Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

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 g wrote:

+ 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. 

Ricky Harline wrote:

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. 

Actually, the UK system has similar issues---a route graded, say E3 6a, would have technical difficulty of 6a ( roughly 11a/b) but could be moderately sustained at the grade though reasonably protected or only one hard move but quite runout. As said multiple times above, no grading system is 'perfect' ( however you define 'perfect' in this context). For most people, the YDS, supplemented by information in the route description, works fine, none of the proposed 'tinkering' seems worth the effort.

Eric Craig wrote:

can you give an example of a trad pitch that the YDS doesn't fit? Hopefully a pitch I would know. 

I agree with you that it works pretty well, but to play devil's advocate, consider Haystack at Lover's Leap. 

The alternative first pitch, Preparation H, is rated 5.8, and I would say that there's nothing harder than 5.8 on it, but it's a bit of an awkward, thoughtful corner with some marginal finger jams, big balancy reaches, and stemming on blank feet, pretty consistently for the first 30 meters. It would be a very spooky pitch for a new 5.8 leader. 

The second pitch also goes at 5.8, but is almost entirely 5.easy except for 2-3 moves over a bulge, which are also 5.easy if you're comfortable yarding on a fist jam. 

despite the same rating on adjacent pitches the same route, these two pitches offer radically different experiences, especially for a less experienced climber. 

Aaron K wrote:

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.

Common misconception but there’s plenty of safe, moderate grit. Source: I learned to climb trad over there, and am a coward. 

Shrug. The yosem grade system seems to do everything I need it to do… the remaining uncertainty and/or complete inconsistency adds to the adventure. I’m not the only one right?

Oh. Except 12d is harder than 13a 

((lights fuse and runs away))

Ever more finer grained detail ratings are not going to climb that pitch for you.

I'd dare say, the more fine grained the ratings, the more you will avoid any route that has characteristics you don't like or want. You'd think your route options would go up, but they will go down.

Inexperienced leaders are advised to stick to the Trades for a reason. The reason being the ambiguity of trade route ratings is buried beneath the pile of words, our words, as we talk endlessly about them. You can get move by move beta for some routes. 

At the end of the day, "it's only 5.(x), how hard can it be?" has powered probably all of us up pitches we would have thought we had no business on, right before we sent them.

You tell yourselves you don't want surprises, so you demand that the surprises out themselves before you get there. In actuality, the surprise you're most worried about is - failing and running out of strength at the end of some terrifying runnout over "easy" ground.

Right. So is every climber. You don't tame that fear with ever more refined measuring systems. That won't work. The way you tame that fear is by getting stronger, and obliterating that fear of failing with 

I AM STRONG!

George M wrote:

I agree with you that it works pretty well, but to play devil's advocate, consider Haystack at Lover's Leap. 

The alternative first pitch, Preparation H, is rated 5.8, and I would say that there's nothing harder than 5.8 on it, but it's a bit of an awkward, thoughtful corner with some marginal finger jams, big balancy reaches, and stemming on blank feet, pretty consistently for the first 30 meters. It would be a very spooky pitch for a new 5.8 leader. 

The second pitch also goes at 5.8, but is almost entirely 5.easy except for 2-3 moves over a bulge, which are also 5.easy if you're comfortable yarding on a fist jam. 

despite the same rating on adjacent pitches the same route, these two pitches offer radically different experiences, especially for a less experienced climber. 

No 'useable' system would account for this type of variability--that's what the written description is for, or a brief comment. The rating is just a general approximation of the relative difficulty of a section of climbing, it can't (and shouldn't) describe everything.

And, Aaron, the UK system works fine for well-protected routes and easier ones as well.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

At the end of the day, "it's only 5.(x), how hard can it be?" has powered probably all of us up pitches we would have thought we had no business on, right before we sent them.

well said.

The "sustainment rating" Kyle O is looking for is saying "the pitch is sustained". You can just add those 4 words to the end of any existing grading system, without inventing a new one. 

Eric Craig wrote:

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).

Consider that the crux pitch of Commitment has the same grade as the first two pitches of Central Pillar of Frenzy. They are not remotely comparable in difficulty. 

I agree with the above comments of limitations of all grading systems and the UK one also. I have some interest in a sustained rating for routes, I think that might work well, but I think it would struggle to find success due to cultural inertia. 

A route with one 5.10 move will be 10a. A route with all 5.10 moves will be 10d or maybe even 5.11. This is how the YDS handles sustain. Some extreme examples of this will have an extra notation: Sustained. R means run out. X means if you fall you will get hurt for sure and probably die. This is how I always understood the Yosemite system.

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. 

Nothing explains the thing completely but to do the thing. A “grade” just gives us an approximation as to what we can expect, whether we can reasonably expect to climb it or not.

Largely, I find the YDS does quite well in describing those difficulties after taking into account the type of climbing. From the area and a brief description, the “sustainment” the OP refers to is often known. After that, a reading of the route from the ground is probably sufficient.

Perhaps it’s my own failure of imagination, or maybe a different tolerance for ambiguity, but I’m often amazed how closely the grade seems to match.

How about a more distinguished grade that takes into account the amount I’ve slept the previous night, stress level, relative humidity, overall psyche, and shoe rubber status?

And once you perfect your grade system? Mo fuckas be sand baggin anyway. Oh well. 

chris hubbard wrote:

A route with one 5.10 move will be 10a. A route with all 5.10 moves will be 10d or maybe even 5.11. This is how the YDS handles sustain. Some extreme examples of this will have an extra notation: Sustained. R means run out. X means if you fall you will get hurt for sure and probably die. This is how I always understood the Yosemite system.

Then why is Central Pillar of Frenzy 5.9? Multiple pitches are 5.9 from the first move to the last. The grade? 5.9. 

@ the good Colonel 

Yeah it's not the end of the world, but I do think a systematized way of rating how sustained a pitch is would be very useful to me. Then again I have terrible endurance and need to get good at climbing. 

Ricky Harline wrote:

Then why is Central Pillar of Frenzy 5.9? Multiple pitches are 5.9 from the first move to the last. The grade? 5.9. 

You want to bend your mind? Climb Open Book at Tahquitz if you haven’t already. Remind yourself that it is the very template for 5.9 as you climb the initial boulder problem and then, later, as you struggle up sustained 4 inch cracks. I’d not scoff at it being solid 5.10-, but I doubt the grade would ever change.

It’s all very subjective. It’s worth thinking about though, it all being in our head is probably the hallmark of climbing.

Just admit it, climbing gets kinda hard after 5.8 

I'd submit that whether the YDS grade is a function of one variable or a number of variables depends on where you are, and for good reason. Subjective as it may be, consensus grading comes down to how hard it felt to us compared to other routes at a particular grade, and how many tries it took us to send it. I doubt many of us are applying a logical rubric before weighing in on grades, and I'm not sure grading would improve much if we did.

I'd argue that 70' of 5.8 moves with a few good rests and a V1 start is 5.8 or close to it, because most climbers won't find this more difficult than most 5.8s.

Conversely, I've seen a consensus grade of 12a on 130' of overhung, sustained V1 to V2, and I don't think that was wrong because I tried my damndest on a good day and didn't onsite it. It felt slightly easier than any 11d I'd been on, so it must be 12a.

The more different the rock is to my home turf, the more sandbagged it will feel, and I'm happier when I accept that this is how it should be. If I'm getting shut down by stopper moves on short routes of grades I normally onsite, that tells me I'd probably benefit from bouldering more. If everything feels sandbagged and runout, that tells me I'd benefit from climbing at the gym less.

Where I see this subjective approach to grading break down is on newer warmups developed by really strong climbers. I'm not sure most 5.13 climbers can tell the difference between 9 and 10- or 10 and 11-. Given time, the consensus model should fix this, but our fragile egos often prevent us from opining that a route is harder than the first ascensionist thought.

I do think we need a sustenance indicator--basically how many Cheetos will be burned en route by a typical 150 pound human at 15° C. Grade captures this somewhat, but without enough precision.

RandyLee wrote:

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. 

Now you have. This was explained to me by super-boomers.

10a should be techy or perhaps one move of 10 but nice and fuzzy feeling. Should always be easier than 9+ if its actually hard then it would be 9+

Ricky Harline wrote:

Consider that the crux pitch of Commitment has the same grade as the first two pitches of Central Pillar of Frenzy. They are not remotely comparable in difficulty. 

I agree with the above comments of limitations of all grading systems and the UK one also. I have some interest in a sustained rating for routes, I think that might work well, but I think it would struggle to find success due to cultural inertia. 

I think you did an outstanding job of picking 2 climbs to make your point. Originally the 2nd pitch of Central Pillar of Frenzy was rated 5.10. The crux of Commitment is definitely near the bottom of the 5.9 scale, like the Jamcrack on Sunnyside Bench. Both have short low end 5.9ish cruxes with more moderate climbing above and below. I was surprised to see the 1st pitch of "CPF" listed as the crux pitch here on MP????. Anyway, these climbs do support your argument/ position. 

Guess I am just part of the "inertia". It all seems perfectly normal to me,  and it doesn't change much at the places I have climbed coast to coast and in Canada. I think I read somewhere once upon a time that the number of climbs between grades is approximately equal to the number in the grade above and the grade below. 

"Sustainment" already IS a part of YDS and as far as I can tell,  always has been. Maybe just not enough so. 

In the context of this thread the word "sustainment " is being redefined.

How is the wide crack work going?