Grades?

[Dru]

The overall grade was originally intended, to differentiate between two routes of the same length and crux difficulty.

 

For instance, a 10 pitch route, mostly 5.7 with 1 pitch of 10b, would get a III, and a 10 pitch routem, sustained with all pitches at 10b, and maybe some serac hazard from above as well, would get a IV. Or something like that.

[freeclimb9]

Dru said:

freeclimb9 said:

"VI A long, multi-pitch route on a high alpine face. The climb may include winter alpine climbing logistical problems in addition to severe objective hazards ( i.e. avalanche, falling seracs, high elevation and remoteness). Time required is many days."

 

El Cap is a "high alpine face" and "remote" ???

Those "VI"s on El Cap are really new wave V+.

[Geek_the_Greek]

Fern, I like your system best of all. Qualitative differences which exist in mountain routes don't have to be (can't be) quantified. These differences exist for other types of climbing too, but less so than in the heterogeneous alpine environment...

Descriptions - good

Numbers - innacurate and silly

 

[Peter_Puget]

Alpine Tom hit the nail on the head!

[Cpt.Caveman]

Peter_Puget said:

Alpine Tom hit the nail on the head!

 

I ski 380 miles solo to baffin island without polar bear repellent (shotgun) and 5 day of food. Now I am committed more. Up my route grade to VIII

[forrest_m]

Geek_the_Greek said:

Descriptions - good

Numbers - innacurate and silly

 

Geek, don't you think that's oversimplifying? By way of example, I think it's obvious that there is value in saying "5.9" instead of "a 30 meter crack that varies in angle from 80 to 90 degrees with some good footholds where it is steepest but mostly smears on the lower-angled section..." The value of the numbers is that they allow you to (attempt to) compare the route you are contemplating with routes you have done in the past in order to know what you are getting into. They are concise, and when developed through consensus over the years, fairly accurate.

 

The issue that started the debate seems to be that people are having some difficulty coming to consensus over Big 4 - probably because the relatively few ascents are spread over a long period of time. (i've never even seen the route in winter, so i have no opinion on the matter).

 

I think the issue of "is el cap now a grade II" is a red herring - the grade is supposed to be representative of an average party competent to do the route. The average party still spends 3-5 days on the nose. The fact that a tiny fraction of climbers now climbs it (much) faster shouldn't alter the grade; on the other hand, i think it makes sense that grades slowly change if the time required for the average party declines, i.e. climbs like Slesse that have gone from VI to V as the rock climbing ability of the average climber has skyrocketed in the years since the first ascent. The key word here is slowly.

 

Oh, and Mr Natural, since when is taking one leader fall and then climbing back up to your highpoint (with only one tool, as your second tool is still stuck in the ice where you peeled off) considered "dogging the shit" out of something? Are you in the habit of lowering to the belay and pulling the rope on alpine routes?

[Geek_the_Greek]

I was referring to alpine routes, where individual rock and ice grades are usually given anyway. I don't have much technical ice experience, so I won't talk about that. But the whole numerical grading systems applied across the board are a joke, from a quantitative point of view. (That is, using the presumption that two items with the same quantitative measure, like a rock grade of 5.9 or whatever, are equivalent in whatever it is you're trying to measure - in this case difficulty, and sometimes seriousness and/or commitment, which YDS was never meant to do...)

For instance, on rock, you assume that alpine grades imply longer runouts, more dirt and vegetation and looser rock than cragging grades. This you get from either 1- experience (generally) or 2- a description or a particular route. The discrepancies for pure rock climbing grades are bad enough (difference between slab and crack and face climbing, for instance, never mind protection issues...). So I just think it's not useful to assign a number that's supposed to represent the climb as a whole for what is essentially and by definition a subjective pursuit.

 

Ok, Dru, so the grade says how sustained a climb is. Come on, you get more info from hearing "7 pitches, 1 5.9, 1 5.8, 1 5.7 the rest low to mid-fifth (Outer Space)" than from III 5.9. And anyone doing the route will get the info about the pitches anyway, so the grade is not useful, except for comparing to other routes, but as we already discussed, it's apples vs oranges.

[Dru]

I don't think that the climbs on Slesse have gone from VI to V....I think they were called V originally. Now many people maybe do the NE buttress as a IV (long day), and i would agree it is IV-V or lower boundary of V....

[Cpt.Caveman]

I would like climb NE butthole of Jberg. Nelson says grade V. I must go see for myself.

 

Either way I can read the rating and assume that it will be a long route with some commitment taking 1-2 days to do the route. Knowing that is a generalization I can now expect and plan accordingly. Whether I disagree or not iis about as speculatory as someone else's ratings of it. A general consensus from parties experienced at climbing routes near that grade will be able to assume. However keep note that routes earn reputations of overgrading and undergrading like anything else.

 

For the number seekers- Dont worry we dont want to downgrade your routes but we do like to at the ego.

[bDubyaH]

I thought all alpine climbs were to be rated Grade V 5.9 A2 AI4???

[Dru]

Cpt.Caveman said:

I would like climb NE butthole of Jberg. Nelson says grade V. I must go see for myself.

 

Either way I can read the rating and assume that it will be a long route with some commitment taking 1-2 days to do the route. Knowing that is a generalization I can now expect and plan accordingly. Whether I disagree or not iis about as speculatory as someone else's ratings of it. A general consensus from parties experienced at climbing routes near that grade will be able to assume. However keep note that routes earn reputations of overgrading and undergrading like anything else.

 

For the number seekers- Dont worry we dont want to downgrade your routes but we do like to at the ego.

 

truer words were never spoken.

[freeclimb9]

Trivia question: What was the first route done in North America to be given a grade of VII?

[Geek_the_Greek]

Toof?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Mt. Hunter?

[Dru]

freeclimb9 said:

Trivia question: What was the first route done in North America to be given a grade of VII?

 

Eric Brand route on W Face of Thor.

 

Charlie Porter route is today called VII but was given VI at the time.

[Dru]

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

Mt. Hunter?

How come you have heard of Hunter DFA? Did you actually read about something other than bolt clipping and plastic while rereading Hot Flashes on the can?

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Dru said:

Dr_Flash_Amazing said:

Mt. Hunter?

How come you have heard of Hunter DFA? Did you actually read about something other than bolt clipping and plastic while rereading Hot Flashes on the can?

 

Hey, Mr. Canadabutt! Just 'cause Dr. Flash Amazing chooses to while away most of his climbing time clippin' bolts and chasin' grades doesn't mean he isn't enamored with the whole damned sport! So stick your snooty snob snipings up your Canadian candy cavern, you big insensitive lout!

[pms]

Dale,

 

Good idea with your Grade post. Nice to hear what everyone thinks.

 

Dale and MattP, does your Grade III plus rating include the summit, or is it to the summit ridge? I mention this because the Folsom/Carlstad-Spindrift Couloir hits the ridge several summits from the highest.

 

Maybe a grade range for this type of winter climb makes sense. Grade III-IV, or maybe Grade IV-V?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Dru said:

Cpt.Caveman said:

I would like climb NE butthole of Jberg. Nelson says grade V. I must go see for myself.

 

Either way I can read the rating and assume that it will be a long route with some commitment taking 1-2 days to do the route. Knowing that is a generalization I can now expect and plan accordingly. Whether I disagree or not iis about as speculatory as someone else's ratings of it. A general consensus from parties experienced at climbing routes near that grade will be able to assume. However keep note that routes earn reputations of overgrading and undergrading like anything else.

 

For the number seekers- Dont worry we dont want to downgrade your routes but we do like to at the ego.

 

truer words were never spoken.

 

and now I have found a willing and fellow victim to join me

 

My guess is the rating is on for the Nelson book. I think he climbed a grade V a time or twenty Even if it is a short walk compared to many other climbs.......

[mattp]

PMS-

I don't think I said I thought the N. Face of Big Four was a grade III -- did I? I said I thought it was easy for a grade V, but I also said I didn't think it should be downgraded solely on the basis of a couple of fast ascents or we'd be downgrading every route in the Cascades with today's emphasis on light-and-fast and car-to-car ascents. I said I thought it between Triple Couloirs and N. Face N. Peak of Index, and you have those rated grade III/IV and IV+, respectively, so I think I'd give it a grade IV. (Since I didn't climb along the summit ridge, I don't know how that might affect my opinion.

[Dru]

Geek_the_Greek said:

 

 

Ok, Dru, so the grade says how sustained a climb is. Come on, you get more info from hearing "7 pitches, 1 5.9, 1 5.8, 1 5.7 the rest low to mid-fifth (Outer Space)" than from III 5.9.

 

No, because the same number of pitches of the same difficulty on the Squamish Apron, would be a II (slab climbing, lower angle, climb faster) - you could get exactly the same length and number of pitches at the listed grades by climbing Slab Alley, but the "hypothetical average party" does Slab Alley in 2 hours, and Outer Space in 5-6, I think?. So the III does tell you something.

[Geek_the_Greek]

That's 'cause there's less gear to place on slab alley, and the crux is bolted - all information that someone going to climb it will know anyway. Plus the ratings in Squamish tend to be softer than in Leavenworth, which would be more useful to know than III 5.9...

Edited March 5, 2003 by Geek_the_Greek

[Tennessee]

Speaking of grades, I read recently that a new "WI 8" was established in the Canadian Rockies. The route climbs through a hanging glacier at the crux. It even showed pictures of it, some dude climbing through an overhanging sheet of blue glacier ice.

 

My question is, wouldn't it be AI 8 since it is alpine ice? It certainly isn't waterfall ice like the "WI" rating would infer.

[Dru]

They don't use "AI" in the Rockies. It's all WI, alpine or not. Actually, technically the Canadian Rockies Ice Grade, does not even include the "WI" prefix merely a W although it climbs the same as the WI/AI system popularized bby Jeff Lowe.

[JoshK]

Tennessee, would you mind posting a link to the pics you mention if they are, in fact, online?

 

thanks,

-josh