Forums: Climbing Information: Beginners:
classification versus scale difficulty
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Beginners

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


jacques


Mar 29, 2014, 11:17 PM
Post #1 of 64 (4557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

classification versus scale difficulty
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

A beginner don't know what means NCCS. But most guide book use that classification system.

YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

But other scale exist: rope management technique from bolt user to A-5 users, route finding scale, from rap down route to onsight; ease of escape from half a rope cliff to mt everest. etc.

What is the differences? You will found some information on the blog: http://tradpartner.blog.com/?p=3. For me, the national classification climbing system is a classification to make climbing accessible for every one. You can climb a route in north conway, and you will find a similar difficulty rating on the west coast. But the YDS system, is not a classification system. It is a scale of difficulty.


JimTitt


Mar 30, 2014, 2:35 AM
Post #2 of 64 (4520 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 978

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dear Beginners.
As a climber of over 40 years experience who regularly uses 5 different grading systems I would advise you DO NOT read any of Jacques thoughts on grading, you will only become as confused as he is.


chadnsc


Mar 30, 2014, 8:58 AM
Post #3 of 64 (4439 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I respectfully disagree with the OP.


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 10:55 AM
Post #4 of 64 (4414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [chadnsc] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.
+1
The OP has a woeful misunderstanding of what NCCS conveys and what it does not.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 11:01 AM
Post #5 of 64 (4413 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [chadnsc] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.

The question is: What is the difference between yosemite decimal system (YDS) and national classification climbing system (NCCS)?.

In Ed Webster guide book, they wrote: "Placed just after the name of a climb[..] is the commitment rating" So it is in use in many area accross the United State

note: the NCCS is often call the commitment rating.


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 1:52 PM
Post #6 of 64 (4389 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
chadnsc wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the OP.

The question is: What is the difference between yosemite decimal system (YDS) and national classification climbing system (NCCS)?.

Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty. Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty. IOW you can have a one pitch 5.13c route that has an NCCS grade of I and a 25 pitch 5.9 that gets an NCCS of IV.

From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

In reply to:
National Climbing Classification System (USA):

NCCS grades, often called “commitment grades,” indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.

I and II: Half a day or less for the technical (5th class) portion of the route.
III:Most of a day of roped climbing.
IV: A full day of technical climbing.
V: Typically requires an overnight on the route, or done fast and free in a day.
VI: Two or more days of hard climbing.
VII: Remote walls climbed in alpine style.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 3:02 PM
Post #7 of 64 (4372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
jacques wrote:
[quote
Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty.

A little bit more complicate than that, from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

So, if you have two routes of 5.7 and 1200 feet, one can have a rating of "II, 5.7" and took three hours to climb and the other a rating of "IV, 5.7" and took more than a day to climb. With the YDS you know about the hardiest move, but you don't know about the overall difficulty.

I found many I, 5.11 easier than a III, 5.8 at Canon (i.e. british where comming).

so, what means climbing hard?


marc801


Mar 30, 2014, 4:09 PM
Post #8 of 64 (4355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:

Simple - YDS is a difficulty rating of the hardest move on the climb; NCCS is, as you state, commitment - ie: time and effort - and nothing to do with difficulty.

A little bit more complicate than that, from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

So, if you have two routes of 5.7 and 1200 feet, one can have a rating of "II, 5.7" and took three hours to climb and the other a rating of "IV, 5.7" and took more than a day to climb. With the YDS you know about the hardiest move, but you don't know about the overall difficulty.

I found many I, 5.11 easier than a III, 5.8 at Canon (i.e. british where comming).

so, what means climbing hard?
First, you totally cheese-titted your post and what I wrote - fixed above.
Second, if you had not cherry picked my post and included the next sentence:
Marc801 wrote:
Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty.
...you'd see that I addressed your point.
Actually, what the hell is your point? You're trying to compare apples and oranges and it seems like you're trying to make an argument where there is none.

As far as "...what is climbing hard?", that's been generally agreed upon for decades - the difficulty of the moves.


jacques


Mar 30, 2014, 6:12 PM
Post #9 of 64 (4333 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
from the author: "the "NCSS" must indicate the "difficulty" of the route[..] first there is the difficulty of each individual move or pitch or portion of the climb; and second there is the overall difficulty, or challenge or sense of commitment implied by the entire route.

Marc801 wrote:
Yes, a route with many hard pitches will be a greater commitment than one with many easy pitches and only one stretch of hard climbing, but there is nothing in NCCS that directly relates to difficulty.
marc801 wrote:
As far as "...what is climbing hard?", that's been generally agreed upon for decades - the difficulty of the moves.

The author of the system himself told you that the system was made to identify two kind of difficulty. He is supported by pratically most of the climber at this time. The system is still in used in many guide book and many area.

The NCCS is made of three number. One is the YDS scale or the difficulty of the hardiest move. The other is an other kind of difficulty that we don't find in sport climbing


(This post was edited by jacques on Mar 30, 2014, 6:18 PM)


rocknice2


Mar 31, 2014, 7:51 AM
Post #10 of 64 (4242 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

National Climbing Classification System (USA):
http://aaj.americanalpineclub.org/...s/grade-comparisons/
NCCS grades are often called the “Commitment Grade”; they primarily indicate the time investment in a route for an “average” climbing team.
Grade I: Less than half a day for the technical portion.
Grade II: Half a day for the technical portion.
Grade III: Most of a day for the technical portion.
Grade IV: A full day of technical climbing, generally at least 5.7.
Grade V: Typically requires an overnight on the route.
Grade VI: Two or more days of hard technical climbing.
Grade VII: Remote big walls climbed in alpine style.

This is in addition to the YDS and gear ratings.
It most definitely applies to sport routes. Just go to an area that has long long sport routes and you'll see it.

This thread is so fucked up. :-(


dagibbs


Mar 31, 2014, 11:58 AM
Post #11 of 64 (4211 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 887

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.


gunkiemike


Mar 31, 2014, 2:52 PM
Post #12 of 64 (4188 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2263

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dagibbs wrote:
jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.

Agreed, I thought that "YDS is just the hardest move" misconception was put to rest years ago. Quite simply: how hard is one pull-up? OK, now do 40 of them. Not so easy...right? Sustained and enduro affect the "difficulty" rating.


dagibbs


Mar 31, 2014, 8:28 PM
Post #13 of 64 (4156 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 887

Re: [gunkiemike] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gunkiemike wrote:
dagibbs wrote:
jacques wrote:
YDS, yosemite decimal system, is just a scale of the difficulty of the hardiest move.

Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. Including hardest single move, hardest crux sequence of moves, how sustained the climb is, availability of rests between hard moves, etc.

Agreed, I thought that "YDS is just the hardest move" misconception was put to rest years ago. Quite simply: how hard is one pull-up? OK, now do 40 of them. Not so easy...right? Sustained and enduro affect the "difficulty" rating.

Sadly, like anything "traditional" it is very very hard for it to be truly put to rest. As we see here.

And, there is at least one system out there (British technical grades) which is, still, a "single hardest move" grade. Of course, it is (almost) always combined with an adjectival grade that gives over-all difficulty of the climb (including gear risk, exposure, endurance, etc.)


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 12:19 AM
Post #14 of 64 (4042 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

The reference explain what they used in the book to rate a route. It is not the project propose as we find it in ed webster in north conway, shawagunk, and many other place in the US. http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1039859

I think that sport climber try to diminish the commitment to concentrate on the move, and that the trad like commitment more than a hard move. It is like alpine and cross country skying. Two are on sky, but one is more cardio and the other faster.


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 4:17 AM
Post #15 of 64 (4020 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:
From Alpinist [ http://www.alpinist.com/p/climbing_notes/grades ]

The reference explain what they used in the book to rate a route. It is not the project propose as we find it in ed webster in north conway, shawagunk, and many other place in the US. http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1039859

I think that sport climber try to diminish the commitment to concentrate on the move, and that the trad like commitment more than a hard move. It is like alpine and cross country skying. Two are on sky, but one is more cardio and the other faster.

I have no idea what you are saying
Je n'ai aucune idée ce que tu dis


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 6:30 AM
Post #16 of 64 (4003 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [rocknice2] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rocknice2 wrote:
marc801 wrote:

I have no idea what you are saying

Read "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

Understand what is the two difficulty identify in the text.

and you will understand that when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition) these guy are sport climber.

a climber who lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and who climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh) those guy are more trad.

So, it is not because you place cam that you are a trad climber and some trad used bolt when the consequences of a fall are too hight


(This post was edited by jacques on Apr 2, 2014, 4:09 PM)


marc801


Apr 2, 2014, 6:45 AM
Post #17 of 64 (3995 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
rocknice2 wrote:
jacques wrote:
marc801 wrote:

I have no idea what you are saying

Read "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

Understand what is the two difficulty identify in the text.

and you will understand that when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition) these guy are sport climber.

a climber who lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and who climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh) those guy are more trad.

So, it is not because you place cam that you are a trad climber and some trad used bolt when the consequences of a fall are too hight
Please stop writing gibberish and for fuck sake learn how quotes work.

Edit: the original was cheese-titted so badly that it spilled over into this post - had to add 3 closing quote tags.


(This post was edited by marc801 on Apr 2, 2014, 7:56 AM)


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 8:06 AM
Post #18 of 64 (3971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Everyone Else wrote:
jacques wrote:
Something that didn't make sense...

...then made cheese-tits of everything


Didn't understand a word but tried to explain

5.11a 800' GradeII vs 5.11a 800' GradeIII

The grade2 will a lot of easy pitches with probably one single pitch of 5.11
The grade3 will have several pitches of 5.11 or many pitches near that level


rocknice2


Apr 2, 2014, 8:13 AM
Post #19 of 64 (3968 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Posts: 1203

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
The NCCS is made of three number. One is the YDS scale or the difficulty of the hardiest move. The other is an other kind of difficulty that we don't find in sport climbing

This is wrong on so many levels


marc801


Apr 2, 2014, 9:03 AM
Post #20 of 64 (3956 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [rocknice2] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rocknice2 wrote:
Everyone Else wrote:
jacques wrote:
Something that didn't make sense...

...then made cheese-tits of everything


Didn't understand a word but tried to explain
Alas Jacques' English is just a bit too lacking for anyone to understand well, including others from Quebec.
Jacques: I suggest you either post in French or vastly improve your written English. Right now it's just painful. Yeah, maybe that's a bit harsh, but we're having a really tough time trying to figure out what you are saying.


jacques


Apr 2, 2014, 8:40 PM
Post #21 of 64 (3883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 13, 2008
Posts: 278

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dagibbs wrote:
Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. .

fun house is a 5.7 with more sun than campanule in quebec, 5.7???

What is the difference between campanule and fun house as over all difficulty???


dagibbs


Apr 3, 2014, 6:15 AM
Post #22 of 64 (3852 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 887

Re: [jacques] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jacques wrote:
dagibbs wrote:
Historically true, but not so much anymore. It has come to include a judgement of the overall difficulty of the climb (or pitch) as a whole. .

fun house is a 5.7 with more sun than campanule in quebec, 5.7???

What is the difference between campanule and fun house as over all difficulty???

Never climbed either of those climbs, so have no idea.

But, for an example, at Montagne d'Argent on the M+M wall are two crack climbs: M + M (5.8) and Krakabra (5.7). The single hardest move on both is about a 5.7 move -- there is no move on M+M that is harder than the hardest move on Krakabra. But Krakabra has lots of little ledges for rests as you climb, while M + M has a sustained (about 12m) section of 5.7 crack moves without the rests, and that's why it is graded 5.8 rather than 5.7. It is a harder climb because of the sustained sequence of easier moves, rather than the single hardest move.


marc801


Apr 3, 2014, 9:25 AM
Post #23 of 64 (3804 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2747

Re: [dagibbs] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Two other examples:
Reeds Pinnacle Direct - the crux 2nd pitch is rated 5.9 - there is no move harder than 5.7 in 120' of crack. There is also no move easier than 5.7 in that 120'.

Hot Line - when Barber did the FA, he rated it the then outrageous and non-existent 5.11. In a magazine interview he justified the new grade by saying that there were so many 10d moves in a row that it was harder than any other 10d.


olderic


Apr 3, 2014, 10:29 AM
Post #24 of 64 (3787 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1536

Re: [marc801] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Some thread drift here - not unusual. But I think the original point was not about whether or not the YDS grade reflected the substainess or if it was simply a snapshot of the 1 most difficult move, but the point was whether the YDS or any system based on rating the most difficult part of the climb was adequate for describing the difficulty/danger of the climb. Of course its always a dubious practice to assume you know what Jacgues is talking about.

But I think his point is that there are a lot of other factors that go into characterizing the over all difficult of a climb. Jacques is constantly bashing sport climbers and loves to present scenerios where some with a sport climbing mentality will get into trouble when they attempt to trad climb (which for him ultimately means a long multipitch climb with a complex approach and descent). He was trying to claim that a more sophisticated rating question is needed for more complex climbs (several exist) but because we don't typically use them that we are leading beginners into danger. I think this conclusion is bonkers for several reasons:

1. Most sport climbers are perfectly happy climbing hard and have little/no interest in slogging up some trad routes - it isn't something that they are all aspiring to do.

2. Grades are never that accurate to start with. Most people learn that the grade is an approximation and that there are other factors involved the first day in the gym.

3. If you are going to blame a description for getting yourself hurt/killed you shouldn't be climbing anything anywhere. Rule # 1 is self reliance. Same rule for trad or sport (what if you make that final committing dyno on your sport route and the anchors are gone?)


JimTitt


Apr 3, 2014, 10:44 AM
Post #25 of 64 (3783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 978

Re: [olderic] classification versus scale difficulty [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yup, the German speaking world (and most other countries) seem to have no problem using one grading system for sport and trad and everything in between same as the USA. That the walk in/descent or whatever is 3 hours should be apparent to everyone with a brain and anyway that is what guide books are for.
An often overlooked aspect is that grades are subjective and not only for the grader but the climber as well so precision is impossible despite what the less experienced climber might wish.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Beginners

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook