Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

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. 

The way I use +/- and most folks in my community use it in modern times:

.1x- = a/b
.1x =b/c
.1x+ = c/d

The reason I like it is it allows nuance on a climb which the grade isn't well defined yet.
Can I accurately tell the difference between a .10c or d that I've worked over and over and before bolting and sending it? Nah. I personally find that kind of resolution in grades to be hard if I'm rating my own climb. I just know it's around that, and as more feedback is had, the grade will find its final consensus rating after enough input is had... and I will update the grade as such.

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

The nothing harder than 5.8 on the 5.10a of Reed's Direct would disagree 

But waaaayyy easier than ahab 

The guy who came up with the YS was Royal Robbins, The guy who added the decimal YDS grade was Jim Bridwell. Birdman as Jim was called by his friends came up with the decimal (A to D) system because in the Valley (Yosemite) in the spring some of us could barely get up difficult routes, but by the fall season were calling those same routes 5.8 when they were really 5.10c or harder. Jim saw the need for a more accurate gauge than just 5.10 or 5.11 and so on. When Jim visited my home in Alaska one spring I got the chance pick his brain on the subject. And Jim said that his new favorite rating system was "The Peter Mayfield Big Wall Rating Scenario" or TPMBWRS  ok it never made it to the acronym stage. But this is how it went, NWR or not worth rating, NTB or not too bad and lastly PDH pretty darn hard. I loved it, and me and my cronies adopted it for our routes on the huge mixed multi-day climbs we were putting up in the Alaska range and in the winter in the Chugach Mts. However for pure rock climbs the YDS seems perfect. As for some system that delves into extreme minutia on a rock climb is overkill, I realize you want surety but how about self discovery or this thing called adventure.You don't need a blueprint, you need to suck it up and take it as it comes. It might save your ass when you get seriously off route and have to think for your selves, instead of being spoon fed by your super duper rating system. Plus and minus is not new, It was the basis for the NCCS or national climbing code system, it was discarded for being of limited accuracy and unnecessary complexity.This whole thing reminds me off the people who could not do a five minute approach without a GPS ! I think I am on to something.  Seriously yours Bob Crawford  Valdez Alpine Club...

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

The nothing harder than 5.8 on the 5.10a of Reed's Direct would disagree 

The 10a on Reed's Direct is for the third pitch which lands on top of the pinnacle, and is a legit 5.10 pitch, though few people climb it relative to those who do the second pitch and then descend.  That second pitch is solid 5.8, though.

Ricky Harline wrote:

The YDS works especially with well written route descriptions, but the British trad grading system seems to me superior.

E for Extreme, bro!

Very Hard Severe!

Here is an example at a moderate every-man grade at a very popular crag. Pretty much everyone who goes to Maple climbs “49,” a consensus .12a, that is about 90’ tall and quite sustained.  If this route was graded by the hardest move, it would be .10d at best.

Pipeline, 11c/d, is another popular Maple route.  One could argue that this one is graded by the hardest bouldering section (about V3), but the route is only 30’ long, with a pretty easy intro.

This is how the YDS, or the French system, is supposed to work. 

Frank Stein wrote:

Here is an example at a moderate every-man grade at a very popular crag. Pretty much everyone who goes to Maple climbs “49,” a consensus .12a, that is about 90’ tall and quite sustained.  If this route was graded by the hardest move, it would be .10d at best.

Pipeline, 11c/d, is another popular Maple route.  One could argue that this one is graded by the hardest bouldering section (about V3), but the route is only 30’ long, with a pretty easy intro.

This is how the YDS, or the French system, is supposed to work. 

Isn’t it crazy to think how adding (relatively) difficult moves to a climb makes it harder/a higher grade?

It’s really not that complex. The V-scale is the predominant grade scale used amongst climbers currently and it uses the same logic. Many of the strongest climbers have said the hardest single move is ”only” around V14 yet we have V15, V16, and V17….Look at ”Nobody Mourns the Wicked” (since it’s all the rage lately). That climb adds an extension in the V11-V13 range straight into one of the hardest moves in the world into a V11 move and gets V17. Not a single move on that climb is within 3 grades of the actual grade, yet it warrants a V17 (or hard V16 eventually as a worst case scenario).

Sustainment, pump factor, etc. all add to the difficulty of a route. Idk why that’s even an argument at this point. 

Bob Crawford wrote:

... And Jim said that his new favorite rating system was "The Peter Mayfield Big Wall Rating Scenario" or TPMBWRS  ok it never made it to the acronym stage. ....

I'm gonna ask Peter about this!

Mr Rogers wrote:

I'm gonna ask Peter about this!

When you see Peter, please say hi to him for me.

And yes I remember that wall rating system. I am "pretty " sure it was Peter that explained it to me.  I don't recall him claiming credit for it though. Also remember the Bard thing, don't recall where from. If it originated from a Bard my guess would be Allan. I could be wrong. 

The Big Chill!

The article was a PDF scan and is gone. But follow down the comments (from 15 years ago)... 

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1040465&tn=0

https://adventuresportsjournal.com/the-natural/

Mr Rogers wrote:

I'm gonna ask Peter about this!

Peter is my hero! 

You guys, as Californians I am confident will hash it out and come up with something pertinent and useful. It has been my experience that the average California climber is head and shoulders above the average climber from any other state. In 1976 I added 5 pitches to "Shakey Flakes" a 3 pitch route on the arches apron, with various partners. Little did I know the powers that be(stonemasters) were watching my efforts from the meadow next to the Ahwanhee Hotel. The week before Matt Cox and I finished "Shakey Flakes", I added the last pitch to Vern Clevingers route "Tightrope". I thought Vern was done with the route, however I did not consult Vern first. Upon hearing of my added sixth pitch, Vern came over to the "Spud" camp, Washington,Oregon and Idaho climbers. Vern called me away from our camp with a gesture, he made it clear I had poached on his route. I stood corrected and admonished, but survived the experience,Vern being a good guy.The day after "Shakey Flakeys" was done, Vern returned to our camp and indicated without a word I should follow him. We walked over to a pick-up with a camper on it, owned  by Kevin Worrall. In the camper were many of my heroes,Long,Worrall,Acamazo,Morris,Bridwell,Yabo,Braun, and a few I knew by face only. I thought "Oh Shit", then Kevin spoke up(they were all smiling) he said "now that I had mastered the stone I was a stonemaster"man I was busting. Then I think Long showed me the secret handshake,I was in seventh heaven. Kevin and I had an immediate affinity, both being slab and face guys. Someone twisted one up, and it all became a little fuzzy after that. When I got back to camp everyone was wondering what I had done this time, when I told them they were as blown away as I was. The rest of that fall is a blur, I do remember "Mouth to Perhaps,"Mothers Lament"Stoners Highway"Black Primo",Freeweelin"and the "Void". I will always cherish those relationships with my Californian brothers. I just remembered something about pitch 7 on "Shakey Flakes",this pitch starts in a left facing corner,goes out right and up. On the first attempt, after bolt two I went up and way out right about 75 feet. The rock deteriorated, I had made a couple moves I new I could not down climb and did not want to place an off route bolt so I had my second (Brent Hoffman) suck up all the rope he could, I was about 45 feet above Brent and way out right. I did not tell Brent what I had in mind, so with all the rope tight,I faced the ground and ran down the face jumping off the 10 foot corner in stride(as if I had practiced it) landing neatly on the slab and ran out my momentum. Then swung back into the corner hitting my back on the rock, knocking the wind out of me but otherwise uninjured. Brent lit into me like nobodies business, to our amazement we heard hoots and hollering coming up from the ground. Looking down we saw three guys getting up off the ground that had been watching us. All I could hear for sure was Holy Shit ! to this day I don"t know who it was other than the powers that be, one of them might have been Largo. If anyone remembers this, drop me a line. Any way I degrees, I am still putting up lowly 11s and still find Bridwells system gets it done.Most of the time a sustained pitch is obvious from the start, I will be watching to see what you hands come up with. Best Regards Bob Crawford   Valdez Alpine Club...   Edit. pardon my rambling !

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. 

@ 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. 

When 5.9 was the top of the heap there was a long stretch where it sounded odd to call something 5.10 so nobody did until finally it was obvious that climbs had become that much harder. There a quite a few old 5.9's that are in fact standard 5.10. Also there are many situations where competition influenced rating decisions. Nobody wants to get down rated so sand bagging happened plenty. Remember too that in those formative years information was scarce and drugs were not so subjective experience varied quite a bit. That's why.

chris hubbard wrote:

When 5.9 was the top of the heap there was a long stretch where it sounded odd to call something 5.10 so nobody did until finally it was obvious that climbs had become that much harder. There a quite a few old 5.9's that are in fact standard 5.10. Also there are many situations where competition influenced rating decisions. Nobody wants to get down rated so sand bagging happened plenty. Remember too that in those formative years information was scarce and drugs were not so subjective experience varied quite a bit. That's why.

But it's still harder than Valley 5.8s and easier than valley 10as. I'm skeptical that it's sandbagged. Real, sustained 5.9 in the valley is hard. People lead Jamcrack and Superslide and think they're valley 5.9 leaders when they probably aren't even solid valley 5.8 leaders. 

If you think there are 5.10s in the valley easier than CPOF I'd be curious to know what they are. 

Blah blah blah who cares 

Ivan Cross wrote:

Blah blah blah who cares 

You posted 7 pages into this thread. The irony must be lost with you, huh?

Colonel Mustard wrote:

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. 

I believe the "more distinguished grade" is called a trip report? :)  2¢

CPOF IS a 5.10 route. Most folk don't do the 5.10 parts.  P1 is a melding exercise and many folks face the wrong way at key spots, making it seem harder. the 2nd pitch is standard 5.9 finger crack, nothing off fingers or anything, yo. The business is above p5.

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

If this doesn't go for at least 8 pages, we have failed.

I’m doing my part!