Grading Routes

bridgewrote:

Apparently the gunks do not agree V7 = 5.13-

I can’t find this route on here but it could be that the V7 is either soft, a slash grade, or gotten easier with newer beta/technology (like knee pads), or entirely not even V7?

slimwrote:

i think connor can see what i am saying.  sure, a 1 move V6 route is probably going to get 12+.  100 feet of continuous V6 moves is obviously going to be harder than 12+. a 13a climber is going to be able to send it.

another good example is sustained desert cracks.  a 20 foot tight hands route is going to be around 8 or 9.  a 160 feet of sustained tight hands is going to be obviously a lot harder, probably 12 range.

mr rogers still doesn't seem to get it though. i am wondering how many 5.10's he has hung all over, and then said "feels like 5.8 to me!".  lolz...

grades are based on how hard it is overall to send the route.  whether that be one really hard ass move or 100 moves that just chew away at you.

From the little known Mountaineers Handbook:

James Wwrote:

You generally need 4-6 moves to establish a V grade, though I have seen a few miserable and rare 1 move examples.  Any 1 move on a route can usually be skipped, especially if surrounded by easier climbing.  

If the move can be skipped why is it a hard move lol, that doesn't make any sense. 

If you can skip a move and make the climb easier that would just be the normal beta...

Mr Rogerswrote:

From the little known Mountaineers Handbook:

Tell me again how I don't get it.

Did you not read the last sentence of the paragraph lol?

Almost like some people (read: most modern climbers) believe this because hard free climbing is pumpy and endurance is a huge factor. Not as much so when you are climbing 5.8 and are standing on your feet the entire time which is why it made sense to grade by hardest move before. 

Also lol at citing a book that says 5.10 "might" be achievable and 5.11 is some otherworldly grade.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Did you not read the last sentence of the paragraph lol?

yes, "some guidebooks".

Did you not read the sentence before that? here we are again subjective nature. I prescribe to the first sentence in my own world. You are free to judge routes in whatever way you see fit

edit:
Yes, Citing the "bible", that is older than me or you, probably carries some merit.
In fact, I would imagine the first sentence is true to how the fathers of the YDS system intended it.
And I prefer that as the way I rate my climbs.

Again, you do you boogaloo. I'm not spitting my opinion as fact, but merely thats how I hate my climbs based upon the knowledge I read, and was passed down from my mentors.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

If the move can be skipped why is it a hard move lol, that doesn't make any sense. 

Name the pitch.

James Wwrote:

Name the pitch.

The gift

Dynosoar

Cannibals

Golden gate

Jailbait

How many do you want? 

ETA:

Tomahawk slam in wild iris is 5.10 into a single v4 move into 5.10 to the chains. It's a doozy of a move with maybe 2-3 v2 moves leading into it.

It is a long deadpoint to a pocket that you can't just "skip" as that is where the difficulty comes from. I just figured I'd pick routes with hard moves that are more popular. 

Connor Dobsonwrote: How many do you want? 

One you’ve actually done, for starters - with a single move at the YDS to V grade level - the topic of this thread - ie, a single V4 move 12- - a single V7 move 13a.  Again - one you’ve done.

Mr Rogerswrote:

From the little known Mountaineers Handbook:

Tell me again how I don't get it.

Sorry, but this is extremely dated if it is claiming 5.11 and up is for “experts” only. This is no longer the case. Climbing has advanced past this. Additionally, it even references what others are trying to say. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Sorry, but this is extremely dated if it is claiming 5.11 and up is for “experts” only. This is no longer the case. Climbing has advanced past this. Additionally, it even references what others are trying to say. 

This is from like edition 5, they are probably on like edition 10 now. Perhaps it has changed some language around what an "expert" is as this was a hand me down. Someone with the newer version could provide some insight. It also doesn't mean that statement was wrong for when it was written.  Hell, Trad .11 is serious and many (most) people will never touch that grade and still be avid climbers.

I subscribe to hardest move principal. Others choose to rate alternatively. They are not mutually exclusive.

PortlandRob wrote:

I get where you're coming from Mr Rogers, but the fact of the matter is that modern developers, modern guidebooks, gym route-setters, and the concensus grades on sites like this one all subscribe to the greater of the hardest move or cumulative difficulty principle. At 5.9 and below, there are few if any routes where the cumulative difficulty is greater than the hardest move (like Connor says, you can rest on your feet most of the time). But you'd be in a lonely club if you were developing 5.10 and harder routes and never accounting for the cumulutive effect of sustained climbing in your grading.

As a modern developer, I rate the climbs I develop that way.
If group consensus calls it something else I defer.

My idea of the rating is my own in the end as the first to do it. So if sandbag or soft as a chinchilla , Im down with my peers having the final say. Its really not a right or wrong topic.

I also think gunks 5.6 -> .9 climbing throws a caveat to the cumulative difficulty stand point.

I get where you're coming from Mr Rogers, but the fact of the matter is that modern developers, modern guidebooks, gym route-setters, and the concensus grades on sites like this one all subscribe to the greater of the hardest move or cumulative difficulty principle. At 5.9 and below, there are few if any routes where the cumulative difficulty is greater than the hardest move (like Connor says, you can rest on your feet most of the time). But you'd be in a lonely club if you were developing 5.10 and harder routes and never accounting for the cumulutive effect of sustained climbing in your grading.

Mr Rogerswrote:

From the little known Mountaineers Handbook:

Tell me again how I don't get it.

Lolz. You only reiterate my point that, sure, grading by the hardest move makes sense for 5.7 or less, where you are standing around all day on ledges. Quoting the mountaineers handbook is like quoting a moped magazine when arguing about crotch rockets.

A dedicated weekend climber might, just maybe, with a leprechaun's luck and selling their soul to satan, attain that level! Bwaaahaaahaaaa!!!!!

James Wwrote:

One you’ve actually done, for starters - with a single move at the YDS to V grade level - the topic of this thread - ie, a single V4 move 12- - a single V7 move 13a.  Again - one you’ve done.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105876648/things-as-they-are-now

Pretty much a single V4 move, though I guess if you count foot moves you could argue that the V4 bit really includes the foot moves to get set up.

Christian Eatonwrote:

On the contrary, it has always been my understanding that ratings began as a way to manage the "safety" of the activity. Ratings were originally put on a route based on the single hardest move (back in the day) when the mentality was "the leader must not fall". The thought process was that if you could climb 5.7, you would avoid a route that was 50' of 5.6 climbing with two 5.8 moves because this route was rated 5.8.

It is purely my opinion that this is the way ratings should continue 1. for posterity, and 2. because endurance is a human variable and not one of the rock.

This makes zero sense. Think about it. Say joe climbed a route that had 3 5.9 moves above gear. Would you recommend a route with 50 straight 5.9 moves above gear saying "no move is harder than 5.9. Its all there buddy! You got this!".

Second, I also dont understand your reasoning about the 5.7 climber not climbing the route because it is rated 5.8.  That seems pretty obvious(?).

Third, human strength, flexability, technique, ability to read a route, tactics, etc are all variables. Yet to some extent they all go into a route's difficulty. Why should endurance be left out? The rock doesn't care about any of thess things.

Jim Bridwell, 1973. In the article that essentially redefined the YDS to it's modern form:

"Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!"

Full article:  https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_innocent_the_ignorant_and_the_insecure-4397

 Single-move rating was a feature of the original Sierra Club TDS, but is not a feature of the post 1973 YDS. If you are going to be an originalist who insists on single move rating, you also should insist that the grading scale caps out at 5.9. 

Is this sufficiently settled now?

I suppose a question to propose to folks here that prescribe to the over all difficulty principle... Should a 6 pitch climb that is 5 pitches of .10a and a 6th pitch that is .6 with a 11a single crux move, get graded .10c/d because over all the climb not very difficult compared to its hardest move? The logic of overall difficulty would lean towards lowering the grade, no?

This is clearly a charged topic for something that is obviously insanely subjective. No one is wrong here either, as its the way you feel about a given grade if you are the one grading it. I'm sure everyone here has been on a climb and said that it was soft or hard for the grade.
If I choose to rate a sustained .9 as such and not .10b I'm not be disingenuous nor is the person that would rate it .10b.
As any FA, It's our best guess based upon our feeling.

How about really good climbers trying to rate easy pitches. Does a .13 climber even know what a .9 feels like anymore? Its probably all 5.easy below .11. Thus bringing me to my last statement here...

In the end, group consensus is where the "true" rating will come from. I have my idea of what makes a climb a given 5.x rating. Other climbers have theirs.
Sometimes my ratings line up with eventual consensus, other times my style, height, hand size, whatever it may be, has me way off base.
The rating will sort itself out in time as it gets climbed, which I think is the real point concerning grades.

Routes are rated for the hardest move so you know whether you can pull it off or not. When there are 3 or more of those hardest moves on the route it is usually up rated.

Mr Rogerswrote:

I suppose a question to propose to folks here that prescribe to the over all difficulty principle... Should a 6 pitch climb that is 5 pitches of .10a and a 6th pitch that is .6 with a 11a single crux move, get graded .10c/d because over all the climb not very difficult compared to its hardest move? The logic of overall difficulty would lean towards lowering the grade, no?

That is a straw-man.

(Almost) everyone is going to grade that climb 5.11a.  Overall difficulty is not about finding "an average" grade, or anything like that.  It is about the clear fact that if that 6th pitch was all .6 with an .11a crux, it could be 11a -- but if that 6th pitch was 90' of sustained 11a, then it would be a distinctly more difficult climbing experience, and people feel that the grade should reflect this.

(Generally) nobody is saying that a route's grade is easier than the single hardest move/crux sequence.  

David Gibbswrote:

That is a straw-man.

Not so much. Literally people are saying a climbing ratings should based not upon the hardest move but overall difficulty, so here I am outlining a scenario that fits this principle.

(Almost) everyone is going to grade that climb 5.11a.  Overall difficulty is not about finding "an average" grade, or anything like that.  It is about the clear fact that if that 6th pitch was all .6 with an .11a crux, it could be 11a 

What do you mean by the 11a crux meaning it could be an 11a? It's an 11a in this theoretical scenario.

-- but if that 6th pitch was 90' of sustained 11a, then it would be a distinctly more difficult climbing experience, and people feel that the grade should reflect this.

I very much understand that some people feel that way about grades. I do not, would rate it as 11a, would describe it as sustained in written or verbal beta, and that's okay. The community will settle on a grade either way.

(Generally) nobody is saying that a route's grade is easier than the single hardest move/crux sequence.  

No they are not, but they are ignoring the other side of the overall difficulty principle to fit their stance by doing so IMO.

Has it been mentioned grades are subjective yet?

Mr Rogerswrote:
Has it been mentioned grades are subjective yet?

Grades are subjective because people with different morphology may find certain moves more or less difficult. Not because you can just arbitrarily decide to adopt an ancient method of grading that nobody uses anymore.