Mer Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Updating our local rock guidlet. I’d like to use notation that reserves plus and minus for natural lines, ie 5.10+ and uses a,b,c,d for fixed or mixed routes, ie 5.10c. I’ve seen this convention used in several guides, but I’ve also seen it confuse people. Keeping the distinction gives you info about the nature of the pro but gives you less info about the difficulty of the climb. What do you think, is this a useful distinction, or the ratings equivalent of a who/whom quibble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pms Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I never loved the a, b, c, d, distinction. I think it got started in the Valley when they were reluctant to rate above 5.10 With an open ended system you just need to add on .11, .12, .13, etc. I think they needed it between 5.10 and 5.11, because it took so long to go beyond 5.10, which was thougt to be the end of the scale at the time. Which ever method gives the necessay information, without confusing folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I AGREE WITH YOU MER.. THE MICRO MANAGING OF IT IS A BIT MUCH...I ONLY TRY TO REFER TO ROUTES AS -/+... AS TO ME THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LETTER GRADES SEEMS SILLY.... AND THE BOULDERING SCALE....OH WE SHOULDNT EVEN GO THERE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Ditt what erik noted. Esp. The bouldering scale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I hate the +/- vs. a-d DISTINCTION used to distinguish between sport and trad routes used in Red Rocks and Skaha. Its totally bogus. If you can say that a sport route is 10c certainly you should be able to say that a crack climb is 10c and not vaguely 10+. Also for a long time there I knew my lead limit for onsight was about 10a for both trad and sport, and it always made me worry about 10- cracks at Skaha, like if it (crack rated 10-) was "really" 10a I was confident I could send, but if it was "really" 10b I would probably pitch off..... Same argument applies to many other gradations brought out by abcd and hidden by +/-.... also I think it is used by incompetent guidebook editors to make themselves feel they are climbing harder than they are, they call 10a 10-, 10b 10, 10c 10+, and 10d 10+/11- or just 11-.... wankers also should you give a route with 6 bolts and 2 gear placements a trad (+/-) or Sport (abcd) grade???? Huh?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I disagree with Dru on crack climbs. If it's protectable and only a letter grade difference and you can't do it then it is more likely that someone could just pull on pro.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Yeah but I wont pull on gear although I will pull on or stand on bolts anytime...thats why they put them there, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mer Posted January 20, 2003 Author Share Posted January 20, 2003 A moot point if we’re talking about Skaha grades, where a 10b is likely to be a 5.9 anyway . It is the Skaha and Red Rocks guide books where I’ve seen it used and started to assume it was a standard. I understand it’s a subtle distinction and likely to be missed or misunderstood, but I like the tradition of not giving too much away in the route description. It’s hard ten my boy, grab the rack and go. Instead of it’s 5.10c/d pull on the grey sloper just left on the indent then step up right on the micro blah blah blah… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necronomicon Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 5.3d is much easier than 5.4, so I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Yeah I know all about the "Skaha advantage"; Howie tried to fix it in the current guide with selective downgrades except of many of his own routes, he he. McLane retaliated by making most of Squamish's classic 5.7s like Diedre into 5.8s. Squamish guide gets along fine with mostly abcd, ditto leavenworth guide, J Tree etc. The only place that McLane uses +/- is in the New Routes yellow pages and thats cause many of those routes tend to be unrepeated so the grade is a bit of a guess. But you can write 10 c/d just as easily as 10+ in those cases so why bother even using the +. The only place + grades should be used is in Sandbags like the grade of "Payanoia' is 5.9+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaphappy Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 I prefer the +/- system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek_the_Greek Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I'm with Dru, sort of. The difference between +/- and a-d is moronic. Do you want three sub-grades between numbers or 4? It makes no difference, because of the bogusness of grading systems to begin with. Pick a system, and stick with it. Swain was on crack when he separated the two for the Red Rocks guide, and he started the whole damn trend. [Ok, this was a dying post, but I'm cruising for 100 posts today...] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texplorer Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I would say I like the a-d ratings. I guess cause I started climbing sport or something but I usually think of climbs as an a,b,c,or d rating (even cracks). It must simply be understood that ratings are subjective and that variations will occur. If I ever write a guidebook, I would use +/- ratings on climbs up to 5.8 and start rating even 5.9 climbs with an abcd rating. It's yours guide though and you should write it how you see fit. If we like it then well say its a good guide.. . or if we don't like it we'll catagorize you with Smoot. Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I'd never thought about separating the crack and sport grading in .10 and above previous to this thread, but here's a thought. Cracks are subjective based on an individual's hand and finger size, and thus, the difficulty might be slightly increased or decreased depending on the climber. Example: I climbed a crack route at Pearly Gates that I felt off-fingers to me: too wide for true fingers and not wide enough to stuff my hand into. As a result, a couple sections felt hard and a bit sketchy. I belayed a chic up the same route and it was perfect for her little hands and probably felt more solid. Most sport routes depend on features on the face and are not dependent on handsize. That's just my $.02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 it's blah blah fucking blah. here's the rack, STFU and do your 60 meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 it's blah blah fucking blah. here's the rack, STFU and do your 60 meters. It's a GUIDEBOOK, scorpion. Call your doctor and have him adjust your medication, or just STFU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 it's blah blah fucking blah. here's the rack, STFU and do your 60 meters. i was wondering what scorpions last route was??? well lets hear it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryland_moore Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 GregW, I would also state that sport climbing grades are affected by a person's hand size, especially when getting into the higher grades. If you have really large fingers, then you may only be able to get a quarter pad on the hold where with others, you can get nore. This is all relative because hand strength is also a factor. Even when Lynn Hill freed the Nose, they said she did it because she could fit her fingers in the pin scars (more like climbing pockets than trad even though that was what she was doing). Definately agree with you on hand size for cracks though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mer Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 I see the light now, a simple system is a better system. It's a tiny guide for a backwoods crag and few people go there anyway. We just like seeing our names in print. Actually once we direct you to the base of a route, this description would probably cover more than half the lines: Route 7, less than 50m, 5.9 (+ or -) Start at the bottom and proceed to the top, placing pro or clipping bolts along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texplorer Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 it's blah blah fucking blah. here's the rack, STFU and do your 60 meters. Great scorpion, this here guidebook says this next pitch is a 5.13c X crack. Here's the rack, STFU and do your 60 meters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 i wouldn't need any blah blah fucking blah to know enough to skitter away under a rock (or pull out the etriers if necessary). sarcasm isn't much appreciated amongst this clique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Good point Ryland. When it gets that thin, the only thing that matters to me is how loud I can yell, "TAKE!!!" Although, I don't really sport climb so I wouldn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek_the_Greek Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Yeah, but scorpion's point may have been that this (guidebook ratings) is a subject that was beaten to a messy death long ago, and continues to be beaten some more every couple of months or so. Of course hand size matters for crack climbing. Of course it matter for sport climbing too (check out those 11-year olds sticking their whole hand into a "2-finger pocket"). Of course height matters (good for reachy moves, bad for underclings or crunched-up moves). It's not science, for crying out loud, it's opinion, just like judging music or art or something. So whatever, man, rate your guidebook however you want - just be consistent, and we will all appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texplorer Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I agree Geek. I actually wish more people were like scorpio and would just shut up and climb instead of debate if this climb is a easy .10c or a .10b with one hard move or some other shit like that. However, if you have less than 100 posts on this board you are subject to be sprayed no matter what you post because we all know the more you post the better the climber you are. It's our way here at CC.com of saying "your welcome here.. . . that is unless your a wanker who doesn't eat horsecock and cheese for breakfast." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 Thanks tex it is nice to know I am the best climber posting here, because I have the most posts!!!!! 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.