Talk:Grade (climbing)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, a project to systematically present information on climbing. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) |
Contents |
[edit] Comparison Table
I don't want to tread on anyones toes, but would it be worth replacing the grade comparison table image with a markup based table as below? This would allow the table to be edited if necessary. -- pcrtalk 20:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| Rock Climbing Rating Systems | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sierra (USA) |
British (UK) |
French | UIAA (Central Europe) |
Australian | GDR (Eastern Europe) |
|
| 5.4 | ||||||
| 5.5 | 4a | VS | ||||
| 5.6 | 4b | |||||
| 5.7 | 4c | 5a | 5+ | 15 | VIIa | |
| 5.8 | HVS | 5b | 6- | 16 | VIIb | |
| 5.9 | 5a | 5c | 6 | 17 | ||
| 5.10a | E1 | 6a | 6+ | 18 | VIIc | |
| 5.10b | 5b | 7- | 19 | VIIIa | ||
| 5.10c | E2 | 6b | 7 | 20 | VIIIb | |
| 5.10d | 5c | 7+ | 21 | VIIIc | ||
| 5.11a | E3 | 6c | 22 | IXa | ||
| 5.11b | 8- | 23 | IXb | |||
| 5.11c | 6a | E4 | 7a | 8 | 24 | IXc |
| 5.11d | 8+ | 25 | ||||
| 5.12a | E5 | 7b | 26 | Xa | ||
| 5.12b | 6b | 9- | Xb | |||
| 5.12c | E6 | 7c | 9 | 27 | ||
| 5.12d | 6c | 9+ | 28 | Xc | ||
| 5.13a | E7 | 8a | 29 | |||
| 5.13b | 10- | |||||
| 5.13c | 7a | 8b | 10 | 30 | ||
| 5.13d | E8 | 10+ | 31 | |||
| 5.14a | 8c | 32 | ||||
| 5.14b | 7b | 11- | ||||
| 5.14c | E9 | 11 | 33 | |||
| 5.14d | 7c | 9a | 11+ | |||
In principle, I think this is a great idea. One change that I think would be beneficial though is the removal of the horizontal borders between the grades. Those lines currently imply (at least to me) a clear boundary between grades and, more crucially, a definite correspondance between respective grades in the various scales. I'm not sure how straight-forward such a change would be, but if you can do that then I'll wholeheartedly recommend using this table instead. Stewart Adcock 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense, I've removed the horizontal lines and replaced the alternating row shading, which also tended to suggest equivalence, with a gradual gradient. I'm going to sit on this for a few minutes and if i still like it put it in the main page. -- pcrtalk 22:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Great! Can you put the horizontal borders back into the heading section? Stewart Adcock 22:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not easily! I'm using the wiki tables format which is a little more constrained than regular html tables, but is easier for non-geeks to edit when the table has been created. I'll see whether i can do something though. -- pcrtalk 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not certain how to change it, but in the current table the lower end of the Finnish grading is completely wrong at least in comparison to UK grades - which I know. 5- is about UK 4c, 5/5+ is 5a to hard 5a, 5+/6- is 5b. Sustained 6- routes like Ukkosen Johdatin at Olhava would be considered tough E1 5b in UK grades. Few finnish routes are graded lower than 4+, but 4+ would be around 4b and 4 about 4a. - Finnishing 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ewbank system
"...climb that is well-protected and offers good rests but has a couple of very difficult moves around 19 or 20 might also be a 17"
Serious?? I don't know Mr. Ewbank personally, but like it says earlier in the article his system initially only tried to rate the hardest move. Now it has become the custom that if a route is long and sustained then it might be rated 19 even though no single move on the route can be said to be harder than 17. But if a route has one move that is clearly a 19, then the route is a 19 no matter how easy the rest of the route is. Anyone agree?
(1) I completely agree with all the facts on this page . My experience (and reason :-)) says that the route difficulty (grade) is rather an "energetic" weight of all the route than the weight of one of it's move . :-) Problem is how to calculate unknown difficulty of system of moves from known difficulty of particular moves . :-) This is harder than intuitively expected , this is serious problem of physics related to many-body systems and interactions . Therefore we can only follow the way of intuitive definition of the grade of the route , in the end . :-(
Just let me add some facts of that :
Even though some routes have the moves quite separable one from other , so the difficulty of them doesn't "accumulate" to rise the grade of all the route , it is not the case for most of routes . Especially , this is not true for the routes of top-most grades on the rock . Generally , it is not the case at all , even worse it is relative dependent on training and skills of the climber .
The interaction between moves contributes significantly to the route difficulty (energy) , to the grade of the route , it causes accumulation of difficulty . This is generally physics of interactions topic , specially the biochemistry of the body system – metabolism topic . If two consequent moves are to difficult in connection to the relaxation space between them (relax is to short) , then the fuel of muscles decreases (on one level) and second move is done in relatively harder biological context than the first one , so is harder . This fact is objective and directly implies increase of difficulty .
The decrease of muscles fuel strongly depends on the level of ability and training of the person . So it is that not only difficulty of moves is relatively different for different climbers , but even the difficulty accumulation effect of the moves differs from climber to climber . This makes it even more hard to define grade of the route objectively . It means that the route difficulty is not a linear function of relative (with respect to person) moves difficulty , but a quadratic one at least . It means that two difficulty grades are closer one to other for the trained climber then for less trained one . (This also partially explains why expert climbers continuously downgrade the older routes . Partially it is because their sensitivity to low grades which are far from their current max. degenerates .) It means that as you are going to succeed in being trained and skilled climber , the difficulty of concrete route relatively decrease for you not linearly but at least quadratically . The route is becoming for you more decomposed to the moves as interactions becoming weaker comparing to moves difficulty . Moves difficulty go down linearly while interactions go down quadratically .
“General true” is that harder the route is for you , higher the interaction quotient is (for you) so higher is accumulation of difficulty . :-) Event this theorem is disputable but it would be than very long debate and it already is . :-) . Let’s conclude that putting energy to training makes the route easier regardless what and how many aspects are the cause .
Conclusion : it is wise to define difficulty of the route after some count of repetitions to reach some objectiveness but still at the time it is relatively hard for us . Then the grade should be locked and should stand as standard base for next routes and grades . The grade is than somehow well defined as it reached some objectiveness in form of well defined biological context . It has then somehow reasonably included accumulation part of difficulty . The grade of the route should be defined by climbers who have good sensitivity in concrete part of grade scale , by those whose max is near concrete grade . That’s my opinion got from the practice .
(2) Almost all the transformation table is almost perfect and is the best I've seen on the internet :-) I'd just suggest change to last lines : 5.14.d American is equal to 9a French which is equal to 11 UIAA . That's my opinion supported by the literature and opinions of climbers published in the articles . It is not supported by my experience :-) . I can personally help only to the grade of 10 UIAA (8b French) . American 5.15a , French 9a+ , UIAA 11+ is usual agreement for the next scale degree , according to what I've read . American scaling therefore litle bit inflates in 5.14 grade . Actually it inflates probably since 5.11 :-) . 5.13 b is rather 8a French , my opinion . 5.12 b can be 8+ UIAA . Let others decide :-) . But definitely , Action Directe is a standard , and it is 11 UIAA = 9a French = 5.14 d USA .
??
This is my suggestion :
| Rock Climbing Rating Systems | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sierra (USA) |
British (UK) |
French | UIAA (Central Europe) |
Australian | GDR (Eastern Europe) |
|
| 5.4 | ||||||
| 5.5 | 4a | VS | ||||
| 5.6 | 4b | |||||
| 5.7 | 4c | 15 | ||||
| 5.8 | HVS | 5a | 6- | 16 | VIIa | |
| 5.9 | 5a | 5b | 6 | 17 | VIIb | |
| 5.10a | E1 | 5c | 6+ | 18 | VIIc | |
| 5.10b | 5b | 6a | 19 | |||
| 5.10c | E2 | 7- | 20 | VIIIa | ||
| 5.10d | 5c | 6b | 7 | 21 | VIIIb | |
| 5.11a | E3 | 7+ | 22 | VIIIc | ||
| 5.11b | 6c | 23 | ||||
| 5.11c | 6a | E4 | 8- | 24 | IXa | |
| 5.11d | 7a | 8 | 25 | IXb | ||
| 5.12a | E5 | 8+ | 26 | IXc | ||
| 5.12b | 6b | 7b | ||||
| 5.12c | E6 | 9- | 27 | Xa | ||
| 5.12d | 6c | 7c | 9 | 28 | Xb | |
| 5.13a | E7 | 9+ | 29 | Xc | ||
| 5.13b | 8a | |||||
| 5.13c | 7a | 10- | 30 | |||
| 5.13d | E8 | 8b | 10 | 31 | ||
| 5.14a | 10+ | 32 | ||||
| 5.14b | 7b | 8c | ||||
| 5.14c | E9 | 11- | 33 | |||
| 5.14d | 7c | 9a | 11 | |||
[edit] Yosemite Decimal System (revert)
I don't mean to be rude by simply reverting, but the new version was incorrect. YDS does rate a climb based on the difficulty of the hardest move. (See e.g. Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills.) -- Spireguy 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Free Climbing First!
It seems odd that when going to specifics, that aid climbing comes first. Free climbing is the most popular discipline, and really should come first. I'd like to move the Aid Climbing section down perhaps to just after Free Climbing, maybe lower. Objections? Discussion? Ratagonia 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ISBNs on old books
I prefer listing the ISBN that is shown on the actual book. If the same edition is available with a modern ISBN, then that is good to list. (Roper Yo Guide 1971 has an older ISBN that does not automatically link). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] British (and Irish)
The British grading system may be used in Ireland, just as the French system is used outside France, but it was invented in Britain and is universally called British - I've never heard it called "British and Irish" outside Wikipedia. I've therefore reverted to the usual name, with a mention of the fact that it is used in GB and Ireland; I think that should be sufficient. --Blisco 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vermin Bouldering Scale
Is there a reason the Vermin Bouldering Scale is not represented here? My suggestion:
| Rock Climbing Rating Systems | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YDS (USA) |
British (UK) Tech/Adj |
French | Vermin | UIAA (Central Europe) |
Ewbank (Australian) | GDR (Eastern Europe) |
Finnish | Brazilian | |
| 5.2 | 1 | I | Isup | ||||||
| 5.3 | 2 | II | 11 | II | |||||
| 5.4 | 3 | III | 12 | IIsup | |||||
| 5.5 | 4a | VD | 4 | IV | III | ||||
| 5.6 | S | 5a | V− | 13 | 5− | IIIsup | |||
| 5.7 | 4b | HS | 5b | V | 14 | 5 | IV | ||
| 4c | V+ | 15 | |||||||
| 5.8 | VS | 5c | VI− | 16 | VIIa | 5+ | IVsup | ||
| 5.9 | 5a | HVS | 6a | VI | 17 | VIIb | V | ||
| 5.10a | E1 | 6a+ | V0 | VI+ | 18 | VIIc | 6− | VI | |
| 5.10b | 5b | 19 | VI/VI+ | ||||||
| 5.10c | E2 | 6b | V1 | VII− | 20 | VIIIa | 6 | VIsup/VI+ | |
| 5.10d | 5c | 6b+ | VII | 21 | VIIIb | VIsup | |||
| 5.11a | E3 | 6c | V2 | VII+ | 22 | VIIIc | 6+ | 7a | |
| 5.11b | 6c+ | 23 | 7b | ||||||
| 5.11c | 6a | E4 | 7a | V3 | VIII− | 24 | IXa | 7− | 7c |
| 5.11d | 7a+ | VIII | IXb | 7 | 8a | ||||
| 5.12a | E5 | 7b | V4 | VIII+ | 25 | IXc | 7+ | 8b | |
| 5.12b | 6b | 7b+ | 26 | 8− | 8c | ||||
| 5.12c | E6 | 7c | V5 | IX− | 27 | Xa | 8 | 9a | |
| 5.12d | 6c | 7c+ | V6 | IX | 28 | Xb | 8+ | 9b | |
| 5.13a | E7 | 8a | V7 | IX+ | 29 | Xc | 9− | 9c | |
| 5.13b | V8 | 9 | |||||||
| 5.13c | 7a | 8a+ | V9 | X− | 30 | 9+ | 10a | ||
| 5.13d | E8 | 8b | V10 | X | 31 | 10− | 10b | ||
| 5.14a | 8b+ | V11 | X+ | 32 | 10 | 10c | |||
| 5.14b | 7b | 8c | V12 | 10+ | 11a | ||||
| 5.14c | E9 | 8c+ | V13 | XI− | 33 | 11− | 11b | ||
| 5.14d | 7c | 9a | V14 | XI | 34 | 11 | 11c | ||
| 5.15a | 9a+ | V15 | 12a | ||||||
This table is a bit off in terms of the Vermin Scale. You should refer to 8a.nu to get a more accurate comparison of rating scales. Barhamd (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- A few points:
-
- The V scale isn't mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, making this column very confusing to the diligent reader.
- There is already a Grade (bouldering) article which explains the different bouldering grades, although it doesn't yet have a comparison table; perhaps it should.
- If there is to be a comparison of bouldering and climbing grades at all, it ought to be accompanied by the usual disclaimer that it's like comparing apples and oranges. (In slightly more encyclopedic language of course.) --Blisco (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ice Climbing Grades
Hey, does anyone else think it appropriate to add on to the ice climbing grades section? I know that in the article there is no mention of the New England Ice system, as outlined here (at the bottom of the page). I think it might be a good thing to add, for as far as I know, all the ice climbs in, for instance, the Adirondacks, are still rated with NEI style ratings. akokskis 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
Some examples associating grades with specific mountain climbs would be helpful and illustrative. I'm not an expert in this area and I find the article (and the child articles with each different systems) all give little context. -Rolypolyman (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am assuming that unless they are considered "World Class" climbs (Yosemite's nose, Mt. Everest, etc.) that most examples would be biased to the location of the climbers, and although YDS is use in most US locations, a 5.11 in Utah would be considered a 5.9 by most Yosemite climbers, so giving examples might not really be applicable here? --Billy Nair (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Possibility of Death
I added "(possibility of death/injury, even when properly protected)" to the R/X ratings in the YDS section and thought that it might need clarification. Long runouts are never considered "Properly Protected" but since some say that once a route has been established you can not add bolts to it, some climbs will not be properly protected according to definition. One example of this is "The Shinning" above the Ahwahnee, a 5.13 face climb with nowhere for natural-pro placement, intentionally left as a runout to prevent "Hang-Dogging". It has one bolt between the top and bottom belay stations and so the posibility of taking a 180 foot wipper is pretty high. There are also climbs that due to the layout of the rock will send you flying into another rock if you fall, even with maximum protection, like some overhangs. So climbing the route as intended with "Normal" protection (no added bolts or body armor, aside from helmets), is what I meant by "properly protected". So climbing the route as intended with "Normal" protection (no added bolts or body armor, aside from helmets), is what I meant by "properly protected". If you can think of better phrase try it, I might like it. --Billy Nair (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
