comprehensive objective data

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

So this process would assign a different grade based on each individual even on the same route(s), correct? Or would it just predict the likelihood of sending?

Those are two very different things in my head, each of which seems not worth it….like you said in your previous post…

Again, I hope he or someone else who understands it chimes in, because I would butcher the explanation. From my basic understanding, it adjusts the route grade based on who's climbed it already, and the likelyhood that that climber would have climbed that grade.

JonasMRwrote:

This seems like the solid answer for greater consistency. It also seems simpler and cheaper than a "15 official climbs" setup for plastic climbing; let the folks opining on the outdoor routes do the same for the indoor ones. 

Plus, then when I get punted off the pink on in the corner, I can just shake my fist at "the community" generally for grading it 5.easy instead of feeling insulted by the gym staff. 

My entire post, where I floated this idea, was written tongue-in-cheek.  

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Again, I hope he or someone else who understands it chimes in, because I would butcher the explanation. From my basic understanding, it adjusts the route grade based on who's climbed it already, and the likelyhood that that climber would have climbed that grade.

That’s a simple enough explanation, however the first one sounds exactly like how grades are rated now so I’m just not understand how the addition of probable sending would be added in. This is not how my brain works lol  

phylp phylpwrote:

My entire post, where I floated this idea, was written tongue-in-cheek.  

Doh! Fair enough, ya got me.

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

That’s a simple enough explanation, however the first one sounds exactly like how grades are rated now so I’m just not understand how the addition of probable sending would be added in. This is not how my brain works lol  

It has nothing to do with sending, simply the likely good of what you would get on.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

It has nothing to do with sending, simply the likely good of what you would get on.

Ok you lost me, I can sort of conceive how an algorithm could calculate the likelihood of someone sending given date on other routes, but it makes no sense in this context for it to predict whether I would or would not even get on a route. Also seems pointless compared to the likelihood of sending. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Ok you lost me, I can sort of conceive how an algorithm could calculate the likelihood of someone sending given date on other routes, but it makes no sense in this context for it to predict whether I would or would not even get on a route. Also seems pointless compared to the likelihood of sending. 

It is a usage statistic. Picture the likelyhood of you climbing a 5.7 when you first started climbing versus 15 years in. That likelihood changes a lot as you get stronger and better at climbing. The likelyhood of me getting on a 12a now is much higher than my first year of climbing, and with enough data, everyone's tick list can provide a reasonably accurate prediction of what grade any route would be. 

I could be misremembering the specifics, so there's a chance he was using sends, but I'm pretty sure if was just attempts. 

In hindsight I've made some mistakes here:

The whole idea of offsets based on a climbers info is not needed if a universal baseline is determined. I apologize if I offended anyone for thinking along those lines.

Instead of using the word grade or grading, perhaps I should have been using the word measurement. A measurement of a climb in the sense that is static or constant, where as a grade can change over time.

The suggestion of a controlled blind climb using subjective consensus as input is a great idea if coupled with the specifications (primary dimensions) of the climb. One would only need a few climbs(or crux moves) for this to plot a reasonable line that could project 'difficulty' in a somewhat linear sense.

A lot of people here are pointing out some interesting observations and bringing some really good ideas to light.
Thank you all for your input.

Subjective grades are fun. Disparity is excellent. This, is a fool's errand.

Daniel H Bryantwrote:

In hindsight I've made some mistakes here:

The whole idea of offsets based on a climbers info is not needed if a universal baseline is determined. I apologize if I offended anyone for thinking along those lines.

Instead of using the word grade or grading, perhaps I should have been using the word measurement. A measurement of a climb in the sense that is static or constant, where as a grade can change over time.

The suggestion of a controlled blind climb using subjective consensus as input is a great idea if coupled with the specifications (primary dimensions) of the climb. One would only need a few climbs(or crux moves) for this to plot a reasonable line that could project 'difficulty' in a somewhat linear sense.

A lot of people here are pointing out some interesting observations and bringing some really good ideas to light.
Thank you all for your input.

I seriously hope you don't believe this bullshit?

I mean you've made it to page five with people taking this crap semi-seriously so 6/10.

But that's it. Anyone that knows anything knows you cannot objectively measure every hold on a climb.

Daniel H Bryantwrote:

The suggestion of a controlled blind climb using subjective consensus as input is a great idea if coupled with the specifications (primary dimensions) of the climb. One would only need a few climbs(or crux moves) for this to plot a reasonable line that could project 'difficulty' in a somewhat linear sense.

Absolute utter nonsense.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Absolute utter nonsense.

Yes but you have to give him some credit for persistence.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Absolute utter nonsense.

Yep. But I'm hoping that OP will empirically prove it to himself.

And if he proves all of us wrong by miracle, wouldn't you want to know? E.g. there is a whole lot of bullshit out there right now about what machine learning/deep learning can/cannot predict, and how accurately, in terms of medical imaging, but some of it is actually true, including things that experts in the field would have confidently said was impossible 20 years ago.

Granted, grading of climbing difficulty is an extremely frivolous and unimportant application of something like that. But if someone wants to do it, on their own time/dime, seems like it doesn't harm anyone. People spend their personal time and effort on lots of frivolous, unimportant, and fruitless pursuits, whether it's rock climbing, or baseball card collecting, LOL. 

Andy Forquerwrote:

What problem is this solving?

The problem of some engineer’s boredom…

Harumpfster Boondogglewrote:

I seriously hope you don't believe this bullshit?

I mean you've made it to page five with people taking this crap semi-seriously so 6/10.

But that's it. Anyone that knows anything knows you cannot objectively measure every hold on a climb.

Daniel, I seriously hope you don’t believe hillbilly’s or Marc’s bullshit. Their just mad that someone might downgrade their FA’s. I say go for it.

Solve this one... Hypocrite and Scar Tissue are the same grade, side by side, at the same crag, and one feels one letter grade easier than rated, the other... one grade harder than rated. They both have a million votes for the concensus but neither represent the grade I think they are. In reality, who cares? If they have an approximate grade, then that's all that matters and you'll figure it out the moment you get to the top of it. 

Sounds like the goal of this is to take all of the mystery and adventure out of climbing new routes, at least what's left with all of the guide books and spray that's out there. 

Think of it like Golf.  One par 4 hole may be more difficult than another par 4 hole, but it all averages out and you can compute your typical handicap and everyone plays on the same course with the same total par for the course.  I am satisfied knowing that if I walk up to a par 4, odds are 99% I’m coming away with a 6 or 7.  

Same for climbing. If I walk up for the onsight, I may get lucky and birdie on a low gravity day, but more’n likely I’m going to double bogey.

Still think there should be a reproducible, common reference std (5.10 at least) at all gyms.  Make the holds using yellow Nicros on the same speed climb route.  The lame speed climb route just sits there empty and unused anyway.  Gonna talk to my local VE to establish and publish the “standard 5.10” for the world. Gotta start somewhere.

Mark Pilatewrote:

Make the holds using yellow Nicros on the same speed climb route.  The lame speed climb route just sits there empty and unused anyway.

If there is speed wall in a given gym, there already is benchmark 5.10d - IIRC that is the rating for standard speed route.

amariuswrote:

If there is speed wall in a given gym, there already is benchmark 5.10d - IIRC that is the rating for standard speed route.

Maybe I should try to climb the speed route, to finally know what a 10d feels like. :) I have avoided those like a plague up till now.

I was actually thinking of this thread yesterday. I set two boulder problems side-by-side at the same angle wall.

One of them was big slopey holds, and I succeeded in making it hard enough that I couldn't do it, at least not immediately, would take some work. Two other setters quickly checked it out, both climbing it on the first try. The verdict: V5. Should I change it up a bit? Nah, leave it, it's good.

Right next to it I put a crimpy route. We are talking finger-jugs, not actual crimps. Seemed like V3, maybe. I climbed up, climbed down... seemed ok. The same two setters tried this route, too. The first setter couldn't get off the ground, or get the 2nd move, or get the 3rd move... The 2nd setter just looked at it, and said, I'm not feeling up to it right now, but it looks like a V5. Yep, says the setter who couldn't do it, seems like V5, looked like it flowed well, I'd leave it as is, seems good.

If only we had comprehensive objective data... :)

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Solve this one... Hypocrite and Scar Tissue are the same grade, side by side, at the same crag, and one feels one letter grade easier than rated, the other... one grade harder than rated. They both have a million votes for the concensus but neither represent the grade I think they are. In reality, who cares? 

Nah, Hypocrite and Scar Tissue are both the same grade just vastly different styles. Them being right next to each other has nothing to do with anything.