Ratings drift
Chiloe
grades inspired me to pick up my battered old copy of
High Over Boulder (1967). Here are the grades of some
"trade routes" from those days; for comparison I looked up
the same routes today on climbingboulder.com.
*1967* *2002*
3rd Flatiron 4th 5.4 S
Calypso 5.5 5.6
The Bulge 5.6 5.7 S
Bastille Crack 5.6 5.7
Ruper 5.7 5.8+
Grand Giraffe 5.8 5.10a
Northcutt var. 5.9 5.10d
T2 5.9 5.10d
Vertigo 5.10 5.11b
Unlike the situation of rarely-done routes that are re-
graded as they become better known, all of these routes
were popular at their original grades. They have
different grades today, in most cases, because the
meaning of those grades has changed. Not all of the
old routes have moved so far, but I believe there
have been similar changes among classic routes at
some other areas as well.
kreighton
"Hans Lehmann" wrote
> What's the 'S' in the ratings? That's a new one for me.
S is for 'Serious', and preceeds 'VS', for Very Serious. Sort of a
compressed version of the PG / PG-13 / R and X scale. Very compressed you
might say. The few 'S' routes I've done in Eldo have run the gamut from good
pro to offering sphinchter clenching nightmare fall potential. Go fig.
kreighton
Clint Cummins
>The current thread about the origins and meaning of letter
>grades inspired me to pick up my battered old copy of
>High Over Boulder (1967). Here are the grades of some
>"trade routes" from those days; for comparison I looked up
>the same routes today on climbingboulder.com.
*1967* *1980* *2002*
3rd Flatiron 4th 5.2 R 5.4 S
Calypso 5.5 5.6 5.6
The Bulge 5.6 5.7 R 5.7 S
Bastille Crack 5.6 5.7 5.7
Ruper 5.7 5.8 5.8+
Grand Giraffe 5.8 5.9 5.10a
Northcutt var. 5.9 5.10+ 5.10d
T2 5.9 5.10 5.10d
Vertigo 5.10 5.11- 5.11b
"Let's blame Ament" :-)
Actually, sometimes holds break or get polished from repeated use.
In any event, the ratings were largely corrected by 1980.
And I'm not sure who can really tell the difference between
5.2 and 5.4, or even 5.9 and 5.10a.
Clint Cummins
Chiloe
> I'll add 1980 ratings from the "Rocky Heights" guidebook.
>
> *1967* *1980* *2002*
> 3rd Flatiron 4th 5.2 R 5.4 S
> Calypso 5.5 5.6 5.6
> The Bulge 5.6 5.7 R 5.7 S
> Bastille Crack 5.6 5.7 5.7
> Ruper 5.7 5.8 5.8+
> Grand Giraffe 5.8 5.9 5.10a
> Northcutt var. 5.9 5.10+ 5.10d
> T2 5.9 5.10 5.10d
> Vertigo 5.10 5.11- 5.11b
>
> "Let's blame Ament" :-)
> Actually, sometimes holds break or get polished from repeated use.
> In any event, the ratings were largely corrected by 1980.
Good point. And by 1980, 5.11 was firmly established, the
ceiling was lifted, and older climbs had new room to expand.
I admire Erickson's guidebook for two other innovations as
well. So far as I know, he invented the application of R/X
ratings to denote seriousness. (If there was no R or X, they
were presumed to be PG, but not shown as such. There was no
PG-13 in Rocky Heights, perhaps it wasn't in movies yet either?)
Also, Rocky Heights was the first guidebook I noticed using
3-star quality ratings. Previous U.S practice had been lists
of "recommended climbs."
Are there earlier applications of R/X or 3 stars, or was
Jim really the pioneer in applying these Hollywood motifs
to rock climbs?
Greg Sadowy
>
> I learned to lead in the Gunks. I could go climbing all-day, every-day, so I
> spent a few days leading 5.3's, then a few days leading 5.4, etc. I distinctly
> remember noticing the difference when I made the step from one easy grade to the
> next. There aren't many places in the country that have lots of easy climbs to
> choose from, let alone ones that seem to graded consistantly.
I also learned in the Gunks and had a similiar experience. To pick some
classics, it's easy to distiguish the difficulties of Three Pines (5.3),
Gelsa (5.4), Layback (5.5) and Madame G's (5.6). As you pointed out, the
Gunks has an abundance of easy climbs which allows for a greater
number of comparisons. Also the climbing is of consistant style making
comparisons easier. For example, in the valley, a 5.9 slab on the GPA is
very different from 5.9 OW on Sentinel. Just another reason not to take
rating too seriously.
-Greg
Glenn Woodsworth
news:1103_10...@netnews.attbi.com...
[snip]
> Good point. And by 1980, 5.11 was firmly established, the
> ceiling was lifted, and older climbs had new room to expand.
>
> I admire Erickson's guidebook for two other innovations as
> well. So far as I know, he invented the application of R/X
> ratings to denote seriousness. (If there was no R or X, they
> were presumed to be PG, but not shown as such. There was no
> PG-13 in Rocky Heights, perhaps it wasn't in movies yet either?)
>
> Also, Rocky Heights was the first guidebook I noticed using
> 3-star quality ratings. Previous U.S practice had been lists
> of "recommended climbs."
>
> Are there earlier applications of R/X or 3 stars, or was
> Jim really the pioneer in applying these Hollywood motifs
> to rock climbs?
Gordon Smaill's 1975 guidebook to Squamish used * rating system, and it or
a similar one has been used ever since at Squamish. No R/X ratings, though.
Glenn
___
Fern
> Gordon Smaill's 1975 guidebook to Squamish used * rating system, and it or
> a similar one has been used ever since at Squamish. No R/X ratings, though.
>
In the 1984 CAJ, "Squamish - The Horizons Broaden", John Howe describes a
Squamish Rating System similar to the British E - grade, a measure of gear
quality, boldness etc.. He lists a few benchmark climbs, eg. Neat and Cool, S1
5.9, Exasperator S2, 5.10c, Penguins in Bondage S4, 5.10c, Caboose S2, 5.10b. I
don't think the idea was ever carried over to the guidebooks though.
here's a short article about squamish ratings drift
http://home.primus.ca/~dooley/climbing/stories/squishgrade.html
->Fern
Guillaume Dargaud
> Bastille Crack 5.6 5.7
> Ruper 5.7 5.8+
> They have
> different grades today, in most cases, because the
> meaning of those grades has changed.
I disagree for those above. Some routes see a continuous line of climbers
and are so polished that I would even increase their current rating...
Bastille Crack is more than 5.7 nowadays.
On the other hand, routes with 'average' rock tend to become safer and thus
slighly easier (less fear factor, ie Dolomite).
--
Guillaume Dargaud
Colorado State University - Dept of Atmospheric Science
http://www.gdargaud.net/
"If in normal conditions it is skill, which counts, in such extreme
situations, it is the spirit, which saves." - Walter Bonatti.
Glenn Woodsworth
at Squamish but I don't think it was published. And John Howe's proposal
has not been picked up for Squamish use; the current guide (Kevin McLane's)
use a modified YDS.
Kevin McLane's "Alpine Select" guide to SW British Columbia is, I think, the
first North American guide to use a modified French grading system for
alpine routes - the system widely accepted by European climbers. It takes
into account technical difficulty, terrain, quality of pro and belays, how
remote the climb is, and all those other factors that contribute to degree
of "commttment" - just how strung-out you feel on a given route. This is an
excellent guidebook. This system is being used in the new Selkirks and
Waddington guides (I've read the Wadd guide in manuscript and it will be a
great guide).
The system should be internally consistent from range to range and, because
it is so new, should be immune from rating creep for a few years.
Glenn
"Fern" <fw...@geop.takemeaway.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:3CC84EA8...@geop.takemeaway.ubc.ca...
A. Cairns
Fern wrote:
Kevin McLane did use the S system in a guide -
Squamish: The New Free Climbs, 1984
"The general intent of the S grade is not unlike the British E grades."
"It is the job of the S grade to give a realistic overall rating that
considers all the factors that could prevent a successful lead."
Or:
S1 = doesn't suck too heavily
S6 = sucks very heavily severe
(translated by B. Burdo)
My copy includes:
Born Free, Nightmare Rock, * S3 5.10d, Now Aid
And:
The Puking Gecko, Grand Wall, *** S9 5.12d/e 712m
An intimidating and salacious climb. The final pitch is so exposed,
tricky, and continuously strenuous that it is impossible to even
contact the rock at any point. Better than making passionate love
on top of a Japanese Bullet Train. Superbly magnificent and
grimly brilliant.
1. 27m Start from halfway across the flake traverse on the second
pitch of Univ. Wall. Reverse the previous 4 moves, heel-hooking
the blood-stained crystal at the roof lip to gain the vertical featureless
face. Easier climbing leads from here to the two-bashie belay. 5.12b
(7PA)
2. 35m If you know the correct sequence, this is 5.6 on jugs. If not,
this becomes a 5.12a overhanging bombay flare chimney with no
protection. Hint: use a foot switch at 16m.
3. 56m 5.11c Inscrutable face climbing and continuously strenuous
knee-bars. The final moves are the crux and are unprotected, but no
problem as you must untie from the rope to finish the pitch anyway.
Brilliant.
4. 37.5m 5.12d/e At this point, the second must rappel the route
while the leader engages in deep-breathing exercises. By imaging
the most audacious, splendid, bold, and, yes, intimidating free-
climbing possible, the crux is transcended and the climber awakes
to find him(or her)self clinging unroped to the crux moves of
Zombie Roof, only 350m above a talus slope. This is surmounted
by pinching a leaf. Splendid. Bold.
FFR Peder Ostrich 1984
FUCAAB Peter Croft 1986
FPAAE Jeff Smoot, Dick Cille 1992
Andy Cairns
Thor Lancelot Simon
Guillaume Dargaud <news_co...@gdargaud.net> wrote:
>> Calypso 5.5 5.6
>> Bastille Crack 5.6 5.7
>> Ruper 5.7 5.8+
>
>> They have
>> different grades today, in most cases, because the
>> meaning of those grades has changed.
>I disagree for those above. Some routes see a continuous line of climbers
>and are so polished that I would even increase their current rating...
>Bastille Crack is more than 5.7 nowadays.
Oh, come *on*. One slippery foothold in a bomber crack surrounded by
plenty of face holds in nice textury sandstone? You call that more than
5.7? I don't understand this; some grades at Eldo seem plenty tough to
me, but even for a Gunkie who never climbs cracks, the Bastille felt like
pretty honest 5.6 when I was, more or less, a 5.6 trad leader -- and still
feels that way (on a good day I lead a little harder than 5.6 now but don't
tell my ropegun^H^H^H^H^H^Hwife ;-)).
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud
Chiloe
>
> Guillaume Dargaud <news_co...@gdargaud.net> wrote:
> >I disagree for those above. Some routes see a continuous line of climbers
> >and are so polished that I would even increase their current rating...
> >Bastille Crack is more than 5.7 nowadays.
>
> Oh, come *on*. One slippery foothold in a bomber crack surrounded by
> plenty of face holds in nice textury sandstone? You call that more than
> 5.7?
Well FWIW the Bastille Crack start was slippery in olden times too;
I didn't notice much difference when I returned after a few decades
away. The same sequence still works.
Some loose blocks are now gone, and modern pro is a lot better even
on this crack climb. Plus our shoes stick so well now! So I'll
argue that if anything, this route (like many others) became
easier, its rising grade notwithstanding.
A 5.6 Bastille Crack made perfectly good sense in a world where Ruper
and Anthill Direct were 5.7, Grand Giraffe and the West Buttress were
5.8, and T2 or the Umph Slot were 5.9. And the 3rd Flatiron was the
definition of class 4. The question is whether they were inconsistent
with the world outside Boulder. How do those ratings compare with
Gunks or Valley classics of the same era?
Greg Sadowy
> A 5.6 Bastille Crack made perfectly good sense in a world where Ruper
> and Anthill Direct were 5.7, Grand Giraffe and the West Buttress were
> 5.8, and T2 or the Umph Slot were 5.9. And the 3rd Flatiron was the
> definition of class 4. The question is whether they were inconsistent
> with the world outside Boulder. How do those ratings compare with
> Gunks or Valley classics of the same era?
I climbed Bastille Crack in '85 with very little experience. At that
point, 97% of the experience I did have was from the Gunks. I'd say
compared to Gunks classics, the 5.6 was pretty much spot on. I think,
unless the climb has changed substantially, 5.7 is inflation. FWIW, I
also find that Gunks and Tahquitz ratings are pretty well in line (at
least for moderates). I consider Tahquitz ratings as reasonable
benchmark, since the current rating system was invented there. While I
have not climbed extensively in Eldo, I suspect that the reputation for
stiff ratings arises from properly rated climbs that have yet to be
inflated.
While we are on the topic, what the heck is with the rating of moderate
sport climbs? It seems that just about anyone can climb 5.8 on their
first day out (and by climb, I mean ascend without falling while on TR).
That ain't right. 5.8 used to be hard, in fact impossible, for first
timers without exceptional natural talent. If "Being There" (the
so-called 5-star 5.7 at Williamson Rock) was at The Gunks, it would be
rated 5.5.
-Greg
Minty Alpinist
guides from Seneca a little while back and found grade inflation there
too. I wish I could remember the name of the route, but it's rating
steadilly rose from 5.8+ to easy 5.11, and don't give me any of that
pollished foot hold gibberish. The hardmen in WVa just went sissy and
wanted the numbers that the western climbers were fantisizing about.