Time for a New Rating System for EZ Climbs?
|
5.3 the Forgotten Grade
The last dozen or so fourth-class peaks I've hiked have had fifth-class moves on them. I welcome this style of climbing but think the practice of lumping all non-technical routes as fourth-class is not only dangerous to hikers pushing their personal limits, but also leaves an vast ambiguity for people looking for challenging scrambles. In our minds and in our guide books fourth-class is omni-present. But when you take a closer look at what fourth-class is, a move that is harder than third-class but easier than 5.0, a very slim grade is revealed. Yet it is the default rating for many of our "harder" peaks. There are many reasons for the lack specifics at the lower-end of the Yosemite Decimal System. A bravado that shrugs off easier terrain. A general lack of understanding of the YDS, gym-rats think if a vein in their forearm starts to bulge, it's 10c. An elitist mentality of the sports "leaders" towards lesser talented climbers and beginners. I get the 4th class rating implies no rope - scrambling. But to carry a rope or not is a personal choice. If a scramble does in fact include 5th class moves, that info should be a part of decision-making process when hikers are making preps. A route is rated by the hardest move. Period. I propose a new rating system for scrambling: S.0 S.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 Dropping the "5" prefix and adding "S" implies 5th class moves but rope is optional. This new rating communicates the real difficulty of a scramble and leaves the decision to rope up to the climbers, not a guide book author. In a sport that loves describing its activities through a host of different rating systems, it is odd that such an ambiguous void even exists... http://www.mountainnewsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=67 |
|
I always thought 4th class meant using a rope without intermittent protection between belays (belays when necessary)... |
|
I hear ya...but the following are pretty much the accepted definitions of class 3 & 4. |
|
4.0 to 4.15 of course with +/- and abcd in the higher difficulty range. |
|
"Class 1. Hiking |
|
Lets just bump all grades below 5.12 into 4th class. |
|
Josh Kornish wrote:Lets just bump all grades below 5.12 into 4th class.I second this. Now most of my climbing buddies will not climb harder than me. |
|
|
|
haha thanks for brining that thread back up!! |
|
I heard this somewhere in regards to Class 4: "terrain where a rope would be an insult to your climbing ability, but it sure would feel nice" |
|
J Hazard wrote: I second this. Now most of my climbing buddies will not climb harder than me.Elite-ists. gimme a break. agree that to "3rd class" or to 4th class a route means unroped scampering over under 5.6 to many people these days. Same folks who say 'intermediate' climbing is 5.10-5.11. |
|
Scott McMahon wrote: The only time this really deviates is historically, where climbers were known to "fourth class" routes, which implied that it was 5th class climbing, but climbed unroped.This differs from what I used to hear (anecdotally) that bad-asses would "third class" routes of a 5th class nature (notably Bachar) |
|
Adam Stackhouse wrote: This differs from what I used to hear (anecdotally) that bad-asses would "third class" routes of a 5th class nature (notably Bachar)I think you are correct on that. I quite possibly misquoted that one. |
|
While I like the idea of S grades for scrambling, I would really prefer this grading system due to it's complexity and inexplicability: |
|
So, a climb is always rated by its hardest move. |
|
So people who are too lazy/ignorant to research a route and find out what is entailed will be motivated to look up what the S ratings are? |
|
I thought the whole point of wearing a rope on a 4th class pitch was just in case you ran into some 5th class moves and wanted to place some gear. Otherwise the rope doesn't do the leader much good. It may still be a 4th class pitch, but it's not always easy to find the best line onsight, and I rarely find myself 'working' class 4. |
|
The Watchdog wrote:So, a climb is always rated by its hardest move. But 4th class routes are rated 4th class regardless of their difficulty because they are 4th class. Got it, thanks!The hardest move thing really only comes into play for 5th class. There's a reason that we don't use + or - for grades below 5.8/5.9 and we don't use letter grades below 5.10. The easier it is, the less differentiation you need. If you read the YDS descriptions, they all have to do with safety and exposure, not necessarily difficulty. Its not until 5th class that we begin to differentiate difficulty because that's when it becomes about physical ability and not just mental willingness (Sure 4th class has to do with physical ability, but any reasonably fit person can do the moves; whether they feel safe or not is a different issue and that is why the YDS suggests the use of a rope). If, as you say in the OP, a 4th class route has a 5th class move in it, that should be identified in the description, by a 5th class rating. In that scenario the climb is no longer 4th class. The grading system is already convoluted enough, don't make it more so. Do your research before you climb. |
|
Tom Grummon wrote: If you read the YDS descriptions, they all have to do with safety and exposure, not necessarily difficulty. Its not until 5th class that we begin to differentiate difficulty because that's when it becomes about physical ability and not just mental willingnessWell said. |
|
5.3 is alive and well in the Gunks - just read comments for Yum Yum Yab Yum. People actually do differentiate between 5.3 and 5.4 |
|
If you consider how often people argue about the difference between a 5.7 and a 5.8, it is not surprising how much grayer the boundaries between 3rd/4th/5th are. It's really better to accept this than try and "fix" it. Increasing the granularity of the scale is really not going to make things clearer. |