What’s a 5.10+

ddriverwrote:

Curious where that "how to use" came from as I've never heard that idea.

The old way of 10-,10,10+ morphed into 10a,10b,10c,10d with the advent of sport climbing. 3 subdivisions or 4 take your pick.

Yes, the a/b/c/d system was invented by famous sport climber Jim Bridwell. ;)

https://www.climbing.com/people/innocent-ignorant-insecure-rock-climbers/

Alan Rubinwrote:

Not surprising!!! REI is far from the best source for accurate climbing information.

Presuming that you are serious and not trolling, as you should be able to tell from Ben P.'s 'chart', grades are often highly subjective and, in general, anything graded with a +, should be considered to be very 'suspicious' (4th class, even more so). 

No not trolling. New to all this and trying to learn. All these answers/trolling are not helping   

The “+” means it’s a good climb.

Ben Podborskiwrote:

Grades ascend as follows;

5.2

5.3

5.4

“Low fifth class”

Fourth class

5.5

5.6

Classic mountaineering 5.4

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.8+

5.10a

5.10b

5.9+

5.10-

5.11a

5.10

5.10c

5.9+ (again)

5.10

5.10d

5.11-

5.10+

5.11b

5.11c

5.10+ (again)

5.11+

5.12a

5.11d

5.12-

5.12+

Giggling so hard at this. Just finished my battle with a 5.9+ at Horseshoe Canyon that took me multiple trips. Taught me to be wary of the plus.

Ben Gwrote:

No not trolling. New to all this and trying to learn. All these answers/trolling are not helping   

If it’s graded 5.10+ instead of 5.10c or 5.10d, it was possibly graded a long ago and could be anything harder than 5.10. Furthermore, grading is subjective.

Just be sure it’s well protected before climbing it.

Li Huwrote:

If it’s graded 5.10+ instead of 5.10c or 5.10d, it was graded long ago and could be anything harder than 5.10. Furthermore, grading is subjective.

Just be sure it’s well protected before climbing it.

Why would that be long ago? I watched a very experienced climber put up a sport route just yesterday and grade it 5.10 to mean 5.10b/c. It's not uncommon to see three grades instead of four and it's not uncommon to see those three grades as -, flat, and + instead of slash grades. 

Seems rather still in use to me. 

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Why would that be long ago? I watched a very experienced climber put up a sport route just yesterday and grade it 5.10 to mean 5.10b/c. It's not uncommon to see three grades instead of four and it's not uncommon to see those three grades as -, flat, and + instead of slash grades. 

Seems rather still in use to me. 

Admittedly, setters at the Hangar 18 gyms still grade climbs with 5.10/+/- so my generalisation is wrong.

I’ll stick with the subjectivity though.   

The REI automaton that wrote that summary operates from the same subjective interpretation of ratings systems that any of us do. REI is hardly a source of quality information, in spite of the fact their sheer size somehow lends them credibility- that reality gives new meaning to the term 'artificial intelligence'.

Picking up on subtle humor is aid.

Ben Gwrote:

No not trolling. New to all this and trying to learn. All these answers/trolling are not helping   

Ben, The reason that you are finding this topic--and the responses on here, to be so hard to pin down, is that the topic of grading in general is far from precise. Despite the superficial appearance of 'order' implied by a numerical system, the reality is that in practice we have a very imprecise and subjective system---or really multiple interpretations of a system. Much of our current system grew 'organically' over time from a simpler one, so was not created in a structured manner. As stated by previous posters, as an element of this fairly haphazard development, in certain climbing areas there was a reluctance to take the 'big step' of adding a new, harder grade level, which led to the then hardest grades becoming 'top heavy'--and to compensate for this, some places started using + , and then -, subgrades---but this usage was very inconsistent.
The bottom line is that you aren't getting 'an answer' because no single answer is correct for all areas or circumstances. Just assume that anything with a + will be harder ( for most people) than climbs of the same grade without--and, maybe, a lot harder.

“Classic mountaineering 5.4”

Also known as Third Class. (See Steve Roper, climbers guide to the high sierra)

Ben, embrace the subjectivity. It’s one the most enjoyable aspects of climbing, and provides endlessly entertaining beer-laced campfire fodder.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Ben, The reason that you are finding this topic--and the responses on here, to be so hard to pin down, is that the topic of grading in general is far from precise. Despite the superficial appearance of 'order' implied by a numerical system, the reality is that in practice we have a very imprecise and subjective system---or really multiple interpretations of a system. Much of our current system grew 'organically' over time from a simpler one, so was not created in a structured manner. As stated by previous posters, as an element of this fairly haphazard development, in certain climbing areas there was a reluctance to take the 'big step' of adding a new, harder grade level, which led to the then hardest grades becoming 'top heavy'--and to compensate for this, some places started using + , and then -, subgrades---but this usage was very inconsistent.
The bottom line is that you aren't getting 'an answer' because no single answer is correct for all areas or circumstances. Just assume that anything with a + will be harder ( for most people) than climbs of the same grade without--and, maybe, a lot harder.

Alan thanks for the straight answer. I guess as seasoned long time climbers it’s hard to realize that newbies actually need some very basic (maybe completely obvious) to others info. I got the same type of responses in a different thread asking about an onsight vs a flash thinking there’s a system to it and the answers would be easy. 

apogeewrote:

Ben, embrace the subjectivity. It’s one the most enjoyable aspects of climbing, and provides endlessly entertaining beer-laced campfire fodder.

I understood quickly that the grades given to a route can be highly subjective. I had no idea though that an actual scale can be too. 

Ben Gwrote:

So 5.8+ is harder then 5.9???

This is very confusing 

from 5.9 on, every other grade should be 5.9+, I've seen 5.9+ grades change to .11s or .12s when new guide books were issued.

Colonel Mustardwrote:

The “+” means it’s a good climb.

I'm pretty sure the + means it helps to be taller than average i.e. it's a "reachy" route.  A - means it's cramped so smaller climbers have the advantage.

Ben Gwrote:

Alan thanks for the straight answer. I guess as seasoned long time climbers it’s hard to realize that newbies actually need some very basic (maybe completely obvious) to others info. I got the same type of responses in a different thread asking about an onsight vs a flash thinking there’s a system to it and the answers would be easy. 

Glad to help. Yes, I understand how much of this--especially the banter here on MP, can be a bit overwhelming to someone trying to figure out this crazy activity of ours.
When I initially began writing that resppnse, I started to summarize the history of the YDS grading system, but quickly realized that it would make my response too long. Besides, this information is already 'out there' in a number of places and, since you are interested, it would be worth your while to dig around a bit ( though probably best not to rely on REI.com)  to learn some of the background history. As you will discover it is a complicated story, and even more so if you travel and have to adapt to the very different grading systems around the world---each with their own development history and inconsistent use in practice.

As far as flash and onsight are concerned. Once again, superficially it is easy---onsight means leading a route completely free the first time on it with no prior knowledge about how to do the moves; while flash means climbing the route free on the first try but with at least some prior knowledge. Seems simple enough, but as the cliche states, "'the devil is in the details'--such as what does 'prior knowledge' actually mean. As the responses to your prior post indicate, there are many different interpretations--some serious, some facetious. Additionally, some have been known to 'bend' the definitions to fit in with the way they climbed a given route.
As in grades, ego all too often comes into play!!!

Gunkiemikewrote:

I'm pretty sure the + means it helps to be taller than average i.e. it's a "reachy" route.  A - means it's cramped so smaller climbers have the advantage.

Please don’t.

Gunkiemikewrote:

I'm pretty sure the + means it helps to be taller than average i.e. it's a "reachy" route.  A - means it's cramped so smaller climbers have the advantage.

Hahaha, heard this one before at the gym. 

Ben …. No hard and fast rules about the grades. But you need to keep this in your mind when thinking about “the grades” - no person doing a FA - not gym “setting”- wants to be downgraded by others.

A story: One time Kris and I were racking up at Intersection Rock Parking lot. Some young out of state climbers walked up and asked “where are the easy 12’s????” Without hesitation Kris answered “Red Rocks, Keep driving…” 

What I’m getting at is this: a OG place like the Gunks, Yosemite, Boulder, City o Rocks etc a 5.9 will be screaming hard compared to something at a newer venue with the same 5.9 number. What I find most important when you’re trying to suss out the expected difficulty of a root is this: Who did FA? When that was? And the style of the FA.
And remember this: gym ratings are not real when applied to stone.