UKC

...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?

hardest move i think. or maybe hardest pitch.

In reply to Removed User:

It's a pitch grade.

ALC

In reply to Removed User:

Similar to British tech grades, it's for the hardest move on any given pitch. This means that (in theory) a pitch may have one or 50 moves at a given technical difficulty and it would still receive the same YDS grade. That can make it quite hard to pinpoint where a crux is (eg Serenity Crack / Son's of Yesterday). YDS for sport routes by far the most laughable of its uses as it tells you almost nothing useful if used as intended.

Some guide book writers, recognising its deficiency at describing how sustained a pitch might be, have taken to breaking the rule somewhat and bumping up pitches that are very sustained (eg the Split Pillar in Squamish, stuff on Devil's Tower etc).

YDS also tells you nothing about danger. Many guides these days use cinema ratings alongside YDS to address this.

In reply to Removed User:

I remember this being discussed before (though maybe not on this forum). I recall the conclusion being that it was originally intended as a "hardest move" grade, but is now for an entire pitch. The change may have been because of people not understanding the intended use of the grade, or because of it being difficult to isolate the hardest move, and debates about whether short sequences should count (similar debates about UK tech grade, I believe?)

In reply to Removed User:

Since few people here understand the E-grade, why do you expect them to understand US grades!

Nick's answer is correct. No grading system in the world attempts to isolate single moves. Not surprisingly the UK system has effectively been abandoned for harder routes.

In reply to Nick Russell:

Depends who's writing the book. Guides vary a lot because nobody really knows what the rules are anymore.


Dont reckon so.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Not sure about that. I've done plenty of 11c's and 11d's with no moves harder than some 10c's and 10d's -


R and X isn't a new thing is it?

E

In reply to Removed User:

Since few people here understand the E-grade, why do you expect them to understand US grades!

Nick's answer is correct. No grading system in the world, other than the UK tech. grade, attempts to isolate the difficulty single moves. Not surprisingly the UK system has effectively been abandoned for harder routes.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Nope... The PG, X and R are actually part of YDS. It's just that they are hardly used (especially the PG).

In reply to Enty:

So have I. Read the sentence after the one you quoted.


Its not part of the original YDS, can't remember who started it, but plenty of guides using YDS still don't use it.

In reply to HeMa:

YDS predates cinema grades by a long stretch.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Yes, but unlike your tech-grade (that never is greater than 7a ), some people have evolved... and it's the case with YDS, now the PG... whotnot is part of the YDS.

In reply to HeMa:

My tech grade?


Some being the relevant word there. Feel free to inform the other guide book writers.

In reply to Removed User:

Where's Rob Durran when you need him, eh?

In reply to jonny2vests:


I'm still struggling with your argument. Surely they are for pitch grades?

French sport grades must be laughable too?

What does 8a tell me that 5:13b doesn't tell me?

E

In reply to jon:

I'm here.
And already foaming at the mouth at the very thought of the the inadequacy and inconsistency in use of the YDS, especially in comparison with the UK system and even more so at the way people too stupid to understand the UK system will defend the YDS because they are blind to how crap it is. I'm staying out of this.....

In reply to jonny2vests:


Actually, I think that sport routes is the only place it does work, because it is then used as a direct conversion of a French grade (ie physical difficulty of the whole pitch). You just have to remember that, confusingly, this bears limited and varying relation to how it is used for trad.

In reply to Removed User:


It is used differently in different places and different guides, but the best general rule (as explained usefully by someone on a thread a while back) is that it gives the difficulty of the hardest "passage" between rests or stopping places. This might be a longer sustained section or a bouldery move betwen rests, so it can be anything from a tech grade to a sort of mini French grade. Different passages on the same pitch can get different grades on topos. Its inadequacy stems from it trying to be on a sliding scale between two things in different situations (an attempt to compensate for its obvious limitations as a one tier grading system) and just because pitch A has a higher grade than pitch B it in no way follows that pitch A would get a higher UK adjectival or tech grade or French grade. Hence the scope for hideous sandbags which visitors to the States will almost certainly be familiar with - though things can become better once you get used to the way it is applied in a particular area or rock type or guide.

In reply to flaneur:

Sorry, but who do you know who's been leading outdoors for more than a few months who doesn't understand them? It doesn't take long to grasp them once you realise the importance of doing so---and they're not exactly complex are they! Factoring a handful of variables into a simple numerical/adjectival correlation is hardly rocket science!

In reply to DaveBear:

Yup. Best grading system in the world and pish to understand.

E

In reply to DaveBear:
Factoring a handful of variables into a simple numerical/adjectival correlation is hardly rocket science!

Rocket science is pretty easy, basic physics. Now if you'd said it was "hardly brain surgery" I'd have had to agree with you.

In reply to Robert Durran:

+1

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

+2

E

In reply to Robert Durran:

And followed up with 2 posts on topic! No willpower!

In reply to jonny2vests:

I'd be interested in specific examples of where you feel the YDS is used as a 'single move' grade. Is this widespread or just inconsistent grading typical of less well-trodden climbing areas? My experience all over the western USA has always been that it is exactly equivalent to any other technical grade (French/sport, UIAA, Aussie/SA): one 5.9 move = 5.9, five consecutive 5.9 moves = 5.10c, twenty consecutive 5.9 moves = 5.11c and so on.


In reply to DaveBear:


Perhaps you are right, I was being a touch tongue-in-cheek (hence the !).

For what it is worth, I feel E-grades are just fine for their purpose, although there is a grey zone about applying them to highball boulder-problems which people get over-excited about. Hard cases make bad law.

PG, R and X are somewhat helpful additions but rather crude: not accounting for exposure, loose rock, difficult-to-read sequences, intimidation, cumulative difficulty of multiple hard pitches, or the frequent scenario of well-protected hard bits and unprotected slightly easier bits on the same pitch. If I was writing guidebooks myself I'd used a combination of E-grade (difficulty to lead) and sport-grade (difficulty to second).

In reply to Removed User:

No one knows! Ha!

You will sometimes see on topos a YDS grade, say 5.11d, at a particular spot/move.....just to confuse matters.

For Sport it's like this

5.8 = 4+
5.9 = 5
5.10a = 5+
5.10b = 6a
5.10c = 6a+
5.10d = 6b
5.11a = 6b+
5.11b = 6c
5.11c = 6c+
5.11d = 7a

etc etc

Don't ever try to do that for trad grades, there is so much disparity between grades at different areas in the US any conversion to UK grades is at best a guess, usually a bad one.

And yes, R, RX etc (like Yorkshire P grades, in fact that is where Yorkshire P grades came from) have been around for a long time (20+ years).

Mick

In reply to Enty:

Not so Enty. There is great confusion over the UK adjectival system, and not just from beginner UK climbers, it is quite complex, having at least 3 variables, sometimes four all interplaying.

But yes, once you understand it, usually through having lots of climbing experience in the UK, it does make sense.

I like it, it's quite unique.

M

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Only 3 or 4 variables. Like I said easy.

Algebra for 12 year olds has more going on.

E

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Maybe, but there shouldn't be because it is almost trivially simple:

If route A has a higher grade than route B, then fewer people will be able or willing to onsight it. Simple. Obviously there are various contributing factors to why fewer people would be able or willing to onsight it.

In reply to Enty:

Not easy at all Enty. All because you understand something doesn't mean it is simple.

Don't ever get into teaching.



That's why many 12 year olds, and the majority of adults have difficulty with it.

Measuring time and distance is straightforward, tallying goals in a game is easy.

Grading the difficulty of climbs is complex and subjective, understanding how it all works even more so. That's why climbers continually discuss the subject.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Teaching is the art of communicating the apparently complex so that it is as tranparently simple as possible. This, as I showed in my last post, is easy to do with the UK adjectival grade.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It doesn't seem difficult, does it?

I think a lot of the problem is when people climb indoors for years before they venture onto trad and want to know "what trad grade is equivalent to climbing 6c+ indoors?" and get confused when there isn't a simple answer...

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

But the reality is that this conversion is at least a grade out.
5.10a = 6a
5.10b = 6a+
etc etc

In reply to Robert Durran:



You are off topic Robert. We were discussing the complexities of applying the adjectival/technical grade, the number of variables involved, and how complex it is especially to those new to climbing.

In reply to Christheclimber:

In reality it could be way way out.

I did a 5.10+ recently that is in reality 5.11d.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Stop biting Mickey.

E

In reply to Removed UserEnty:
>
>

On come on Ents. Let me please.

I was just going to add that the misundersandings on this forum are due to poor UK adult comprehension skills, and that we can blame that on the poor UK Education system, too many foreigners, the internet, tv reality shows and the current Tory government.

And then I was just going to leave one annoying word.

Discuss.

Snowing here. Got to get Fliss off to school.

Over and out.

M

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Get back to Dildo..........sorry I mean Dido...

E

In reply to Enty:

Fliss is in charge of Spotify..... thank goodness it's not Adele again.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Not off topic. Any grading system will need experience to apply or interpret. Grading is by its nature comparative - without having done a certain number of routes to compare others with, it will not make much sense to someone. This does not in any way stop the underlying principle being simple (as in the UK adjectival grade). Ok, this thread was meant to be about the YDS, which is pretty useless, so yes, off topic!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

This, on the other hand, is way off topic. You should be ashamed of youyrself

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, and it's true for pretty much every known grading system...

Less people OS 5.11b than 5.10b (or french 6c+ and french 5a and so on)...

The only problem is in fact with two tier systems. Which one is the dominant (I would presume it being the overall grade, so less people OS E7 than E5).

In reply to HeMa:

Not the YDS, which is what this thread is about

Yes, it works for French sport grades.

Correct, though there is no problem with two tiers- indeed it is the lack of two triers which no doubt contributes to the inconsistent use of the YDS (neither hardest move nor whole pitch, but something variable in between)

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

"But yes, once you understand it, usually through having lots of climbing experience in the UK, it does make sense".

Replace "UK" with "US and this statement applies just as well to the YDS.

In reply to Removed User:


I've started a thread for you at the USA's Supertopo.com

Here: http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1736169/Help-Explaining-the-YDS-Gra...

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

I like the second reply:

In reply to jon:

Yay - class reply:

This should help you pasty dwellers of the sodden isle:

5.8 = Not that severe, nor hard.
5.9 = Hard enough to put a fair lady in distress, but rarely severe
5.10a = Very very severe, might upset your delicate constitution, guvner.
5.10d = So severe your avg queen's subject wishes they'd stayed at the chips shop.
5.11b = Hard as nails
5.11d = EXTREEEEEMMM, but only level 1 EXTREEEM.
5.12c = E12, harder and more severe than a 1970s houligan on matchday on the high road headed to White Hart Lane
5.13c = Does it matter? You limey wankers ain't gettin up this anytime soon, and it you did it would be rated E17 and you would pretend this 17' gritstone glorified boulder problem was R/X.

E

In reply to Enty:

Thought that was going to be Mr Walling, but it wasn't.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC: Mick can you clear up one point please. On sports or trad is the YDS grade an on sight grad or a red point French-style grade? Thanks

In reply to David Coley:

French grade is for the easiest sequence, so redpoint or OS doesn't really matter. True, though that a tricky seq. would be harder to OS.

In reply to David Coley:

Don't go there David, you will upset the apple cart.

Let's just say that climbing Onsight, whether it be sport or trad is always harder (if you are at or near your limit) compared to an ascent where you have have practiced the moves, have knowledge of the moves, and/or have knowledge of the gear placements (you know that filled down RP 3 in the notch under the blind falke a metre right of the two finger pocket before the crux).

In reply to HeMa: that's not my understanding at all. I thought French grades were for the pitch. Full stop. Nothing about a move or section. Secondly I thought all 7a's were ment to feel as hard as each other ( given th6e limits of any grading system) to redpoint, whereas them might be very, very different to each other to on sight.

In reply to David Coley:

Yes, french grade is for the whole pitch, using the easiest sequence.

In reply to flaneur:

No, its fairly common, even in Yosemite. Take Serenity / Sons of Yesterday. It has a crux of 10.d, an easy pitch followed by two stiff finger locks. The real crux is 40m of 10b after it.


That is how it's often implemented / interpreted. But the original idea was that the grade refers to the hardest single move on any given pitch. Ever noticed that you often see grades marked on topos at different sections of the pitch? How could that work if the grade always described overall difficulty?

Naturally because of the change in interpretation, people use it differently in different areas / books. Even for sport climbing.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


Oh God, not again!!

In reply to Removed User:

Is the mud sinking to the bottom of the pond yet?

Here is Ed hartouni's take on it, and it is still early here:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1736169/Help-Explaining-the-YDS-Gra...

as with any climbing rating system, the YDS is subjective and based on consensus, at this point probably most similar to the Australian "open" rating system.

The history is important, and the fact that climbing is something like 40+ years along since the most recent changes to the system had been made might indicate a time to reflect on what it has become.

In general, the question that is most often asked when grading an FA is "how hard is that pitch compared with ..." where a number of candidate pitches are offered up in comparison. Now the definition of "hard" depends on the FA team at that time, for instance, when Eric and I first did Dream Easy we rated it 5.8 (for all but the final pitch, which we didn't do on that first outing). Perhaps we had had a good year and this climb, at the end of a good year, didn't seem that difficult to us. I've gone back and decided it was harder than I remember, and Eric, based on his own evaluation on climbing it again, and the many voices of those who have climbed it, upgraded it to 5.9.

Those "many voices" are important as they are a part of the consensus, but the many voices who established the current ratings are a part of the pitch comparison.

As far as a technical grade the consensus rating may overlook the fact, as Peter and JTM point out above, that the climb may not have any single move at the consensus rating. ECiYA has pointed out in other threads that a climb like Ahab has a technical singularity to it that nearly defies rating, so it is hard to obtain a consensus, Roger Breedlove pointed out that Frank Sacherer, of the FFA of Ahab, rated it at the top of the grade at that time, 5.9, which it is certainly harder than, but how to rate a climb with an OW sequence that is not found elsewhere?

In the Valley, this brings up another important historical note, that the maximum rating of 5.9 that persisted through the middle 1960s capped the ratings of many climbs that were more difficult. Sacherer's FFAs were all rated 5.9 when he did them, that was a project completed in 1964 or so... when modern ratings were suggested for many of these climbs (e.g. the second pitch of Reed's Direct), in the 1970s, the community of Valley climbers objected to the "upgrading" mostly on the basis of tradition. Even with that reluctance, those climbs span the rating system from 5.9 to 5.10d, and even at the high end might have pushed into 5.11a except that Sacherer probably didn't have 5.11 technique.

The legendary bite of some Valley 5.9's has to do with this transition from a grading system which was capped at 5.9, and the one that replaced it, with no upper bound. All the difficult climbs done up to that time had to be re-rated into the new system, and it probably wasn't quite done accurately, as the community of climbers able to actually accomplish those climbs was limited.

A guide book like Meyer's "Yellow Guide" took the list from Bridwell's important article (which introduced the letter sub-grades) and provided suggested examples of routes "at grade." In my mind that is a very important, I'd say crucial, part of any guidebook. It introduces the newly arrived climber to the local grades and provides a way of directly explaining the local rating system in the only meaningful way, by example.

Any other intellectual logic to the system is really moot, the list provides a Rosetta Stone that translates the local ratings directly into climber experience.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Ahhh. It's all making sense to me now

In reply to Removed User:

And of course if you want to get really confused read the grade inflation and personal grading theories of the mad Swede at 8a.nu.

His objective is to make grades into an exact science so he can rank people into brilliant climbers and crap climbers and elevate the brilliant ones into celebrities.

Last I heard he had got over 2 million kronor in investment to invent a machine that measures the difficulty of climbs - exactly.

In reply to Removed User:

I think all grading systems suffer because some people can't grade, others grade badly on purpose (some are just just plain mean, others are right and everyone else is wrong) and some refuse to change grades as times change.

For me the US system with film ratings works just as well as UK system. From my experience I favour the sequence explanation for US number grades (rather than move or pitch grades) so long sustained 5.7 (say Fairview Regular Route pitch 3) will feel the same as a short 5.9 section with otherwise easier climbing (Fairview pitch 1). In the UK the grades would maybe both be HVS (4b and 5b).

I've climbed a larger proportion of badly graded routes in the UK than in the US but that's mainly operating below 5.10 and Extreme. To be fair to Robert I think things are better in the UK in the extreme category (maybe not in the US but I cant tell). In the US Joshua Tree has the most brutal sandbag grading Ive experienced but even there I've climbed a 5.6 X that was 5.4 PG (The Aiguille de Joshua Tree)

On the history point, the UK also had its own '5.9 problem' Scottish VS and peak 'traditional HVS' spring to mind (although beasts like The Vice are moving up, some remain .... Masochism, Teck Crack etc).

On the sport conversion I also support the following system (but I'm aware some US sports climbs are super-soft graded)

5 5.8
5+ 5.9
6a 5.10a

In reply to Robert Durran:

Quite correct. Is this bollocks, for a change? Adele; on Spotify?

In reply to jon:

And the ensuing thread seems to confirm this.....

The Americans themselves havn't a clue how their own system works either in theory or in practice (this has also been obvious from my own conversations with them). There are occasional pathetic attempts to defend it by the distracting tactic of ridiculing the UK system, betraying a woeful ignorance of UK climbing and the UK system.

The sad thing is that the OP made a perfectly reasonable request for an explanation which he won't get for the simple reason that the YDS is broken and needs replacing - I suspect that recalibration and redefining would only add to the confusion.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Such language Roberto. ....very inflammatory. Big Like.

It's the same in the UK. Many do not understand how the grading system works, it's nuances, the interplay of variables, how pre-practice can influence the grade (climbs are graded for onsights right, hold on no that's wrong, it's the top rope grade, or is that just for sport routes) or where it comes from.

But as many have said, it is what you get used to.

The YDS works, and so does our system, perfectly well.....if you give them a chance, climb a lot and travel. Both are flawed, as are all rating/grading systems.

But we do our best.

Isn't this just so much fun?

Mick

Ratings for the standard shite is fine in the YDS world. Here in Joshua Tree we have many climbs that are the industry standard for their grade, yet are possibly 3 or more letter grades low. Why is this? Well, the first 15ft ( 4.8 meters for you lot) don't count. Toss them out. So there are 11c moves right off the ground? So what.... 10b is the rating.

Now if you really want some confusing ratings, start looking at offwidth grades. In that world, 10c is harder than 5.11, 5.8+ is nearly impossible, and 12a is total fluff.

In reply to Russ Walling:

and, as I had a few minutes to spare after helping Fliss with her homework, I uploaded this article, linked to by Ed on the other thread.

From Ascent, Volume 2 Number 1, July 1973

OPINION

The Innocent, The Ignorant, And The Insecure by Jim Bridwell

The rise or fall of the Yosemite Decimal System

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4397

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

and if you like reading, this is worthwhile by klk

Like the various German, French, Spanish, Italian and UIAA grading scales, the YDS system is ultimately derived from Wilo Welzenbach's I-VI system popularized in the interwar years. The I-VI was adopted from period public school grading systems.

Immigrants from Europe, Americans climbing abroad, and imported instruction manuals all helped to give American climbers a vague sense of grading in Europe. The Welzenbach system worked pretty well for the kinds of rock (mostly limestones) then serving as the proving ground for the cutting edge of alpinism in the Tirol and South Tirol. The system translated poorly to Sierra granite, though.

For the most part, Sierra granite simply doesn't offer the sort of formation you can find in the Dolomites, with hundreds or even thousands of feet of steep, heavily featured routes. Sierra granite tended to resolve into broken, scrappy buttresses or else steep, clean sweeps of chunks with crack systems. The Sierras just dont have many of the kinds of long Dolomite classics that helped to make the Welzenbach system work. (You can find long, steep classic 5.3 jug hauls in the Dolos and Kaisergebirge-- a long route of that difficulty in the Sierra is usually a friction slab.)

Sierra climbers used the system differently-- Where the Euros used "I" to describe climbing involving actual technical movement, for the Californians, "I" referred simply to walking, while "VI" came to refer to anything involving what we now call direct aid. That left "III," "IV" and "V" to cover the span of difficulty represented by I-VI in the European systems. In practice, 3 meant climbes done ropeless, 4 meant climbs done with ropes and anchors but not much in the way of running belays, and 5 meant climbs difficult enough to demand a fair bit of pitoncraft. ( It's not entirely clear why the Californians adapted the system like that-- difference in rock type doubtless has some effect. My guess, though, is that it was driven by the needs of the Sierra Club High Camp and similar mass outing systems in which organizers felt a need to differentiate outing objectives in ways that included simple hikers.)

Of course, by the end of WW2, it was pretty clear that three grades weren't enough to describe differences between the easiest and hardest technical rock climbs. It was the folks at Tahquitz, mostly from local SIerra Club Sections, who went ahead and subdivided the "V" grade into decimals: 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc. From the beginning, the move/enduro difficulty question was built into the system. The "hardest" route then at Tahquitz, The Open Book (5.9), probably did not (and doesn't) have a move on it that is 5.9. The difficulty reflected the demands of piecing together a series of easier but strenuous layback moves while hammering in pitons for pro.

The older Roman Numeral I-VI remained in place, but used now for categorizing overall length/seriousness of objectives-- VI was now reserved for multi-day technical climbs like The Nose or other new long routes, while 5-whatever categorized the technical difficulty. And in the seventies, Yosemite climbers (who shamelessly appropriated the Tahquitz system and called it their own) helped to pioneer the weird American opening of the closed system by using 5.10, 5.11, and then (Bridwell seems to have been the leader in this), further letter subdivisions: 10a, 10b, etc.

There was never anything like a resolution of the tension between move/enduro difficulties in assessing difficulty. Different areas worked out their own local habits. In many areas, for instance, if the hardest technical moves are at the beginning of the climb, they may not appear at all in the route's actual grade. A route with a single hard move, with overhead pro, with good rest before and after, may end up with a slightly easier grade than one with lots of sustained, easier moves.

And as protection systems changed, so did the means of differentiating routes. The old system for the Sierras was replaced by that generic decimal 5th class but with added seriousness ratings "PG, R, X) derived from the MPOA Ratings for commercial films.

The Euros had their own growing pains-- the French used one version of the Welzenbach for Fontainebleau and another for roped routes. The Germans used one system in Bavaria and another in Dresden. And Many areas by the 1960s had gone to open-ended and even subdivided variations (6a, 6b, etc.)

By the time Roper was writing his guidebooks, the basic history was so foggy and forgotten that he could write as if the UIAA system (a formal version of the original Welzenbach system) was a foreign object and the YDS system had sprung naturally from the California soil.

The Brits, of course, are in another world entirely, as so often is the case. The Brits had introduced a system back in the late 19th century, long before the Germans-- Hard, DIfficult, Very Difficult, Severe, etc. Obviously, that system was going to go anywhere in places that didn't speak English. But the Brits stuck with it, despite the obvious problems, until finally, around mid-century, feeling compelled to adapt still another (Francophile) variant of the Welzenbach system to create the lovely hybrid grading format that has become as inexplicable a part of British nationalism as French Fry sandwiches.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1736169&tn=0&...

In reply to Nick Russell:

This is right IMO

In reply to Russ Walling:

As someone who loves JT I know full well the industry standard doesn't also cover the low grades. There is tough but sometimes variable grading that needs sorting out in places. I've backed off 5.6 moves plenty of metres off the ground yet some areas like Lost Horse main wall the grades are almost friendly (at least in comparison). Its nearly always bold slabs that stop me trying, offwidths give gear and security and I enjoy the fight and I can lose a few battles to win the war.

In reply to DaveHK:

Your opinion is certainly wrong on California granite sub 5.10. So many examples there of super sustained cracks with half rests that would be a grade or two harder as a pitch grade.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Thanks. I'm flattered.


No its not the same in the UK; in the UK many apeople are apparently too stupid or misinformeed to understand what is actually, in principle, a very simple system. As a result, the system might sometimes be misused, but that is not the same as it being a bad system. In the US, even well informed and intelligent people disagree on the basic principles of the system (see the supertopo thread!). This is because it is used blatantly inconsistently; it has apparently evolved to be used differently in different areas and rock types. It is a complete mess.



I disagree. I have climbed quite a lot in thge US - all I have got used to is the YDS's inconsistent use and resultant sandbags.


Not really.

In reply to Robert Durran:



Oh Rob, I was with you - till I reached that...

In reply to Robert Durran:

In the UK, well informed and intelligent people disagree on the basic principles of the UK system (at least in the sense you mean it applying to the US system), often they argue on this very forum. Some examples: is the technical grade strictly the easiest move or do you grade it for onsightability; is the crux grade affected by hard moves to get into position to make the move or hard moves following from it. Is an unprotected 4b move at 10m above a bad landing HVS or VS (Sunset Slab). There are loads of grey areas in UK grading. There are loads of climbing areas where grades are noticably harder than others. There are indoor walls where problems get UK tech grades 2 grades harder than some others.

>Some examples: is the technical grade strictly the hardest move or do you grade it for onsightability;
is the crux grade affected by hard moves to get into position to make the move or hard moves following from it.



The answers being?

In reply to David Coley:

"The answers being?" There are no definitive answers... that's my point.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Robert, I have also climbed at many US crags, all over the West, big and small. I've bought many guide books, and trusted the published ratings to select which routes to do. The routes generally turn out to be roughly as expected. When they don't, I really don't get too worked up about it. Uncertainty is an essential part of climbing, and it is the possibility of getting in trouble, and using your skill and experience to get through, that is almost uniquely appealing about the sport.
I've never climbed in Britain, maybe there is something about your grading system that adds a quality to the climbing experience that I am ignorant of. You seem worked up about this and it baffles me.

In reply to Offwidth:

That's no way to start an endless discussion

In reply to jon:

Can anyone tell me what you are all blathering on about - I've read through all this shyte and I'm none the wiser.

So far as I can tell ........ Wilo Welzanbach developed the YDS in the Dolomites , our system evolved from the Oxford English Dictionary, the Font system came from Dresden, and the Oscars thought up PG, R and X. I think I've got it!

Ooops, hang on there's some paint drying over there - I find myself drawn to watch it.

Good night all.

Steve

In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert. As you understand thea UK grading system, here's a problem for you.

Sylvester has headpointed E7 on grit, you know top rope practice, then the lead. He spys a virgin line on grit. He abseils the line to clean it and check the gear. It's 40ft high, there's a good Rock 1 at 14ft, then a poor tri-cam 2 10ft below the top. The base of the route is a jumble of leg-breaking boulders. He practices the route on top rope, wiring the moves and placing the gear. He tests the top tri-cam by clipping it in to a rope attached to a rucksack full of rocks, it holds. When he's done it in a one'er five times, he goes for the lead, placing the gear as he goes. He is successful.

He calls it, Toubab Krewe and gives it E8 as it is harder than the E7's he has done, in both boldness and technical difficulty.

It gets written up on the UKC news page and in the mags, as Sylvester climbs new E8. Sylvester is now known as an E8 climber.

Six months later, Tony fancies repeating it. Tony wires the route over three weekends on a tope rope, until he has it wired, and can do it a oner, five times. He goes for the lead, but pre-places the Rock 1 and the Tri-cam 2….he doesn't test the Tri-cam 2. Tony is successful and goes home and logs the ascent on his UKC logbook where the grade is E8. Everyone is impressed and Tony is known as an E8 climber.

Ned is a shit hot boulderer known for his bold ground-up ascents of highball boulder problems and ground-up ascents of Hard Grit routes. Ned fancies repeating Toubab Krewe. Ned and his mates get there one Saturday with a stack of bouldering pads, and a Rock 1 and Tr-cam 2. They cover the bad landing with 6 bouldering pads.

Ned sets off and places the Rock 1, he lowers off. He pulls the rope and goes up again, climbing past the Rock 1, he takes a short fall. He pulls the rope and goes up again nearly reaching the the Tri-cam at 30ft, he reverses then jumps off, he hits the bouldering pads on the stretch. He goes for a walk for an hour.

He comes back and ties on. He climbs past the Rock 1, into the deck out zone and reaches the TRi-cam 2 placement, he fiddles it in getting pumped, then fires the last moves to the top of the crag.

Ned and mates go out for a beer, and the next day, Sunday, he posts a blog about his ascent. Some forums pick it up and Ned is applauded.

Now my question is who has climbed an E8? Who can give themselves the E8 tick?

Has Sylvester climbed an E8? Or less, or more?

Has Tony climbed an E8? Or less, or more?

Has Ned climbed an E8? Or less, or more?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Easy that one Mickey - none of them are E8 climbers but they have all climbed an E8.

For reference puroposes Caff is an E8 climber.

E

In reply to Enty:

Correct.

The Brat (Graeme Livingstone) reckoned that you had to onsight at least ten routes of a grade, on several different rock types, to be able to state that you could climb that grade. Might be worth applying that to news reports etc.

ALC

In reply to Enty:

Das Ent,

The judgement about the climbers is the easy bit. The route is probably E5. A more difficult question, would Wilo consider them to be 5.12d R girl's blouses, or would they not cut it?

There should be a permanent thread along the lines of a 'Fantasy Climbers League' - but it would probably mirror reality!

Steve

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

None have climbed E8. We just apply the same logic as we would at VS. All used some form of device to reduce the grade. Almost all climbing grades are a simple statement of the percentage of the climbing population that can do the route in the style the grade implies. In this case on sight, no mats, etc.
The grade a person climbs to is just as easy to define. If VS is that grade that only x% can climb then to be a VS climber you need to be in the top x% of climbers. Simple.

In reply to Removed User:
It is a crap grading system and is specific to the nature of the route i.e. a crack/chimney, slab, wall or roof.
Roof grades feel very easy, wall grades easy, slabs can be desperate as can the cracks but chimney grades often feel wholly unrealistic.
UK adjectival / numerical grades are the best there is and can be used for everything: real climbing, sport and bouldering. Consider:
Snowdrop at the Roches E4 5b. Not a misprint for 6b just no gear at all and a 5b crux at the top. Nectar E4 6b: pure effort with near continuous 6a climbing with overhead protection. Mortlock's Arete E4 6a - safe enough with four 6a moves. Generally I used to expect a limestone E3 5c to have about 3 x 5c moves. Similarly E1 6b one desperate well protected move. Tells you all you need to know.

Sport climbing. Continental grades just don't work at all. They are all well protected so an E grade = effort or number of hard moves. Chris Craggs old El Chorro guide contained British grades as well and they were most informative. Consider the 6a+ grade - it can cover everything from a easy stamina route (Brit 5a/b) to a desperate one move boulder problem (Brit 6b or more). A Brit grade would tell you exactly what you need to know to tune your progress through the grades.
Brit grades for bouldering would be even better - the E number is the effort / number of hard moves and the number is technical grade of the moves. Simple. We used to use Brit technical grades for bouldering here but human one-up-manship led to returning travellers boasting about B-grades, V-grades and Font grades - pretentious waste of time.

Biggest problem is that the bean counters / sponsers can't get their heads round anything more complicated than a simple numerical progression!

So Brit. grades for everything - far more informative!
Next week's rant: Why bouldering mats are wrecking the ecology of our National Parks and why they should be banned.

Cheers,

Mike Hammill

In reply to SteveSBlake:

Why are you picking on me Steve?

In reply to Mike Hammill:

As if any grading system wouldn't be specific to the nature of the route.

Starting with US grades in the 'moderate' 5.0 to 5.9 region where 90% of the traffic lies. The 5.6 chimney on Cathedral Peak SE Buttress Tuolumne would be VD in many places in the UK and most stuff to 5.9 is way easier than the few VS 4c grit chimneys out there; so I'd argue chimneys are harder at home. Most roof pitches I've climbed at these grades were spot on. Most cracks about right but a little easier compared to grit; offwidths are harder, often brutal by 5.9. Slab grades were harder but not usually that hard, especially given the local climbs produce good slab climbers; an exception to this is Joshua Tree where I'm yet to climb a slab move that wouldn't be more than a full grade easier in the UK. Wall climbs I find very variable (again some desperate stuff in JT but not uniformly so). My 5.10 experience is very limited but I've been lucky enough to visit communities with quite a few good climbers and guides (especially in JT) and aside from the few climbing jokes they argue well for the logic of their system. US guidebooks are updated less often and have been more reticent to change grades than in the UK (on the offwidth front remember Hercules, the Curbar E1, started life as a VD). The US grades do explicitly advertises boldness with Cinema grades and if used properly the 5.x should give a good indication of difficulty with more sensitivity than the UK system.

Lets look at UK stuff now and remove those rose tinted specs. Lower grade stuff was often forgotton away from the classics and even they could be brutal. At mid grade we delight in continuing the diffcult introduction to the trad game with many more sandbags. At exteme grades we have an open ended system with technical pairing (imported from font and with creep added and extended with resentment) from 4c to 7b, indicating 9 notches of technicality (the lowest number of steps in any technical oriented grading system in the world ?); where at the top end most systems have more sensitivity we, contrarywise, have less (ie wider technical grade bands for 6c upwards). E1 varies from 4c to 6c, yet as we climb the E grades the technical range narrows and on top of this the 'noticable differences' between adjectival grades isn't always uniform. The grades are designed for onsightability yet most extremes above the bottom two rungs are prepracticed. Boldness is not specific: an E5 6a can be bold or it could be sustained or it could have aspects of both or more rarely neither. So it seems to me we have a rather ramshackle evolved system, more art than science, hampered by far too many climbers who seemingly delight in misusing it.

Now I love the UK system, especially when it works well, and I recognise perfect grading isn't possible and the odd safe sandbag can have learning potential. However, all this grade jingoism is either a tired joke or plain silly.

In reply to jon:

I don't think I could pick on you jon

Warm regards,

Blakey

In reply to Offwidth:

The UK system works when the grade is accompanied by some useful information in the description, which should tell you it is bold, sustained, cruxy or whatever........

That combined with looking at the line, using your common sense, and the resource of the UKC massive surely means nothing is left to doubt, and if there is a smidgin of doubt left, some will resort to top roping.

You're right about grades not being a science, their seems to be a school of thought that grades are an objective assessement of difficulty. They can't be, their are way too many variables for that. Given that they are remarkably accrate (regardless of the system used) The clue is in the term 'guide book'. The rest is down to us the the reader using our noggin to relate it to our own ability.

Best regards,

Steve

In reply to SteveSBlake:

Good comments re. the UK system! It is a scientific approach but it is based on a qualitive assessment of the data gleaned from deviation from the expected correlation of adjectival and numerical grades, guidebook comments, rock type, type of climbing, assessment of likely sustained sections from the base of the pitch, likely run outs, rest ledges, how often the route is climbed i.e. the likelihood of loose rock, angle, length of route, location of route etc.
Reading a lot of this comes from experience, hence those less experienced and pushing their grade need to be more wary and focus on getting their head around this system! It is far more scientific than attempting to normalise all this complex data to produce a misleading, simple numerical (quantitative) system.
The Brat's comments quoated above make a fair point, but he did tend to be a tad provocative and confrontational---I'm sure there are quite a few well-respected E8 climbers who haven't climbed ten E8s onsight, ground-up (although I may be wrong here---if so, substitute E8 for E9).

In reply to DaveBear:

Sorry, should read it before posting, not after---I mean 'qualitative' of course!

In reply to DaveBear:

Me too, I of course meant 'there' are.

SB

In reply to DaveBear:

"I'm sure there are quite a few well-respected E8 climbers who haven't climbed ten E8s onsight, ground-up" I don't think anyone has done this.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=480058&v=1#x6612332

http://gritlist.wetpaint.com/page/E8

In reply to Enty:

They have all climbed Toubab Krewe but in different styles, style affects difficulty, a grade is a measure of difficulty.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Stop playing Yoda. E8 is the nominal onsight/ground-up grade. Headpointing grades or highballing grades do not necessarily align in the same way, so style can make the E grade equivalence irrelevant.

In reply to Offwidth:

Where did you read that Steve?

So in that case only Ned has done an E8?

is that your final answer?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:
>

Probably. There's an E5 at Heppy - first time I did it I TR'd it first. I've since flashed it ground up a couple of times but it's not in my logbook as being done - I couldn't live with myself

Grade has always been OS ground up for me. You can't possibly claim the grade with pre-practice.

Blakey hits the nail on the head with his fantasy climbing league suggestion.

E

In reply to Enty:

Does that count for sport routes?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

I was called a punter once on UKC because I suggested that redpointing was the ruination of sport climbing...... As to headpointing/toproping...

But, clearly many, many people enjoy both practises and they can't all be wankers can they so I must be wrong

FWIW, IMHO, I believe that you are what you onsight - sport or trad, everything else is so highly qualified that it's bollocks. Or something like that.

I'm clearly a dinosaur and will go back into my cave.

yours,

Victor

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


Not for me - if a 7a takes me three tries, I've done a 7a. If I spend a week on an E5 I ain't done an E5. Them's my personal rules.

I've done a dozen or so E5's in 25 years but never classed myself as ever being more than an E3 climber.

That's why it's nice to have a French grade for YDS sport routes.

Good innit.

E

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

It's only meaningfully E8 as an onsight. The comparative difficulty in other styles varies: it might well be that it's harder to headpoint or highball a particular E7 than another particular E8. Climbers operating at these grades are honest, know the routes and and know the score and so I'm not belittling their efforts in any way. Since this is the way virtually every cutting edge trad climb is now done it's horrible for the 'measurers', as on the hardest routes it's hard to say who is the best.

I liked the honesty of the H grade suggestion: a complex route that felt like an equivalent E grade after pre-practice but would be desperate for that E grade onsight.

In reply to Removed User:

Roger Breedlove can always be counted on to provide a comprehensive answer

Hi Mick,

Your question on which logic, the hardest move versus overall difficulty, is used in the YDS is not commonly agreed, based on nothing more than the posts and links on this thread.

While a system could be based on either set of rules, at least from the early 1960s the YDS system has been based on the rating for the hardest section, not hardest move. This way of thinking about ratings is not meaningful to climbers until the climbing gets hard: nobody calls a sustained 5.3 pitch anything other than 5.3. As such, I don't think that climbers in the 50s had much need for sustained difficulty ratings. (There may be a different history in Tahquitz in the 1050s with regard to sustained ratings, so I'll only refer to the Valley.)

With this line of thinking, I suppose it would be strictly correct that originally the YDS was based on hardest move logic. However, once there was a need for ratings based on the hardest section, once the climbing was both hard and sustained, the evidence say hardest section logic was adopted as a natural course—there doesn’t seem to have been any point of discussion, at least in Roper’s guide book. Up until about 1963, most Valley climbers started nailing when the free climbing became hard. (One has only to look at Frank Sacherer's stellar run of FFAs in 1963-65 to see the truth in this: all those climbs he did free were originally nailed.) In this sense, ratings for sustained climbing have always been part of the guide book ratings in Yosemite. This is contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article and in several of the posts upthread.

The first piece of evidence for this is stated explicitly in the Roper’s 1964 guide. Dave posted a scan of page 29, but it is worth listing the elements that Steve states should be included in the rating.

1. The difficulty on the most difficult technical free-climbing section
2. The most difficult aid section
3. The strenuousness of the climb
4. The Continuity of the climb
5. The mental problems encountered (such as lack of protection, loose rock, exposure)
6. The length of the route
7. The approach and descent required
8. The weather

Steve adds that there are probably several more.

The YDS was at that time made of three numbers:

One for the most difficult technical free-climbing section (Class 1-5)
One for the most difficult technical direct-aid section (Class 6)
One for overall difficulty (Grade)

In every instance when Steve could have stated "hardest move", he instead states "hardest section." This is about as clear as it gets that, at least in 1963-64 when Steve was writing his first guide, the YDS incorporated logic for the higher ratings for sustained sections. The next piece of evidence is to look at the actual ratings that were applied to routes in the Valley when hard, sustained pitches became more common place. The second pitch of Reeds is the most obvious example, as Peter points out in his post. (I think that Peter makes the same argument as I do here.) I have tried to reconstruct climbs in the 50s and early 60s that were hard and sustained. In 1956, The Arrowhead Arête, first climbed by Mark Powell, was considered the most sustained 5th class climb in the Valley but it is 5.8, when the highest standard was then 5.9. In 1960, Pratt climbed The Crack of Doom, which he rated 5.10. Maybe someone can remember if this was a pitch rating—-lots of unprotected 5.9—-or a single move. For the most part, sustained 5th class climbing did not become common place until Sacherer and Pratt focused on all-free ascents in 1964, just about the time that Steve was writing his guide book.

From memory, this is also the way that ratings were applied to aid climbing with a clear sense that A5 was what you got if you linked a bunch of A4 placements.

In Bridwell’s 1973 article in Ascent, introducing the a,b,c,d system to 5.10 and above ratings, he clearly articulates the newness, and in his opinion the stupidity, of hardest move ratings. In his take no prisoners style:

The most common motivation behind downrating is protection of the downrater's self-image. Avoid the ridicule of having one's climb downrated. Downrate first and be safe. This type of game causes its most dedicated players to fool even themselves. Move rating is an outgrowth of this syndrome. Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!

I don’t really understand where the notion that YDS is based on hardest move logic comes from. I don't know if it is a holdover from someone who believed that the guide book writers had it wrong or if it is a newer construction without any historical basis. I personally have never seen any justification for this idea on a historical basis, although I have heard lots of arguments from individuals. I can remember that in the late 60s and early 70s, the Steck-Salathe was widely considered to be just barely 5.9 since there didn’t seem to be any moves harder than 5.8. (The rock has changed since and there are now sections that are considered 5.10 in themselves.)


Part of the arguments about ratings are based on climbers not being comfortable with consensus driven comparative ratings; it all seems so squishy and there are always quotes from famous climbers disputing the ratings in the guide book for particular climbs. In the early 1960’s, Frank Sacherer had a reputation for under rating free climbs, but sometimes this was because he under rated specific moves rather than following a logic of only rated the hardest move: he rated just about all of his climbs 5.9.

continued....


For example, on the DNB on Middle everyone except Sacherer, and maybe Eric Beck, his partner, rated the mantle on the 3rd pitch as a single 5.10 move (it is well protected by a bolt at nose level). Sacherer and Beck rated it 5.9; there was loose talk (talk I have only just recently heard about) that maybe they hadn’t even free climbed the route since that move in particular was clearly not 5.9. On Ahab, the flaring, off-width, squeeze chimney on Moby Dick, Sacherer rated it 5.9 because no move it harder than 5.9. But I don’t know of anyone seriously questioning its 5.10 rating given its sustained climbing and seriousness.

Bob Kamps had a reputation of favoring rating only the hardest move and not rating the continuousness of the climb. (Maybe Tom Higgins can weight in here.) There is a story that Royal confronted Bob after Bob and Sacherer had free climbed Salathe’s and Nelson’s Southwest Face of Half Dome, telling him that “People, who cannot rate, shouldn’t.” Bob’s wife, Bonny, has said that the story is old and well known, but she has no evidence that the exchange ever occurred. Nonetheless, the story still points up the issue of the subjective nature of ratings even amongst the best climbers.

All free climbing difficulty rating systems, whether single move or section based, are comparative and have no absolute meaning. This works just fine if it is robustly comparative and relatively fixed. Jim recognized this in his article in Ascent in the early 70s: he listed comparative climbs by type by difficulty. (Steve and Ed post links to that article upthread.)

In Yosemite, because there is a wide range of climbing styles needed to get up different routes, the comparative basis of rating climbs is tricky when comparing different kinds of climbs: a 5.9 slab on the Apron will not prepare you for a 5.9 slab on Middle much less a finger crack on the Cookie or an off-width on El Cap. Expert climbers have the skill sets to feel that a specific difficulty rating across a range of very different climbs is the same, whether it is face, normal cracks, off-width, slab, steep, etc. To this point, Yosemite’s ratings through the 1970s were controlled by a small group of climbers, at least those that ended up in guide books. As Jim did in the 1970s, Chuck Pratt and Robbins both worked hard at making explicit comparisons before assigning a difficulty rating. And all three of them rated pitches on overall difficulty rather than single move (the ratings in Steve’s guides were based on Royal’s and Chuck’s ratings and Meyer’s guides were mostly based on Jim’s ratings and climbers he trained, so to speak.) One story of Chuck’s dedication to rating rigor—I hope I have the right climb—was the all free rating for the Cleft on the Cookie cliff. Chuck had done the first ascent with a bit of aid in 1958 and returned in 1965 and free climbed it. He repeated the climb three times before committing the rating to 5.9. It is a somewhat tricky set of moves, but if approached carefully are 5.9; it quickly becomes 5.10 if done badly.

The most obvious type of climbing that is seen as badly rated is for off-width cracks. But this just reflects that off-width technique and specific muscle strength are not natural: it has to be learned. Holding an oblique heel-toe and standing up on a 5.9 off-width is next to impossible if you don’t know how to do it and have not developed the specific muscles to hold it. Once both the technique and the specific strength are acquired, 5.9 off-width is clearly 5.9, just like any other 5.9.

All ratings systems work, but they only work if the comparative climbs are more or less fixed within a particular area. Since we are all a little different and we all have good and bad days, our personal sense of the difficulty of a particular climb can have a big influence on how hard we think the climbing is. As long as these personal choices don’t get into the guide books, they don’t matter. (As a seemingly contradictory aside, the Valley ratings worked very well in part because only a few climbers had any input into the guide book ratings: I always knew what to expect with a Robbins, Pratt, or Bridwell rating; and I always thought of Kamps’ ratings as a numerical variation of “You’re gonna die.” Sacherer’s rating had all been rethought by the time I starting climbing those routes.) However, if the guide book ratings change based on shifting personal reflections, then ratings become meaningless and aspiring climbers suffer. Said another way, if the comparative ratings are tightly knit across a range of climbs (without regard to how illogical it seems to an outsider) they provide a useful measure to assess the relative development of one’s skill.
Personally, I never much cared to offer my assessment of how hard a pitch was; I was happy to let more talented climbers parse the differences. People who know me know I have a particular climbing style that might not work for everyone else. However, if I climbed a pitch, and knew the rating, and it felt very different to me, I used the information to rethink how I was approaching the moves or recognized that I was being too cocky and had to pay more attention. Occasionally it went the other way, in which case, I enjoyed the sensation of having a good day. I didn’t let those variations affect my sense of how hard the pitch was from a comparative point of view.

So in summary, I think the answers to your questions are:

* As the various posts on this is thread show, Americans are clearly confused about the YDS as regards to hardest move versus hardest section. Contrary to Wikipedia, the written history and the ratings of sustained climbs in Yosemite points to guidebooks using a broader measure of section difficulty on sustained climbs rather than single move to rate the difficulty of both free and aid pitches.

* The basic Class 5 and Class 6 system was developed into the 5.1 -5.9 and A1-A5 YDS system at Tahquitz Rock in the 1950s.

* In the late 1950s Mark Powell developed the I – VI Grade system as an overall measure which mostly reflected the time to climb a route.

* Bridwell came up the a, b, c, d ratings for 5.10 and above to overcome the wide range of difficulty within a single grade. At the time Jim thought that 5.10 covered a range which was about twice the difficulty width it should be relative to the lower grades. He specifically hoped that as the climbing got harder, climbers would rate newer climbs at higher standards if there were small steps between the number ratings. It seemed to have worked. Jim also clearly understood the comparative nature of ratings and made it explicit. He also forcefully argued that single move ratings were a new and false method to rate climbs.

* Jim Erickson first published the R and X protection rating (or dangerousness rating) system in his Eldorado Canyon (Colorado) Guidebook in the early 1970s. (As reported by Alan Rubin upthread. Thanks Alan; I didn’t know that.)

* Locker came up with the “You’re gonna die” on/off difficulty rating to add to the upper reaches of 5.fun and to avoid having to remember what everyone else’s word descriptions meant.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1736169&tn=0&...

In reply to Offwidth:

Just spotted Ben has climbed The Screaming Dream with the crack finish. Classic example of a harder E7 ascent than a trade route E8 headpoint. Any E8 headpoint is obviously bloody impressive but I'm saying ' Joe Bloggs flashes XXX (the name of the climb and the style) are the best way of introducing this, rather than 'Joe Bloggs climbs E8'. Ben's ground up highballed Superbloc as well.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Reading the above, there is obviously a strong case for all guidebooks to have examples of climbs that are standard for their grade..the benchmarks...perhaps highlighted in the graded list.

In reply to Offwidth:

Bransby, Ben

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

At least we can agree that benchmarks are useful. I'm sure it could be arranged that you even have a set that are equally aligned for the headpoint.

I still dissgree with that artcile on 5.9 offwidths being fairly graded. If they were right then there should be noticable differences that with modern training would mean some heinous overhanging polished flare would now be possible. In practice I think either they underestimated their skills in this area or technology has made a massive difference to other styles.

In reply to Offwidth:

When I first went to Yosemite I was told that if I wanted to climb any offwidths, I should chose a hard one as it was likely no harder than an easy one!

In reply to Offwidth:


The rating progression of off-widths difficulty doesn't have any breaks. It starts with 5.9--I don't think off-width technique is really required for anything less--and progresses the same as any other style of crack technique. I think the reason that we don't see really high levels of off-width difficulty is because it would require more perfect off-width cracks which simply don't exist, at least so far. If there is any variation in the crack width to allow for fists or squeezes then it is no longer off-width. Also, there are pictures of happy climbers hanging from horizontal flares by their feet, which are neatly and securely tucked up into solid jams deep inside the cracks where a hand could not reach. In looks as if the more horizontal the crack is the easier it is to hang from your feet--not that I have any idea how it is actually done.

I don't think that any other clearly identified climbing technique is so dependent on such a narrow definition of rock geometry.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

I could barely be bothered to read all this since it is clearly a tired old and irrelevant distraction. As the UK adjectival grade is for an onsight, routes which have not been onsighted or had very few onsights are clearly only going to have speculative grades (ie speculating what the grade might settle to once it has had some onsights). If you havn't onsighted a route, you obviously can't claim to have ticked the grade.

In reply to Offwidth:

I simply don't think this is true. Firstly, we are talking about the adjectival grade (yes there are issues about the techncal grade, but that is not the issue here). Yes, there have, historically, been anomalies such as "Scottish VS" or "Yorkshire VS", but these have, by concensus been addressed and brought into line - this has only been possible because the basic principles of the system are so abundantly clear and well understood by the informed and intelligent majority. There is a clear drive to iron out any remaining anomalies. This is simply not true of the YDS in the States; there is no concensus on what it means or how it should be applied - a quick scan of Mick's Supertopo thread makes this very clear.

In reply to chill:

No, I'm not really worked up about whether the quality of the climbing experience is affected by one grading system or another (indeed, I am, in many ways, in favour of a certain lack of information about what to expect from a climb). But I am worked up about some people's inabilty to recognise and understand what information a grading system does or does not convey, and their denigration or defense, based on this lack of basic understanding, of a system's ability to convey information consistently,

In reply to Removed User:
As a writer of 3 american guidebooks....f*cked if I know.

But...Imagine a pumpy gear protected route...one of those E4 cracks at the Castle in Pembroke maybe. Top rope it, placing the gear as you go, how hard does that feel compared to a french grade? 6c+/7a, I'm guessing... convert to US and you get 11c/d.

Pure technical difficulty gets quite a low weighting on western granite, so a route with a short, bolt protected crux can be really bloody technical. 11b slabs in Yosemite, Tuolumne and Joshua Tree can be desperate, hard 6b is not out of the question on a route that should equate to british E3.

The american grading system is actually pretty crap, and , I believe, has played a big part in the general lack of appreciation for bold climbing over here (with a few prestigious exceptions of course).

Hi Mick!

In reply to Robert Durran:
>

I agree. I also say that, with experience, the UK adjectival system and technical grade works really well. It's not simple, it requires thought, discussion and experience to understand it, and if you put the time in it works well. It's not a matter of intellect, but you must put the work in to understand it.

So back to my example. The 40ft grit route as described above and the three styles of ascent.

Now my question is who has climbed an E8? Who can give themselves the E8 tick?

Has Sylvester climbed an E8? Or less, or more? (he cleaned the route, he top rope practiced the route, practiced placing the gear, then led, he got the first ascent)

Has Tony climbed an E8? Or less, or more? (he top rope practiced the route, weight tested the gear, then led)

Has Ned climbed an E8? Or less, or more? ( no pre-practice, he knew what the gear was, he padded out the base, he attempted from the ground up, took some falls, placed the gear on lead, pulled his ropes, then led)

In my opinion, no-one gets the E8 ascent, all are less than this, as you said Robert.


But Neds is stylistically the best ascent, he faced more hazards than Tony or Sylvester, the climbing was harder, he had to work out the moves as he climbed, he had to fiddle in the gear as best he could and got pumped whilst doing so...BUT, if only he hadn't used those bouldering mats to pad out the base he would have got an E8 tick.

This is where our grading system collapses. It doesn't work. Climbers attach a grade to themselves for headpoint ascents, and the media and guidebooks, and climbing companies - remember the James Pearson Wild Country E12 poster ort the Dave MacLeod film E11 - go along with this....and we all go along with this, we all like the high numbers.

If you agree with me, and others, no climber has climbed E9 or E10 or E11...not Johnny Dawes, not John Dunne - although it would be interesting to hear what Dave MacLeod thinks of this 'theory' as he is the author of perhaps the hardest trad route in the UK, Echo Wall and has more direct experience of anyone at hard and bold headpoint ascents...and let's make no mistake, headpointing is bold.

And this is why I like John Arran's H system for trad routes that are practiced before the lead; but it will never catch on of course, because no-one - the media or guidebook authors - is yet brave enough to make a stand.

Mick

In reply to redjerry:


Jerry? Jerry H?

Ok I give... Mick have I ever done an E8? Is that like 5.10d? I just want to be able to climb what Enty climbs. I liked it much more back in the old days, when things were much simpler and all the problems were rated by the climbers bodyweight at the time of ascent.

In reply to Russ Walling:

Your route Blue Balls Congo Line at Mussypotamia was E8...... and that line at Lombada Dome or whatisface... mixed up buttresses...that I did, Do Not Take The German People Likely I Say.....ground-up, taking falls, dabbing my highpoint, you jugging up and placing bolts at my highpoint.....that was only E7.

In reply to Russ Walling:

E8? I've seen your wide fetish videos - I think you probably have done E8. Especially when you were as heavy as you were in 98.

There's actually no need for any of this arguing - where I come from routes are either steady or hard.

E

In reply to Removed User: Accumulated diffuculty eg granite cracks or red river gorge sandsone.Bouldery rts might feel hard for grade in relation to these rts.I have done rts at 11c that be e4 5c or e4 6a/b.Some places are infamous for hard grades eg face climbing at JT...
It all depends on the type and nature of the crags you are climbing at.

In reply to Russ Walling:

What's the proper grade for this Russ? (UK grade)

http://widefetish.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=465.0

Be kind. It was my moment of Yosemite glory in 94.

E

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Mick,

You're right, it is about style, and style for some time has been overwhelmed by people wanting the 'big tick' at any cost. And I agree that none of your heros climbed an E8, and that in the real world, few, if any, have climbed the dizzy E numbers bandied about in the climbing media. That doesn't mean that what has been done isn't bloody hard, or dangerous, but how dead can you be? I don't think however, that everyone is sucked into that game.

An open ended system always risks being hijacked for other purposes and that's what happened with the E Grade. IMHO We'd have been better off capping it at a given level, and having an interesting narrative alonside a 'sexy' tech grade, emphasising 'style' and how important it is to the experience, which is what it's about isn't it, or is it too late for that?

Regards,

Steve

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Of course it doesn't work - it is for the onsight, so there is no reason to expect it to work. Personally this doesn't bother me, because, as far as I am concerned, if I try a trad route, I either onsight it or fail on it - there is nothing in between (though failure is, of course, not mutually exclusive to having fun). If others want to argue about the relative validity of flawed ascents, or if sponsored heros want to bandy about big E numbers for personal financial gain, then that is their problem but they are only kidding themselves if they use the UK adjectival grade to do so. They are certainly not kidding me or anyone else who understands the UK adjectival grade.


I agree absolutely.


Again I agree absolutely - non onsight ascents are whatever they are and if people want to try to quantify their relative merits then they should invent whatever approprisate grading system they like. But no, it won't catch on because everyone seems to want big shiny E numbers, however tarnished. This should, perhaps be taken as a compliment to the status of the UK adjectival system rather than a criticism.

In reply to Robert Durran:


But you're a mathematician Rob. 2 plus 2 will ALWAYS equal 4. If it doesn't then it's wrong.

In reply to Roger Breedlove:

"The rating progression of off-widths difficulty doesn't have any breaks. It starts with 5.9--I don't think off-width technique is really required for anything less--and progresses the same as any other style of crack technique."

I've used offwidth technique (foot locks) on many a 5.1 out of convenience. A few JT 5.1-5.3 offwidths made me (someone who enjoys this technique) think a bit. By the time you get to some 5.4s in JT I had to offwidth as the alternatives were way harder.

If you follow the media you will know there are plenty of hard offwidths in the US and some brits just spent a nice holiday ticking them. I strongly suspect there are no nice steps of noticable differences between the sandbag 5.9 piches in Yosemite and these harder lines. Hence, I don't think those 5.9s are 5.9, mainly as the old climbers were more skilled in this technical area than they realised.

In reply to jon:


Sorry... I meant to add that 3 1/2 - or even 3 - will do for me if I enjoyed the route.

In reply to Robert Durran:

" "In the UK, well informed and intelligent people disagree on the basic principles of the UK system."

I simply don't think this is true........... There is a clear drive to iron out any remaining anomalies. This is simply not true of the YDS in the States; there is no consensus on what it means or how it should be applied - a quick scan of Mick's Supertopo thread makes this very clear."

I just see bigger grey areas in the US, more reluctance to change grades and a much slower turn-around of guides (many areas I've climbed in are simply superb yet I'm using old photocopies from out-of print books). We are incredibly lucky in the UK to have a huge volunteer effort (yes Mick, even for Rockfax) doing all this ironing. Often the arguments are louder over there as they can't spot the faults from the creases (we can as we ironed recently), often americans communicate in a different, noisier way.

I do wonder where your evidence is that some UK climbers don't grade differently. I've given examples, I've co-edited a major guidebook and been central to others and seen the raw input. I talk to mates who are Scottish guides and SMC volunteers on the interesting things I find up there, and similar to other mates involved in CC guides. The difference may be less of a grade theory concern than in the US but the grade differences can end up the same. This isn't bad grading, as that would be random, its a different view on what our grades should mean such that grade standards could end up with different grades.

In reply to Enty: 5.8+ is the standard rating for something like that. Maybe 8a?

In reply to Offwidth:

I am sure that different areas and different areas do grade differently in the UK, but this is, I think, a matter of calibation rather than the theory of how the syatem actually works. If guidebook editors from different areas got together and agreed on a set of benchmarks across a range of areas and difficulties, I really don't think there would be much left to disagree about. I think that this is actually an ongoing process which will eventually be complete across the UK.


I pretty much agree; as I said above it is calibration issue in the UK - not, as you say, random, just a translational shift between areas. But, also as you say, it is more of a grade theory thing in the US (ie the varying interpretation of the YDS as being weighted towards an equivalent of a UK tech grade or towards an equivalent of a French grade). This does result in a much greater degree of randomness!


I agree if as regards the US, but disagree as regards the UK - different views on what they should actually mean in the US, merely different calibration in the UK.

In reply to Robert Durran:

"I simply don't think this is true... we are talking about the adjectival grade ..... by concensus been addressed and brought into line"

Then...

"I am sure that different areas and different areas do grade differently in the UK"

Lovely

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, so I have conceded that, geographically, the UK adjectival grade might not yet quite be uniformly calibrated. But I relly don't think there is far to go. This concession does not, of course, in any way compromise my argument about the totlly incomparable and fundamental way in which the YDS is applied differently in different places.

In reply to Robert Durran: I almost feel like buying you a drink for conceeding anything

In reply to Offwidth: I dont think you can do a sport conversion - the YDS are trad grades - there are 5.9s that range from about HVS 5a/b to E2 5b/c in my experience (in Yosemite). Also the Yesemite system does include a i through to vi roman numeral attempt at overall seriousness, however this is measured mainly by the time a route might take - so a nasty one pitch 5.9 might only get a i.

In reply to kettlebell:

You're confusing the point of the roman numeral system: thats more about seriousness relating to the time taken for long routes. Pitch seriousness is more explicit and uses the film ratings (PG R X etc). Routes don't always have these of course. I also disagree on sports conversions: not only 'can' this happen, it does (sports routes get meaningful YDS grades). Just because they won't always align perfectly with French grades, doesn't mean that you cant translate. You can argue all day about which system is best but all grading systems work, you just choose a suitable one for a particular game and then the only real problem is bad (or inconsistent) grading.

In reply to Offwidth:

Which is precisely the problem with the YDS! Probably inevitably though....

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's the same with every grading system know to man...

The bigger the number, the less people willing or able (or both) to get up the darn thing.

Be it 5.6 or 5.14b... or VS or E10. More people are more willing (or able) to climb the 1st ones and less so with the latter.

Or are you claiming more people are able to climb 5.14b than 5.6?

In reply to HeMa:

Ha! I know people that'd rather fail on a 12a than succeed on an 11d! Numbers, you see.

In reply to HeMa:

It is true of the UK adjectival grade. It is obviously not true of the UK technical grade of a route (eg obviously more people will get up an E3 6a than an E5 5c)


No, not in this extreme case. However, there are plenty of 5.9's which fewer people will get up than some 5.10a's say or even 5.10b's (they would get a higher UK adjectival grade). This would be fine if no-one tried to claim this wasn't the case (as with the UK technical grade of a route), but causes great confusion and sandbagging because a lot of people seem to claim it is the case. All this stems from no-one really knowing what the YDS is trying to measure and therefore using it to measure different things in different places.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No it doesnt, the 5.9 problem is probably mainly due to history and longer periods between guidebooks in the US. Imagine 'Scottish VS' or peak HVS situation if some guides were last produced 25 years ago. 5.9 being much harder than 5.10b in the same guide is bad grading though not misundertanding of the system. Another problem is that 5.10a Joshua Tree is mabe 5.11a in some soft graded area. Again not a YDS problem but some areas change slower or creep more than others so its an allignment problem (harder as the US is way bigger than the UK and again guides change much less often)

In reply to Offwidth:

So, if you think it is merely a calibration problem, then you presumably know what the YDS grade is actually measuring. Please tell me.

In reply to Robert Durran:

YDS is, like basically every other system, measuring roughly how hard a climb is relative to other climbs. Of course there are going to be exceptions, sandbags, mis-gradings, upgrades, downgrades, stupid rationales, and so on, but that's true of just about anything. Sure, sometimes different people apply it somewhat differently, which is why you get disagreements like "it's for the hardest move", "it's for the whole pitch", and so on. But at the end of the day such discrepancies can only amount to a couple of grades in either direction, which can happen for all sorts of other reasons.

Rifle, for instance, has "5.13d" routes which span the range from about 5.13b/c to 5.14a/b despite the fact that it's a sport crag and most of the routes of a fairly similar character (power-endurance climbing with kneebars). It's not because of the climbers there misunderstanding the YDS system, or all interpreting it differently. It's because, in the words of one Rifle climber, "no one wanted to claim a 5.14a and then have some Euro flash it". So you end up with a bunch of sandbagged routes because no one wants their ego bruised.

In reply to Epsilon:

Rob's argument isn't about under or overgrading. It's about a lack of information. I think.

In reply to Offwidth:

Why do you think there's such a big gap between guides? Americans usually like having the latest and best.

In reply to seankenny:

Guidebooks in the US have taken a big leap forward. There are still major gaps..the Needles in SoCal being the biggest omission.

Most areas have a fairly up to date guidebook published by a variety of companies: Falcon, Wolverine, Sharp End, Maximus, AAC, Jerry Handren, lots of independent guidebook producers.

Quality varies from on par with the best UK guidebooks, to photocopied pamphlets.

The main reason for the lack of standards in the YDS grades is geography (and tradition): it's a vast country as you know and climbers are isolated in their area because of distance, unlike in the UK were it is easier to travel around and we get more consensus

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Is there no Needles guide at all? I'm planning a trip there for later this year. I get the impression there's a lot of good climbing in California that isn't written up in any guide.

I'm not really surprised at the quality, more as to why they aren't updated so often.



Tradition eh? Oh the irony.

In reply to seankenny:


Some areas have multiple competing guidebooks, some no guidebooks. It's a diverse country, often it depends on the popularity of the area.

As regards the Needles, I will check. It is a travesty. It's a globally important climbing area. Most of California is covered by guidebooks, but another exception I think is Shuteye Ridge outside of Yosemite.

Tradition? US climbing is steeped in climbing history of much of it is lavishly documented

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:
>

Indeed. Love the Glen Denny b&w photos and similar. I just find it amusing that the UK's grading system, a Victorian/Edwardian idea with modern additions (like say the Tube no?) is actually more up-to-date than the Americans'.

Would be good to know if there is a guide to the Needles

In reply to seankenny:


One in the works according to a Supertopian.

They also provided this link

http://monsteroffwidth.com/NeedlesMiniGuide/index.html

Route lists and some topos to download

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Thanks Mick.

In reply to jon:

It's not even about lack of information (lack of information can be attractive!). It is about the YDS grade measuring different things on different routes and in different palces (hardest move v overall grade etc). However, I do suspect that its inconsistent use may have its origins in disparate attempts to compensate for the relative lack of information inherent in a single tier grading system.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

I thought much stuff in California is not covered. Sequoia/Kings Canyon is another major area that would have 2 or three guidebooks in the Uk. Lovely granite domes with superb trad from the low 5s. We didnt see another climber there in the 5 day visit we made this summer. We used screen shots from the photocopies from the Lodge near Needles (if anyone else is interested we can forward these).

In reply to Robert Durran:

The grades make progressive sense to me. I lead multi-pitch trad in the range 5.0 to 5.10a in California and the Four-Corner states. I top-rope the odd minor line to the low 5.11s to get used to the movement in new areas. I do the odd sports route (Red Rocks and Owens River Gorge). Even boulder sometimes. My main target area is 5.8 ~ 5.7PG ~ 5.6R~ 5.5X ~ VS(5a through 4a). etc... I climb extensively at low grade (already ticked more than half of the sub 5.6 stuff at JT for instance).

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, but are you able to answer my question: what is the YDS grade measuring?

The lack of guidebooks to some areas is just a form or wankerproofing™ your favorite crags. No guide = no n00bs, thus keeping the playground nice and clean for the elitist pricks.

In reply to Russ Walling:

I needed that... cheered me up perfectly to take the next class of the day

I reply to Robbert Durran

At what point do you wish me to start Robert: proving that (I think) I exist and numbers are well behaved mathematical concepts? Or at the other extreme I get to enjoy great trad climbs that are tailored to my skill level with the occasional nasty surprise (that I enjoy a bit too much in hindsight).

In reply to Offwidth:

Sounds good, yhm.

In reply to Offwidth:

No, I just want you to tell me what the YDS grade measures.
In the same way that the UK tech grade is an inverse measure of the proportion of climbers who would be able to do the hardest move on a climb as an isolated boulde poroblem. Or the UK adjectival grade is an inverse measure of the proportion of climbers who could onsight the route. Or the French grade (as now often applied to UK trad) is an inverse measure of the proportion of climbers who could top rope the route (or lead it if it was bolted).

Please stop ducking the issue of this thread.


Yes, yes, that's all well and good. I've no problem with the ocasional mis-grading or anomaly, but the issue here is the wholescale dysfunctiom of the YDS.

In reply to Robert Durran:

All explained above Robert. It's complicated and it depends:

Roger Breedlove can always be counted on to provide a comprehensive answer

Hi Mick,

Your question on which logic, the hardest move versus overall difficulty, is used in the YDS is not commonly agreed, based on nothing more than the posts and links on this thread.

While a system could be based on either set of rules, at least from the early 1960s the YDS system has been based on the rating for the hardest section, not hardest move. This way of thinking about ratings is not meaningful to climbers until the climbing gets hard: nobody calls a sustained 5.3 pitch anything other than 5.3. As such, I don't think that climbers in the 50s had much need for sustained difficulty ratings. (There may be a different history in Tahquitz in the 1050s with regard to sustained ratings, so I'll only refer to the Valley.)

With this line of thinking, I suppose it would be strictly correct that originally the YDS was based on hardest move logic. However, once there was a need for ratings based on the hardest section, once the climbing was both hard and sustained, the evidence say hardest section logic was adopted as a natural course—there doesn’t seem to have been any point of discussion, at least in Roper’s guide book. Up until about 1963, most Valley climbers started nailing when the free climbing became hard. (One has only to look at Frank Sacherer's stellar run of FFAs in 1963-65 to see the truth in this: all those climbs he did free were originally nailed.) In this sense, ratings for sustained climbing have always been part of the guide book ratings in Yosemite. This is contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article and in several of the posts upthread.

The first piece of evidence for this is stated explicitly in the Roper’s 1964 guide. Dave posted a scan of page 29, but it is worth listing the elements that Steve states should be included in the rating.

1. The difficulty on the most difficult technical free-climbing section
2. The most difficult aid section
3. The strenuousness of the climb
4. The Continuity of the climb
5. The mental problems encountered (such as lack of protection, loose rock, exposure)
6. The length of the route
7. The approach and descent required
8. The weather

Steve adds that there are probably several more.

The YDS was at that time made of three numbers:

One for the most difficult technical free-climbing section (Class 1-5)
One for the most difficult technical direct-aid section (Class 6)
One for overall difficulty (Grade)

In every instance when Steve could have stated "hardest move", he instead states "hardest section." This is about as clear as it gets that, at least in 1963-64 when Steve was writing his first guide, the YDS incorporated logic for the higher ratings for sustained sections. The next piece of evidence is to look at the actual ratings that were applied to routes in the Valley when hard, sustained pitches became more common place. The second pitch of Reeds is the most obvious example, as Peter points out in his post. (I think that Peter makes the same argument as I do here.) I have tried to reconstruct climbs in the 50s and early 60s that were hard and sustained. In 1956, The Arrowhead Arête, first climbed by Mark Powell, was considered the most sustained 5th class climb in the Valley but it is 5.8, when the highest standard was then 5.9. In 1960, Pratt climbed The Crack of Doom, which he rated 5.10. Maybe someone can remember if this was a pitch rating—-lots of unprotected 5.9—-or a single move. For the most part, sustained 5th class climbing did not become common place until Sacherer and Pratt focused on all-free ascents in 1964, just about the time that Steve was writing his guide book.

From memory, this is also the way that ratings were applied to aid climbing with a clear sense that A5 was what you got if you linked a bunch of A4 placements.

In Bridwell’s 1973 article in Ascent, introducing the a,b,c,d system to 5.10 and above ratings, he clearly articulates the newness, and in his opinion the stupidity, of hardest move ratings. In his take no prisoners style:

The most common motivation behind downrating is protection of the downrater's self-image. Avoid the ridicule of having one's climb downrated. Downrate first and be safe. This type of game causes its most dedicated players to fool even themselves. Move rating is an outgrowth of this syndrome. Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!

I don’t really understand where the notion that YDS is based on hardest move logic comes from. I don't know if it is a holdover from someone who believed that the guide book writers had it wrong or if it is a newer construction without any historical basis. I personally have never seen any justification for this idea on a historical basis, although I have heard lots of arguments from individuals. I can remember that in the late 60s and early 70s, the Steck-Salathe was widely considered to be just barely 5.9 since there didn’t seem to be any moves harder than 5.8. (The rock has changed since and there are now sections that are considered 5.10 in themselves.)


Part of the arguments about ratings are based on climbers not being comfortable with consensus driven comparative ratings; it all seems so squishy and there are always quotes from famous climbers disputing the ratings in the guide book for particular climbs. In the early 1960’s, Frank Sacherer had a reputation for under rating free climbs, but sometimes this was because he under rated specific moves rather than following a logic of only rated the hardest move: he rated just about all of his climbs 5.9.

Roger Sumarises Robert:

So in summary, I think the answers to your questions are:

* As the various posts on this is thread show, Americans are clearly confused about the YDS as regards to hardest move versus hardest section. Contrary to Wikipedia, the written history and the ratings of sustained climbs in Yosemite points to guidebooks using a broader measure of section difficulty on sustained climbs rather than single move to rate the difficulty of both free and aid pitches.

* The basic Class 5 and Class 6 system was developed into the 5.1 -5.9 and A1-A5 YDS system at Tahquitz Rock in the 1950s.

* In the late 1950s Mark Powell developed the I – VI Grade system as an overall measure which mostly reflected the time to climb a route.

* Bridwell came up the a, b, c, d ratings for 5.10 and above to overcome the wide range of difficulty within a single grade. At the time Jim thought that 5.10 covered a range which was about twice the difficulty width it should be relative to the lower grades. He specifically hoped that as the climbing got harder, climbers would rate newer climbs at higher standards if there were small steps between the number ratings. It seemed to have worked. Jim also clearly understood the comparative nature of ratings and made it explicit. He also forcefully argued that single move ratings were a new and false method to rate climbs.

* Jim Erickson first published the R and X protection rating (or dangerousness rating) system in his Eldorado Canyon (Colorado) Guidebook in the early 1970s. (As reported by Alan Rubin upthread. Thanks Alan; I didn’t know that.)

* Locker came up with the “You’re gonna die” on/off difficulty rating to add to the upper reaches of 5.fun and to avoid having to remember what everyone else’s word descriptions meant.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1736169&tn=0&...

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:


This is more or less precisely what I said about a tenth of the way down this thread on 30th January! I just don't think that it is used at all consistently this way in practice.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, you are right. Not only is the YDS applied in different ways, a 5.9 in one area can be far harder or easier than a 5.9 in another area; both trad and sport.

We did a 5.9 (What Dick Williams, Gunks gdbk author, calls the standard for 5.9) and a 5.10b (and about 5 other routes) at the Gunks last Friday: the 5.9 would equate to E2/3 and the 5.10b to E3/4 respectively in the UK.

That's the Gunks for you.

We had fun though.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Sure thing, but we circle again.... as you could say the same about an HVS in different parts of the UK. Robert thinks this is some fundamental fault of YDS whereas I think its the same fault as the UK trad just made worse at times by less regular guidebook updates a more conservative view of grading in some key areas and the huge size of the country.

I even prefer UK trad (just!).

...and for Robert

YDS is an inverse measure of the proportion of climbers who can do the crux move sequences given by the 5.x grade. What is meant by that varies but what is meant by a technical grade for a trad route also varies in the UK: some strictly regard this as the easiest move, some say its the easiest reasonable onsight move, some regard it as a short sequence (if getting into the start or escaping frm the move is almost as hard).

In reply to Removed User: In 12 years of sparodic American Climbing I have no clue what to expect from the 5.? system, but here is a comparison chart of 'moderates':

5.6
Shockley's Ceiling, Gunks (VD 4b)
The Thin Air, Cathedral (S 4a)
The Story of O, Acadia (HS 4b)
High Exposure, Gunks (VS 4c)

5.7
East Buttress, Mt Whitney (HS 4b)
Old Town, Acadia (VS 5a)
Charlotte Dome(HVS 4c)
Gunklandia, Acadia (HVS a)

5.8
Harry Daley, Glacier Pt (VS4c)
South Crack, Tuolumne (HVS 5a)
Ted shred, Alabama Hills (VS 5a)
Morning Glory, Acadia (E1 5b)

5.9
Pathfinder, Whitehorse (HVS 5b)
Green Mountain Breakdown (E15b)
Goodrich Pinnacle, Yosemite (E2 5b)

....Now V Grades; they make sense!

In reply to Robert Durran:



Yeah, right!

In reply to alan moore:

We can all play that game... back the other way (and I'm happy with both systems):

VD

Hope 5.3
First Pinnacle Rib Route 1 5.5
Gambit Climb 5.6

Severe

Lazarus 5.4
Crack and Corner Stanage 5.7
Crack and Corner (Roaches) 5.8+

VS

Neb Finish (Roaches) 5.5R
Fairy Steps (Stanage) 5.6PG
Broken Crack (Froggatt) 5.8+

HVS

Sunset Slab 5.5R
Dream of White Horses 5.8
Tech Crack 5.10??
Masochism 5.10???

I also don't trust your grades as the only one of thsoe I've done is South Crack which is E0 4c and low in the tech grade (crux 5.7R slab with the odd easy 4c padding move; easy 4c crack below).

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC: Hi Mick, Which Gunks 5.9 did you find to be E2/3 and 10b E 3/4? How much longer you going to be in NY? Are you going to make it to the gym in Hadley before you head home? Alan

In reply to Offwidth:

Good, so I think we both agree that, at least in principle, this is how it is supposed to work. However, we differ in that you appear to believe it is universally used like this but that calibration varies from place to place, whereas I believe that in practice it simply isn't used consistently like this (varying in equivalence between a UK tech grade and a French grade). I expect we shall just have to agree to differ.

In reply to Offwidth:

If you think about it, the fact that the game can be played one way implies that it can be played the other way - nothing is prove either way.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sooooo, Mr Durran, wht would you have done with your life if I hadn't asked the question.....




















Just Joshing............ carry on sir.

In reply to Robert Durran:

'Back the other way' is showing its easy to pick a few routes which highlight the differences in the two systems and when that is combined with hard and easy grading areas, it makes the numbers look very strange. My point all along was: grading by how the system should work IS known but as in the UK its not always applied that way or with full alignment.

Another UK foible I forgot to mention earlier is grading to the technical difficulty. People claim they understand the system but will grade Sunset Slab close to HS 4b anyway because it feels easy?!?

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, I agree, but my point was that it inevitably works both ways; it doesn't prove that either system is more consistent in calibration or in interpretation.


Yes, there are a surprising number of ignorant or stupid people out there who fail to understand how the UK system works. This is not the fault of the grading system though. Your example is simply an illustration of some people's misunderstanding.

In reply to Offwidth: I agree; a list of a few routes is arbitrary but you miss the point. If you take into account the comined adjectival and numerical grades then Lazarus and Crack and Corner ARE both Severe.

Didn't find any E0 on South Crack; the slab had a great big bolt in the middle of it. I did find the main crack to be hard and sustained though, being English...

In reply to alan moore:

No bolt on the slab when I did it 2002ish.. 20m runout from a lump at an overlap then dimpled padding up to a ledge. I find Yosemite cracks a bit soft compared to gritstone. Like I said for the crack on South Crack easy 4c if not 4b (but fairly sustained). My point is also the grades can be all be right in the local context (except maybe Lazarus which is a bit silly at severe with plenty of the VD's in the area being adjectivally harder for me (including The Arete).

In reply to Offwidth:

I thought South Crack bog-standard VS when I did it.


Now that I do find odd, my memories of Yosemite cracks is of relentless slippery monsters!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

So you think 20m of unprotected 5.7 Yosemite slab is VS? The hardest Ive ever led in the US is 5.10a so I'm pretty close to being able to judge... you were leading at that time what grades?

I heard of these legendary slippery cracks in Yosemite yet all I found at 5.8 so far were easier moves compared to the grit 4c moves I learnt to climb on and a lot easier than many equivalents at Joshua Tree.

In reply to Offwidth:

Ooooo look. We have an argument about the grade of a route.

How unusual.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

OK Mick whats your view?

I'm just making the point that that slab is going to be the crux to your average modern UK VS leader. I'm convinced its solid HVS. In this you have a key issue to be careful with in the different grading systems. I've just been and looked it up and I think its nearer 12m (just felt like 20) of 5.7R (wasn't even R rated in the Falkenstein guide that I used at the time).

In reply to Offwidth:

I just think that it is lovely that you and Chris are having a debate about the UK grade of a USA route that you both have done.

I'm cleaning the house as we are having a b'day sleepover for my 10 year old daughter...11 x 10 year old girls arrive soon.

Please keep distracting me.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

That was always another intrinsic purpose of grades ...to cause grade arguments. The UK sytem and the US system are equally able in this respect as well although the US has more ammunition these days.

I note also that you dodged the question. VS or HVS?.. and dont give me any bull about not having climbed it as you know enough folk that have to have a view.