grading a climb by the single hardest move

Just curious, where is it that all of you who feel that hardest move is the determiner and always has been climb most frequently? The insinuation that THAT is the norm baffles me. In my experiences all around the western US, it seems obvious to me that more factors than hardest move are almost always considered when grading routes everywhere I have had the opportunity to climb more than a couple of routes. Perhaps this reflect the fact that I have stayed on single pitch sport routes mostly as that is my preference. I just can't relate to this idea that a 5.X rating can be applied to a single move. I'm really surprised that many people interpret ratings this way. Maybe this explains the occasional sandbagged route rating that just doesn't fit with the other routes of similar difficulty in the same area; it's different interpretations of what the grade means.
I feel the rating applies to the climbers that do the route, not the route itself. Getting many different opinions is important. This allows many people of many different skill sets and body types to form a subjective consensus that isn't absolute but, instead, reflects how difficult the route, as a whole, would be for a climber that is the average, in every way, of all who's OPINIONs were considered in developing the consensus . YDS ratings (as applied to individual pitches) should reflect the perceived difficulty for the pitch AS A WHOLE, compared to climbs of similar difficulty, for this imaginary "average" climber. (Multi-pitch routes should hold the rating of their hardest pitch as this is the accepted tradition and, more importantly, makes sense.)
I suppose a YDS rating that correlates to a single move could be determined by finding routes on which all of the climbing save for one move will have no effect on anyone that tries the route and their success or failure will be determined by the hardest move alone. I would love to see a list of the one-move-wonder "classics" that define the standard for just how hard a 5.10b move is as opposed to a 5.10c and etc.

I think the level of sustain should be expressed by the a,b,c,d suffix. Say, for example, that the crux move of the four following routes is of the same level of difficulty (5.10).
5.10a = very little (possibly only one) 5.10 move.
5.10b = more 5.10 climbing than the 5.10a route described above.
5.10c = climbing that is quite sustained at the 5.10 level.
5.10d - very sustained 5.10 climbing. most moves at that grade.
I've always liked this definition, but I don't see it implemented too often.

BenClimbing wrote: I would love to see a list of the one-move-wonder "classics" that define the standard for just how hard a 5.10b move is as opposed to a 5.10c and etc.

Here is a great example of a one move wonder rating on a classic climb on the Diamond (Longs Peak)...That one move is why the rating is 5.10.

mountainproject.com/v/color…

josh janes and mono have some good points that i agree with. particulary, josh mentions "the overall effort required to send". the rating should be sort of a cumulative thing, but not in linear terms (ie 10 moves of 8 = 80 but doesn't equal 8 moves of 10, and defintely not 6.8 moves of 12)

a great example of this is comparing an indian creek 12a, like "end of the line" to an eldo 12a like "apple strudel". there are a lot of things that can make a route hard, whether they be singular or combined. power, technicality, endurance, low-percentage, body shape or size, etc.

i think this is one of the most interesting aspects of climbing; that you can transition from being better at power some times and being better at endurance some times, and that it is REALLY hard to be on top of your game in both areas at the same time.

in the past i have primarily climbed best on enduro routes, but the last couple years i have been climbing around boulder quite a bit, where the climbing tends to have dense cruxes and not much endurance. i always thought i would have good endurance, but the last couple weekends i have repeated enduro routes that were a number grade below my usual enduro "limit", and i was in frenzied desperation. totally depressing, but such is reality.

here is a thought. perhaps when folks refer to a "5._ move", they are subconsciously comparing to a crux move(s) they encountered on other route(s). for example, if someone wanted to know what a few "5.11c" face moves are, i would say the start of Country Club. (even though the rest of the route is 9 and 10 until the end).

grades by definition are all about comparison to something else. thats why sometimes if someone is curious about "how hard" something is, i will tell them how it compares in difficulty to several other routes (both harder and easier) often times without saying a number.

I think the first time I climbed Umph Slot (in the late 70's), my partner said "it's sustained 5.8, but only for a few moves".....ha!

The "grade by hardest" move rule may have applied in the past, but no longer does. People realized it didn't make sense and thus stopped using it.

A 12a move is obviously harder than 12a when you just climbed 60 feet of 5.11+

Eric D wrote:The "grade by hardest" move rule may have applied in the past, but no longer does. People realized it didn't make sense and thus stopped using it. A 12a move is obviously harder than 12a when you just climbed 60 feet of 5.11+

If that is the case, what rating would that climb get?

As a socialogical observation I find it interesting that the people who are arguing for "rate by the hardest move" are citing 5.8s as their examples, and the people who know what their talkin...err, I mean the people arguing for "rate by the comprehensive difficulty" are citing 5.11s and 5.12s.

Some discussion questions:
1. Could one draw a correlation between experience/skill level and the difficulty of climbs cited?

2. What's the difference between MP.com and Climbing.com?

3. Is pure democracy a desirable political structure?

4. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

buffy & the pussy cats are a mp.com exclusive

Ah, page 4, I'm on a roll!

Though, I will say that I did see Zombieland

Mike Anderson wrote:4. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

Mike Anderson wrote:As a sociological observation...

Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

Eric D wrote:The "grade by hardest" move rule may have applied in the past, but no longer does. People realized it didn't make sense and thus stopped using it. A 12a move is obviously harder than 12a when you just climbed 60 feet of 5.11+

But this is where the endurance factor comes into play. In order to redpoint this particular .12a, you are going to need 5.12 endurance to push through the .11+ section and send the crux. If you do, the grade will be solid 5.12a. If you don't it will be much harder, but the move is still no harder than .12a.

Mike Anderson wrote:4. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

So is your point that all of the people who are smart enough to understand how the YDS works are too busy trying to make hair grow & prolong erections?

Ya know, grades as they are currently determined have seemed to work pretty well for the last few decades, we're not going to resolve anything here, but I can't wait for "Zombieworld," gonna be sick.

Buff Johnson wrote: figured we needed to quote this once more

Well, it is the most worthwhile statement in this thread so far.

If you haven't seen this movie, you're missing out!

climbing grades are like assholes and their opinions. they are all overly inflated and usefull for shit.

Mike Anderson wrote: Some discussion questions: 1. Could one draw a correlation between experience/skill level and the difficulty of climbs cited? 2. What's the difference between MP.com and Climbing.com? 3. Is pure democracy a desirable political structure? 4. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

1.Hmmmmm, I often ponder this while meditating and reflecting on my favorite bench in my favorite park watching my favorite mommies walk by with there strollers.

2.There is not enough time, resources, data, scientific procedures and internet sprayers to ever conclude this interesting mystery life. IE: the thread we are in right now.

3.why yes it is IMO

4.Yes, Is there relevance in the issue of this thread or just about every other thread on MP for that matter, I can some how put them together! LMAO

Disclaimer: once again I have contributed a worthless nothing to a worthless debate that has no end! :-(

EVS wrote:we're not going to resolve anything here

Not actually trying to "resolve", but trying to enlighten. It seems like I would have better luck trying to drill a 1/2" hole in granite with my forehead. Fortunately, thanks to Mike, things are looking up on this thread.

Zombieland does look promising!

Mike Anderson wrote: 4. Have you ever seen Idiocracy?

just go check out the (frighteningly) similar thread over at 8a.nu:

8a.nu/forum/ViewForumThread…;ObjectClass=CLS_UserNewsComment&CountryCode=GLOBAL

yikes.

The one-move grade does have the difficulties described by others here, but it seems to me to be the best way to convey the least subjective information. For routes at one extreme or the other (very sustained at the grade or one-move-wonders), it's nice to have a bit more info in a guidebook or whatever.

Monomaniac wrote: Not actually trying to "resolve", but trying to enlighten. It seems like I would have better luck trying to drill a 1/2" hole in granite with my forehead. Fortunately, thanks to Mike, things are looking up on this thread. Zombieland does look promising!

I know, I just can't keep my mouth (hands) shut for the life of me. ZombieWORLD (ie Disneyland, DisneyWORLD) is gonna be the sequel, I think they're already shooting. I love you guys.