Mike_G Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I've been climbing for a few years, more seriously since I moved to central Oregon a couple years ago, and currently onsight in the mid to upper 5.10's. A friend asked if the number grades (up to 5.9) are pretty equivalent to an increase of one letter grade (above 5.10). I didn't really have a great answer, but it seems to me that the difference in difficulty between a 5.8 and a 5.9 is not four times as much as a 5.10a and a 5.11a. So the question, basically, is whether most folks see the difference in number grades as the equivalent of one letter grade. This may be comparing apples and oranges, but just wondering what you all think. Thanks, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 difference in difficulty between a 5.8 and a 5.9 is not four times as much as a 5.10a and a 5.11a ...difference in difficulty between a 5.8 and 5.9 is not four times less than that between 5.10a and 5.11a... The only way you would be able to do math like this on ratings is if they were based on at least one measurable variable, which they are not. There is no mathematical basis behind ratings or the numbers used in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I don't think the step up between, say, 5.11a and 5.11b is as much as that between 5.8 and 5.9, but the difference between 5.10a and 5.11a is probably greater. A comparison with other rating systems may be helpful in answering this question: web page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empire Posted October 10, 2004 Share Posted October 10, 2004 difference in difficulty between a 5.8 and a 5.9 is not four times as much as a 5.10a and a 5.11a ...difference in difficulty between a 5.8 and 5.9 is not four times less than that between 5.10a and 5.11a... The only way you would be able to do math like this on ratings is if they were based on at least one measurable variable, which they are not. There is no mathematical basis behind ratings or the numbers used in them. Oh really. Well why do we even have ratings then? Obviously somebody thinks they correlate pretty well with changes in difficulty. Some negative folks around here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek_the_Greek Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Naw, grades are bullshit. No way you can compare the difference, way too much "fuzz". In the language of data management, climbing grades are an ordinal measure, like {strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree}. Everone gets confused because they're represented by numbers, so they look all scientific and measurable and stuff. They're not. Grades are a first ascentionist's best guess of how hard a route was, nothing more (sometimes modified over the years by local consensus, sometimes not). Don't sweat it. If you're lucky, 5.11a is going to be harder than 5.10a, but beyond that, forget about quantifying it. Modeling the effort required for various climbing moves - could this be the next frontier in biophysics? Inputs could include climber height, ape index, flexibility index, sweat gland efficiency, fear coping factor as well as route steepness, average (median/standard error) hold width, rock friction coefficient, etc. etc. Time for the geeks to really come out of the closet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I don't know man. Its pretty simple to me and I went to public school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 i think there's so much variability in grades from place to place and route to route that it's hard to compare 5.8 jump to 5.9 and 5.10a to 5.11a. recently i've glided up some 5.8 pitches and then climbed a 5.8 that had me whimpering for my mom. a few days after that enjoying some 5.10a and 5.9 pitches. no matter how you want to try and quantify it in your own mind, there is no way to avoid the subjectivity in grades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I dunno. It took me like a month to go from 5.8-5.9, but the jump from 5.9-5.10 took 1/2 a year and 5.10-5.11 is still an ongoing project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aint_this_great Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 That probably has more to do with the general rule that (for instance) the last 20% of the weight loss takes 80% of the effort, and vice versa. I had the same experience - I learned how to climb with little or no technique and could do 5.8. It took some technique and more strength to do 5.9. 5.10 meant going climbing on a regular basis. 5.11 requires refinement of technique and more strength. So I think the sensation that grades are exponentially harder has more to do with the climber and less with the climb. And hell, just enjoy it. There's a 5.10b that's been kicking my ass for months, and I felt like thumbing my nose at it because I could do the 5.10c next to it. That's just the luck of the rating! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Also worth considering climbing style, 5.10 cracks are nothing at all like 5.10 face, especially relevant for all you gym rats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 (edited) whatever... Edited October 14, 2004 by RuMR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 That probably has more to do with the general rule that (for instance) the last 20% of the weight loss takes 80% of the effort, So then it is harder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 As with any athletic/mental activity, it is an asymptotic curve to your genetic threshold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrogers Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 As with any athletic/mental activity, it is an asymptotic curve to your genetic threshold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 What the hell is a "genetic threshold"? Sounds like an abuse of scientific terminology to me! Any nerd worth his genome knows that your genetic threshold/potential is qualitatively reached upon conception... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 there are some pretty weak climbers out there, like Steve Schneider, who nonetheless manage to climb hard. genetrics is an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 How do you figure that Schneider is "weak"? I'm curious, because I think of hard OW climbing as being very physical. Wasn't Schneider the one who climbed those .12 OW pitches while trying to free Excalilber. AFAIK, they are unrepeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Haha you may want to integrate one or both of your axes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 er...time goes by faster when you get older Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 oh yeah, huh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 How do you figure that Schneider is "weak"? I'm curious, because I think of hard OW climbing as being very physical. Wasn't Schneider the one who climbed those .12 OW pitches while trying to free Excalilber. AFAIK, they are unrepeated. he's a scrawny guy with legs that look like an anorexic girl's arms, a little potbelly and stick thin arms with no muscles. he himself said that his climbing is all about technique and that he can barely do a dozen pullups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottP Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 How do you figure that Schneider is "weak"? I'm curious, because I think of hard OW climbing as being very physical. Wasn't Schneider the one who climbed those .12 OW pitches while trying to free Excalilber. AFAIK, they are unrepeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_G Posted October 15, 2004 Author Share Posted October 15, 2004 iain, this is brilliant. Strangely enough, it's all clear now. As for the idea of a "genetic threshold", it is simply the "nature" in the "nature vs. nurture" balance to which nearly all traits owe their current expression. Any science geek worth his salt would understand this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EWolfe Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 I strongly believe we should use ALL THE LETTERS in the alphabet for further clarification of grading! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.