Toward better consensus ratings

Click on any route's difficulty rating and you get a pulldown menu for the grade. Between each letter grade, a->b->c->d there are 2 additional choices: slashes (/) and +,-. That's a lot of minutia. Then between 5.Xd and the next number.a NOTHING!

Do we really need the +,- and the slash? couldn't we have one or the other, and shouldn't there be one for the d/a?

I say: people should have to choose a single letter grade. then let the average speak for the +/-.

We debated adding the +/- etc. when we designed the system. We added them (correctly I believe) because many areas do not use letter grades - Indian Creek as an example. Forcing people to put in letter grades for an area that doesn't have a history of using them we felt was inappropriate.

I have to agree with Andy on this one Josh, the -,+ makes more sense for some area's. And it's not always that easy to pick an exact grade for some routes. Just my 2 cents.

I always thought that odd part was that 11- is easier than 11a, but 10+ is easier than 10d. I figured that the one could equivicate - to a/b and + to c/d. ORRR. make - easier than a as a "debatably easier than the grade) and the + harder than d, as debatable harder than the grade... but it's a screwwy system.

That's more like what I was thinking. I understand that some areas use the +/- but what's wrong with picking a/b for the minus and c/d for the plus.

and the real point is that there is no equivalent for 10d/11a
or 10+/11-

Joshua Merriam wrote:That's more like what I was thinking. I understand that some areas use the +/- but what's wrong with picking a/b for the minus and c/d for the plus. and the real point is that there is no equivalent for 10d/11a or 10+/11-

Slash grades are just crazy. Can you really break a climb into an 8th of a letter? 4ths are hard enough to decipher. Just my two cents.

sometimes a guidebook will have both +/- and the a-d, when i come across this i always consider a 5.X+ to be a 5.Xd/Xa like a 10+ is a hard 10d possibly 11a for some people and likewise for the minus. and i've been kind of using this site like this for exactly the reason this post was created (for the lack of the 5.Xd/Xa). although i do agree with the post about a/b, b/c and c/d, do we really need to break it down that far? but sometimes the borderline between a number grade is pretty close and so yeah thats when i merge the two systems...

I'm not a big fan of the a-b-c-d anymore. It's just too much, like spliting hairs. I like the -/+ way. If I feel something is a/b, I'll call it (-). b/c, nothing. c/d (+). Grades are too subjective anyways.

12- (12a/b)
12 (12b/c)
12+ (12c/d)

Rob Kepley wrote: Grades are too subjective anyways. 12- (12a/b) 12 (12b/c) 12+ (12c/d)

Devil's Advocate:

If you have a bunch of face routes on the same cliff face that are all 5.10, I would argue that the "/" grades help to differentiate the small differences in difficulty. In this situation, the differences can be subtle, and one 5.10a may be more difficult than another 5.10a, but not as hard as another route that is 5.10b. It makes it easier for a climber to assess the slight differences between route difficulty with a rating vs. an explanation that one is slightly more difficult than the other.

For crack routes, body size is a huge factor, so the difficulty depends on the climber, so the +/- system works much better.

Personally, I think that the +/- system would be just fine.

Rob Kepley wrote:I'm not a big fan of the a-b-c-d anymore. It's just too much, like spliting hairs. I like the -/+ way. If I feel something is a/b, I'll call it (-). b/c, nothing. c/d (+). Grades are too subjective anyways. 12- (12a/b) 12 (12b/c) 12+ (12c/d)

jarthur wrote: I agree with you 100%. I've always felt the -/+ was a better way of grading.

rickd wrote:the rating also must be applied to single hardest move onsight without alteration for sustained climbing.

Peter Kananen wrote: I'm guessing you haven't climbed somewhere like Red River Gorge?