Rating Questions

[Doctorb]

Sea of Vapours is rated WI5-WI7 in the new guide.

[LYleK]

My two cents: Current ice grades are totally inadequate to deal with the complexities of ice conditions. Unlike rock they are super-dynamic, and a route can change not only season to season (and throughout the season), but in the time it takes to climb the route. It's affected by the volume, the temp., the number of climbers hacking it up, percip., time of day, air pressure, someone pissing off the top of the route. I've started routes in the shade, hit the sunny spots and it was a new route, from dry dinner plates into flowing plastic. Then you place a screw and flood the route with a gusher and the second has a whole new experience. I like Dru's approach that everyone needs to ID their own limits, but it does make it tough when you are new at ice, or to an area. Maybe there should at least be a range to a grade, ie. Deeping could show "4 to 5+" which would give climbers an idea of what to expect. It still needs a lot of work.

[Distel32]

I just don't get the fact that WI5 is moderate but that the highest WI ratings go is like 7 or 7+ right???

 

For some people V10 is moderate, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually call it moderate for all of bouldering....

[layton]

The numbers on Water Ice ratings only reflect the steepness and legnth and say nothing about how hard the climb actually is. A plastic straightforeward WI5 would be moderate. A long steep thin chandaleered(sp?) WI4 in sub zero temps would be more like A4 or A5 and would be hard core.

[Dru]

I just don't get the fact that WI5 is moderate but that the highest WI ratings go is like 7 or 7+ right???

 

For some people V10 is moderate, but I wouldn't go so far as to actually call it moderate for all of bouldering....

 

imagine if the 5th class grading system had no letters and went:

4th

low 5th

5th class

5.10

5.11-5.12

5.13-5.14

5.15

 

except instead of using those gradations the ratings went Rock1, Rock2, Rock3, Rock4, Rock5, Rock 6, Rock7, Rock8

 

and no one had ever climbed a Rock 8

 

and holds constantly changed in size and shape, and pro disappeared and reappeared randomly, so what was Rock 2+ one week might be Rock 4 a week later....

 

I mean, boulder problems are the easiest things to rate in the whole world: Go from hold A to hold B and then to hold C - and people still fight about the ratings of those right? (see 8a.nu forum)

[glassgowkiss]

you guys have way too much time on your hands. - shit is just another example. this shit is soo funny. i wonder what would brian boytano do?

[Don_Serl]

point #1:

 

maybe the key point is that you CAN'T consistently and accurately rate waterfall climbs?

 

despite the best efforts of guidebook authors and their "advisors" all over the world, and lots of time - and beer - spent by climbers arguing about the particulars of various routes, ice is SO variable that ANY grade is only going to be a guideline. and the guideline is set for "typical" conditions, whereas the day you are climbing the route it may be cold, brittle, thin, young, platey, chandeliered, streaming wet, baked out (i.e., generally fucked up); or it might be warm, well filled, mature, cleaned, picked out, firm - dream ice.

 

in the latter case, the route will be a very soft tick for the grade and you'll come home feeling like a hero; in the former, you'll be backing off in fear of your life on a climb supposedly a grade and a half below your limit. to me, that's half the fun of ice climbing, never quite knowing what you're getting into.

 

point #2:

 

despite the above, climbers seem to want grades attached to routes. and those grades get established by discussions between climbers, and comparisons between routes. for instance, having climbed carlsberg in field, carl's berg on the duffey, deeping wall and the upper pitch on icy BC at marble all a bunch of times, i'm totally comfortable with all of them being called "5". they all offer about the same degree of physical, psychological, and technical challenge, most of the time. yup, the actual difficulty varies a fair amount during the season, but that's just ice. you wanna climb polar circus and enjoy yourself? do it in march, not december. this is not rock, on which the grade does not change ('cept if you choose to climb in the rain...); this is more akin to the mountains, wherein the "difficulty" and/or challenge changes all the time.

 

point #3:

 

i ask myself, why should any of this be a problem? or subject to passionate discussion? and it seems to me that the answer has to do with people trying to rely on a guidebook definition to "tell" them whether they can safely and competently climb a given route, rather than acting out of judgement and self-reliance.

 

as a guidebook author, i don't view that as part of my job. i DO have a responsibility to pass along the most accurate information that is available to me, especially so that guidebook readers don't waste time walking up to things that are clearly "out of their league", but it's YOU that stands underneath the route when the approach is over, and it's YOU that decides whether to risk it or not, not me.

 

that too is part of the appeal of ice climbing: it's a sport that doesn't allow for much self-delusion. you've either got it, or you don't. and the consequences of mis-judgement can be quite brutal. not much like the modern sport-climbing ethic of working a route till it's done - ditto modern "mixed" climbing. again, ice climbing is much more like mountaineering: complex, difficult, clear-minded, harsh, honest decision-making is called for.

 

good, says i !!!

 

have a nice winter...

cheers,

[oldgoat]

Way to go Don! Point #3 is where it's at. Howie would be proud of you.