Route Ratings

The Joes appear to be mounting some sort of WWFesque tag team trolling assault on front range climbers. Get a couple of kids high on stems, seeds, and Zima on the internet and see what happens.

Daniel Crescenzo wrote:The Joes appear to be mounting some sort of WWFesque tag team trolling assault on front range climbers. Get a couple of kids high on stems, seeds, and Zima on the internet and see what happens.

I don't get it. Speaking of stems and seeds, isn't Fesque a type of grass? By the way, do you have a tattoo? Just curious. Oh, I actually love climbing on the front range, its epic but the smogs not!

Hey Joe, I guess this makes us somke sort of tag team duo >high-five<! I got nothing against the front range climbs, its the 5*10^78 people that seem to be queing up at all hours of the day and night to get on them and then racing home to bicker on MP that rub my scruff. Its the fact that the Front Range is nothing but an extension of Kansas that happens to butt up against some foothills yet everyone that lives out there thinks they are living in some sort of mountain town. And, its the smug attitude exuding from the previous posts that living on the Front Range implicitly seems to imbue in residents of the Den-Bo-FoCo-Gree-Springs Metroplex. Ratings and climbs are ratings and climbs. Period. Get over it, get out and get on something instead of blistering your typing tips, you pantywaists!

joe q fed up wrote:Hey Joe...

Incontrovertibly profound.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Incontrovertibly profound.

I agree with Richard! However, Dr. Creshendo has some mouthy front range froth bubbling out of his stretched lips. But, to be expected when you can't climb any harder than your own height. Whatever.

Joe Flankston wrote:I agree with Richard!

Hmmmm. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm. Perhaps a little less unobvious.

It's incredible how a post that initially received many quality responses about a highly debatable topic has now turned into a sarcasm-riddled, ego-driven competition of who can put down the most... perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...

Sara, Ken pretty much nails it:

Ken Cangi wrote: Another anonymous troll. You can always tell when the students are back.

SaraB wrote:... perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...

I think there is relevance, especially considering that you’re in a psychology program: the human ego. The thread started to go bad when it was implied that 5.9 was a grade not worthy of “recognition”. That was all that was needed for the thing to go south. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a route’s rating is subjective and dependent on numerous factors, the primary one being past experience. One generally rates a climb based on how difficult it is relative to rated climbs that they’ve done in the past, although it’s clear that the YDS has evolved somewhat since its inception. But ego always plays a part, throwing an irrational twist to the whole thing. I can’t help but wonder if gym climbing, which is where many (most?) new climbers first learn to climb in this day and age, has fostered an attitude that climbing is all about pushing the numbers. To a certain extent, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with pushing oneself and the numbers serve as a scale of achievement and progress. But for many people that’s ALL that it’s about. Climbs that are around 2 or 3 letter grades lower than their current project is nothing but a warm-up; anything less is not even worth rating, much less climbing (“…it’s 5.7 or 5.8. Who can tell? Who cares?”). A balanced climber, at least in my mind, is just as happy struggling on a 40 foot .12b as on a 10 pitch 5.2.

So, you can never know what’s in the mind of the troll. But as a budding psychologist, you should embrace the idea that any rating system, especially one that involves athletics, is going to be burdened (enlightened?) with the human ego. Maybe that’s really what you’re investigating anyway...

...or maybe its the mischievous miscreant who can demonstrate that poking a little fun and stirring the pot a bit gets some people's skivvies in a bunch. Is it not abundantly clear that some people are taking all of this a tad too serious? How about a hearty har-har, rather than a sniffle and whine. If Warren H were here he'd eat you dolts for breakfast.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: I think there is relevance, especially considering that you’re in a psychology program: the human ego. The thread started to go bad when it was implied that 5.9 was a grade not worthy of “recognition”. That was all that was needed for the thing to go south. As has been pointed out many times in this thread, a route’s rating is subjective and dependent on numerous factors, the primary one being past experience. One generally rates a climb based on how difficult it is relative to rated climbs that they’ve done in the past, although it’s clear that the YDS has evolved somewhat since its inception. But ego always plays a part, throwing an irrational twist to the whole thing. I can’t help but wonder if gym climbing, which is where many (most?) new climbers first learn to climb in this day and age, has fostered an attitude that climbing is all about pushing the numbers. To a certain extent, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with pushing oneself and the numbers serve as a scale of achievement and progress. But for many people that’s ALL that it’s about. Climbs that are around 2 or 3 letter grades lower than their current project is nothing but a warm-up; anything less is not even worth rating, much less climbing (“…it’s 5.7 or 5.8. Who can tell? Who cares?”). A balanced climber, at least in my mind, is just as happy struggling on a 40 foot .12b as on a 10 pitch 5.2. So, you can never know what’s in the mind of the troll. But as a budding psychologist, you should embrace the idea that any rating system, especially one that involves athletics, is going to be burdened (enlightened?) with the human ego. Maybe that’s really what you’re investigating anyway...

So, bla bla bla bla bla....So we've finally come full circle, yes, these were the initial intentions for turning up the juice on the corral fence. Only in the efforts of "stirring the pot" do we truely get to taste that scrumptious nectar that is stuck to the bottom of the pan. 5.6 does kick ass as does 12+, actually I'd rather climb 2000 ft. of 5.9 over five pitches of 5.11 any day. However, some folks should bust out the hook, dig deep and really get those panties out of a bunch. It will impede your progress as a person and in climbing. Even the anus needs to breath once in awhile...are we getting somewhere yet? I think so....great post by the way.

SaraB wrote: perhaps there is some relevance between the turn this has taken and the research I'm doing...

THere is.
I've been establishing routes for about 25 years. I think grading those routes has been more art than science. art has ego.
Thats about all I'm gonna TYPE on this subject.

Hey folks I have a great idea. Let's stop quibbling and get this thread back on track. The more you bicker about stuff the bigger the bulge in the troll's pants get. When they get too excited they start humping this thread and the whole darned cycle perpetuates.

Daniel Crescenzo wrote:Hey folks I have a great idea. Let's stop quibbling and get this thread back on track. The more you bicker about stuff the bigger the bulge in the troll's pants get. When they get too excited they start humping this thread and the whole darned cycle perpetuates.

OK so what do you have to add? Your usage of the word "troll" is getting old, something more creative perhaps? It appears you haven't grabbed that pillow and found a dark corner yet...or maybe you're ready for round two. While you're at it, I'll try and nail your tick list of 5.6R routes and beat you to the 200 mark of friends on "My Space".

My project partner and I just sat down and really read and reviewed all of your efforts... Thank you!
We have a few questions...
If this system is so controversial and seemingly inadequate - why do we all use it? There must be good things.
And how many of you are familiar with the British system... seems like that might have some advantages and I'm curious to hear what you guys think.
Cheers.

SaraB wrote:My project partner and I just sat down and really read and reviewed all of your efforts... Thank you! We have a few questions... If this system is so controversial and seemingly inadequate - why do we all use it? There must be good things. And how many of you are familiar with the British system... seems like that might have some advantages and I'm curious to hear what you guys think. Cheers.

We use it b/c we were built on rebelling against the brits. I cannot seriously say why we use it, but there is something to be said about getting on something, finding out you've been sandbagged, and pulling through it. Why don't we use the more accurate brit ratings over the YDS? b/c we're American. Why don't we use the more accurate and worldly adopted metric system? b/c we are American. Why do we continue to buy large gas guzzling vehicles even though fuel supplies are getting smaller and more expensive? Because we're American and we'll be damned if someone tries to tell us there's a better way. Screw them, we're better, because I said so.

I think we need a subjectivity factor

SaraB wrote:My project partner and I just sat down and really read and reviewed all of your efforts... Thank you! We have a few questions... If this system is so controversial and seemingly inadequate - why do we all use it? Cheers.

probably because its been around for so long.

My ratings truths:

The YDS rating system works well. Usually arguments are about ONE letter grade...that's pretty fine shading.

Sport FAs on chossy rock generally turn out about 2 letter grades easier than you first thought they would be.

You are good at what you've been doing recently. Everything else will seem a bit sandbagged.