Time for a New Rating System for EZ Climbs?

doligo wrote:5.3 is alive and well in the Gunks - just read comments for Yum Yum Yab Yum. People in the Gunks have decided to differentiate between 5.3 and 5.4

FIFY

Eric Fjellanger wrote:If you consider how often people argue about the difference between a 5.7 and a 5.8, it is not surprising how much grayer the boundaries between 3rd/4th/5th are. It's really better to accept this than try and "fix" it. Increasing the granularity of the scale is really not going to make things clearer. 4th class means you're using your hands and you might die if you fall. The difference between that and low-fifth is subjective and always will be.

Pretty much...look at "Freeway" on the 2nd flatiron in Boulder. It's called 4th class and 5.0. I'd probably agree with both as there's some of each. Less on the 5th side, but a fall in the wrong spot will be catastrophic.

Longs peak...4th class, but I think there's a low 5th class move on one or two of the chockstones. That's pretty subjective however and based on how it felt for me.

Like it's been said above, do the research and expect these types of things. If you aren't comfortable on 4th...well maybe you shouldn't be there.

Tom Grummon wrote: There's a reason that we don't use + or - for grades below 5.8/5.9 and we don't use letter grades below 5.10. The easier it is, the less differentiation you need.

I believe letter grades were invented by Jim Bridwell to solve the problem of a wide range of difficulty in the 5.10 grade that developed back before 5.11 was accepted as a legitimate grade and people just called everything hard 5.10. That's why we don't have 5.9a-d

I don't know how the +/- developed, seemed more of an eastern thing.

Scott McMahon wrote: Longs peak...4th class, but I think there's a low 5th class move on one or two of the chockstones. That's pretty subjective however and based on how it felt for me. Like it's been said above, do the research and expect these types of things. If you aren't comfortable on 4th...well maybe you shouldn't be there.

It is very subjective, as proved by your post. The Keyhole (which I assume is what you meant by Longs peak, please correct me if I am wrong) is generally considered class 3, but Gillett gives it class 2. I believe that there are a couple of class 3 moves, but just a couple. It is a stretch to call it class 4 in my opinion. On the other hand, Fosters book gives the Keyhole class 3+.

What I find is that 4th class is pretty serious and should not be taken lightly. The expression is "I third classed" the route, meaning I did it without a rope. There is just cause to bring a rope on 4th class terrain, and I would not belittle anyone for doing just that.

doligo wrote:5.3 is alive and well in the Gunks - just read comments for Yum Yum Yab Yum. People actually do differentiate between 5.3 and 5.4

Where else but the Gunks can you find a challenging roof move or two, on a 5.3 or 5.4 route? Great ratings system.

Elijah Flenner wrote: It is very subjective, as proved by your post. The Keyhole (which I assume is what you meant by Longs peak, please correct me if I am wrong) is generally considered class 3, but Gillett gives it class 2. I believe that there are a couple of class 3 moves, but just a couple. It is a stretch to call it class 4 in my opinion. On the other hand, Fosters book gives the Keyhole class 3+. What I find is that 4th class is pretty serious and should not be taken lightly. The expression is "I third classed" the route, meaning I did it without a rope. There is just cause to bring a rope on 4th class terrain, and I would not belittle anyone for doing just that.

Correct. I believe it was the chockstone leaving the trough to get into the home stretch. I found it was 1-2 moves that were rather "interesting" especially over the fall zone. But like you said the rest was around the 3 mark. Except for some of the exciting exposure.

Bernard gives it a class two? haha THAT I'd defininently argue over some beers!

The Watchdog wrote:So, a climb is always rated by its hardest move...

Not so:

mountainproject.com/v/v-sca…

The modern YDS scale takes both the difficulty of moves and sustainedness into account. Even boulder problems aren't rated by the difficulty of the hardest move: climbingczar.lt11.com/about-2/

http://www.summitpost.org/thoughts-on-4th-class-terrain/298107

Stich wrote:While I like the idea of S grades for scrambling, I would really prefer this grading system due to it's complexity and inexplicability: Grade 1A 33i 4R 9+22 Zounds I think the grades are self explanatory.

Clearly!

I also vote for making all routes Yosemite 4th class........ No arguments on grades.....

have any of you ever seen a gerry roach book?
(like flatiron classics, or the rocky mtn natl park one..)

f1 - 1st class
f2 - 2nd class, and easy 3rd class
f3 - hard 3rd class, and easy 4th class
f4 - 5.0 to 5.2
f5 - 5.3 to 5.4
f6 - 5.5 to 5.6
f7 - 5.7
f8 - 5.8
(and that is as high as it goes.)

Cor wrote:have any of you ever seen a gerry roach book? (like flatiron classics, or the rocky mtn natl park one..) f1 - 1st class f2 - 2nd class, and easy 3rd class f3 - hard 3rd class, and easy 4th class f4 - 5.0 to 5.2 f5 - 5.3 to 5.4 f6 - 5.5 to 5.6 f7 - 5.7 f8 - 5.8 (and that is as high as it goes.)

Good thats all I need anyways.

The problem with this new scale is that it creates a problem of two grading systems that can occasionally overlap. Say an S.4 was roughly the equivalent of a 5.3 on the YDS. Then all 5.3s are more like 4th class would become S.4s instead. But then there are routes such as Yum Yum Yab Yum which are too steep for the S-scale, so keep the grade of 5.3. Now, YYYY is the same difficulty but completely different grade than a climb that is an S.4. Problems will then arise comparing the two systems, and people will begin arguing whether a 5.3 is harder than an S.4. Unlike the V-scale and the Font-scale, or the YDS and the European route scale (forgot the name), where all climbs can translate into both scales and one grade harder on one equals one grade harder on another, the S-scale might not be as parallel. If it isn't, there would be too many confusions comparing grades, and if it is parallel, why bother create it? The YDS works fine.

The Watchdog wrote:So, a climb is always rated by its hardest move.

Troll much? I'm sure that's what you're going for in this case, since you make the above statement in such a pointed way at least twice. I'm surprised no one's jumped on it so far. I'm impressed at people's restraint. I can't resist the urge to comment that if a climb was always rated by its hardest move, then every route would be denoted according to the V scale, and most routes would fall into the category of V0- or so... Astroman would be V1 or V2, depending on the variation. Highball.

D-Storm wrote: Troll much? I'm sure that's what you're going for in this case, since you make the above statement in such a pointed way at least twice. I'm surprised no one's jumped on it so far. I'm impressed at people's restraint. I can't resist the urge to comment that if a climb was always rated by its hardest move, then every route would be denoted according to the V scale, and most routes would fall into the category of V0- or so... Astroman would be V1 or V2, depending on the variation. Highball.

I jumped on this 8 posts ago.

I get what he's saying here. I just did the Durrance Route last weekend. After the Jump traverse and the meadows there is supposed to be an "easy 4th class scramble" to the top according to the beta. I found that a bit stout. Not that I found myself struggling, or doing any even remotely difficult moves. I did feel more like I was still rock climbing than scrambling in many portions of this though. Granted, it's not going to harm any hikers since they'll have to have negotiated 400 feet of off width hell first, but still. I'd class it at 5.2ish, no doubt about it.

Cor wrote:have any of you ever seen a gerry roach book? (like flatiron classics, or the rocky mtn natl park one..) f1 - 1st class f2 - 2nd class, and easy 3rd class f3 - hard 3rd class, and easy 4th class f4 - 5.0 to 5.2 f5 - 5.3 to 5.4 f6 - 5.5 to 5.6 f7 - 5.7 f8 - 5.8 (and that is as high as it goes.)

I believe that is from the NCCS. They had 3 scales. The A scale for aid climbs which we use. The Roman numeral commitment grade which we still use. And the F scale which was apparently only used by Gerry Roach. I like the F scale, especially for the Flatirons. I believe it was invented in the Tetons. At some point there may have been a grading scale battle between Yosemite and the Tetons.

Maybe we should have the f scale on the grade drop down here on Mountain Project. We could bring the whole thing back and extend it out to 5.15d which I believe would be an F33. Food for thought.

hey thanks rick!

that is some pretty cool history i didn't know about..

Cor wrote:hey thanks rick! that is some pretty cool history i didn't know about..

Well, I'm hoping someone here corrects the record because that's all from memory and I'm not sure its totally accurate.

But it would be cool to resurrect the F scale, I like it. F11 sounds better than 5.10b.