Protection ratings X, R, PG13, where's G and PG

Is the site taking the stance that a route is adequately protected if it isn't rated X,R or PG13?

Jim

For what it's worth...

• No rating means G - at least this was our intent
• PG13 is the same as PG - once again, that was our intent

Andy

I never thought the site is taking a stance at all, other than its intended use of the designators to select from. The site content is a catalog of user opinions. There is a whole text section in route descriptions that people can and probably *should* fill in more details/caveats/disclaimers about protection in if they feel the route is less than safe for a reasonably experienced climber.
It is up to the individual to do this as they see fit, and up to others to disagree as they see fit by adding comments.
It is still quite subjective, and splitting hares over the 3 grades:
X (unprotected at the crux with a bad fall)
R (Unprotected in spots or hard to protect at the crux or in other places, but probably won't kill you)
PG-13 (Protectable within safe limits, but might be tough to push your grade on or if inexperienced)

I am not sure where PG would fit in, as Andy points out. And if it is not one of the above it should be presumed G.

-T.

Any route has the potenial of being "X".

Climb safe, Climb Hard!

"Any route has the potential of being "X""
That's a nice motherhood statement but labelling every route an X would defeat the whole point of having a rating scheme for the degree to which a climb can be protected.

"What a bizzare question. Are you looking for guarantees?"
No just trying to see when I'm rating a climb what leaving that option blank implies. X,R,PG13 were self explanatory to me. Leaving it blank wasn't. Hence the question. Could have been phrased differently (I wouldn't rate the question as bizzare, but it was phrased a little odd. ;)) If there had been a G or PG rating, I would use it for routes that I climbed where I felt that the protection was good. Might leave it blank if I don't remember or have an opinion on that facet of the climb.

Andy Laakmann provided the intent of the site for what No Rating means.

IMO why Is the front range the only place that uses the "S" and "VS" system. Sounds like a good way to get people hurt or worse. "R" and "X" seems to be a consensus everywhere else. I learn to climb on the east, and v or s ratings are unheard of. Its not in freedom of the hills or anything like that. Why do gillett and rossiter have to be different? A friend of mine from the east thought the "S" meant sustained the first time he saw it in a book. Actually while writing this post, a friend just said that climbs at tahoe use the s and vs. Anybody have/share thoughts ideas about this?

In his classic 1980 guidebook Rocky Heights, Jim Erickson introduced the protection rating system PG, R, and X. Erickson's PG rating equates to today's G rating; his R and X are same as the R and X used in modern guidebooks. Climbs with no protection rating were implicitly understood to be PG (today's G).

Erickson's system was expanded by other guidebook authors to have four categories instead of three: G, PG (or PG13), R, and X. This three- or four-category protection rating system has been used by many guidebook authors over the years.

Enter Richard Rossiter. Richard started writing guidebooks to the Boulder area in the early 1980s. His first guidebook, Boulder Topographics, appeared in 1981. His were the first topographic guidebooks to the area, and were eagerly sought by local climbers. Richard has since published 19 climbing guidebooks, not only for the Boulder area, but also for Rocky Mountain National Park and the Tetons.

One of Richard's innovations was dropping the "5." in front of climb ratings, and using only the numbers after the decimal point; e.g. 5.10 became 10, etc.

Another of Richard's innovations was the use of s and vs for protection ratings instead of the PG, R, and X system originated by Jim Erickson.

Here are Richard's comments from his 1991 guidebook Best of Boulder Climbs:

"In 1980, Jim Erickson introduced a simple system for rating the seriousness of a climb in terms of available protection. In his popular pocket guide, Rocky Heights, he uses the ratings PG, R, and X, which he borrowed from the American movie industry. I have not employed these particular ratings in my books because I viewed them as a product of Jim's whimsical sense of humor, and I did not want to plagiarize his idea. They have, however, come into wide application in other guide books, making me the odd man out for not using them.

"In this book, as well as other guides that I have produced, the potential for a long leader fall is indicated by an s (serious) or vs (very serious) after the rating of difficulty. A climb rated s will have at least one notable runout and the potential for a scary fall. A climb rated vs typically will have poor protection for hard moves and the potential for a fatal or near-fatal fall. The absence of these letters indicates a relatively safe climb, provided it is within the leader's ability."

So you will find that climbers from the Boulder area, who grew up with Rossiter's guidebooks, will often use s and vs instead of R and X to refer to protection ratings, since that's what's in the guidebooks they most commonly use.

Here is what the ClimbingCurmudgeon has to say:

Finally, an interesting topic! I've grown tired of people arguing about whether to smear or edge at the crux of Who Gives a Crap on the Blob. Thank you all for the refreshing commentary. Greetings to the old-timers.

Guidebooks suck. They have degraded from bad drawings passed between friends, to the shameful ego masturbation of today's "look at me climb", "I hope you like me more", and "you can't do it without my help" photo-autobiographies. This website bums me out because there is more and more of the latter these days. I'm afraid this website is becoming just another guidebook.

Stick to the facts: Where does it start? Where does it go? Is it hard? Everything else is editorializing. That includes personal evaluations of risk and danger (G,PG,PG13,R,X, whatever!). As the BubbMan suggests, keep it in the comments, and out of the "guide" content - the facts section.

These "risk" ratings are not comments on the route, as everybody seems to think. They are actually comments on the climber making them! Stop telling me things that you think I need to know. You don't know me!

The act of giving me something I didn't earn, it is really an act of taking something away from me.

Where's the adventure? Where's the self-reliance? I think climbers need to read more Nietzsche and fewer guidebooks. Total preparedness is a myth, and seeking it is a waste of time. Accept uncertainty, and begin to really learn about yourself. Pain and suffering are the best teachers. Go climbing. Break yourself against the mountains and the rocks. Be remade!

Cheers and Best Regards to all.

Oh, and wicked props to Richard for his innovation of dropping the "5." from the ratings in his books. I am in awe of your originality and boldness, Mr. Rossiter. Angry scowls to Richard for drilling next to natural gear placements! I am not in awe of that.

This is just my 2 cents. I have always found these ratings to be very subjective. This is how I see them;

G= good protection.
PG= pritty good pro(not always where u want it).
PG13= I never used this one. Same as PG.
R= run out, long distance between pro, falls can be serious or fatal.
X= it might as well be a solo.

I would prefer a standard system as we all place pro diferently.
How do we go about creating a system that tells climbers how often they will be placing gear?

I figuer if it is 100' and I can place gear every 10' or less its G
same climb but I only get in 5-8 pieces of gear(every 10' to 20') PG
same climb and only get in 5 or less...is that R or X

Could we use a system like that? Rate climbs by GPM(gear per meter). I could say that a route is .5 GPM meaning I placed about every six feet. .2 GPM means a placement every 10' or so. This would also tell me that if the climb is 150' .5GPM then I will use about 15+ pieces of gear.

Am I just smoking too much today or is this a viable idea?

How about bringing back PDW?

ClimbingCurmudgeon hit the nail right on the head!

Thank you, thank you Mr. curmudgeon for being an island of sanity in an ocean of BS.

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote: Stick to the facts: Where does it start? Where does it go? Is it hard? Everything else is editorializing. That includes personal evaluations of risk and danger (G,PG,PG13,R,X, whatever!). As the BubbMan suggests, keep it in the comments, and out of the "guide" content - the facts section. These "risk" ratings are not comments on the route, as everybody seems to think. They are actually comments on the climber making them! Stop telling me things that you think I need to know. You don't know me! The act of giving me something I didn't earn, it is really an act of taking something away from me. Where's the adventure? Where's the self-reliance? I think climbers need to read more Nietzsche and fewer guidebooks. Total preparedness is a myth, and seeking it is a waste of time. Accept uncertainty, and begin to really learn about yourself. Pain and suffering are the best teachers. Go climbing. Break yourself against the mountains and the rocks. Be remade!

At the risk of being contradictory.....

I don't see the difference between risk rating and difficulty rating. Both are subjective. But you lump difficulty in with the facts.

If you want adventure and self reliance why are you following someone elses route?

You don't want me to tell you things I think you should know, but your whole post is doing just that.

If you don't know me, how do you know if I need to read more Nietzsche?

Maybe I don't want to break myself. I want to go climbing, have fun, and return in one piece. Utilize a guidebook / other climbers opinions to narrow down the selection. I don't have unlimited time and want to maximize my own subjective enjoyment with some preparedness.

Also depends on what skill / expertise level one is at. When you are first starting out, you need more information to stay safe.

Jim

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:Pain and suffering are the best teachers.

For me, experience is the best teacher; most often not accompanied by pain and suffering.

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:Guidebooks suck ... I think climbers need to read more Nietzsche and fewer guidebooks.

If you don't want to use guidebooks; fine. Just don't tell everyone else they shouldn't be using them. (And what are you doing even visiting MP.com???)

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:These "risk" ratings are not comments on the route, as everybody seems to think. They are actually comments on the climber making them!

Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong. Remedial assignment: discuss the meaning of the term "runout".

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:Angry scowls to Richard for drilling next to natural gear placements! I am not in awe of that.

With very few exceptions, Richard has not placed bolts next to usable cracks. I can only think of a few routes on Solaris and one on Sleeping Beauty where he's done that, and he offered to remove the unnecessary bolts from the climb on Sleeping Beauty; see his comment on Eight Miles High.

He has put up many "bolts plus gear" routes over the years: check out his new routes in Crack Land at Avalon for examples of his current work. Check out Birds of Fire, The Radlands of Infinity, and Land of Ra for examples of his past work.

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:Here is what the ClimbingCurmudgeon has to say:

Here is what Mr. Language Guy has to say:

"Referring to one's self in the third person should be punishable by cattleprodding."

Climbingcurmudgeon wrote:Total preparedness is a myth, and seeking it is a waste of time. Accept uncertainty, and begin to really learn about yourself.

You've actually said something I agree with!

Francis Baker (fran) wrote:Could we use a system like that? Rate climbs by GPM(gear per meter). I could say that a route is .5 GPM meaning I placed about every six feet. .2 GPM means a placement every 10' or so. This would also tell me that if the climb is 150' .5GPM then I will use about 15+ pieces of gear. Am I just smoking too much today or is this a viable idea?

Put the pipe away, Fran. The danger of a pitch has more to do with how good (or bad) the pro is at the crux and what you can hit if you come off there; the pro on climbing that is significantly easier than the crux is of less importance.

Quality of pro is also important; not just quantity.

Ron, your enthusiasm is obvious and commendable. Your contributions to MP benefit many, including me. Thank you, very much!

Three things are clear -

1) Your life-long desire to be a part of a community, and to be accepted by your peers, has softened you. Turn your back to them, and discover what real friends are.
2) Of all the things that motivate you, Ron, fear is the strongest. Your fear has made you weak. Your desire to prolong your life will guarantee that you never live it.
3) Lastly, you have strong feelings for Mr. Rossiter, and they are not as hidden as you would believe. You must turn them out to the light! Own them, and then release them to the world! You will be healthier for the doing of it. :)

Seeking to inspire fear in others, is a common trait of the fearful. Deep down, beneath even their own perception, the fearful are ashamed, and that shame is lessened when they perceive that others are afraid as well. They seek to make others as afraid as they are, and afraid of the same things - afraid of dying, afraid of other religions, afraid of other cultures, afraid of planes crashing, afraid of bird flu, or afraid of a rock climb.

Yes, fear is natural. We all have fear, but what nobody needs, is any of yours. Please don't try to make me afraid, and then attempt to blind me to your true motive by asserting that you're passing on critical, technical, objectively truthful information. I'm not falling for it!

__________________________________

Jim! Greetings to you from a fellow desert climber. I'll be on the rock all weekend (Lemmon, probably), and if you'd like to come along, drop me a line. It'll be groovy good times for sure.

Fair point. Actually, I spend hardly any time on this site, but occasionally get tipped-off to interesting threads by more prolific users. Far more occasionally, I am compelled to respond.

Caring about the state of climbing is a desperate condition, and one that I wish I could be cured of. It would be easier to turn my back on it, were it not that there is still so much to love. Despite the efforts of the egotists, fear mongers, and do-gooders, I find many avenues to learn about myself, my partners, and the world over which we walk.

Climbing is one of life's most apropos metaphors. I learn much about the state of humanity by climbing, and I might learn at least a little about the state of climbing through this website. It's depressing, but I cannot turn away. There is little that I can do to reverse the inexorable slides of man and climbing - I know this - but I will watch.

I will bear witness to the decline of man. I will mourn as our essential nature withers from willful neglect, as we crush the world's flowers to widen the freeways, as we bolt the last great inspiration and spray about it on some website. When we're finished killing the world that we're so afraid of, we'll find that we have killed ourselves. For what is man without passion and warfare, without yin and yang, without fear and desire, without mountains and valleys, without the impossible and the achieved? Nothing! We need all of these things. The elimination of one, inhilates its antithesis.

Oh, of course, between now and the finale of this self-wrought creeping armageddon, I'm going climbing.

Jim, back to the topic, and your original question. My answer is simple. If you were scared on some rock climb because you couldn't get enough good gear, that's cool. We've all been there! Tell the story in the comments section, yo! Just remember that fear comes from inside each of us, and NOT from the rocks we climb.

Cheers to all! See ya' in the mountains.

I'm not a "Religious Man" but some climbs do put the fear of (God) in me.. So (Guide Books) are my bible! I like getting the info they offer so there is less chance of getting myself into an epic. This is a Free Country and if someone wants to onsight a "Macho Man" route without beta, more power to them..

Ron Olsen wrote:The danger of a pitch has more to do with how good (or bad) the pro is at the crux and what you can hit if you come off there; the pro on climbing that is significantly easier than the crux is of less importance. Quality of pro is also important; not just quantity.

I agree fully, Ron. This is all still very subjective. I have found good gear on routes marked X and very little on others with no danger rating.

Mark Nelson wrote:How about bringing back PDW?

Bring it back!? I still use this. It is used in my Zion Guide and I like it...BYM's scare me:+[

Ron Olsen wrote:Put the pipe away,Fran

It helps me get up the R's...and who told you I use a pipe?

Ok, I haven't been climbing for a while, but were did the 13 in PG13 come from. Is it a takeoff of the movie rating?

I've never understood why you would use pg/pg13.

  R and X seem to cover it well.  If the climb is run out, it is an R.  If it has serious potential for bodily harm or death, then it is X.

 pg/pg13 are more like "it feels dangerous?  It feels run out?". Don't know, I don't really use them.

So a noob can make a G route X...but it doesn't work the other way.  An R/X rating implies that the gear simply isn't there.  If someone finds gear that the FA missed, safety ratings will often be downgraded, much like route difficulty will be if someone finds better beta (or if Adam Ondra climbs it).  Some routes have had their safety ratings change with new equipment...e.g cams.  Applying a "G" or "PG" rating would be silly, as the whole point of R/X is to serve as a warning if broken ankles are not your thing.