How about just grading accurately...?
|
I hear it all the time, "Yosemite is graded hard because it is a hardman place, gym grades are soft on purpose, I always grade one letter grade below my true opinion." |
|
20 kN wrote:I hear it all the time, "Yosemite is graded hard because it is a hardman place, gym grades are soft on purpose, I always grade one letter grade below my true opinion." This got me thinking. I believe rock climbing is the only activity with some sort of difficulty scale in which participants intentionally voice false opinions on the grades. When is the last time you heard a race official say "this track is actually 9.1k, but fuck it, the runners here are girlscouts so we are going to call this a 10k?" Likewise, I dont see the Olympics running fast clocks on the 200m freestyle because Michael Phelps needs more of a challenge, and because the Olympics is for hardmen only.It's easy to measure distance. What's the benchmark for climbing grades? There's no subjectivity in races. |
|
Ryan Nevius wrote: There's no subjectivity in races.There is no subjectivity in a climber's opinion relative to his own perspective either. If a climber thinks a route is 5.12a, then the climber thinks the route is 5.12a, end of story. This thread is about those climbers who send a line and think "this feels about .12a" and then they get down and tell everyone the line is .11c, or .12c because "it's in a gym," or "I always grade harder than I think the route is." It begs the question, what is the point in a rating system if people are intentionally skewing it by failing to give their true opinion? |
|
I agree completely. |
|
I also think people forget, or worse just don't care, that ratings have consequences. Whlie I am always responsible for my own safety, if you tell me that 5.11 is only a 5.9, I'm far more likely to end up in over over my head. I'm not saying that's the fault of the guy who lied about the rating, but it sure as hell makes him an ass. |
|
C'mon, everyone knows that if the book says V5 and it feels like V3, it is V3; if the book says V3 and it feels like V5, it is maybe V3+. |
|
well it seems this happens most in well established areas, correct? take Yosemite for example. 90% of the routes that are up in Yosemite right now were put up when 5.10 was the hardest rating we gave a climb, and at that point there were no letter grades at all. A lot of the "sandbagged" climbs are that way, because, in comparison to the ratings at the time, it WAS accurate. but in the age of 5.15c-/+ |
|
The problem is primarily ego. No one wants to upgrade routes/problems, because that would be admitting they thought it was harder than the FA presumably did. On the flip side, lots of people want to downgrade whenever possible so they can make themselves look better. |
|
It seems to me that as more and more grades become valid, it kind of squishes the lower grades just a little, so over time grades naturally sandbag. I don't believe that 5.9 today is as hard as 5.9 was 50 years ago. An old 5.9 might be a solid mid to hard 5.10 by today's standard. |
|
the idea of "Grading accurately" is about as wishful as us all speaking english exactly the same with no accents. Things vary too much from place to place. |
|
20 kN wrote:I hear it all the time, "Yosemite is graded hard because it is a hardman place, gym grades are soft on purpose,As a point of clarification the rating system we use in the US is called the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), so by definition grades in Yosemite are correct and any variation at other areas is an error. And grades are totally subjective. In theory they are comparing difficulty to climbs in Yosemite of a given grade with long established consensus as to their difficulty. In reality many climbers don't travel that much so grading is done in relation to local climbs and any error in the initial grading of those climbs is propagated out to the new climbs. |
|
George Marsden wrote: As a point of clarification the rating system we use in the US is called the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), so by definition grades in Yosemite are correct and any variation at other areas is an error. And grades are totally subjective. In theory they are comparing difficulty to climbs in Yosemite of a given grade with long established consensus as to their difficulty. In reality many climbers don't travel that much so grading is done in relation to local climbs and any error in the initial grading of those climbs is propagated out to the new climbs.But didn't they come up with the system in Tahquitz? So technically that should be the basis? ;-) |
|
If someone was thinking, take 200 random routes outside of Yos on this database that have at least 30 unique grades posted by users, mean that, and then just do t-tests and see where the FA grades are at. Then do the something similar to Yos, and compare that. |
|
How can you rate routes accurately when the current perception is constantly changing? |
|
Greg Barnes wrote: P.S. By the way - "grading" accurately would be the grade of the route, which is a measure of the typical time to do a route - e.g. a 1 or 2 pitch route is Grade I (a couple hours), an all day multipitch Grade IV, and a big wall might be Grade VI (multiple days). Which is even more meaningless than rating controversies considering that some people can do the Nose in 2+ hours .That would be the commitment grade. I am referring to the difficulty grade, which is also a grade. People like to use the word "rating," but technically that word is less correct IMO. Consider the terms: grade grād/ noun noun: grade; plural noun: grades 1. a particular level of rank, quality, proficiency, intensity, or value. "sea salt is usually available in coarse or fine grades" rat·ing1 ˈrātiNG/ noun noun: rating; plural noun: ratings a classification or ranking of someone or something based on a comparative assessment of their quality, standard, or performance As I read it, in order for something to be a rating, it has to be compared and stacked against other ratings such as in a competition. Grades can stand alone. |
|
Interestingly enough, even in bouldering, where we have benchmark problems for a given grade at Hueco, the grades are all over the place. |
|
20 kN wrote:I hear it all the time, "Yosemite is graded hard because it is a hardman place, gym grades are soft on purpose, I always grade one letter grade below my true opinion."Actually, it's more like "Geez, it felt hard, but if I admit that this route felt a full number grade harder I'd look like a softie". Or "That felt in line, but I would rather act like a hardman and downgrade it a letter grade". Best of all, of course, "I did not lead it, but I'll say it's easier then the FA grade". An honest statement, for example, would be "yup, I onsighted the Northcutt Start in Eldorado Canoyn, but it felt a letter grade or two harder then the stated 5.10d". Or "that boulder problem felt more like a V2, not a V4, probably because I found a better sequence". PS. An easy fix for MP, of course, is to make grading process anonymous :D |
|
|
|
Oh cool, the first thread i've ever seen about the subjectivity of route grades....im sure this one will be a lot different... |
|
George Marsden wrote: As a point of clarification the rating system we use in the US is called the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS), so by definition grades in Yosemite are correct and any variation at other areas is an error. And grades are totally subjective. In theory they are comparing difficulty to climbs in Yosemite of a given grade with long established consensus as to their difficulty. In reality many climbers don't travel that much so grading is done in relation to local climbs and any error in the initial grading of those climbs is propagated out to the new climbs.As a point of clarification not a single sentence of that post is correct. Maybe "And grades are subjective" one, if you count that as a sentence. |
|
I really bothers me that I can sometimes climb 5.12 in the gym and I cannot do the same thing on the desert towers of Utah and Arizona. I think there should be a law making all grades the same! This is very important. No one ever knows what areas have "stiff" ratings and what areas are "soft." No one, EVER! THIS IS A TRAVESTY! Stoya, please save us! |