Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

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

Darth Grader calculates a route grade based on the addition of several route and boulder sections separated by rests. It can help you define the grade of the last route you climbed. The route breakdown must be done from the ground to the anchor. To be as accurate as possible, you must not forget any movement. You can also try out our other calculators for breaking down boulders into single or multiple moves sections, as well as for calculating an overall grade for a multi-pitch: the [Multi-Pitch Darth Grade]. Same algorithm is used for all calculators.

Michael B wrote:

What? Then a climb that's all 5.7 with one 5.12a move is graded, what, 5.10b? So a dude who climbs 5.11b can jump on it and think he can flash it, then hurt himself? I've never heard of the YDS described this way.

I've been toying with this idea in my head for an alternate grading scale that uses multiple dimensions instead of a single number. The single number is a failure, full stop. Look at any route with a lot of comments, I see this one often at Mission Gorge: "This feels like 5.(grade minus 1) if you know how to jam (fists/offwidth/basic hands)". Why should experience change the grade of a route? Besides, what does 5.9 tell you? That a climb is similar in difficulty to Open Book? How many climbers have climbed Open Book? That it's harder than 5.8? Sure. A 5.9 in Joshua Tree is harder than a 5.8 in Joshua Tree. Is it harder or easier than a 5.9 in Yosemite? You have to try a few routes or rely on hearsay to find the level you want to work at on your first weekend trip. 

I've been thinking a multi-point scale that can't be summarized verbally. You wouldn't be able to say "The climb is L1", but the entire grade could be visually shown. Say, 5 points, forming a circle. The rounder the circle, the more "ideal" the boulder. Now instead of looking at a problem and thinking "but is this a slabby V2 or...", you can look at the circle and go "oh, this looks like my style" and the roundness indicates high quality - "oh this isn't just one hard move, I could actually learn stuff on this" or "oh, this is just one hard move. I could break into the grade on this". Points could be things like: Height dependence (low range: tall people disadvantages, high range: short people disadvantaged beyond what is normally expected). Power (low range: easy ladder climbing, high range: very dynamic), Technique (low range: easy ladder climbing, high range: delicate friction climbing), Continuity (low range: extreme difference between crux and rest of climb, high range: difficulty never eases)

Right now one problem is obvious: some qualities I want to define a problem by are "good in the center", like height dependence. Some are "good at the extreme", like how some people prefer a climb with mostly sustained difficulty.

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this as I need to pick a capstone project this week (compsci) and I thought a browser extension to allow users to rate routes on MP would be a good idea. Each route would show the circle grade as an average of everyone's ratings or something.

30 second terrible mockup.

100% of all this is irrelevant if you know how to bail, and if you drill into your head that your safety is your responsibility alone.  Sentiments like this that seek to both dilute and complicate climbing are not doing any favors for climbers or climbing.  

On grading:  Even in a gym, routes and boulder problems will feel harder or easier based on myriad factors including but not limited to:

Flexibility, fear, height, hand and fist size, route-reading ability, confidence or lack thereof, wingspan, ape index, endurance, etc.  The same applies to outdoor routes, and add into that the era in which the FA occurred.  That's why assertions like the ones you make, as well as suggestions on how to "fix" things are nonsensical and futile.

Read the pamphlets on every piece of gear you buy new.  ROCK CLIMBING IS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.  Act accordingly.

IMO it's a question of what you use the grades for.

If it's for grade chasing (no negative connotation) then you sort of need to arrive at a single consensus number, unless you want to define yourself as a hyper specialist (e.g. "I climb 5.14b- granite slab but 5.3+ if I have to use my biceps"), which probably takes some of the fun out of the game. Most people I know who grade-chase tend to pick something that's matches their strengths for their first of a grade, so it's the number that matters. 

The other most common use case for grades is to answer the question of "where on the fun/hard/safe spectrum does this fall for me". For the casual climber the extra info could be important -- saying "the 5.6 parts are run out, the hardest moves are a well-protected 5.10d sequence" or "it feels 5.8 if you climb at least 5.10 but not for the new 5.8 leader." If I've done a lot of 5.11s, I know I can hop on anything 5.10b or easier without thinking too much about it, but I might want to know a bit more before committing to a "5.11a" remote alpine route. But since this climber doesn't care about the number so much, it doesn't need to be part of the grade. In this case, the grade can be read as "if you've climbed enough routes at least 2-4 letter grades harder than this, you'll probably be fine."

Therefore, the extra info doesn't need to be part of the grade. The grade-chasers just need a single number to keep the game from getting too complicated, and the rest of us can just read beta. 

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

amarius wrote:

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 Admin wrote:

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 Mustard wrote:

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?

amarius wrote:

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 Admin wrote:

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 Stein wrote:

?  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 O wrote:

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 Mustard wrote:

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 Craig wrote:

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 Harline wrote:

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 Harline wrote:

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.