YDS grading

Ok, sorry to start this TR, very RC.com-esq.

A friend of mine and I were having a discussion about the YDS grading system. I will use 5.10 as my example.

I think of 5.10- = 5.10a to 5.10b

5.10 = 5.10b to 5.10c

5.10+ = 5.10c or 5.10d

He thinks of 5.10- to be 5.9+ or 5.10a

5.10= 5.10a or 5.10b

ect..

Opinions?

What you said.
5.10- = 5.10a/b, etc

5.9+ = 5.9+, not 5.10.

I've always thought of 5.10- as .10a, and 9+ as .11-

Ryan Kelly wrote:I've always thought of 5.10- as .10a, and 9+ as .11-

You obviously climb in Eldo.

I’ve had a few discussions like this with many of my partners. YDS was created a long time ago and is a bit outdated in my opinion. According to YDS the grade is dependent upon the hardest move on the route, the hardest pitch on the climb. If you think about it, it makes sense, but we as climbers often think otherwise. If we lead a route and think the whole climb is 5.9 and the top crux is a 5.10c move were supposed to tell our partner this and YDS would grade this as a 5.10c. What good is grading it you can’t do the move and thus the climb. If you’re a 5.10 climber you should cruise the easier/lower portion and realize the top crux is accurate, but as an overall climb it’s interesting to rate. Many of my friends like the 5.10 +,- adage, but in my opinion this is more for an overall grade versus a YDS style rating, so in fact may be slightly more accurate, but does not give you an accurate crux rating and may be dangerous to others. If a 5.9 climber hops on a supposed 5.10- climb, but that climb is largely 5.8 moves with a 5.10d crux he may never send the route if this style rating is used. The French got it a little better with their grading and the English improved up on that in my opinion. With the French Grading there isn’t room for too much +-, but rather bordering the next level. I like the English grading system that has a secondary grade for mental, protection and traverse to differentiate between a climb that is mostly 5.8 with a 5.10d crux versus sustained 5.10a moves.

I also got into discussions about gym ratings. In my opinion as long as you are consistent as a setter and consistent as a gym then gym climber opinion doesn’t matter. Now don’t get me wrong we as setters must listen to our members, but I’ve found that as gym climbers go outside more and get a feel for the rest of the climbing world those harsh opinions for setters climbs diminish. I love constructive criticism, but only from people who know what their talking about. If you’re a 5.8 climber and you hop on my 5.10 and hate it, don’t tell me that because you’re not going to enjoy it for many reasons, none of which are mine as a setter. As a 5.8 climber you can’t understand the nuances of the difference between a 5.10a versus a 5.10b. You can definitely suggest a grading on a project though. If I’m a 5.12 climber and my buddy FA’s a route and suggests 5.13a and I get on it and fail and suggest a 5.13c, that’s fine because it a FA/project, and I’m climbing and going to verify a grade. Most climbs have been climbed hundreds if not thousands of times and upgrading/downgrading is very difficult.

Ideally I would love for a new grading system which combines YDS, Vermin, French and English grading. I’ve never understood Japanese grading, but apparently it’s similar to martial arts grading versus belting.

I was under the impression that the + and - were for lower grade climbs from 5.6 to 5.9 and represent the sustained nature of the climb. For instance a route with one 5.7 move would be a 5.7- and a route with sustained 5.7 moves would be a 5.7+.

5.10c/d- vs. 5.10b/c+

Which grade is more ridiculous?

Does it really matter?

Rick Blair wrote:I was under the impression that the + and - were for lower grade climbs from 5.6 to 5.9 and represent the sustained nature of the climb. For instance a route with one 5.7 move would be a 5.7- and a route with sustained 5.7 moves would be a 5.7+.

When I first started climbing (mid-70's), +/- were generally used only for climbs rated 5.10 or up and were meant to describe the sustained nature of the climb as you suggested. At least that's how I learned it. I think there's still a flavor of that with the a-b-c-d system which was introduced later (mid to late 80's?).

TP in SLC wrote:Richard is your take the same as mine? 5.10- = 5.10a or 5.10b? Just curious.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it, although I've never found a climb that is definitively this or that grade. It's typically more like "10a-ish" or "11b-ish" or "8-ish" or whatever-ish.

I have always liked the "ish" rating and used it on several of my first assents pending future sends by climbers more capable of defining the absolute qualified grade.I remember when 10+ went into infinity and only Ivy Baldwin had done 5.11

partners and i have always felt that the plus indicates that it is actaully two grades harder than the number the + was added to. Example, .7+ = .9

Dez wrote:partners and i have always felt that the plus indicates that it is actaully two grades harder than the number the + was added to. Example, .7+ = .9

Another Eldo climber.

+/- is not any different than a/b/c/d other than dividing the rating into 3 sub categories instead of 4. Seeing something like 5.10b/c in a guidebook seem absurd to me, when you start using "straddle" grades like that you're effectively dividing a rating into 7 or 8 subdivisions. I usually can't tell 10- from 10 or 10 from 10+ and that's with only 3 subdivisions.

YDS in practice takes into account both the hardest move and how sustained a pitch is, regardless how many people claim that it's simply the hardest move. It's just not that way in practice for good reason. Anyone who feels otherwise should jump on something like Energy Crisis in the Valley that doesn't have a single 5.11 move on it, but goes at .11d because it's 80ft of sustained 5.10 finger stacks, ring locks, and thin hands.

What might work better is a YDS rating plus a bouldering grade for the hardest move, i.e. 5.11c V3 or 5.11c V0. That would give you a good idea of whether it was a sustained pitch or a mostly cruiser pitch with a short hard crux.

Will S wrote: I usually can't tell 10- from 10 or 10 from 10+ and that's with only 3 subdivisions.

but can you tell the difference between 11- or 11+? what about 12- or 12+? or maybe even 13- or 13+? 11b and 11c? 12c/d and 12a/b? 5.15a and 15b?

was there a time you can remember that you might have been able to tell the difference between 10- or 10+?

my point is this. i will venture to say, that splitting hairs only "matter" to those that are climbing at that particular grade. their window, if you will. further from their window makes the graduations more blurred.

TP in SLC wrote: Next time you put a grade on a climb on this site check out the options for 5.10 and above, there is 5.10-/5.10a/5.10b./5.10/5.10b/5.10c ect... It's not just for lower graded climbs.

Ha, that dose not concern me because I am a horrible climber, I never notice the 5.10 range on the drop down for the routes I climb.

My point was not what the drop down on this site allows for ratings but 5.10 and up have abcd and there really aren't any discernible grades ( at least to me ) in say a 5.8, it's either 5.8 or not. The + or - can be useful to less capable climbers like me who would consider a 5.9 lead with few 5.9 moves but not a sustained 5.9.

Interesting discussion! Being somewhat new to rock climbing, I've often wondered about all this. Why am I sh*tting bricks when trying to lead 5.7 in Eldo, but I can cruise .10a in BoCan?

jfox wrote:Why am I sh*tting bricks when trying to lead 5.7 in Eldo, but I can cruise .10a in BoCan?

Many of the newer sport routes in BoCan are good for sugar-coating the climbing ego. (I might get some $hit for saying this but it's true) Climbing the classics in Eldo is, well, another story. JFox - Eldo gets easier as you become accustomed to the rock and the style of climbing.

For a real spanking in BoCan, give the Umph Slot a try. Biggest 5.8+ sandbag I've found so far.

TP in SLC wrote:He thinks of 5.10- to be 5.9+ or 5.10a 5.10= 5.10a or 5.10b ect..

TP in SLC wrote:Opinions?

yes, please tell your friend to stop perpetuating the stereotype of the stoner climber. i realize it will require him to drop his weed intake of 3+ joints a day to about 1 or 2 per week, but i think it will do him and the climbing community a lot of good in the long run.

This is just my opinion and from discussions on previous posts I’ve found that I am outnumbered. Considering that the majority rules, I’ll have to concede and give up my plan to sway the climbing community to my way of thinking.

Early on in my climbing career, around 1971, it was my understanding that a 5.10 move was a 5.10 move. If it was any easier it was 5.9. If it was harder it was 5.11
With grades rated this way it meant that the +, -, a, b, c, d suffixes described the sustained nature of the hardest moves on a route. A 5.10a or 5.10- may have only one move of that difficulty, while a 5.10+ or 5.10d would be extremely sustained climbing at the 5.10 level.

Of course, nit-picking climbers, eager to sub-divide the system, ruined what would have been a superior rating system by using the +,-,a,b,c,d to quabble over difficulty, not quantity.

I threw in the towel a long time ago. When in Rome….

*** wrote: Climbing the classics in Eldo is, well, another story. JFox - Eldo gets easier as you become accustomed to the rock and the style of climbing.

I think that's it. The climbing in BoCan tends to be much more straightforward whereas Eldo can be pretty strange. Eldo "funkness" is how a famous local climber once described it to me. Also, BoCan grades are a little soft in general.