Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

I got flamed a while back around this topic. But I agree with what has been said after my pummeling.
A route is base rated off of its hardest move.
If the route is sustained at a level, it should probably get a bump up for that nature.

Grades are dumb. We need them. It's nuanced. YGD.

Yall aren't fooling me - get stronger and these silly difficulty opinion shenanigans will cease to entertain you.

apogeewrote:

And it’s the TDS, dammit.

Good point. You know your history.

1) who cares

2) that’s literally what guidebook descriptions are for. They’re called “words”

That’s gonna be a NO from me dog. How about just climbing something because it looks fun and not worry about the grade or how sustained it is. Not knowing is part of the adventure.

Alan Rubinwrote:

In the late '60s/early '70s, Colorado climber Harvey T. Carter, the original publisher of Climbing Magazine, created a 'multipoint' numerical grading system in an effort to quantify several of the various factors that effect how difficult a climb feels. He called it the Universal Grading System and, I recall that the system had 5 or 6 data points for each grade. He tried it out on his home crags near Aspen. Climbers found it much too complex and it never gained any traction, despite his best efforts to promote it through his magazine.

The TDS/YDS, with some modifications along the way, has been around for 70 years, so, while not perfect, seems to have stood the test of time quite well. Besides, it's 'imperfections' have given climbers something to keep themselves busy arguing about for just as long---not a bad thing!!!!

The best  qualifier to add to a YDS grade would be the location of the climb. For example “Hadley 5.11”. Ward gave me a lecture yesterday…

Its called a plus grade you nillies.. if its a 5.7 with  with one 11b move its a 9+  if its a 5.9 but every move is 5.9 or harder  its a 9+  if its 5.9 with a few 11b moves  its 9+ if its a 5.7 with one 10b move its an 8+

If it's a 5.10 with one or two and perhaps three 11b moves its a 10d. 

That's kind of the jist of it. seems to work. tell me you don't know your in for a spanking when it has a + grade ;) 

That kinda fits with a Canadian description of 5.7 I once heard (from a Canadian). Canadian Rockies 5.7 means "mostly 4th class with a bit of 5.11". All done in traditional leather mountain boots, of course. And later in plastic boots. 

If this doesn't go for AT LEAST 8 pages, we have failed.

What about a pump factor? Is this considered the same as "sustainment" to the majority?

Mr Rogerswrote:A route is base rated off of its hardest move.
If the route is sustained at a level, it should probably get a bump up for that nature.

I like this. Simple.

Once those Tesla Optimus robots can climb, we'll have detailed graphs of forces required. Maybe also training time can be a proxy for technical depth. Won't be long before we will have to be worried about IRL bots on the walls too. Not just the forums.

I am wondering how and when the word "sustainment" was redefined?

Does anyone here know?

Plus and minus are fine for me.  +=sustained -=soft.  Boom, done. If you need any more than that you dont climb the grade anyways

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

I recall seeing “F” grades in the aaj, for example F9 or F10.  Was this before yds was standardized or simply referring to free climbing at a 5.10 level before letter grades?

Back in the 1950s/early 60s, there were multiple grading systems in use in the US, so there were efforts to establish a uniform system across  the country. Since a number of guidebooks to rock climbing areas were about to be published, it was hoped to have them all adopt the same system. A group of active climbers, under the auspices of the AAC, created what was called the National Climbing Classification System (NCCS) which initially graded free climbing technical difficulty from 1-9, with the 'F' prefix to denote free climbing ( there was also an 'A' prefix for aid climbing grades). The system was basically parallel to the TDS/YDS and from about F6 (5.6) up was identical. Some guidebooks (most notably that for the Tetons) utilized this system, but several of the ones to the most popular areas ( especially Yosemite and the Gunks) adopted the Decimal System instead ( a few books used both) and that became the generally accepted grading method. ( The Universal System I mentioned in my earlier post was another option, but that got  nowhere ). Still some publications (including the AAJ) and individuals stuck with the NCCS for quite a while, so that accounts for the 'F' grades you described.

JCMwrote:

Jim Bridwell said otherwise in 1973:

"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!"

A copy of the original article:

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

He did say that but the convention where I climbed and traveled too was as I said.  Rate the climb 5.9 sustained. 

I think the article was more of an effort to modify people's rating of climbs. 

In any case no one should be rating a climb easier than the hardest move.  

I recall in the late 1950s the YDS was used almost exclusively in the Tetons. I was talking with Chouinard one day and he said, Most 5.9s were climbs with a series of 5.8 moves. When I put up a very short variation on Baxter's Pinnacle it seemed a tad harder than 5.9 but there was uncertainty about how to say this in the existing scale.

The obvious shortcoming to a grading system is that each person’s ability is going to differ, so a “5.11a” climb is going to feel different to each climber. Luckily, there is an obvious solution that we can steal from the work of cryptographers.

For centuries the hard part of encrypting messages was: how do you share the key securely? But in the 1970s a few hippie nerds invented cryptography that has two keys, which have to be combined to read the message. One is kept private and the other is published for anyone to see. 

So all we have to do is make a complicated equation to create the key for each climb, and publish those. Then each climber can evaluate their own climbing ability, ideally on a complex multipoint scale, and calculate their own private key. So to select a climb for the day, you just combine your private key with a bunch of public keys and see what the math says is good for you.

If that sounds like a bunch of hard-ass math, not to fear. Onx, Kaya, Rakkup and others will make some great apps that will cost $14.99/month and use 30% of your battery just to pick a route.

Together, we can implement this system and help gumbies get in over their heads with greater precision than ever before. 

This thread is proof that its the off season for rock in North America