Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

The YDS is the worst rating system except for every other rating system and every alternative suggested here.

amariuswrote:

If this has not been mentioned above - https://darth-grader.net/

So is Darth Grader the universal route grader for now then? If so, how does it factor in length of route (pump factor) and proximity of hard boulders without rest?

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

So is Darth Grader the universal route grader for now then? If so, how does it factor in length of route (pump factor) and proximity of hard boulders without rest?

I am not coder for 'Darth Grader', you could probably take a look at  "How it works" and "Faqs" sections

But, if you are trying to be obtuse, then you can go and grade yourself

Why does the current grading system seem impossible in this thread yet works very well IRL?

Colonel Mustardwrote:

Why does the current grading system seem impossible in this thread yet works very well IRL?

Listen, where else but the internet can your solution in search of a problem find its home?

amariuswrote:

I am not coder for 'Darth Grader', you could probably take a look at  "How it works" and "Faqs" sections

But, if you are trying to be obtuse, then you can go and grade yourself

In other words, you haven’t used darthgrader at all…additionally who has assigned the “benchmarks” to darthgrader or other various areas?

There are only 2 grades really..
5.can-do-it and 5.can't-do-it

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

In other words, you haven’t used darthgrader at all…additionally who has assigned the “benchmarks” to darthgrader or other various areas?

?  I HAVE used Darth Grader and don’t really see anything wrong with what Amarius said. I also found that Darth Grader generally returns a grade that is spot-on or very close to the accepted consensus. 

Frank Steinwrote:

?  I HAVE used Darth Grader and don’t really see anything wrong with what Amarius said. I also found that Darth Grader generally returns a grade that is spot-on or very close to the accepted consensus. 

If this is true,  how is "Darth Grader" of any benefit?

FYI, I have no knowledge whatsoever concerning "Darth Grader". Do kinda know my way around the "YDS" though.

Kyle Owrote:

This, though, creates its own problems. If most of a  route is say 5.6 but there is one move of 5.11a does it make sense to call it 5.9? Maybe we should add a V rating then? In any case I think a sustainment rating and a hardest move rating should both be used.

It's a solution in search of a problem. In multipitch there is already "commitment grade". The single pitch route doesn't need a sustainment grade.

In this day and age, all the info is already out somewhere. That route where most of the climbing is 5.6, and there is a single move of 11a will be labelled as "one-move wonder" everywhere from guidebook to MP, and will be, most likely, a highly-thought-after route by people who want to tick their first 11a. (example would be something like Johnny Be Good, 11a at the Gallery at the RRG).

If the route is pure endurance, with no hard moves on it, people mention it all the time, too, because it's a feel-good route that makes every "i-bolt-to-bolted-my-first-12a" guy happily talking about the fact that there isn't a single move harder than V2 on it, totally soft piece-of-cake...

For pretty much every route of note there are beta videos out there, with eager climbers breaking it down segment by segment, in V-grades. Just search for the specific route you are interested in, and you'll have all the info you need.

While Darth Grader is neat, it doesn't do anything to solve the problem. Instead of the subjectivity of grading the overall route, you get the subjectivity of grading each section/boulder problem of the route. So it hasn't gotten rid of the subjective nature of grading, but just given the illusion of objectivity.

You can still say "but the 5.10a into a V4 boulder is soft and is really 5.10a into a V3 boulder"

Colonel Mustardwrote:

Why does the current grading system seem impossible in this thread yet works very well IRL?

How well does it work for very long and very sustained pitches and for short and very unsustained pitches? It works for most pitches very well, yes, but there are some common exceptions where the YDS doesn't communicate the difficulty of the route well at all. 

Of course, as others have said in this thread previously, you can explain the nature of the route in the description, but IMO that then implies that our grading system is insufficient at explaining the nature of the route. This very thread illustrates that there's no consensus on whether a route is graded by its overall difficulty or single hardest move as well. 

The YDS works especially with well written route descriptions, but the British trad grading system seems to me superior. I'm not necessarily arguing we need to amend the YDS or move to a different system, but it seems silly to me to argue it doesn't have some significant limitations. 

Eric Craigwrote:

If this is true,  how is "Darth Grader" of any benefit?

FYI, I have no knowledge whatsoever concerning "Darth Grader". Do kinda know my way around the "YDS" though.

The only benefit that I can think of is for FAs when the ascensionist has a hard time translating a piece of rock into YDS or the French scale. It is neat and accurate, but ultimately useless. 

I don't actually WANT to put you on the spot, Ricky, but can you give an example of a trad pitch that the YDS doesn't fit? Hopefully a pitch I would know. 

I am of the opposite opinion in that I believe the whole Yosemite Grading system works very well, pretty much without exception. A perfect rating system is just not possible. But I am listening (reading).

Ricky Harlinewrote:

the British trad grading system seems to me superior. 

Sort of. A high overall grade but relatively low technical grade can mean either: a) it’s very sustained, or b) it’s very bold. And vice versa. So you need the route description anyway.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

How well does it work for very long and very sustained pitches and for short and very unsustained pitches? It works for most pitches very well, yes, but there are some common exceptions where the YDS doesn't communicate the difficulty of the route well at all. 

Of course, as others have said in this thread previously, you can explain the nature of the route in the description, but IMO that then implies that our grading system is insufficient at explaining the nature of the route. This very thread illustrates that there's no consensus on whether a route is graded by its overall difficulty or single hardest move as well. 

The YDS works especially with well written route descriptions, but the British trad grading system seems to me superior. I'm not necessarily arguing we need to amend the YDS or move to a different system, but it seems silly to me to argue it doesn't have some significant limitations. 

Have you talked to many British climbers? Even they don’t understand their grading system. Neil Gresham’s retroactive downgrades of his own routes is a perfect illustration of this.

It is simply impossible to completely distill even the simplest sport route into one or two numbers. 

+ and - are supposed to be used as sustainment ratings. 

5.10- = move or two of 5.10. 

5.10+ = sustained 5.10. 

British trad system only makes sense for types of rock that have limited and tricky protection like British gritstone. Using it on a splitter crack where you can place cams wherever would be completely inappropriate.

grug gwrote:

+ and - are supposed to be used as sustainment ratings. 

5.10- = move or two of 5.10. 

5.10+ = sustained 5.10. 

We've already established there is no such thing as a move of 5.10

I don’t think that I’ve heard 5.10- is a move or two, 5.10+ is sustained. I’ve heard other explanations like “easy 5.10 vs hard 5.10” or “5.10a or b vs 5.10c or d” but never sustained vs not.