Trad Grades

If it feels hard for the grade, then it should be dropped a number and added a plus. Seems to work well around NC. Like if it feels like a hard .10, just call it .9+ to make sure you're being humble. (;

Steve Levin wrote:

This is how I view +/- ratings. 

Considering using +/- for the upcoming 3rd edition of the Eldo guidebook....

I've been pro the spectrum with the a/b for - b/c for unlabeled and + for c/d. Especially for Eldo where no matter how many times I do certain routes I feel my experience is always different and so never feel like I can pin an exact difficulty to certain climbs. 

With your last book I always concentrate more on the MPAA ratings for gear and appreciate those/rely on those as I dont like pushing my grades on more run out climbs that are run out at the grade. 

Hamish Malin wrote:

Ha!  I don’t (yet) lead 5.10 trad, so I guess my original argument re: letter grades is somewhat invalid.  That being said, I don’t think I personally have a need to know whether something is 5.8 vs 5.8+, or 5.7 vs 5.7-.  I do what to know if there’s a 30’ runout in the middle, or a massive death block.  

I’ll go to self imposed timeout for a while...

So that's the rub. Theoretically, and it does not always (if ever) work that way, but the difference between a 10a and a 10b should be comparable to between a 7 and an 8, or an 8 and a 9. So, if by your suggestion one compacts a whole number grade above 5.10- into a single monolithic number, it is the same as calling everything between 5.6 and 5.9, 5.6. 

Pluses and minuses work well btw, should not be used on routes below 5.10, never combined with letter grades, and slash grades are stupid. 

I’ll cast the lone contrarian vote for the a/b/c/d system.  While I agree that there are some instances of drift/subjectivity, I generally find it pretty reliable.  Community voting can often take care of disparities.  When you’re close to your limit, you generally notice a difference; an “11-“ climber, for example, will notice the difference between 11a and 11b, even if a 13 climber won’t. While the point about crack climbing grades stands, how much pure crack climbing is there at Eldo?

I've always felt the + / - designation was as finite as needed. I can't distinguish between 10c and 10d but I sure can between 10- and 10+.

What I would like to see is the rating based on the hardest move on the climb. If there is one 5.9 move on the climb and the rest is easy, then that’s a 5.9. If the climb is sustained 5.9 with very few easy moves, it’s still 5.9. I don’t believe a climb should be bumped above the hardest move on the climb just because it is sustained. This is where +/- comes in. To me, minus is soft for the grade and may be a good choice for someone to break into the grade. In the previous examples, the climb that has a single 5.9 move on an otherwise easy climb would be a good candidate for 5.9-. This would be something a 5.8 climber looking to push their limits may want to try. On the other end of the spectrum, you may have a5.9 where you’re required to hang out on strenuous holds to protect it or it’s just a lot of 5.9 climbing with few rest options. In this case, there isn’t anything harder than 5.9 but you better be solid at the grade. That is what I think of when I see a plus.

Now to throw a monkey wrench into it. In my mind it is possible for a 5.10- to feel easier than a 5.9+. If you have an easy climb that has a single well protected 5.10 move then that 5.10- climb may fell much easier than a 5.9 where there are few rests and no move is harder than 5.9 but no move is easier than 5.8.

Mark Thesing wrote: What I would like to see is the rating based on the hardest move on the climb. If there is one 5.9 move on the climb and the rest is easy, then that’s a 5.9. If the climb is sustained 5.9 with very few easy moves, it’s still 5.9. I don’t believe a climb should be bumped above the hardest move on the climb just because it is sustained. This is where +/- comes in. To me, minus is soft for the grade and may be a good choice for someone to break into the grade. In the previous examples, the climb that has a single 5.9 move on an otherwise easy climb would be a good candidate for 5.9-. This would be something a 5.8 climber looking to push their limits may want to try. On the other end of the spectrum, you may have a5.9 where you’re required to hang out on strenuous holds to protect it or it’s just a lot of 5.9 climbing with few rest options. In this case, there isn’t anything harder than 5.9 but you better be solid at the grade. That is what I think of when I see a plus.

Now to throw a monkey wrench into it. In my mind it is possible for a 5.10- to feel easier than a 5.9+. If you have an easy climb that has a single well protected 5.10 move then that 5.10- climb may fell much easier than a 5.9 where there are few rests and no move is harder than 5.9 but no move is easier than 5.8.

This battle has been fought a very long time ago. If your demand came to fruition, then many hard sport routes would be many grades easier. For example, Goliath, classic and very long 13a, would be only about 11b. As endurance is a thing, your suggestion does not make a great deal of sense. 

I don't care between a/b/c/d or +/-, as long as you pick one. Don't do both, that's just confusing.

I'd tend toward +/-, if only because grades are rarely accurate enough to justify an a/b/c/d split at the grades I'm climbing. I've heard a few strong climbers say that because of the exponential nature of the scale, the difference is huge between i.e. a 5.15a and a 5.15b so huge that nobody would ever confuse these two grades. I'm not sure what grade that starts being the case.

I'd tend toward sandbagging well-protected routes and giving sketchy routes a softer grade, especially if, like many guidebooks, you refuse to add safety ratings to moderate climbs.

Kill me

As the one writing the book, you can do what you like, but 1) a lot of those Eldo routes climb like face climbs and thus the movement is not particularly ‘trad’ (as if a rock knows what kind of pro you’re clipping), and 2) you can call, for example, the Naked Edge or C’est La Vie 5.11 , but those have been Industry Standard [edit: .11b or .11c] .11c since before anyone actually in the market for a new Eldo book was born and I suspect folks will continue to refer to them as such. It’ll be interesting to see if this changes over time, given the number of guidebooks and (especially) the prevalence of this site for CO beta.

The +\- thing makes sense to me for the vaguer, burlier, more adventuresome &/or creek-like gear routes, but for a backyard area where the climbs were developed concurrently with both the rating system and technical standards I think you may be bucking the trend a bit. But hey, in this day and age it’s hard to quibble with any attempt to nudge people in a less grade-obsessive direction. 

Mark Thesing wrote: What I would like to see is the rating based on the hardest move on the climb. If there is one 5.9 move on the climb and the rest is easy, then that’s a 5.9. If the climb is sustained 5.9 with very few easy moves, it’s still 5.9. I don’t believe a climb should be bumped above the hardest move on the climb just because it is sustained. This is where +/- comes in. To me, minus is soft for the grade and may be a good choice for someone to break into the grade. In the previous examples, the climb that has a single 5.9 move on an otherwise easy climb would be a good candidate for 5.9-. This would be something a 5.8 climber looking to push their limits may want to try. On the other end of the spectrum, you may have a5.9 where you’re required to hang out on strenuous holds to protect it or it’s just a lot of 5.9 climbing with few rest options. In this case, there isn’t anything harder than 5.9 but you better be solid at the grade. That is what I think of when I see a plus.

Now to throw a monkey wrench into it. In my mind it is possible for a 5.10- to feel easier than a 5.9+. If you have an easy climb that has a single well protected 5.10 move then that 5.10- climb may fell much easier than a 5.9 where there are few rests and no move is harder than 5.9 but no move is easier than 5.8.

This is a bit of thread drift, since the OP is asking for trad grades. I like how bouldering grades are added as descriptors for cruxes on routes. It gives you more information. A route with a  short V7 crux can be a 13a, but a route with sustained V4 Boulder problems is going to be harder than a 12a. It may feel as hard as the 13a because of the sustained nature. 

Of course, this won't make a difference for grading 5.9 routes.

bouldering grades chap me as much as all the different ways of looking at trad grades, albeit, a bit easier to know what youre climbing. the new batch of climbers coming in always changing stuff tho.....when i first did the ironman boulder in the buttermilk, i was told it was a 5.11 traverse. i think now its v4 or 5.12... someone showed me the alternate finish on it, known as "iron fly", supposedly making the grade a 12 if you finished the traverse with it.  iron fly feels simple to me, i tried it once, stuck it and didnt have the sloper good enough and slid back off. after that i did it about 8 times in a row topping out easily. when i did it and was told the grade i was very surprised.  it felt like an easy 10 dyno to me, actually easier than the traverse. now, the grade has been somehow upped to a v8/v9 making that a 13/13+. i feel that is ridiculous. they have also now made it so that one move by itself is v8-v9, not even the whole problem combined with the traverse, as it was supposed to have been done originally. also being that at the time there was little chance of me doing a 13, as i was regularly hangdogging 12s then.

the thread drift comment above reminded me of that with the bouldering added

-/  /+

EFS wrote:

this is what always got me......ive always heard each letter grade is the same as a whole regular grade. i dont feel a 11a is 4 grades different from an 12a as in a 5.6 to a 5.10.......

Originally it was supposed to be “significantly harder” the same difference as between a 8 is to a 9. With the introduction of sport climbing, the “significantly” part of the equation got ignored. 

That is what Bachar was getting at when “The Gift” was rated 5.13 by the FAist... he claimed it wasn’t that difficult and didn’t add enuf technical skills to warrant 5.13. So he went and climbed it 2nd try, did the RP later that day and solos it the next morning before driving back to Mammoth. 
But back to the OP..... + - will work ok because in reality we are starting to loose track of the whole YDS(TDS) system as originality fashioned and modified by Yosemite climbers. 

minus, solid, plus.  too many factors to consider to nail down a grade to a single letter.  just think about everywhere you have climbed.  when you think of say 11a, how many have you been on only to say "wow, that was soft" or "damn, no way that is only a" I also like slash grades for number differences, 12+/13-. this way youll have a really good idea of what the climbing is going to be like.  the only problem with this is every wants to say they did a 13a not a / grade. but thats just egos, which is why so many grades these days are inflated.

Agree with BillS. I'll bet that the folks who spend more time on 5.11, 5.12, and 5.13 would much prefer to see the standard a/b/c/d.

I think for 5.10 and 5.11 you only need three grades each, so 10-, 10, 10+, 11-, 11, 11+.

Once you get to 5.12, the “abcd” system works. It is more advanced... therefore does a better job of describing routes that are... more advanced. But seeing as we already use letters for everything above 10, there is no reason for the system to change. It would be confusing and you’d basically have to re-grade a ton of routes.

You can, however, grade your routes however you like. I’ve only done a few FAs worth documenting, and all were in areas that used European (French) grades. I was forced into their system, which is pretty much 1 to 1 with YDS above 5.9. But were I to open new routes in the US, I’d just stick to +/- and if I were to open new areas, I’d encourage other developers to do the same below 5.12.

The Australian system takes a more modern approach. 10a to 11a only has 3 grades (18-20) where French and YDS have 5. It makes sense as the Aus system is newer and was developed at a time when 5.10 was relatively easy. French and YDS systems were organic and developed as we opened harder routes. Each addition to the system was made because of a groundbreaking new route done by the worlds best. To them, a route would have to be a lot harder than a 10a before creating a new grade of 10b.

All that said, today’s elite climbers would probably argue that you could use the +/- system for everything below 5.14, much for the same reasons that I described above.

Mark Thesing wrote: What I would like to see is the rating based on the hardest move on the climb. If there is one 5.9 move on the climb and the rest is easy, then that’s a 5.9. If the climb is sustained 5.9 with very few easy moves, it’s still 5.9. I don’t believe a climb should be bumped above the hardest move on the climb just because it is sustained. This is where +/- comes in. To me, minus is soft for the grade and may be a good choice for someone to break into the grade. In the previous examples, the climb that has a single 5.9 move on an otherwise easy climb would be a good candidate for 5.9-. This would be something a 5.8 climber looking to push their limits may want to try. On the other end of the spectrum, you may have a5.9 where you’re required to hang out on strenuous holds to protect it or it’s just a lot of 5.9 climbing with few rest options. In this case, there isn’t anything harder than 5.9 but you better be solid at the grade. That is what I think of when I see a plus.

Now to throw a monkey wrench into it. In my mind it is possible for a 5.10- to feel easier than a 5.9+. If you have an easy climb that has a single well protected 5.10 move then that 5.10- climb may fell much easier than a 5.9 where there are few rests and no move is harder than 5.9 but no move is easier than 5.8.

This logic completely falls apart once climbing harder. If it's 5.9 even the hardest movement is honestly quite easy with modern equipment (try in mountaineering boots for full value). Once you get into higher grades, especially in the mid 11 range how sustained a pitch is really comes to light, especially when you're plugging gear. 

For an example many have seen on film, look at the Tom Egan memorial route crack pitch. I doubt any individual move on that thing is harder than V7/8, but stack them all on top of each other and try to place/clip pro and it's a whole other animal. If you're looking at the old "hardest move decides the grade" deal it might only get a 13b, look at in real life and it's damn clear that's not reality. 

I’m okay with everything but I prefer abcd to plus or minus because a plus seems like an afterthought. Like they couldn’t come up with a better designator and said this is a hard 10. Let’s just say 10+.

I also like YDS because the number ratings seems to have coincided well with advancements (major steps) in difficulty. The first 5.15 was a big deal. And it took a climber better than everybody before then to do it.  It’s been 18 years since that. And we’ve slowly worked our way up to 5.15d. 5.16 will be a big deal. And it may take a while still. Someone else will need to be as good as Ondra to climb and condfirm the rating. 

Sport climbing, I prefer letter grades, and typically that seems to shake out better for knowing if I'm likely to onsight or not. With trad climbing, there seems to be so many other factors, especially hand/finger size, that something as granular as a letter grade seems fairly useless. Also depends on the area I guess. Indian Creek there is no point assigning letter grades since it's 99% size dependent crack climbing, whereas eldo is a lot of sporty face climbing that seems to fit letter grades a lot better. Offwidth is a whole other ball game, and I feel like they should have their own grading system entirely lol. Handjacker 7+ in the voo is way more strenuous than most of the 5.9 offwidths I've tried, but it is just straight forward chicken wing heel toe for 50ft, so maybe the lack of any more advanced techniques makes it 5.7.

 I also noticed that the further a climb gets away from my onsight grade, the harder it is to distinguish between letter grades, so most stuff at 5.10 feels pretty damn similar to me, unless it's a really hard 10 or a really easy 10 (+/- is perfect here). Once we get into the 11s, I can definitely start to feel the difference between letter grades. 11a/b is 90% onsight for me, but 11c often punts me off. 12a I know I will be able to pull the moves with no aid and a couple hangs, and 12c I may not even be able to pull some of the moves. Past 12c is just hard as hell for me and I can't even tell the difference. So for the sake of weaker/stronger climbers, a letter grade can be pretty helpful.