rock climbing ratings

[Colin]

The system of classes (1-5) denotes the exposure of a route, or whether or not a rope is generally used. The yosemite decimal system was originally designed to further divide the fifth class. I propose that all rock climbing ratings consist of an arabic numeral that shows the class, and a decimal that shows the technical difficulty of the climbing.

For example, boulder problems would be rated 3.0-3.14d, rather than some funky 'V' or 'B' scale. High ball boulder problems (that some people would only climb with a rope) would be rated 4.0-4.14d.

For example, The first pitch of the Great Northern Slab at Index is rated 5.0. Most people I know consider it to be closer to 5.3, but don't place protection anyway because it is not very exposed. I would rate it 4.3.

Likewise, the crux moves on the Beckey Route on Liberty Bell would be rated 4.7 instead of 5.7, because they are right above a big flat ledge with dwarf pines on the right. It wouldn't be rated 3.7 because there is still the possibility of a tumbling fall to the left.

Does anyone else agree that this system would be more logical? Does anyone else want to start using it?

[chriss]

Yes.

 

Needless to say, the current rating systems are very subjective.

 

chris

[Raustin]

other than the akward first move of the deck the first pitch of the GNS at Index is just scrambling w/ bomber holds.

[max]

No. No offence, but that's a terrible idea. First, the 5.6 part of YDS works just fine. Second, the V3 system works just fine for bouldering. And finally, the scrambling/ "interesting" starts/ anomonies have never seemed to pose that much of a problem. "Exposed scambling" seems to say it just fine. 3.7? It's just way too techno-geek... It's definately bee a long winter...

dave

[DPS]

I think Fred Beckey already uses such a system. For example, he rates the South Face of the Tooth as 4th class (in older editions)because it is unexposed yet the moves are 5.4ish.

[Dru]

What about the "Burdo Rating System"? I thought that that was the most logical system going according to its inventor

Don't reinvent the wheel here Colin!

[philfort]

Dru,

the problem with your classification of the ratings, in my opinion, is that it is subjective, based upon the skills of the party that climbed it. Knowing that a first ascent party "4th classed" something that would seem like low 5th to me, isn't very helpful.

The whole point of a rating should be to attempt to classify how difficult something is, regardless of who rated it. I would hope the people who "4th classed" a route, know that they are comfortable climbing 5.3 (or whatever) without pro, and rate it accordingly.

[chriss]

My "yes" above, is to say, your basic understanding of the YDS is right. Except it went from 1 to 6.

BUT, ratings, like climbing, has changed somewhat over the years. Different styles have different scales now. The YDS is only used for 5th class climbing now.

 

chris

[Dru]

Well, that's the whole point. The YDS ratings are based on consensus, there's no objective way to determine if something "really" "is" 5.4 or 4th class, so it has to be a personal choice. I've dragged a cord up stuff that's been called "3rd class" and soloed "5th class" stuff.... I honestly don't believe that there is any way to differentiate these (3rd, 4th and easy 5th) that people will agree on so we might as well keep them vague and be aware of the potential for differing interpretations. Oh, and never forget the rope just because the guidebook says "4th class". and if I never hear another statement like "The Shmuk guide says this was 5.3 but it's really a 5.2" I will be content.

Has anyone, anywhere, at any time, ever seen an aid pitch actually rated with a 6, or did this rating exist only in the dreams of the bearded knicker wearers who thought up the system?

[crazyjizzy]

I think your idea is stupid and without merit. As it is, class 3 to 5 is gradational, and represents an easily understood increase of difficulty. To further break up class 3 and 4 in just plain stupid. People who boulder realize that they are bouldering, and not half way up the north ridge of Stuart. And most people with even a little experience know that the distinction between class 4 and say 5.3 will be fuzzy.

I like Bryan Burdo, but his system always seemed like re-inventing the wheel to me. If you can't sit at the bottom of a 5.9 offwidth and know that it will take radically different skill and mindsets than a slab, handcrack, or sport route, then you are a lame MF'er.

[Ade]

So the first part of the system would be a seriousness rating and the second a technical grade. Isn't this the same as the R/X postfixes to the YDS system? This is pretty much what we have already.

Ade

 

[dan_e]

I say we throw all of that out and use the New England rating system of: "It was easy" or "It was hard"!

[Dru]

On the subject of 3rd class, 4th class, easy 5th class and how they overlap ( my opinions ) check http://bivouac.com/mtn/ExpPg.asp?rq=ExpPg&ExpId=102

Also, I challenge ANYONE to produce a method of distinguishing between any climbs rated 5.0 -5.4. They all feel the same difficulty wise! It's way easier to distinguish between 5.10b and c than it is to distinguish between 5.2 and 5.5.

[This message has been edited by Dru (edited 04-03-2001).]

[erik]

i don't think any rating system really matters in the long run. i personally give a shit what any climb is rated. i can do it or not. ratings is a way to measure yourself against other climbers. that is not what i climb for. once the world ends we won't need to worry about ratings. or guide books.

it is a nice idea, but so is the metric system.

[chucK]

Colin's idea sounds like an attempt to indicate the danger/difficulty of soloing a route. I don't think it works because many routes have different danger and difficulty cruxes without one that definitely takes precedence. For example, would you call Angel at Castle Rock a 4.10a or a 5.7? What is harder? Would a 10a section with ankle tweaking possibilities, or some 5.7 territory in with an inarguable death penalty be more important to present? Similarly, doesn't the Beckey Route on Liberty Bell have some exposed sections of 5.5 or so? Calling it a 4.7 may be deceptive if that is indeed the case.

You do NOT want to be deceptive when telling someone how difficult/easy a route is to solo.

chucK

[kevin]

I'm not trying to complicate the matter but I agree that we always have to take ratings with a grain of salt and reasses the the route once we see it for ourselves as to whether or not its within our ability. I've done a lot of climbing in hte sierra and once read a comment made by Norman Clyde who put up many first ascents there. The rating system he used was simple: If he didn't carry a rope its 3rd class; if he carried a rope and pitons, but didn't use them its 4th class; if he carried a rope and pitons AND used them its 5th class. These ratings still stand on many of his routes leaving behind some pretty challenging 3rd and 4th class routes.

[Craig]

If you could use a little laugh on this subject, then check out:

http://www.alpenglow.org/themes/subalpine/brush-ratings.html

[This message has been edited by Craig (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Cpt.Caveman]

That one is good but this one is a great classic as well. http://www.alpinelite.com/Archive/ratings.htm