grading a climb by the single hardest move

Buff's deleting posts to get himself into top page position. Weak. :/

JulianM wrote:Buff's deleting posts to get himself into top page position. Weak. :/

JulianM wrote:Buff's deleting posts to get himself into top page position. Weak. :/

weak? we can't overlook the sustained nature of the movements on this discussion and the fact that he was able to get to the top of page 6 after 4 other 5.top-of-the-page moves.

Buff Johnson wrote:what?

Greg D wrote:Dang it. I could swear I was on page 6 last night. Buff, did you pull some strings?

Don't worry Greg, there is always page 7!!!

rob bauer wrote:Notes? There won't be a test, right? I can't contibute to movie reviews, so I'll revert to the original thread. (With this aside to Coeus: where's the height differential and the avaliable rack quotient?) Hardest move rules has never really been firm, hence the +/- rating, or the ever more helpful description, but it has worked all these years. A limiting crux move must be noted, but the flavor IS imparted in the grade and description; ie, short, bolt at crux, pumpy, etc. Yeah, this is an apparent contradiction to the rule, but the original climbers are generally trying to give the overall rating, in some cases NOT limited by the hardest move. (This assumes that we're not trying to sandbag our commrades.) As an example from my past, when I did Super Crack at Indian Creek (1981?), the rating was 10 something, but I was told that there weren't any single moves harder than 5.9. The start almost threw me, but I was a solid 5.9 climber and with a collection of nuts, hexes and a few Friends, climbed it. (Without falls or [gasp] rests.) Viola, a fledgling 5.10 climber! Had I been a solid 5.8 climber, my history would have been different; I wouldn't have even tried it. So to conclude, I think the YDS still serves us well, we've all determined our personnal work-arounds to the grading system. If a route gets down-rated or known as easy or hard, all the better for those of us working up through the grades. (And yes, I know that since I didn't summit, I still haven't done Super Crack.) [Edit: Darn. Still pg 5.]

Well said Rob. Grades were established to provide information to climbers considering making an attempt at a given route. Not for ego.

I'm looking for information on when the +/- scale is appropriate. I've seen crags that only use one or the other however, most of the crags I climb at in the Wasatch have both. Would you say the +/- scale speaks more towards the sustained nature of the climb then?