|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Feb 16, 2003, 2:58 PM
Post #26 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Xanx, okay, now I see what you meant, and I guess I did misunderstand where you were coming from. I just missed the sarcasm in the first part of your post... I do that a lot. Anyway, if that's where you stand, then I ALMOST agree with you. Although I think the rating system we used could be simplified, I don't think it ever will, due to the fact that there are so many people who are accustomed to it. BUT that doesn't mean we can't simplify our own climbing pursuits by using simple like I mentioned in a previous post:
Okay, my take on all of this is that we climb for basically 2 reasons:
1. ... to impress someone else, or
2. ... to impress yourself.
Competition climbers, photo posers, and even the occasional sport climber (me included), tend to lean on #1... but we all have an inner desire to fulfill #2. Ratings are needed in both cases if we are to measure our own improvement. However, I recommend a much simpler rating system, with which I'm sure some of you are already aware of:
V-System-------YDS-------Description
V-Easy(VE)-----5.Easy----Warm-up, Cake
V-Fun(VF)------5.Fun-----Ego-booster,classic
V-Hard(VH)-----5.Hard----Grunts and Groans.
V-Heinous(VH+)-5.Heinous-Frickin' Hard.
V-???(V?)------5.???-----Puzzled, Stupified.
V-Scary(VS)----5.Scary---Don't die on it.
V-#@!~*(V!)----5.#@!~*---Mission Impossible
The best part about this system is that it is 100% flexible with your ego, and applicable to more than just climbing! Mix and match all you want. CLIMB ON!
James.
PS. My sincere thanks to all of those climber gone before for all of the hard work establishing these wonderful rating systems!
Basically I'm trying to say that we can say whatever we want about it, and though it may be hard to tell the difference between an a, b, or c, there is somebody out there who can, and they can have it. Let's just climb for reason #2.
Hey, Xanx, if you're ever in AZ, look me up and we'll go climb some SWEET 5.Fun's on Mt. Lemmon, or some 5.Scaries in Cochise Stronghold!
Keep Climbing.
Bighigaz.
|
|
|
|
|
yeti
Feb 16, 2003, 4:01 PM
Post #27 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 57
|
Hello all,
Some of you have pointed out that route grading lies in the hands of guidebook authors. On the Eardley escarpment, many gradings used to be quite controversial. When I wrote the guidebook for the area, I reverted to the more generic plus and minus system (+/-). The american lettered system has the finest resolution of all (compared to autralian of french, etc.). This makes it probably too precise, hence making it difficult to reach consensus on the grades. The 5.10- / 5.10 / 5.10+ makes the american system a little rougher, and probably more logical too (why the heck have we started adding letters). I'm surprised that the lettered grade has not yet been replaced by the +/- system. But I still hope that it will catch on.
yt
|
|
|
|
|
youmeanupthere
Feb 16, 2003, 4:09 PM
Post #28 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 205
|
I treat ratings as estimates or educated guesses. It helps relieve my woes with the rating scale.
[ This Message was edited by: youmeanupthere on 2003-02-16 08:12 ]
|
|
|
|
|
cory
Feb 16, 2003, 4:13 PM
Post #29 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2002
Posts: 40
|
Scorecards on 8a.nu take into account only what you have climbed in the past year. After that, a route automatically expires, as would be the case with Realization, which was climbed in the summer of 2001. Regarding Dreamtime, why would it be on Sharma's scorecard if he only has a route card posted? There are seperate cards for boulder problems, you do not simply mix at will.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Feb 16, 2003, 4:48 PM
Post #30 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Dirtbag,
No offense, but if a climber is getting a sense of accomplishment because of a rating they're doing it for the wrong reason. Ratings are just guidelines so the 5.8 leader doesn't kill himself/herself on a 5.13c.
Can and can't.
Accomplishment is in the act, not the rating. I feel "accomplished" wether it's a 5.4 or a 5.9. Then again, I don't carry a tick list and I'm not a ratings bagger. Vanity is a trait I don't carry.
|
|
|
|
|
womble
Feb 16, 2003, 5:38 PM
Post #31 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
From the profile of the original poster:
Quote:
Hey i've been climbing a little over a year now (unfortunately only in the gym) and am totally hooked
xanx, if you've only been climbing a year, and only in a gym(?!?), how can you possibly go out with a generalisation like "grading is stupid"? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Grading is useful because it gives you an idea of how hard a route is before you jump on it. Sometimes eyeballing it is not enough, and sometimes you are flying halfway around the world to climb and grades are the only hard data you have. Wanna climb in Thailand? Well, you've got to be able to lead comfortably in the French 6's to really enjoy Krabi. And is there any point in stopping by in Rifle if I can't lead 5.11?
[ This Message was edited by: womble on 2003-02-16 09:44 ]
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Feb 16, 2003, 7:34 PM
Post #32 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
well, i'm glad someone here did a little research...
that said, i can justify my views vicariously... basically i have sat here and read countless other posts by countless people at this site, and heard arguments by many people at my gym, ect... to come to my conclusions. my gym doesn't grade, except for comps. and i have been to a few other gyms for comps (including a highly refutable one, PRG) and have been puzzled by that 700 point problem i flashed, yet can't stick the moves on some 500 pointers... i think being able to easily do a v7 equivalent, yet struggling on some v5's seems to discredit the system a little. if the grades were really "accurate" shouldn't i have had much more trouble on the v7's than the v5's? (oh and there were also some 650 point problems i did, so it's not like it was just that one particular 700 point one that was easy). and, while the 700 pointer was a slab (which is easier for me) i also did a 400 point "warmup" next to it and had A LOT of trouble.
add to this the endless arguments here and at the gym (and rockman's brainwashing...) and you get my justification...
i am just sick and tired of seeing what grades have turned into, and what they have turned climbers into. they seem to corrupt the sport too much. when satisfaction comes more from seeing a "5.11c" in the guidbook than from seeing a "5.10d", there is something wrong. Why should you be affected by what that dude who got the FA or whatever thought the route/problem was? all that should matter is what you think it is.
i went to Rumney once. bouldering. no guidbook. so i just walked around looking for cool lines with a local i met. i found this crazy start, like a one inch edge (no incut) on a roof section about 2 feet off the ground, crappy feet, then next move out over the lip. i got on it and gave it a few good tries. i couldn't pull off the ground, so i tried the rest of the moves. could i do any of them? no. would i probably have even looked at it if i had seen the grade? probably not. was it the coolest thing i tried at Rumney? YES!
l8er
mike
|
|
|
|
|
jughead
Feb 16, 2003, 8:21 PM
Post #33 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 292
|
some climb to be outdoors others climb in competitions somewhere between is me!!
I love the experience of climbing BUT I wouldnt as much if I was on 4a or something cos you might as well just climb a ladder, I like climbing hard grades cos you can see the beauty on the way up and as someone once said its not the destination its the journy and as my partner says "when you reach the top its so beautiful and you know that your in a place which no-one you know (apart from climbers) can reach. no two climbers can see the same shangri-la on the same summit"
thats why snowdonia in wales is so boring cos EVERYONE can get there!!!
if you don't believe me then why climb mount everest, or K2 is it because of the challenge or to be one of few to summit it?
if you still dont believe me then would you still climb everest if a cable car was dropping off familys when your up there? and would it be the same?
still don't believe me? o.k. then
would titanic be so amazing and awe inspiring if it was raised and put on show? maybe for us but how about the submarineers who spend months planning for a day long expedition to the bottom?
still you don't? o.k. would you rather see elephants and lions in a zoo caged in or travel thousands of miles to rough it through the african velt to just catch a glimpse of a lion pride or elephant herd.
here is my attempt at an awesome phrase/future quote:
the further away,
the longer the distance,
the higher the summit,
the more the achievement
thank-you ladies and germs you've been great!!!!!!
[ This Message was edited by: jughead on 2003-02-16 12:24 ]
[ This Message was edited by: jughead on 2003-02-16 12:39 ]
|
|
|
|
|
rockman517
Feb 16, 2003, 8:23 PM
Post #34 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 90
|
I suppose the whole argument is based on peoples definition of success....some feel that success is seeing something you would love to climb, trying your hardest on it, and finding success in that, whether you get "credited" with the send or not....some people want to always climb on things that they can do in a reasonable amount of time, so that they can find success in the completion of the problem/route, and in order to do that you have to know what grade you climb, and what grade what you are trying is, so that you don't waste your time, trying something that looks awesome, that you may not (notice I said, MAY NOT) be able to do....but as I said before, how do you know until you try....hell, I think that if you start in the "middle" of a problem, and send it from there, and you are satisfied with that....great...hey, maybe you don't really like the way the first couple moves go, so you just don't want to do them...the only reason you would do it from the start is so it would "count" as doing the grade you see near it....Now, I am by no means saying that if you do something in this manner, that you should go spray about doing the problem, because you haven't, but hey, why spray at all right?
Yet again...this is my OPINION.....no offense to anyones beliefs
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Feb 16, 2003, 8:25 PM
Post #35 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
jughead:
you seem to be mistaking hard climbs for hard grades. of course the sense of accomplishment is greater the harder/longer/whatever the climb is. However, what is important is how hard/long/whatever it is for YOU, not what someone else said. i feel no more accomplishment because someone else said this climb is harder than that one UNLESS I feel it is harder. thus the grade doesnt matter. what DOES matter is how I feel about the climb.
mike
|
|
|
|
|
womble
Feb 16, 2003, 9:16 PM
Post #36 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
Quote:
Why should you be affected by what that dude who got the FA or whatever thought the route/problem was?
People who do FAs are usually highly experienced and respected climbers and usually have a good idea how to grade a route. If they are way off the mark, the route is usually re-graded at something more reasonable.
Grades are mainly a useful tool. Many people use them to gauge the suitability of the climb before jumping on it, especially if the grade measures danger or committment factors such as the English system or the G/PG/R/X additions to the YDS that is used in parts of the US. Secondly, grades can be used to measure improvements in personal achievment, which a lot of climbers are interested in. Thirdly, grades can be used as boasting material (very rare in my experience).
Quote:
i am just sick and tired of seeing what grades have turned into, and what they have turned climbers into. they seem to corrupt the sport too much.
Look, once again, what sort of baseline are you looking at here? Are you seriously saying that you have noticed a change in the climbing community over the last year and a half because people are using a numerical grading system? Are you saying that grades are meaningless or harmful, as implied by the subject and subsequent postings or are you trying to say that people shouldn't get obsessed with the numbers? These are two very different things, and you seem to be implying that they are the same.
Grading has been around for *decades* and I really can't see a reasoned objection to their existance.
The edit is this:
Quote:
that said, i can justify my views vicariously... basically i have sat here and read countless other posts by countless people at this site, and heard arguments by many people at my gym, ect... to come to my conclusions
I don't think these views can be reasonably adopted by reading rc.com postings or talking to people at gyms. rc.com is an internet forum, for crying out loud, and gym climbing is a cut down subset of climbing in general. Get out, climb more, climb in different places and then see if you still think that grading is pointless.
[ This Message was edited by: womble on 2003-02-16 15:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Feb 16, 2003, 10:49 PM
Post #37 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Here's an interesting fact about gradings. I've always considered formal gymnastics a kind of parallel world to climbing, and when I was doing gymnastics (1950s)there were three levels of difficulty: A, B, C with C being the hardest. Now there are A, B, C, D, and E.
|
|
|
|
|
mattiem
Feb 17, 2003, 3:26 AM
Post #38 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 104
|
I have to disagree with you wildtrail, maybe for you thats the wrong reason but i can't honestly say i know a single climber who doesn't want to climb harder. I overheard one of the more seasoned climbers that i know talking to a new climber the other day. The new climber had asked him something about his reasons for climbing but all i heard was the response, "I just want to get strong and send hard problems". Thats how i feel, i love climbing and i love pushing myself to climb harder and harder. I would definatley be dissatisfied if i only climbed 5.4-5.9 for the rest of my life as you say you like to do. Sure i have days where that is what i do and i have a great time, but i wouldn't want to never push myself. So you have fun on your climbnig and i'll have fun on mine, but my reason is jsut as valid as yours, if you don't think so your just another old school elitist snob, but hey, i guess thats the way it is
peas
matt
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Feb 17, 2003, 3:33 AM
Post #39 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Frist, let me retract something. Rather, correct it. In my last post, in reference to dirtbag, it came off the wrong way. Just wanted to clear the air in the fact that I was NOT insinuating dirtbag is vain or climbs for that reason.
mattiem,
That's not the point. If they are climbing for the grade/rating only, they aren't really climbing or climbing for real. It isn't about the grade/rating. That's for those that are vain, carry tick lists, and have no clue what climbing is about. You can disagree, but I never said it was wrong. Ratings are only for limitation guidelines. Climbing and breaking them is fine, but climbing to break them on purpose (carried with that all to often found elitist attitude) is for climbers that aren't real climbers.
NOT climbing to "push the limits".
Ratings/gradings are for chumps, IMHO. Every climber knows where he/she stands. I bow to those that want to climb harder, as long as it isn't for the purpose to brag about the 5.13c accomplishments. Understand?
It's all can and can't.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Feb 17, 2003, 4:05 AM
Post #40 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
How about if you just climbed 5.9 A3 in the Canadian Rockies for the rest of your life?
(Best be sure you know what that grade means, before answering, lest you be revealed for a rube.)
If there were no grades on the routes you climbed, would you climb them anyways? Do you climb lines for beauty or for challenge? Or is it both? Do you lead trad? Do you worry about having to bail off a route if it's too hard for you, and what the consequences of a retreat will be?
There aren't any "right" or "wrong" answers to these questions, but they do inform the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtbag
Feb 17, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #41 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 54
|
Wildtrail
I used the bold face type to indicate that ratings are (and here it is again) ONE WAY that people gain a sense of accomplishment. There are many other ways that one could gain that same sense. IMCO climbing for a rating is as valid a reason to climb as climbing for cosmic enlightenment. After all wouldn't it be me "vain" or "elitist" of me to assume that mine was the only "real" way to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Feb 17, 2003, 4:28 PM
Post #42 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
xanx -
if you have a problem with ranking systems then simply choose to ignore them. and then the next time you want to climb something that you know you'll be able to send just think about how you're gonna determine what route you're gonna climb.
rankings are done for a real, important reason. to give you an idea of how hard a route is so you'll know whether you should even attempt it (along with other reasons).
if you find that many people overrate climbs, then that's your opinion. not EVERYONE sandbags. and if they do they are just lying to themselves. they aren't really doing you any harm, are they?
i really appreciate rankings. without them i might end up trying to climb something way out of my ability when i wanted to climb something that was 'just' out of my ability so i could push myself.
stop worrying so much about what other people do and just climb for yourself...
|
|
|
|
|
ronamick
Feb 25, 2003, 8:49 AM
Post #43 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 476
|
You would do well to listen to Mr. Jgill, who only happens to best the best climber to ever touch rock. John Gill was climbing what has turned out to be 5.12 and even 5.13 boulder problems, back before there was a grade of 5.10!
Gill's highball, ultra-extreme first ascents are legendary to this day, and despite the fact that climbing is ready to break into 5.15, Gill's problems don't see many repeats.
The interesting thing is Gill's rating system (correct me if I'm wrong, John) was simply B1, B2 & B3 (Impossible, ridiculous, and absurd, to the rest of us). You may have a point kid, but you're still talking out of school because you haven't paid your dues yet. Climb on, angry young man!
|
|
|
|
|
igcuesta
Feb 25, 2003, 10:51 AM
Post #44 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2001
Posts: 139
|
Xanx, if Sharma's last sents are not at 8a.nu is because Sharma hasn't upgraded them on his scorecard. At 8a.nu climbers themselves are responsible for upgrading their scorecards. Moreover, as sombody has pointed out Realization has been sent sometime ago so it can't be taken into account to calculate Sharma's last year score.
Regarding grades I absolutely agree with mattiem. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure any high level sport climber (like, say, Sharma) thinks in a simmilar way. Climbing harder routes is a matter of improving your strenght, abbilities, and trying to reach and cross the edge. Then you can publish your acomplishments... or just let them for yourself .
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Feb 25, 2003, 1:24 PM
Post #45 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
I'll admit that a sense of competition is at least a minor part of my climbing. I had a project last year that I did solely for the rating (well, and I learned to love it, anyway), you know, just to say, "hey, I did a 5.-something.
furthermore, just the other day at the crag, as I was debating whether or not to do a climb, my partner said, "well, (name omitted) did it."
I jumped right on.
that said, has anyone noticed that 11d is harder than 12a?
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Feb 25, 2003, 2:02 PM
Post #46 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
Camhead wrote..
In reply to: that said, has anyone noticed that 11d is harder than 12a?
And 9+ is harder than 10A? Why is that. Grading seems to vary from region to region also. Bouldering seems to have the most subjective and varied ratings. Makes it interesting.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
thrasher
Feb 25, 2003, 5:15 PM
Post #47 of 47
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 603
|
"This is one of my biggest annoyances about climbing, people are always worried about other people and their accomplishments. I am only in this sport for one thing, to enjoy myself and be outdoors.
It sucks to see this sport sell out to mainstream thinking. Always have to be bigger and better than the last person.
Personally I only use guide books with ratings for one reason, to make sure that I wont be stuck on a run out or have to leave equipment behind because I couldnt complete the crux of that 5.14a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h "
jerrygarcia...I couldn't have said it any better!
|
|
|
|
|
|
