd edition book have A2+ or C2+ pitches. But then again wall climbing involves all kinds of mindfucks, so its expect the topo would be jacked.

You know, people might consider taking you seriously if you could just stop trying to convince us all you're a serious big-waller in every single one of your posts
I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am just psyched to get out as its almost wall season. I referenced it in this topic because the SuperTopo Walls book is a prime example of grade abnormalities.


(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 21, 2012, 3:23 AM)


shockabuku


Feb 21, 2012, 5:23 AM
Post #12 of 15 (1633 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4862

Re: [curt] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
shockabuku wrote:
...What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget...

I don't believe there have been 1/4 inch bolts on that thing for years, have there?

Curt

They may not be anymore. But they were the first time I climbed it and that made an impression that apparently stuck with me.


Gmburns2000


Feb 21, 2012, 6:41 AM
Post #13 of 15 (1607 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15154

Re: [curt] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
shockabuku wrote:
...What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget...

I don't believe there have been 1/4 inch bolts on that thing for years, have there?

Curt

no. it's a perfectly well-bolted route for the environment with good bolts.


marc801


Feb 21, 2012, 7:05 AM
Post #14 of 15 (1595 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2750

Re: [shockabuku] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
curt wrote:
shockabuku wrote:
...What I don't understand and which doesn't make much sense are the cases the OP brings up like:
Arrow, 5.8 G, with pitch 2 being 5.8 PG

Maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. But having climbed it, I'd say that one - it's sandbagged, and two - the crux is protected by a 1/4" bolt that has been there a while and it's a little scary. Maybe it's three 1/4" bolts in a row, I forget...

I don't believe there have been 1/4 inch bolts on that thing for years, have there?

Curt

They may not be anymore. But they were the first time I climbed it and that made an impression that apparently stuck with me.
There are 2 bolts on Arrow - one at the crux (final moves) and one on the nearly-a-crux about 10-ish feet below. The original 1/4" bolts were replaced the first time in ~1982 with 3/8". Those were replaced ~1998. The placement of the original bolts and all subsequent replacements were done on rappel.


marc801


Feb 21, 2012, 7:08 AM
Post #15 of 15 (1592 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2750

Re: [j_ung] Ratings - 2+2=1? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
And that guidebooks—and grades for that matter—are subjective.
....and often contain numerous typos. That is all that is happening here.


Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$40.46 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$37.76 (10% off)
$215.06 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook