Yosemite Decimal System now the Movement Decimal System?

When you remember that from 5.9 to 5.10a is one jump in difficulty, and it should be same jump in difficulty to 5.10b... you make the very logical realization that 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, etc... don't exist as singular difficulty grades... they merely mean it is SOME difficulty in the 5.10a to 5.10d range.

The YDS has always been:

—————————

           5.9-

——————       } 5.9

           5.9+

—————————

5.10a

———  } 5.10-

5.10b

——————-       } 5.10

5.10c

———   } 5.10+

5.10d

—————————

It was never:

———

5.10-

———

5.10

———

5.10+

———

Source: under a blood moon in a windswept trackless wood I met a demon, who laid bare the eldritch pattern, created to sow discord among good people who would otherwise be having a chill time enjoying a fun activity with friends.

James - wrote:

The YDS has always been:

—————————

           5.9-

——————       } 5.9

           5.9+

—————————

5.10a

———  } 5.10-

5.10b

——————-       } 5.10

5.10c

———   } 5.10+

5.10d

—————————

It was never:

———

5.10-

———

5.10

———

5.10+

———be

Source: under a blood moon in a windswept trackless wood I met a demon, who laid bare the eldritch pattern, created to sow discord among good people who would otherwise be having a chill time enjoying a fun activity with friends.

The numerical grades with + and - existed almost since the invention of decimal system in the 1950's at Tahquitz Rock by Royal Robbins, Don Wilson, and Chuck Wilts. (Mark Powell imported the decimal system to Yosemite, but it didn't start there and shouldn't be named the Yosemite Decimal System.)  Of course, at the time, 5.9 was at the top of the scale.  In the ensuing 20 years, 5.10 and 5.11 were added, but extreme reticence about declaring new grades made these categories fill with a very broad range of difficulties, and the a,b,c,d subdivisions for 5.10 and above were proposed by Jim Bridwell around 1973. So no, the YDS hasn't "always been" as illustrated, the +'s and -"s came first and were common in the 1960's, but it has been more or less this way for the last fifty years, which maybe counts as "always" for some people.

Jonathan Walker wrote:

Can we start adding -/+ on top of letter grades? As in, Damn, that’s a sandbagged as shit 11d (11d+). Or, Hella soft 12b (12b-)

Wouldn’t that be fun??

Some of our setters at Movement Portland already do that, on the back of the temporary tag before the placard gets put up. 

Chuck Becker wrote:

Some of our setters at Movement Portland already do that, on the back of the temporary tag before the placard gets put up. 

I always took that as them not wanting to be critical of other setters.  Like, if Bob was assigned .11d and Alice foreruns and feels like it’s actually .11b, rather than implicitly say “Bob you fucked up” she’ll just write “.11d-” and save him some face.  At least that was my impression based on how soft/stiff some of those climbs have felt.

Will J wrote:

I always took that as them not wanting to be critical of other setters.  Like, if Bob was assigned .11d and Alice foreruns and feels like it’s actually .11b, rather than implicitly say “Bob you fucked up” she’ll just write “.11d-” and save him some face.  At least that was my impression based on how soft/stiff some of those climbs have felt.

Ya something like that may be the case. I just find it funny when they go from an overly precise grading system to a overly vague one.

rgold wrote:

The numerical grades with + and - existed almost since the invention of decimal system in the 1950's at Tahquitz Rock by Royal Robbins, Don Wilson, and Chuck Wilts. (Mark Powell imported the decimal system to Yosemite, but it didn't start there and shouldn't be named the Yosemite Decimal System.)  Of course, at the time, 5.9 was at the top of the scale.  In the ensuing 20 years, 5.10 and 5.11 were added, but extreme reticence about declaring new grades made these categories fill with a very broad range of difficulties, and the a,b,c,d subdivisions for 5.10 and above were proposed by Jim Bridwell around 1973. So no, the YDS hasn't "always been" as illustrated, the +'s and -"s came first and were common in the 1960's, but it has been more or less this way for the last fifty years, which maybe counts as "always" for some people.

This is the way, thank you! 

Rgold is exactly right. I found the 3 divisions of minus, straight up, and plus to be fine, it could have been used for all 5th class ratings, but Jim Bridwell made his mark with the abcd breakdown.

What i want to know is do they give the 5.6-5-9 climbs +/- or is it grade elitism as usual?

M M wrote:

What i want to know is do they give the 5.6-5-9 climbs +/- or is it grade elitism as usual?

5.9 and below are not +/-. Maybe we could convince them to do 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 and then anything beyond that is 5.9+ like the OG's intended.

M M wrote:

What i want to know is do they give the 5.6-5-9 climbs +/- or is it grade elitism as usual?

I don't think some evil elitist empire was at work.  If we had to give it a name, "grade reticence" would be closer to the truth. The plusses and minuses came into being because the top grades started to include an overly broad range of difficulty, and that because folks were hesitant to proclaim a new  higher grade for new routes.  In general (of course there will always be exceptions), the grades below 5.9 weren't subject to the same expansion pressures. Those grade difficulty ranges retained their original integrity, and so weren't in need of further subdivision.

rgold wrote:

I don't think some evil elitist empire was at work.  If we had to give it a name, "grade reticence" would be closer to the truth. The plusses and minuses came into being because the top grades started to include an overly broad range of difficulty, and that because folks were hesitant to proclaim a new  higher grade for new routes.  In general (of course there will always be exceptions), the grades below 5.9 weren't subject to the same expansion pressures. Those grade difficulty ranges retained their original integrity, and so weren't in need of further subdivision.

Perhaps +/- notation first began to be used it was limited to harder climbs, but certainly it’s been widely appropriated across the spectrum since. I note that MP allows 7+ and  8+/- in the pull down menu for user grading. And my old copy of Rossiter’s “Pictorial Guide to Boulder Climbs” (1986) uses +/- liberally for easier routes.  For instance, on his Calypso topo, the start of the second pitch is marked 5.5+!

All of which seems reasonable, if “-“ and “+” just mean easy or hard for the grade, respectively.  Including the abcd gradation for 5.10 and up is also fine and dandy, and if using the letters in combination with +/- means that there is some ambiguity, so be it.

All that rambling is more or less in reference to outdoor climbs. I’m not really thrilled with the direction Movement has gone with their route markers, but the grade subdivision is a minor issue. I just figure 10- means something in the range of hard-9,10a,10b,10c and 10+ means 10b,10c,10d,easy-11.

I’m actually more irritated that the route info is only the grade. I liked seeing the date the route was set and the setter’s name - and actually, I got a kick out of the names they gave their routes.  Route setting is a creative act, and letting the setter sign their work is appropriate.  And having the routes named  also made it easier to discuss the climb with friends. (Rather than “the pink 11- in the corner”, to which I respond “the pink 11- on the right side of the corner or the left”)

But whatever. It’s all entirely subjective and what’s 13- for my son might as well as be 15+++ for me.

rgold wrote:

I don't think some evil elitist empire was at work.  If we had to give it a name, "grade reticence" would be closer to the truth. The plusses and minuses came into being because the top grades started to include an overly broad range of difficulty, and that because folks were hesitant to proclaim a new  higher grade for new routes.  In general (of course there will always be exceptions), the grades below 5.9 weren't subject to the same expansion pressures. Those grade difficulty ranges retained their original integrity, and so weren't in need of further subdivision.

5.9+

a, b, c, d vs -/X/+

Does anyone recall when the a, b, c, and d approach replaced the -/x/+  sequence? My recollection is sometime in the 90's

This is separate from the gym question but it seems we are discussing how much detail the YDS provides.

mountain troll wrote:

a, b, c, d vs -/X/+

Does anyone recall when the a, b, c, and d approach replaced the -/x/+  sequence? My recollection is sometime in the 90's

This is separate from the gym question but it seems we are discussing how much detail the YDS provides.

Bridwell introduced “a,b,c,d” in the early ‘70s.  +/- came later and was applied to compact the letter grades in some cases. 

+/- was used regularly in Yosemite before Jim proposed abcd in his Brave New World article, and in another Ascent piece.

I remember my max grade at Prime Climb in CT being 5.11 c/d back when La Sportiva Mythos weren't thought of as "retro" and Miura VS's were "futuristic". 

If I may add more mud to this water lol.

I climbed often with Bridwell in 1973/74/75, lived in camp 4 with him. 

Long Ranger wrote:

I remember my max grade at Prime Climb in CT being 5.11 c/d back when La Sportiva Mythos weren't thought of as "retro" and Miura VS's were "futuristic". 

If I may add more mud to this water lol.

Well, let’s see. The black Mythos (remember those?) came out in ‘90 or ‘91.  The Miura lace came out in ‘97 I believe…I don’t recall when the VS came out as I stopped climbing for a bit around that time to race bikes. Anyway, point was?

mountain troll wrote:

a, b, c, d vs -/X/+

Does anyone recall when the a, b, c, and d approach replaced the -/x/+  sequence? My recollection is sometime in the 90's

This is separate from the gym question but it seems we are discussing how much detail the YDS provides.

I explained this earlier in this thread, see https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/124013076/yosemite-decimal-system-now-the-movement-decimal-system?page=5#ForumMessage-124062749

It was way before the 90's (which doesn't mean +/- didn't endure as well (as it still does).