Yosemite Decimal System now the Movement Decimal System?

Jesus

Wait, shouldn't this get moved to the gym forum? 

Lol only on mountain project will you have absolute legends adding to the discussion and then disrespected like we're on twitter or something.

For the initial comment from JG I didn’t read any condemnation into number chasing, just that it grew more than expected nor did I read any misogyny into gymnastics being more of a women’s sport now, just a factual statement. It’s more a reflection of the people reading what they expect into them. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

On the plus side it did prompt JG to share some interesting details of his life. 

John Gill wrote:

After Title 9, universities pulled back on men's gymnastics and put the money into the women's sport. 

Love your larger post, John. Just making sure we're also all clear that the universities "pulled back" on men's gymnastics (and diving, and lots of other things) after Title 9 because they wanted to put the "men's"  portion of athletic money into college football, which women weren't allowed to do and which is a revenue center for many universities. Since women weren't allowed to play football, the money for women's sports went to growing things like gymnastics, women's diving, etc. 

One of the things I've noticed as an old person is that ageism is fair game, at least in the US.  Jesse Moran can blabber on about corn cob pipes and things he evidently knows nothing about and everyone's just fine with it. (Well, probably not just fine, but as I said, it's fair game.)  But John mentions something about the ascent of women's gymnastics, which began in those days and is now an incontrovertible fact, and the parallel ascent of women in climbing, again to the point where there is virtually no difference in performance and someone like Lynne Hill was actually the best climber in the country for a while, and he's a misogynist.  

We live in a polarized environment, and, among other things, it brings out the polarizers.  It is undoubtedly a vain hope, but a little common decency would go a long way.

If Everyone just takes an ounce less butthurt, and dishes an ounce less snark, everything is peachy.

Don’t be like Tony and indulge in both.  Can be addictive, but ultimately destructive 

…and the parallel ascent of women in climbing, again to the point where there is virtually no difference in performance and someone like Lynne Hill was actually the best climber in the country for a while,

Nope

Kevin Worrall wrote:

Nope

How do you know how much fun she was having?!?

Hah!

Good one!

I was hoping to be called a misogynist

And Alan, a little honesty at the expense of political correctness and capitulation to feminism would go even farther 

Look I was a little perturbed by the change as many of you are - but look at the bright side! I no longer have to admit I'll never climb 5.12d at Movement, since 5.12d doesn't exist anymore! 

and look: bonus! The chances that I can climb 5.12+ are marginally better than it was for 5.12d. 

The grades can't really inflate anymore, but the ego can. Mine has more potential to reach the stratosphere. All this, and I'm still in the 190lb club!

Jonathan Walker wrote:

Better revamp your goal to 13-….

Better get this fifth donut of the day out of my mouth!

Hey Worrall, buddy, you doing alright?  I know it must be tough watching someone else get called a misogynist and nobody even mentioned your name in the thread until you popped in here.

The fact that we occasionally get titans of our sport, such as John Gill, gracing us with stories and historical context, is such a blessing. It brings so much richness to these forums and in my opinion is the very best thing on here. I, for one, am grateful. 

I mean, less grade options for the average setter is probably a good thing right?

Hey Worrall, buddy, you doing alright?  I know it must be tough watching someone else get called a misogynist

Thanks for your concern Will, you’re obviously the sensitive type, we need more guys like you!

It is tough to watch a gentleman and a scholar, like John Gill, being called a misogynist for speaking the truth.

But, opinions are like…

+ = "I don't know if I'd call it c or d... but it isn't a or b."

- = "I don't know if I'd call it a or b... but it isn't c or d."

5.10 = "Its a 10... not sure a/b/c/d, but it isn't a 9 and it isn't an 11.

+/- is lazy mixed with a big dose of I can't be sure but I gotta put down something, this feels close enough.

Its funny, but if you ever go out and FA something, or repeat something that has only been done once before you start to have these conversations with friends...
What would you grade it? Oh, 5.11? Really, what about ___ & ____ 5.10s that I know you have done, surely it was easier than those... and how many 5.11s in this style have you been onsighting these days? Harder than ___ and ___ 5.9s... Then you start talking about sub grades and it comes out that not everyone ranks routes the same as we all have different heights, arm spans, strengths, & weaknesses... Landing solidly on a letter grade is not always so straightforward. Especially so if you are considering different areas and route types... and then we come to the question of gyms, where they are so far removed from the difficulties found outside...

Who cares? Its not even going to be around all that long before the wall is reset and the route is gone for good.

I care because I use the gym not for adventure, but for targeted workouts, and the difficulty can vary more for the posted grade than it used to. Having vague grades defeats the purpose of grading in the first place.

Grades are subjective, but mostly you could count on them being at most 1 letter grade off. A 10c might feel like a B or D. 

Now you have a 10+ that might feel like anything from 10b to 11a. Just too much variability for my taste.

Plus their justifications for it were lame, some bs about saving printer labels, as if my $80 a month wasn't covering it.  Might as well take the next step and just label everything 5.9+. No need to change the labels when they change the routes! 

One suggestion no one is going to like and everyone is going to hate me for is to just keep track of how the climbs feel to you, grade wise. That feels pretty natural to do when I'm climbing near my limit. 

There's always the easy 12 I warm up on, the hard 12 I'm projecting, and the impossible 12 I look at with contempt when I'm getting some water. There's no route setter that's exactly my size/age/weight, so I don't feel that the grades ever align up to my own strengths anyways.  If you're seriously training, you've got a training journal anyways. If you get all the 12s, then I'd say you're solid for the grade, for the "area", no matter the -'s or +'. 

Long Ranger wrote:

One suggestion no one is going to like and everyone is going to hate me for is to just keep track of how the climbs feel to you, grade wise. That feels pretty natural to do when I'm climbing near my limit. 

There's always the easy 12 I warm up on, the hard 12 I'm projecting, and the impossible 12 I look at with contempt when I'm getting some water. There's no route setter that's exactly my size/age/weight, so I don't feel that the grades ever align up to my own strengths anyways.  If you're seriously training, you've got a training journal anyways. If you get all the 12s, then I'd say you're solid for the grade, for the "area", no matter the -'s or +'. 

It seems like, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, people opposed to the change are not interested in climbing at the gym for anything other than maximum training efficiency- zero climbing for fun.  Anyone at the gym to train and climb for fun will do what you are suggesting and see the change as at most a minor inconvenience.  The inconvenience being, they must climb a route to know exactly how hard it is for them.  Which most of us have already realized is already a necessity, making this whole discussion silly (but adequate entertaining for me, being unable to climb right now anyway).