on climbing grades (and leading)
Aug. 31st, 2008 10:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dagibbsGrading or rating climbs is always tricky, and comparing grades is always interesting. The grades, in all the schemes, are a "subjective evaluation of how difficult the climb is". And how climbing difficulty is can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Oddly the British have probably the most complete system. For trad climbs, they give them a pair of ratings -- something like HS-4C where the first part "HS" (Hard Severe) refers to the difficulty of protecting the route, and the second "4C" refers to the technical difficulty of the climbing itself. Often the two go up in tandem, though it is quite possible to have a route that is climbable, but poorly protected which will rate quite a bit higher on the first -- and vice versa. This split grade is quite nice. And, for sport climbs, you would just drop the first half, since protecting is easy. (Well, assuming the bolting is well done.)
The North America (and in fact all the Americas) system of grades doesn't concern itself with protection, just technical difficulty, though there is a (not always used) adjunct for protection that ranges from PG to XXX (yes, just like movies, and I think it comes from movie ratings.)
But, for any system, how you judge a climb is interesting. Do you judge it based on the hardest move -- the crux? Or on the sustained level? Is a climb with an continual series of 5.9 moves with little to no rest a 5.9? What about a climb that is all 5.7 moves, with a 5.10a crux? Is it a 5.10a route? The first climb is, probably, the far harder climb.
And, the ratings vary from place to place. At gyms in Ottawa, Michigan, and much of central North America, I can generally climb in the 5.10a-5.10b range. But, I go to North-Eastern USA, and I will fall off 5.9s and not be able to finish any but a very few of them. While when I've gone to gyms in California, I have been able to complete 5.11a (or tougher) routes. But, "everybody" knows California (gym, at least) ratings are "soft". And then there is outdoor vs indoor. The local outdoor stuff seems to run about 2 grades tougher (give or take) than the indoor ratings. Is it a local phenomenon? I've not climbed outside enough places to really say, and in some cases didn't know the ratings, or they were in a foreign system (adding translation error). In Texas, I made it up a 5.10c outdoor climb, was it really that hard a climb?
As to foreign translation, this chart suggests that a French 5b rating is around a 5.7 North American, while this one suggests a 5b is more like 5.9. I led a 5c today, and it felt like a tough 5.9 or maybe 5.10a. I bailed on a 5c yesterday (one clip below the finish, the finish was FAR tougher than the rest of the route). Bailed after taking several tries at the finish, too. The finish felt a lot harder than 5.10a.
If that is really a 5.9-5.10a, then it is my hardest lead to date. It sure felt like it to me. But, it didn't feel like a Gatineau/Ottawa outdoor 5.9-5.10a. Maybe more like a gatineau 5.8. So, maybe both charts are right? Or neither. (Actually, it felt like my hardest lead to date no matter how it is actually rated.)
Oddly the British have probably the most complete system. For trad climbs, they give them a pair of ratings -- something like HS-4C where the first part "HS" (Hard Severe) refers to the difficulty of protecting the route, and the second "4C" refers to the technical difficulty of the climbing itself. Often the two go up in tandem, though it is quite possible to have a route that is climbable, but poorly protected which will rate quite a bit higher on the first -- and vice versa. This split grade is quite nice. And, for sport climbs, you would just drop the first half, since protecting is easy. (Well, assuming the bolting is well done.)
The North America (and in fact all the Americas) system of grades doesn't concern itself with protection, just technical difficulty, though there is a (not always used) adjunct for protection that ranges from PG to XXX (yes, just like movies, and I think it comes from movie ratings.)
But, for any system, how you judge a climb is interesting. Do you judge it based on the hardest move -- the crux? Or on the sustained level? Is a climb with an continual series of 5.9 moves with little to no rest a 5.9? What about a climb that is all 5.7 moves, with a 5.10a crux? Is it a 5.10a route? The first climb is, probably, the far harder climb.
And, the ratings vary from place to place. At gyms in Ottawa, Michigan, and much of central North America, I can generally climb in the 5.10a-5.10b range. But, I go to North-Eastern USA, and I will fall off 5.9s and not be able to finish any but a very few of them. While when I've gone to gyms in California, I have been able to complete 5.11a (or tougher) routes. But, "everybody" knows California (gym, at least) ratings are "soft". And then there is outdoor vs indoor. The local outdoor stuff seems to run about 2 grades tougher (give or take) than the indoor ratings. Is it a local phenomenon? I've not climbed outside enough places to really say, and in some cases didn't know the ratings, or they were in a foreign system (adding translation error). In Texas, I made it up a 5.10c outdoor climb, was it really that hard a climb?
As to foreign translation, this chart suggests that a French 5b rating is around a 5.7 North American, while this one suggests a 5b is more like 5.9. I led a 5c today, and it felt like a tough 5.9 or maybe 5.10a. I bailed on a 5c yesterday (one clip below the finish, the finish was FAR tougher than the rest of the route). Bailed after taking several tries at the finish, too. The finish felt a lot harder than 5.10a.
If that is really a 5.9-5.10a, then it is my hardest lead to date. It sure felt like it to me. But, it didn't feel like a Gatineau/Ottawa outdoor 5.9-5.10a. Maybe more like a gatineau 5.8. So, maybe both charts are right? Or neither. (Actually, it felt like my hardest lead to date no matter how it is actually rated.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-31 09:38 pm (UTC)- ME (Mild Embarrassment)
- CB (Cuts and Bruises)
- PS (Painful Sprain)
- CF (Compound Fracture)
- AA (Air Ambulance)
- CC (Closed Casket)
...but maybe that wouldn't be good for the sport's popularity.Congrats on succeeding on the climb!
I think I prefer the "+" or "-" to describe the peripheral factors, but the actual rating to describe the crux. A climb with lots of 5.9 moves would be a 5.9+, while a climb with all 5.7 or 5.8 moves except for a 5.10a crux would be a 5.10a-. For a rating without a + or -, I would assume the rest of the climb to be zero to two ratings easier than the crux, averaging around one-half to one rating easier.