Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I hear a lot of complaints down here in California about the ratings, especially the 3rd versus 4th versus 5th.

As I understand it, back in the day of the Rock Climbing Section of the Sierra Club, classification was based on the protection used and not the technical difficulty. 4th class implied the use of a rope, and 5th class implied the use of protection to back up the climber. The running joke was:

2nd class - we didn't bring a rope

3rd class - we brought a rope but it never left our pack

4th class - we broke out the rope but left the pitons in the pack

5th class - we desperately dug the pitons and hammer out of the pack while the leader shook in his boots

 

In fact, old reports of the RCS referred to solo climbing as "third class-ing". For example, "Jules Eichorn third classed a new route on Cathedral Peak during this trip."

 

The consensus based model of grading a route by its technical difficulties appears to be a new concept that came about with the YDS.

Posted

4th class and 5th class are like 5th class and "6th class" (aid)

 

Like if you aid up Cat Crack it is A1 and if you free it it is 5.6... and if you lead it but don't place any pro it would be equally valid to call it 4th class, and if you soloed it it would be equally valid to call it 3rd class.

 

Four possible ratings for the same route, all equally valid.

Posted

Whoever wrote the guidebook to the Winds - maybe Steve Roper - defined the boundary between 2nd and 3rd class as the transition from something his dog could climb to something it couldn't. Expanding this methodology upwards might result in the transition from 3rd to 4th class as moving from something that someone with no arms could climb to something that they couldn't.

Posted

Not necessarily, G. Roper does describe 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class in terms of difficulty.

2nd class - like walking up an open stairwell on the outside of a building with a railing.

3rd class - like walking up that same stairwell without the railing.

4th class - like climbing an off-vertical ladder up that same building. If you fell, it would kill you, but it would be damn hard to fall unintentionally.

5th class - having to climb the building without the stairwell of the ladder.

 

I remember that NOLS taught it as the consequences of an unprotected fall:

1st class - you might get some bruises and cuts.

2nd class - you will get some bruises and cuts.

3rd class - you will get some bruises and cuts, you might break something.

4th class - you will break something, you might get dead.

5th class - will kill you.

 

I think that part of the problem was that prior to WWII there were many talented climbers making first ascents at a high technical level but with little protection and serious consequences. Because of the system of the day, things were graded then in a fashion that would be considered "sandbag" today.

Posted

those are pretty dumb attempts at defining Class 3, 4 and 5. You can die on a lot of 3rd class and there are 5th class slabs that can be climbed no-hands. the only definition that makes sense if you think it through is the stylistic one. Is it worth roping up for? Is it worth placing pro on? If the answer to both is yes then give it a technical rating, from 5.0 on up

Posted

Old skool is for Old Men to sit around and pat each other on the back about "how it was back in the day" (maybe some of them were sandbagging their buddies, d'ya think?)

Not that there's anything wrong with that... evils3d.gif

Posted

I just got into a heated debate with a client from Colorado over whether I should have placed gear on a 4th class pitch. The pitch features 30 solid meters of 4th class over a 60m+ drop. I normally climb it in boots and unprotected, and the only reason I would personally carry a rope is to get down faster via the rappels. She claimed that California grades were routinely sandbagged, and that this was a solid 5th class pitch. I disagree. A 4th class move 2 meters off the ground is still a 4th class move 200m off the ground. Like wise, elevation off the ground doesn't effect whether a move or pitch is 5.6 or 5.15a, does it?

Posted
I just got into a heated debate with a client from Colorado over whether I should have placed gear on a 4th class pitch. The pitch features 30 solid meters of 4th class over a 60m+ drop. I normally climb it in boots and unprotected, and the only reason I would personally carry a rope is to get down faster via the rappels. She claimed that California grades were routinely sandbagged, and that this was a solid 5th class pitch. I disagree. A 4th class move 2 meters off the ground is still a 4th class move 200m off the ground. Like wise, elevation off the ground doesn't effect whether a move or pitch is 5.6 or 5.15a, does it?

 

There's no such thing as a "4th class move"... only a "4th class pitch".

Posted
I just got into a heated debate with a client from Colorado over whether I should have placed gear on a 4th class pitch.

 

So much for your tip. My response would have been I'm really sorry, you were just looking so strong I felt we could run it out a bit. And then make her a sandwich. laugh.gif

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...