Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

grade table for the masses

Olbert

4-Jul-2010
11:09:22 PM

On 4/07/2010 davidn wrote:
>I guess I'm saying that I understand there's a bazillion possible variations,
>but only of a few definable variables, i.e:
>
>Type of climb (face, crack, offwidth crack, slab, stairs, ladder, brick
>wall)
>
>hold used (jug, crimp, sloper, the cliff itself)
>
>part of body used (hand, foot, back, knee, nose, eyelash)
>
>approach to hold (pulling down, up, sideways, leaning on it, using it
>for friction)
>
>orientation of body (up-down, left-right, down-up, all points off dyno,
>limbs akimbo)

Im not saying this is a daft idea but...

On all levels this would not work - clearly not the practical, but even in the theoretical/hyperthetical this would not work. In addition to Wendy's arguements there are the infinite amount of small variations that make a huge difference. A crux of a 20 might be a high step off small horazontal crimps where the holds one metre apart. A crux of a grade 30 might be a high step off small crimps (the same measurable size) where the holds are one metre apart. The grade 30's crimps may be slightly more knobly which wouldnt really be measured, the foothold you are using might be slightly smearier, and placed 15cm to one side putting you completely off balance.

The two crux's are analytically similar with the same size crimps and the same size move but are 10 grades apart. The whole idea is completely daft even in a 'what if' or hyperthetical context. This isnt just an out there example but the reality of differences between routes and grades.

If we did indulge ourselves in a hyperthetical the list of useful moves at a particular grade would be so long and convoluded with ifs and buts that it would be utterly useless to a normal person - "A 23 roof climb of 4 metres with a crux at the lip of the roof may have a crux hold of approximately 10 centimetres flat, or 8 centimeters with a lip, or 13 centimetres if a sloper, if its frictiony rock then the sloper may be 12 centimeters. If there is a useful healhook in the near vicinity all measurements are multiplied by a constant of 0.75. If the roof climb went for 5 metres with a crux at the lip..."

By general consensus (with a few exceptions) the Ewbank climbing system grades routes on all factors that are appropriate to a route. Basically its an indication of how hard the first assentionist felt the route to be, that is all. If it is particularly different to how a guidebook author feels then the grade might be changed. It is completely impossible, not to mention useless, to even consider building a list of moves that climbers should be able to perform at a particular grade.

egosan

5-Jul-2010
1:48:04 AM

On 4/07/2010 davidn wrote:
>I guess I'm saying that I understand there's a bazillion possible variations,
>but only of a few definable variables, i.e:

... and God forbid if you use a hold that the first ascentionist didn't. That would be aiding! You can't claim the onsight! You used your thumb on that hold!

If you want that kind of reducibility, stay indoors.

Excerpt from the IFSC rule book:

When a competitor holds an object (a foothold or a part of an object) with his/her hands
which was not yet defined and makes a useful climbing movement from this object, then
this object will be considered a handhold as of that moment. The handhold will be
included in the numbering. See handhold number 14.5 in the illustration.
When two handholds are at the same distance along the line of the route and only one
of them must be used, then both handholds should be given the same number.
Remark: For example, if a competitor holds a “foothold” (not previously declared a
handhold) at the same height as handhold 20 in the illustration and makes a useful
climbing movement on this foothold, then this foothold will become a handhold and will
also be given number 20.

Wendy

5-Jul-2010
9:39:18 AM

On 5/07/2010 davidn wrote:
>Soo... Now that I've had my fun, here's what I originally envisioned along
>the lines of the write-up in Freedom of the Hills - somewhat less complex
>than the afore-mentioned analysis:
>
I think your sample, whilst it sounds nice, varies from useless to misleading. I can find plenty of easy classics with overhangs at Araps, most easy routes tend to wander rather than straight up-down by nature of finding the line of least resistance and you’d struggle to fit any of the easy routes at Frog, Bundaleer, Buffalo, Moonarie amonst others into your box. You’re not telling anyone what “advanced techniques” are that they might expect to encounter or how to do them or where to find out about them. If you really wanted to provide beginners with something useful, I’d try a general technique list with caveats that it’s far from exhaustive and most techniques can be practiced on relatively easy routes and good technique is best practiced from the word dot. How you climb a grade 8 translates to how you climb an 18 or 28. If you throw your feet at holds and thug mindlessly on easy routes, that’s the habit you will take to hard routes. It’s also far easier to learn/practice a new technique on easy ground than hard ground. Some training book somewhere has probably already done this for you.

widewetandslippery

5-Jul-2010
12:08:23 PM

Given the original post was asking for suggestions for a simple way of describing grades I think 11, 17, 23, 27, 31 and 35 make good indicating grades for in and outside climbing

11: most with a moderate level of fitness will climb this.
17: you need good fitness or a good level of natural coordination and balance to climb this.
23: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you are a natural.
27: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you are supernatural and probally lying.
31: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you are a liar
35: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you are a master bullshiter and should be congratulated.

egosan

5-Jul-2010
1:11:28 PM

On 5/07/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:

>35: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you
>are a master bullshiter and should be congratulated.

Got me snickering. Ta.


ajfclark

5-Jul-2010
1:23:51 PM

Surely somewhere in that list should be "and you don't understand you must be from the UK" or something along those lines... They seem to find our grading system as baffling as we find theirs.


garbie

5-Jul-2010
2:18:26 PM

On 5/07/2010 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Given the original post was asking for suggestions for a simple way of
>describing grades I think 11, 17, 23, 27, 31 and 35 make good indicating
>grades for in and outside climbing
>
>11: most with a moderate level of fitness will climb this.
>17: you need good fitness or a good level of natural coordination and
>balance to climb this.
>23: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you
>are a natural.
>27: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you
>are supernatural and probally lying.
>31: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you
>are a liar
>35: If you can climb this and don't understand the grading system you
>are a master bullshiter and should be congratulated.

Thats gold I'll try to work some of that into the poster.

Also if 19 was done in '65, what were we up to in 1971?

widewetandslippery

5-Jul-2010
3:03:47 PM

19s are hard 17s or very easy 23s.


gordoste

5-Jul-2010
3:15:15 PM

How about these descriptions?

7: Easy
12: Moderate
17: Difficult
22: Severe
27: Extreme
32: Very Extreme (we could abbreviate this to E2)
37: Very Very Extreme (aka E3)

Of course, none of these apply to grit, which would need an open-ended numeric grading system.

5-Jul-2010
4:45:34 PM

On 5/07/2010 gordoste wrote:
>How about these descriptions?
>
>7: Easy
>12: Moderate
>17: Difficult
>22: Severe
>27: Extreme
>32: Very Extreme (we could abbreviate this to E2)
>37: Very Very Extreme (aka E3)

For grade 23 may I suggest Klaw's adjectival grade of Mild Very Hairy?


dimpet

5-Jul-2010
4:45:49 PM

How about using the percentage of people in the world who could climb that grade.

1 99.9%
4 90%
10 50%
15 10%
20 1%
34 0.000001%
37 0.000000000001%

In very very small writing at the bottom.
(all numbers are purely fictional :P)


kuu

5-Jul-2010
5:16:47 PM

On 5/07/2010 gordoste wrote:

>
>Of course, none of these apply to grit, which would need an open-ended
>numeric grading system.

Yeh, but what did John (Ewbank) ever do on grit?

PeterW

30-Mar-2016
12:45:53 AM

On 4/07/2010 BA wrote:
>In the original Araps guide there were no climbs graded 19. In volume
>2 of the Araps guide (the black guide), Werewolf was graded 18 and done
>in November 1966, The Rack was 19 (April 1968), Morfydd was 19 (29/6/1968),
>Death Row grade 19 was done on 30/7/1967
>
>Death Row would appear to be the first climb graded 19 at Araps.

I just tripped over this post, so sorry for the *very* late reply!

Puss 'n Boots on Kitten Wall was done on 9/6/67. It was originally graded 17! (Because the first ascensionist didn't know any better!) These days it's regarded as a solid 19. It was probably the hardest climb at Arapiles in it's day!


ambyeok

30-Mar-2016
1:12:10 PM

I suggest the following grades based on our National Terrorism Threat Advisory System:

Average punters likelihood of death without a rope:

Grade 1 - Not expected
Grade 6 - Possible
Grade 12 - Probable
Grade 16 - Expected
Grade 18 - Certain

There are 34 messages in this topic.