Grade Confusion

I am a little bit confused about subgrades (in the YDS scale). First I want to start off by saying I am not attempting to grade hunt and am simply perplexed/curious. What are the differences between if a climb is rated just plain 5.11 vs. 5.11+, - 5.11 a, b, c, d or 5.11 a/b, b/c, c/d. Like why do some climbs have some and others have others? Are there really differences in difficulty (I know difficultly can sometimes come down to hold time and body size and other factors like that)? I also know that there's probably more of a difference as the grades get harder (I just used .11 as an example). Like if you were to grade all of these different symbols from least to most difficult what would you say? Again, I'm not asking because I'm looking to brag about what the hardest thing I've climbed is but am just wondering like for example if someone had done a 5.11- and a 5.11b would one be considered their "hardest" climb? I would like to know what people think if it's not just a dumb question where the answer is no one really knows. 

Hoo boy...

Look it’s real simple. 5.11b is harder than 5.11a which is easier than eldo 5.9 except on leap year in which case you have to add 2 grades or a “+” but only if you’re belaying with a grigri. Got it?

Grades are a societal construct. They don’t actually exist.  Climbing isn’t real. The world is an illusion. 

"I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing difficulty, as follows: 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11-, 5.11b, 5.11, 5.11c, 5.9 squeeze, 5.11+, 5.10 OW, 5.12a, 5.11d" 

-Brutus of Wyde

Also check out Jim Bridwell's article in which he lays out the a-d aspect of the >5.9 YDS scale. He also makes the important point that grades are fundamentally a communication between climbers, so there's an obligation to be honest and really try to grade in a meaningful way.

https://rockandice.com/features/the-innocent-the-ignorant-and-the-insecure-ascent-2/

"Many problems are inherent in any rating system. Rating, itself, is a problem. The different physiology of climbers presents the main difficulty. A smaller or larger, shorter, longer hand-finger-foot-knee-chest-arm-leg-body will make a huge difference in the comparative difficulty of certain moves or pitches.

Pitches are listed according to general different sizes, but accurate information about absolute sizes of cracks and other pertinent facts can only be had through word of mouth. Climbing is above all else a human endeavor, and precise communication about it can only pass through those who practice it.

Few things are absolute, and rating systems are no exception; but, hopefully, the information given here will help facilitate communication in the climbing community."

Think about it this way:

5.11a < 5.11b < 5.11c < 5.11d (and so on).

And parallel to that, but not in contradiction:

5.11- = roughly 5.11a/b

5.11 = roughly 5.11b/c

5.11+ = roughly 5.11c/d

If you wanna be less specific or it’s factor dependent (think crack size in the creek), it may make more sense to just 5.11-, 5.11, or 5.11+. While for more specificity, use a specific letter.

Sean Fujimoriwrote:

"I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing difficulty, as follows: 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11-, 5.11b, 5.11, 5.11c, 5.9 squeeze, 5.11+, 5.10 OW, 5.12a, 5.11d" 

-Brutus of Wyde

Also: ukclimbing.com/articles/fea…

Not a bad start, now we need to find a way to add:

- old school grade (since apparently 5.6 gunks is 5.11 anywhere else) 

- slab grades (as perceived by sport climbers)

- crack grades (as perceived by sport climbers)

Pierre Proulxwrote:

Not a bad start, now we need to find a way to add:

- old school grade (since apparently 5.6 gunks is 5.11 anywhere else) 

- slab grades (as perceived by sport climbers)

- crack grades (as perceived by sport climbers)

Please be trolling.

Sean Fujimoriwrote:

"I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing difficulty, as follows: 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11-, 5.11b, 5.11, 5.11c, 5.9 squeeze, 5.11+, 5.10 OW, 5.12a, 5.11d" 

-Brutus of Wyde

Also: ukclimbing.com/articles/fea…

This seems accurate. Maybe swap 11- and 10d. 

Sean Fujimoriwrote:

"I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing difficulty, as follows: 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11-, 5.11b, 5.11, 5.11c, 5.9 squeeze, 5.11+, 5.10 OW, 5.12a, 5.11d" 

-Brutus of Wyde

Also: ukclimbing.com/articles/fea…

Lastly, between 12a and 11d is any 5.9+ in Josh or Yos

This made everything crystal clear thank you to everyone who contributed!!

How come nobody's brought up 5.9++, or 5.10+++ for that matter?! 

Fan Ywrote:

How come nobody's brought up 5.9++, or 5.10+++ for that matter?! 

I mostly want to go to  indian creek and put up a 5.6d

Sean Fujimoriwrote:

"I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing difficulty, as follows: 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11-, 5.11b, 5.11, 5.11c, 5.9 squeeze, 5.11+, 5.10 OW, 5.12a, 5.11d" 

-Brutus of Wyde

Also: ukclimbing.com/articles/fea…

it's a shame the formatting destroys the table at the end of that bridwell piece:

My (n00b) impression is that the year a climb was put up makes a big difference in how hard 5.6-5.9 climbs are - if it was put up in the 60's, 5.9 meant something way different than it did in the 80's.

Matt Simonwrote:

Please be trolling.

Damn once again forgot to use the « sarcasm font ».   

Yea, sorry bro. Should've put this one in the beginner climbing forum. You wouldn't have gotten eaten alive. If you didn't get what you were looking for, post this again but in the beginning climbers forum.

Mx Amiewrote:

it's a shame the formatting destroys the table at the end of that bridwell piece:

Thanks and good point, just replaced the link with a different one that has much better formatting.

Anonymouswrote:

Yea, sorry bro. Should've put this one in the beginner climbing forum. You wouldn't have gotten eaten alive. If you didn't get what you were looking for, post this again but in the beginning climbers forum.

I don't think anyone was being too harsh...some serious some joking replies, but it is pretty funny if you think about it.

Sean Fujimoriwrote:

Thanks and good point, just replaced the link with a different one that has much better formatting.

I don't think anyone was being too harsh...some serious some joking replies, but it is pretty funny if you think about it.

certainly pretty funny thanks yall!!