Redpoint ratings versus onsight.

Tony Bubb wrote: Thinking takes time... Onsighting tests your endurance, redpointing tests your power.

well said, tony.

so are you saying that when "modes" are crossed, (apples compared to oranges) is when there is the discrepancy and debate? one climber's onsight ability to another's redpoint ability? two comparisons here... between one climber's modes, and between two different climbers.

if i had my charts together, i could show this statistically with a cumulative distribution function... or rather probability density function.

Michael Stacy wrote:How can a 5.12 climber tell the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 or 5.9 and 5.10a? ... Maybe the most valid opinions would be from experienced climbers attempting to onsight at or near their limit.

exactly, and how can a 5.8 climber tell the difference between a 13b or 13c. JPH (just plain hard)

it all comes down to where you are on the curve. the subjectivity narrows as the window around the climber's ability narrows. in other words, i would venture to say that 'most' climbers can accurately differentiate ratings within, say, +/- 1.5 number grades of their onsight ability.

thoughts?

EDIT: however, it is easier for a climber (with a good memory) to differentiate grades below their limit than above. in that they already went through those ranks, and their perspective changes as their ability improves. experienced-based knowledge and the resume of routes to roughly compare to.

I thought we were all doing just that on this site.

check back with the consensus ratings on MP.com in 50 years.

when our great grandkids are hikin' 5.16, protected by stick-on bolts, falling on 2mm ropes, and #.00003 Camalots.

Darren Mabe wrote:as an old partner once said, onsighting tests your ability to think. redpointing tests your ability to remember.

And that's the beauty of getting older: redpoint today, onsight tomorrow.

Darren Mabe wrote:if i had my charts together, i could show this statistically with a cumulative distribution function... or rather probability density function.

solid proof that technical jargon alone is enough to support your point. hell, it convinced me.

Darren Mabe wrote: well said, tony. so are you saying that when "modes" are crossed, (apples compared to oranges) is when there is the discrepancy and debate? one climber's onsight ability to another's redpoint ability? two comparisons here... between one climber's modes, and between two different climbers. if i had my charts together, i could show this statistically with a cumulative distribution function... or rather probability density function.

For some reason, all I got from this was I need a margarita and some good sex.

Michael Stacy wrote: How can a 5.12 climber tell the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 or 5.9 and 5.10a?

I run about a 5 minute mile.
But if I got for a jog, I can feel a 6,7,8,or 9 minute mile pace...
I still know about how hard I'm running.

I also know about what 4 minute mile pace feels like too- but I "fall off" after 1 lap and have to hang dog between laps.

Hey PD, I am not trolling at all. I just have time to waste and you guys make me laugh. Seriously though, If I get tunnel vision and blow it reading a sequence as I am pumping out during an onsight attempt that doesn't make the route harder. The route is the route and the holds are there even if they are hard to find or utilized in a way that screws me. If I do a crack at the Forks but use my left hand first and that makes the route seem harder it is no harder.

I did a classic route at Lumpy Ridge some years ago and fell off. I hadn't fallen off a 5.10 in 20 years. I said it was a sandbag. After a number of attempts my buddy said to scum my hip up over the lip then reach for the next hold. Yup it was 5.10 if you did it that way. So Old Dude is it 5.11? I think not.

I think it should be rated according to how hard it is if you nail the sequence correctly. Some routes are easier to onsight than others.

Fitness is key also. The stronger you are and the better your technique the longer you can hang out or downclimb to a rest which will allow you to work out a crux.

For some onsighting a 5.11 is tough but that doesn't mean we should rate a climb 5.11+. Maybe in the next guide I will put 5.11-TO (tough onsight). Just kidding! And it will not be out until after 2010!

I am not liking the running comparison as the apparatus is roughly the same whereas climbs have a lot of variables.

Climbers size does change the equation, but for this discussion lets pretend we are all the same size, weight and ability but half of us get the sequence and half of us don't. We all onsight the climb but it feels harder to the half that didn't find easiest sequence. How should we rate this you onsight rating proponents?

Hey, Eric,

Ratings are so passe.

What really matters is how many pounds of choss you trundled off your new route! Besides, if your friend found a new sequence but you still wanted the route to be 12, just remove those pesky holds with the Wrecking Bar. :)

No, seriously, routes should be rated according to the easiest sequence. Remember hearing all that buzz in the mags..: "such and such route at Rifle got downgraded again after three new kneebars were discovered..."

Good question MS. It makes the climb harder to onsight but the climbing is not harder. Enchanted Tower N.M. has pockets with chalk on them, you test them all pick one then move. It isn't tricky most of the time. Mt Lemmon lots of tricky cruxes but no harder if you get it right. Harder to onsight yes but not a harder route.

My impression has been in areas where people tend to repeat routes alot (Eldo, Turkey rocks, and pretty much any small crag out East) ratings often seem to be redpoint based. If you end up doing the same route over and over, and have no idea what it felt like the first time.

In other areas where people seldom repeat the same routes again ratings tend to be more onsight based.

In the end I doubt it matters much. I think body size is usually good for +/- half a letter grade on average. Experience with the particular angle, rock type, and climbing style ultimately make an even bigger difference.

I "flashed, on sighted..." a route today that's rated a 5.9, it wasn't difficult for me, it did involve an 8 foot deep roof, but being 6'3" it wasn't too hard...my climbing buddy being all of 5'5" had some issues...with his wingspan, he was forced to do a 5.11 move to make it past the crux...with that said, routes are subject to interpretation.

Eric Rhicard wrote:I am not liking the running comparison as the apparatus is roughly the same whereas climbs have a lot of variables. Climbers size does change the equation, but for this discussion lets pretend we are all the same size, weight and ability but half of us get the sequence and half of us don't. We all onsight the climb but it feels harder to the half that didn't find easiest sequence. How should we rate this you onsight rating proponents?

Just in case you did not read this folks.

For just a single number grade, the average should be given.

If you always give the minimal optimal rating only, then an onsight would probably always feel 2-3 letter grades harder. But isn't the difficulty in finding the optimal sequence part of the rating?

For example, if a strong 5.11 climber finds an "11d" and works it to death until getting such an optimal sequence, that the sequence is no "harder" than the typical 10d, do we then call it 10d? If that "10d" sequence takes a strong 5.11 climber 12 tries to figure out, is it really a 10d sequence?

Given any arbitrary "11a" route:
There may be a few people who have worked it out nicely, or onsighted it or just want to sandbag who can reasonably call this route 10c or 10d, most people will call it 11a, and a few fluffers reasonably can call it 11b or 11c. Well, its an 11a route. The ACTUAL rating of the route IS its consensus rating, which inevitably means that the actual rating given by any individual will vary by +/- a letter grade maybe and more rarely 2 letter grades. This probably depends on the level and generation. For example, many older 5.9 and below routes seem to have higher consensus ratings.

The point I am trying to make is this: The rating of a route IS its consensus rating. So maybe the best thing to do is to grade a route honestly what you think it is, and maybe make a note as to the range of ratings you expect others to find it as. That way as more people climb it, they will have a better idea on what to expect and the true consensus will naturally arise.

Brian Adzima wrote:My impression has been in areas where people tend to repeat routes alot (Eldo, Turkey rocks, and pretty much any small crag out East) ratings often seem to be redpoint based. If you end up doing the same route over and over, and have no idea what it felt like the first time.

That's odd for two reasons-

1) The rating system was invented in a day where the ethic was an on-sight ethic.
2) I climb in Eldo, and on the on-sight of each route, it seemed to be about the right grade. Let's say within a letter-grade for most.

BTW people, the running pace thing is an allegory, not supposed to be taken as proof of anything. My point was that people can kinda tell how hard soemthing is even if they don't on-sight.

That said, a shorter climber climbed with me on an 11b in Eldo the other day and just plain couldn't do the moves, no way, no how, not hanging. And then he lead Wendengo (12a/b)...

Thanks for making it more clear for me on the running thing Tony. I see your point.

When the YDS was created routes were mostly cracks and cracks are pretty straight forward. You can pretty much see all the holds. It is long and right in front of your face. But face climbing where there are a fair amount of holds in all directions means it is hard at times to see the options and use them. So perhaps the grade should be raised for that reason the same as we rate routes harder for endurance.

On the other if we rate a route on the best possible technique and sequence then the person that struggles or fails know they missed something. If you do as Joseph suggests then you are fluffing the grade for the less skilled and weaker climber who rightly feels it is harder than the given grade.

I started this thread because it has always interested me how a route can become easier or easy by making slight adjustments. A heel turned, a foot left low, drop knee, etc.

Bottom line for me is that we get close +/- a letter or two which is why I use a plus or minus and not a b c d. It just isn't that important.

I also think we do a pretty good job of getting the rating close enough by talking with others. I wish more people would add their two cents to the routes on this site as it helps me be more accurate in the quidebook.

Thanks for the input.

For what it's worth (probably not all that much), I don't "rate" a climb until I get the sequence right. I don't think anyone else should, either. Maybe that's just because I'm notorious for overlooking key holds until I'm hanging & wondering what I've missed, and there's a key hold, staring me in the face, laughing.

In other words, I'm for redpoint ratings, not onsight.