Should the YDS have a sustainment rating?

Ricky Harline wrote:

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. 

1st pitch Maxine's Wall is easier. Chingando, 3rd pitch Reed Pinnacle,  probably both pitches of Siberian Swarm Screw,  Handjob, The 2nd pitch Peter Left, Secret Storm come to mind as 5.10- to me and very close to the same difficulty to climb as the 2nd pitch Central Pillar of Frenzy. Some people may find some of these a little easier, many will think of the wide crack pitches I mention as being harder. The length of the crux sections of these climbs ("sustainment " factor?) varies considerably. Two of shortest cruxes are opposites: Reed Direct is moving from a chimney to a fairly easy OW, the transition being the challenge. Secret Storm is the transition up from hand jambs (or lieback) to a few OW moves to chimney . 

I agree with you that the first 2 pitches of Central Pillar of Frenzy are fairly sustained climbing,  but I think you are over rating the difficulty of the majority of each pitch. Both pitches have distinct crux sections,  and the rest of the climbing on them is somewhat less difficult. That is,  if you removed the 10' crux from #1, and 15' or so from #2, those pitches would probably be 5.8. Based on my memory. 

I think the real thing here is that 5.9 is a pretty broad category,  as is 5.8, even 5.7. And that there is no distinct line between grades.  Up to 5.12a/b. My experience stops there. 

I will maintain that the YDS does a good job. It is not individual move based. It is crux based, however long the crux section is. Many cruxes are just a couple/3 moves, few are truly a single move. Many cruxes are 10, 15 feet,  and a few much longer. It definitely takes "sustainment" into account. And the ratings are based on the subjective assessment of one, to many  different individuals (consensus). It's amazing it works at all.

All that said, you do have a point Ricky. 

Eric Craig wrote:

1st pitch Maxine's Wall is easier. Chingando, 3rd pitch Reed Pinnacle,  probably both pitches of Siberian Swarm Screw,  Handjob, The 2nd pitch Peter Left, Secret Storm come to mind as 5.10- to me and very close to the same difficulty to climb as the 2nd pitch Central Pillar of Frenzy. Some people may find some of these a little easier, many will think of the wide crack pitches I mention as being harder. The length of the crux sections of these climbs ("sustainment " factor?) varies considerably. Two of shortest cruxes are opposites: Reed Direct is moving from a chimney to a fairly easy OW, the transition being the challenge. Secret Storm is the transition up from hand jambs (or lieback) to a few OW moves to chimney . 

I agree with you that the first 2 pitches of Central Pillar of Frenzy are fairly sustained climbing,  but I think you are over rating the difficulty of the majority of each pitch. Both pitches have distinct crux sections,  and the rest of the climbing on them is somewhat less difficult. That is,  if you removed the 10' crux from #1, and 15' or so from #2, those pitches would probably be 5.8. Based on my memory. 

I think the real thing here is that 5.9 is a pretty broad category,  as is 5.8, even 5.7. And that there is no distinct line between grades. At not up to 5.12a/b. My experience stops there. 

I will maintain that the YDS does a good job. It is not individual move based. It is crux based, however long the crux section is. Many cruxes are just a couple/3 moves, few are truly a single move. Many cruxes are 10, 15 feet,  and a few much longer. It definitely takes "sustainment" into account. And the ratings are based on the subjective assessment of one, to many  different individuals (consensus). It's amazing it works at all.

All that said, you do have a point Ricky. 

I don't recall a crux on either, just swearing at the rock and falling the entirety of both pitches. 

The crux of bishops terrace is pretty similar to the 2nd pitch of CPF, except CPF is longer version of the crux of bishops.

In the Bird’s article he names very specific climbs that are excellent examples of the differences in difficulty in Yosemite. As dose the meyers guide have a great break down of classic climbs of different styles of each grade.

meat grinder is a good mention. stone groove too, short 10b crux 

no

Pole Position, Crack of doom, Crack of despair, Surf nazi and many more Ricky The five and dime area has several. check it out bro  Bob C

Bob Crawford wrote:

Pole Position, Crack of doom, Crack of despair, Surf nazi and many more Ricky The five and dime area has several. check it out bro  Bob C

Copper penny a good 10.a 

Bob Crawford wrote:

Pole Position, Crack of doom, Crack of despair, Surf nazi and many more Ricky The five and dime area has several. check it out bro  Bob C

I will. Thanks!

Jared E wrote:

I’m doing my part!

The people thank you for your contribution. Turns out I was selling myself short with an 7-8 page prediction.…

No

Since when is sustainment a word? Seriously though, does anybody know whether the YDS system was originally meant to treat the difficulty of moves as well as whole routes? I don’t know the answer, but my hunch is that the grade was given for a whole route and the idea of the difficulty of individual moves or cruxes has developed more recently with the rise of bouldering and the font and V grade systems. If so, it would be a circular argument to say that a route with a 5.10 move must be a 5.10 route. This kind of solecism was necessary before a system of bouldering grades.

**what a fun thread, and I especially enjoyed the original post and the one proposing a diagrammatic grade. I don’t think this kind of thing takes the fun out of climbing at all – – to the contrary, reflection on these things reveals how silly it all is and how wonderfully cultural. It reminds me of a recent episode of the Hyper Fixed podcast about the accuracy of tape measures. Somebody started out complaining about how you can’t measure from the end of a tape measure and get an accurate reading, and then it gets all the way down to the most accurate measuring tools available, and even then it turns out it’s culture all the way down. podcasts.apple.com/us/podca…

I do not think that word means what you think it means. The word you are looking for is consistency.
Oxford English Dictionary:

–The action of sustain v. (in various senses); spec. the support or maintenance of someone or something, in later use esp. military equipment or personnel. 

1935

The aid and sustainment she brought to him in their private lives were tremendous factors in the success of his management.

A. E. W. Mason, Sir George Alexander 100

Hi Ryan, sustainment is a word. It means something like the provision of articles of sustenance, or the means to sustain life or an operation.  I believe it is used in the military. It has nothing to do with how sustained a section of climbing is.

Oh, I see you answered your own question. 

As for the YDS it's pretty clear by how it has been historically used that the rating applies to the crux section of a pitch, or of an entire climb. This could/can mean a single move, but usually applies to a section of moves, however many that may be, that comprise the crux. This conversation has been going on for more than 50 years that I have witnessed. I would guess about 20 more years before that. I could give some examples. 

Eric Craig wrote:

Hi Ryan, sustainment is a word. It means something like the provision of articles of sustenance, or the means to sustain life or an operation.  I believe it is used in the military. It has nothing to do with how sustained a section of climbing is. 

As for the YDS it's pretty clear by how it has been historically used that the rating applies to the crux section of a pitch, or of an entire climb. This could/can mean a single move, but usually applies to a section of moves, however many that may be, that comprise the crux. This conversation has been going on for more than 50 years that I have witnessed. I would guess about 20 more years before that. I could give some examples. 

Fascinating and surprising. Yeah, I’d be curious to see historical examples. It sounds like endurance was not as much of a factor as the difficulty of the most difficult section?

Ryan McDermott wrote:

Fascinating and surprising. Yeah, I’d be curious to see historical examples. It sounds like endurance was not as much of a factor as the difficulty of the most difficult section?

Hi Ryan, your 2nd sentence is well worded.

Here are some examples that come to mind, in Yosemite. 

Single move cruxes:                                                Nutcracker, 2nd to last pitch (5.8, roof), last pitch (5.8 mantel).                                                    Lower Cathedral Spire- Regular route (5.9).       Middle Cathedral Rock DNB, 3rd pitch I think, 5.10b,  mantel.                                                          Rixon's Pinnacle West face, 2nd pitch 5.10c, step across.                                                            Oz , 2nd pitch 5.10d, reach.     

Even just calling these single move cruxes is a subjective opinion. There is a set up move and exit move to these cruxes, which influences the difficulty of the single hardest move. 

Examples of long sustained cruxes:                    Pharoh's Beard 2nd pitch 5.8.                              Reed Pinnacle Direct 2nd pitch 5.9.                    Oz, 3rd pitch 5.10c.                              Butterballs 5.11c

Climbs like these in general have a section a bit more difficult than the rest, which often changes from one person to the next, but these examples have long sections of a sustained level of climbing with no real significant resting spots. 

No doubt there are different opinions.