Yosemite Decimal System now the Movement Decimal System?

Bickle wrote:

I think you missed my point. Movement just has 5.10- & 5.10+ there is no more just plain 5.10 in their opinion, that is the point I am making. 

So if the range between the hardest 9 and the easiest 11 is divided into 4 grades (a,d,c,d) you’re ok with it. If it’s divided into 3 grades (10-, 10, 10+) you’re ok with it. But just 2 grades (10- and 10+) is not acceptable? 

I think just adapting to this might be easier than rallying a mob to fill out comment surveys.

Ol Toby wrote:

I don't think you read the post. The photo you posted shows routes with grades of 5.10 and 5.11. Those grades no longer exist at Movement, just 10+ and 10-.

I had read their announcement of +/- grades and assumed the details. Sorry for being dumb and not actually reading.

Teton Tom wrote:

So if the range between the hardest 9 and the easiest 11 is divided into 4 grades (a,d,c,d) you’re ok with it. If it’s divided into 3 grades (10-, 10, 10+) you’re ok with it. But just 2 grades (10- and 10+) is not acceptable? 

I think just adapting to this might be easier than rallying a mob to fill out comment surveys.

The YDS has been around since the 30's or 50's depending on which history you read, it not what I was okay with, it is what I was taught and have been using for the last 20+ years I have been climbing. Why do we need to adapt to a dumbed down version?  I have never been one to keep my mouth shut or not be able to speak my mind so this actually comes quite naturally for me. 

Curious,where did you get your information that the YDS originated in the ‘30s? While the Class 1-6 Sierra Club system did originate in the ‘30s—in which all climbs that required protection ( pitons in those days) were Class 5, while those that required aid were Class 6, the decimal ‘modification’ for those 2 grades was created ( initially for Tahquitz Rock) in the ‘50s by Royal Robbins, Don Wilson, and Chuck Wilts and modified several times subsequently. The a,b,c,d. subdivisions for 10 and above was introduced by Jim Bridwell in the early ‘70s, though some areas have retained the + and - subdivisions instead ( especially for traditional routes)—though most often with the 3 categories. 

Andy Shoemaker wrote:

I hear you.  You're saying you don't like climbing routes unless you know exactly how hard it will be for you.  I have bad news for you... Every climb feels different to every climber.  Hence the silliness in being upset with there only being 12 increments between 5.6 and 5.12 in stead of the 15 increments you feel have been stripped of.

Maybe take up distance road running?  Of power lifting?  Where the challenge presented is as close to a fixed value as possible.

PS. If you are looking for a 5.10 and found a 5.10- or a 5.10+ you found a 5.10. If climbing a route that is not exactly as you expect it is upsetting to you, see suggested alternative activities above.

I don't think you hear me at all friend. I don't feel "stripped" of anything. Also, climbing a route with a grade I disagree with is not "upsetting" to me. The whole point of grades is to have an idea of what you're getting on before you get on it. 

But thanks for man-splaining that if I'm climbing a 10- or a 10+ I've "found a 5.10." 

Perhaps you should take up some alternate activities as well, like not being a condescending jerk.

Bickle wrote:

….. Why do we need to adapt to a dumbed down version?  

uhhhhh….it’s a gym?

Molly Haight wrote:

When there is no 5.10, 5.11 etc it makes it hard to know whether a route you are getting on is four letter grades harder than your previous climb or just one. 

At one time exploration into the unknown was a virtue of climbing. Even the relative unknown in a climbing gym might recapture this sense of adventure. But carefully calibrating one's progression, step-by-step, is far more important, like reducing the strokes on a putting green. 

When I contemplated possible futures of climbing back in the 1950s - long before sport climbing - I knew there would be grade-chasing but both the number of participants and the intense attachments to numbers and letters, I did not imagine. 

Latter, in the 1980s, Pat Ament and I would joke about rock climbing becoming principally a women's sport, like gymnastics has more or less become (but that happened mostly due to Title 9).  I wouldn't even hazard to guess . . .

Bickle wrote:

The YDS has been around since the 30's or 50's depending on which history you read, it not what I was okay with, it is what I was taught and have been using for the last 20+ years I have been climbing. Why do we need to adapt to a dumbed down version?  I have never been one to keep my mouth shut or not be able to speak my mind so this actually comes quite naturally for me. 

My understanding is that when a route is established on rock the FA suggests a grade and a process begins.  If the FA was off by a meaningful amount then over months and years additional climbers get on the route and adjustments to the grade are made by the community through word of mouth, new guidebooks, perhaps even MP's grade consensus.

While in a gym, not only is it not rock climbing, but the entire process is different.  It must take place over a few days by few individuals. It also will only matter for the weeks that the route is up.  And since climbing gyms are businesses they not only want happy customers, but they want to stay in business.  So whoever is directing the grading process has different motivations than the FA of a rock climb. For example, time efficiency, appealing to a wider range of experience levels, working with resources available, etc. They get to choose between 2 paths- have many increments (10a, 10b, 10c, 10d) knowing they will regularly get it "wrong" and have some number of customers will be peaved that they couldn't climb the grade their ego wants them to be able to climb.  Or they use fewer increments, allowing for a larger margin of error, and have some number of customers upset that they have to figure out for themselves if its and 10a or 10b.  

Since the process for rock and for plastic is very different I see little value in comparing gym grading to rock grading.  When a rock route is graded improperly climbers can get into terrible situations.  When a plastic route is graded improperly gym staff get complaints.  It's an apples and oranges situation in my book.  

For someone rehabbing an injury and wanting to stay below a certain difficulty- you don't have to finish the route.  You can let go and have a safe fall on to the rope at any time, this is the beauty of plastic climbing.  I find my rehab is more successful if I limit my movement based on the physical sensations I experience on the plastic, rather than relying on the subjective grade established by few individuals.  I also recognize that if I can't figure out how to improve my climbing by lapping a 10a that I thought was a 10b I have completely abandoned a beginners mindset and my climbing will plateau regarldess of the gym's grading policy.

To Ol Toby- you're right- I my previous post was overly snarky.  I apologize, I could have done better.  It's just so hard to even take this conversation seriously.  But thats no excuse for me being a condescending jerk.

My gym uses the +/ /- system which includes just 5.10, 5.11 etc. 

They are only intended to give you a relative sense of the difficulty of the route. 

Gym climbing grades don’t mean shit beyond the context of that gym (sometimes not even then). I feel like everyone who climbs outside knows this?

So wait, what exactly is wrong with easy 5.x and hard 5.x? I've climbed plenty of routes graded this way, and honestly think about grades in terms of + and - rather than a super nuanced a/b/c/d. 

Andy talked about rock and plastic being graded differently for a few reasons, and the fact that plastic isn't forever (ironic) makes me care even less about how precisely it's graded. It's not a valid benchmark to compare yourself to. You can only really get that by returning to climbs you've done months or years earlier, which shouldn't happen in a gym. So the only reason we need gym grades at all is for relative difficulty, no?

I suggest they go back to the old 5.0 to 5.9 scale and call it a day. 

Ol Toby wrote:

The new grading system at Movement is dumb. What if I'm looking for a 5.10? My only options now are 5.10- or 5.10+. Why? This makes it harder to find a climb that is the difficulty I'm looking for, not easier. 

I actually greatly prefer the +/- system for grading over the .a-.d grading, but +/- only makes sense if there is a middle grade. Movement arbitrarily deciding to remove the grades of 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, etc. is silly and makes no sense. 

I don't know what Kaya is, and I don't care. I don't have my smartphone out at the gym, nor do I want to have to check an app to see what a climbing grade is. 

Definitely mirrors my thoughts. I don't appreciate the change (what does it matter if it uses +/- or a/b/c/d, it's still going to feel different to different people), but to not even go to -/ /+ is absurd.

I'm right at the 12b/c level in the gym. 12b's go in a few to more than a few burns. 12c's... some go, some don't. 12d's are at the point of probably not going before they get reset. In my experience, the grading is consistent (at least at my Movement), basically never does a grade not fit into this schema. 

Part of why gyms are so popular is because they are useful as a training tool. Being able to calibrate the difficulty of a session/ climb/ circuit/ whatever. Reducing that usefulness is unhelpful to say the least. 

I figured I was fairly alone in this, but that doesn't seem to be the case. How do we let Movement know? I'd be fine if they printed up more placards for the flat grades. That then addresses one of their concerns about the new system being less time-intensive and wasteful than the old. 

I’ve been to gyms in the past that do the +/- grades only up to 5.10 or 5.11. As in:

.10- .10 .10+ .11- .11 .11+ .12a .12b .12c etc.

This was fine by me, and so when Movement made the change I wasn’t too concerned about it.  But… I have found that for grades above 5.11+ those tags feel to me like too wide a range for one “label” —

I don’t know if this is because these grades are more at my limit as Chris was describing, or because “grades are exponential not linear” as I’ve heard said before.  Either way, I’ve liked the above mentioned system, since often I couldn’t tell you whether a route is .10a and .10b, but I have a much stronger opinion about a 12a vs 12b or 12c vs 12d.

Bickle wrote:

Curious if there are other members in the climbing community that share the bitterness and judgement I do towards Movement Climbing Gyms new indoor rating system?

For those that are not aware Movement Climbing Gyms with more than 20 gyms through the US has decided to make up a new rating system. They moved from the traditional a,b,c,d system to just + & -.  You will now see in Movement gyms the following: 5.10- and 5.10+, there is no longer 5.10, 5.11 or 5.12. 

They have done this to "make it easier on route setters" and maybe to make people feel better about themselves, I don't know. 

Personally, I find this disrespectful and just wild that Movement is now teaching a new generation of climbers that 5.10 and 5.11 no longer exists. Why in the world would they decide to come up with a grading scale that as far as I know doesn't match a single outdoor climbing area? Doesn't that seem wrong? Maybe I just care too much that gyms continue to sanitize climbing and this is just another example. 

If you feel similar and are a Movement gym member please make your voice heard here is the 2023 Customer Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DZPT7FR 

Are you having fun and pushing your limit?  Then grades don't matter.

Are you not having fun and pushing your limit?  Then grades matter.

This should be referred to as the Bowel Movement Decimal System.

The Gravity Vault in Poughkeepsie is so inconsistent internally that any correspondence with outdoor grades is hit or miss.    In view of an often two-grade spread on gym routes of comparable difficulty, the illusion of precision provided by subdividing the high grades into four more categories is just that---an illusion. And when you're that far off, you won't be rescued by +'s and -'s.  

Whether this matters is another matter.  As far as exercise is concerned, you get the same effect from a misgraded route as from a correctly graded one, and the only consequences from out-of-whack grades are inflated or deflated egos.

The Inner Wall in New Paltz started out with color grades accompanied by letters of the alphabet.  Within a few weeks, everyone had translated them into the decimal system.

All that said, compressing a multigrade top end into a 5.10- to 5.10 + range is pretty silly for 2023.  Of course, that's exactly what happened historically (with however fewer high grades to compress), but there's no advantage to turning back the clock that far.

If gyms used some kind of consensus grading system, things might be better.  Maybe we should start using P9, P10, P11,... for plastics grades, with the understanding that 5.(x-1)- <= Px <= 5.(x+1)+ with the occasional worse exceptions.

I don't think anyone needs to be clutching their pearls over perceived offenses to outdoor grades, which after all are inconsistent enough in their own right with any help from plastic.

John Gill wrote:

At one time exploration into the unknown was a virtue of climbing. Even the relative unknown in a climbing gym might recapture this sense of adventure. But carefully calibrating one's progression, step-by-step, is far more important, like reducing the strokes on a putting green. 

When I contemplated possible futures of climbing back in the 1950s - long before sport climbing - I knew there would be grade-chasing but both the number of participants and the intense attachments to numbers and letters, I did not imagine. 

Latter, in the 1980s, Pat Ament and I would joke about rock climbing becoming principally a women's sport, like gymnastics has more or less become (but that happened mostly due to Title 9).  I wouldn't even hazard to guess . . .

I live for comments like this. I picture you writing it with a corncob pipe between chapped lips, reminiscing about the good old days before people believed in “grade chasing” and “equality”. Back when climbing was pure, spiritual, manly, a virtuous place to escape the drudgeries back in “civilization”, like any of the social progress some city slickers cared for in those mythical yonder years of the fifties, sixties, seventies, fuck, all the way to the nowadays.

anyway puff puff pass when you get a chance. 

Without grades, how will we be able to tell who is having the most fun?

abandon moderation wrote:

I mean, a comment from the guy who created the first bouldering grade system (and, well, bouldering itself as a sport) probably adds something valuable to a thread about grades.

Your comment, not so much...

Ah yes a misogynistic, condescending comment adds so much to this thread about gym grades 

Jess M wrote:

I live for comments like this. I picture you writing it with a corncob pipe between chapped lips, reminiscing about the good old days before people believed in “grade chasing” and “equality”. Back when climbing was pure, spiritual, manly, a virtuous place to escape the drudgeries back in “civilization”, like any of the social progress some city slickers cared for in those mythical yonder years of the fifties, sixties, seventies, fuck, all the way to the nowadays.

anyway puff puff pass when you get a chance. 

I agree, I should not have gotten into this thread. Should've stuck with my old corn cob.

Sometimes people read into comments what they would like to find in them. Of course there was grade chasing back then, just not to the extent it is today as far as I can tell. "pure, spiritual, manly, . . ." - nonsense. Escaping social progress and not believing in equality? Well, the 1960s was quite an experience. I was in the deep south at the time, and I supported racial equality when doing so was not as easy as it is now. I was on campus at the U of Ala demonstrating against George Wallace standing in the door of the Ad building denying registration to a Black man. A member of our group commented on one of the old canons going off at the ROTC building, "I hope they hit the son of a bitch this time!" They were not talking about the prospective student. 

Mythical yonder years? How about those daily reports on Huntley-Brinkley News about the number of American casualties in Vietnam? I served in the military at the beginning of that disaster. How about all the assassinations? I had a friend who stayed in the dorm hall at the U of Georgia in some measure to protect Charlayne Hunter-Gault a few doors down, fearful not only of demonstrators but of certain State Troopers supposedly guarding her. 

"Ah yes a misogynistic, condescending comment adds so much to this thread about gym grades ". Misogynistic remarks? 

My comment reflected what Pat and I had witnessed being gymnasts in the late 1950s. It was mainly a men's sport at the time. There were women's teams but most of the financial support went to the guys as I recollect. After Title 9, universities pulled back on men's gymnastics and put the money into the women's sport. I actually thought this was a good thing, although some of my gymnastic friends were dismayed. Pat and I watched women's gymnastics flourish as they got better and better. As time passed someone off the street asked about a gymnast would visualize a female, not a guy.

You think I was or am misogynistic? 

After ten years of my first marriage, Women's Liberation became popular. I not only agreed with my wife when she thought of getting involved, I joined the movement with her, attending meetings and giving support. When we agreed she was missing out on a career on her own we amicably settled a divorce ourselves, with me having primary custody of our young daughter. Those were days in which both parents working was not as common as now.

Both of you have mischaracterized what I said.