"+" and "-" Grades

Danny Androos wrote:

...the Yosemite Decimal System, which suggests that +/- should be used to indicate level of sustain, not to indicate what letter-grade range a climb is in (e.g. 5.10+ = 5.10c/d). It also seems strange that the letter is stripped from the grade when using +/-. Why can't I rate a climb as 5.10b+, meaning it is a 5.10b climbed, but is quite sustained?

Yes, this is wrong.  -/+ have nothing to do with specifically addressing sustain.

Here's a link that nobody is going to read that covers all the details of climbing grades, including the -/+ issue.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/Articles/Climbing_History_and_Trivia/Everything_You_Ever_Wanted_to_Know_about_Climbing_Grades_at_least_in_the_U.S.__1591.html

Their PG-13 doesn't match up with anything I have ever climbed outdoors that was PG-13. PG-13 on most routes I have climbed mean minor injury but not life threatening. R means likely serious injury and possible death. X means likely chance of death on a fall.

Pnelson wrote:

Here's a link that nobody is going to read that covers all the details of climbing grades, including the -/+ issue.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/Articles/Climbing_History_and_Trivia/Everything_You_Ever_Wanted_to_Know_about_Climbing_Grades_at_least_in_the_U.S.__1591.html

Who's this camhead that thinks he's a higher authoritah than the overlord of mp.com?

Btw, Quart of a Man is so casual that I almost fell asleep on the OS, and Trice is solid V12, brahj!!

reboot wrote:

Who's this camhead that thinks he's a higher authoritah than the overlord of mp.com?

Cameron Burns perhaps?

reboot wrote:

Btw, Quart of a Man is so casual that I almost fell asleep on the OS

So you have carny hands, is that what you're trying to tell us?  You and Trump and Jake.

GabeO wrote:

You got the feedback that explains it, you just ignored it.  +/- has nothing to do with "sustained".  It is a shorthand for "easier or harder end of the grade".  That's it.  Letter grades a through d simply are a finer level of detail, but denote exactly the same thing.

There's no reason to be rude. I didn't ignore the feedback I received, I just pointed out a source which seems to go against it. I'm not saying REI.com is a definitive source, just pointing out where my confusion came from. I've read that +/- was used to indicate level of sustain from at least three sources now, so I figured it had some history in the YDS.

Examples:

• https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/climbing-bouldering-rating.html
• http://outdoorswithdave.com/climbing/climbing-ratings

David Gibbs wrote:

REI is not an authoritative source for definitions in climbing.  

Further, that definition (and your original post here) is the first time I've ever seen it suggested that +/- represents sustainedness, rather than easier/harder within a difficulty range. It is, also, not sport trad relevant.

Why do we often see 5.5+ or 5.11-, but not 5.10a-?  Because the letter grading system is already precise enough, and some will argue (quite reasonably) too precise, so there is little-to-no need to further qualify the grade.

Yeah, I'm not claiming it is. But is there an authoritative source for definitions in climbing? If so, where can I find it!? This is probably the third or fourth decently-reputable source I've found this suggested in. I'm not suggesting it's correct, because as I said, I've never seen it used that way in guidebooks, I guess I'm more just curious where it originated from. Is there any history of the purpose of +/- in the YDS itself?

Pnelson wrote:

Yes, this is wrong.  -/+ have nothing to do with specifically addressing sustain.

Here's a link that nobody is going to read that covers all the details of climbing grades, including the -/+ issue.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/Articles/Climbing_History_and_Trivia/Everything_You_Ever_Wanted_to_Know_about_Climbing_Grades_at_least_in_the_U.S.__1591.html

Since that's the case, +/- seem pretty superfluous for anything above 5.9. They overlap with slash grades. We should eliminate one or the other.

5.10- = 5.10a/b, but which one should I pick!!!

I found this online that includes the +/- compared to the standard YDS.  The 5.1 rating is a misprint and should be 5.10.

Danny Androos wrote:

Since that's the case, +/- seem pretty superfluous for anything above 5.9. They overlap with slash grades. We should eliminate one or the other.

5.10- = 5.10a/b, but which one should I pick!!!

Worrying over nothing.

Just go climbing, you'll be happier.

Danny Androos wrote:

Since that's the case, +/- seem pretty superfluous for anything above 5.9. They overlap with slash grades. We should eliminate one or the other.

5.10- = 5.10a/b, but which one should I pick!!!

You're worrying too much about this. Which one is used is mostly region-dependent. Which one are most people using where you climb? Go with that one.

Is anyone really worried about this, or are people just piling on the thread with feined outrage because they are bored at work? I think it’s best to do away with plusses and minuses and letter grades altogether. I won’t get on a 10c but yes to 10a is a silly notion. It’s so subjective anyways you might as well try and see what you think. Maybe a color grade  like red for hard and green for easy. Then we can really debate! That route is chartreuse not yellow ochre!!!

Or maybe I’m just bored at work too.

mountainhick wrote:

Worrying over nothing.

Just go climbing, you'll be happier.

OMG, I'm not worrying about anything. Just trying to make the site easier to use...if you don't care about this thread, unfollow it and take your own advice.

Bryce Adamson wrote:

You're worrying too much about this. Which one is used is mostly region-dependent. Which one are most people using where you climb? Go with that one.

I just think it'd be better if things were consistent. Also I'm in frontend development, so UX matters to me. Granted, this is off-topic for this thread...I just like to rant.

Danny Androos wrote:

There's no reason to be rude. I didn't ignore the feedback I received, I just pointed out a source which seems to go against it. I'm not saying REI.com is a definitive source, just pointing out where my confusion came from. I've read that +/- was used to indicate level of sustain from at least three sources now, so I figured it had some history in the YDS.

Examples:

• https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/climbing-bouldering-rating.html
• http://outdoorswithdave.com/climbing/climbing-ratings

Not trying to be rude.  Just pointing out that you came here with a faulty assumption, everyone kindly re-directed you, and then you re-stated your assumption, rather than acknowledging that you had it wrong and thanking folks for the help.  

I just skimmed that outdoorswithdave site - it is full of junk.  Ignore it.  The REI one seems a bit better, but still has that bizarre business about + meaning sustained, and - meaning a one-move wonder.  That's just not how +/- is used by anyone I've ever met.

Also, in regards to the two versions: +/- and letters, and why it makes sense to use one in some cases and the other in other cases, I think pnelson explained it perfectly.  Go back and re-read his post/link.

Cheers!

GO

Alan Emery wrote:

I found this online that includes the +/- compared to the standard YDS.  The 5.1 rating is a misprint and should be 5.10.

I think this is spot on. For older routes and especially here in the east people used 5.9+ to sandbag their friends but also because 5.10 was the hardest grade that had been climbed.

Currently I think that - and + get used when someone climbs something and isn't really sure how hard it is so they say "ah it felt like easy 5.10 so 5.10-."  

This same thought process applies at any grade a climber feels comfortable. I am sure even Adam Ondra climbs 5.14 and at this point it is easier for him to say it felt like 5.14- or 5.14+ than it is for him to quibble over if it is 5.14a vs 5.14b vs 5.14c.

Alan Emery wrote:

I found this online that includes the +/- compared to the standard YDS.  The 5.1 rating is a misprint and should be 5.10.

Reasonable IF the V scale is left out of it. At the high end of the scale, it's misaligned by at least 1 or 2 V grades.

reboot wrote:

Reasonable IF the V scale is left out of it. At the high end of the scale, it's misaligned by at least 1 or 2 V grades.

Right. The French grades are pretty jacked also. There is no minus in French grades for example.  From 7c upwards they got it right though...mostly 

Danny Androos wrote:

OMG, I'm not worrying about anything. Just trying to make the site easier to use...if you don't care about this thread, unfollow it and take your own advice.

LOL! Such drama! 

You are in luck young grading crusader. I am indeed heading out on a climbing trip!

The problem is when people treat grades as though they are PRECISE.

NEWS FLASH - GRADES DON'T HAVE MATHEMATICAL PRECISION.

The plus and minus are just qualifiers.  The - means it feels a little easier, the + means it feels a little harder. I don't know where the more sustained idea comes from - I have never heard that in 48 years of climbing.  A route might get a + for any number of reasons, more sustained only one of a number of the potential reasons.

To show you how subjective they are, our local gym posts a card for new routes and gives climbers a chance to rate the climbs.  There is always a spread of what the climbers think the rating is.

The problem arises because there are other variables which affect how hard a climb feels that overwhelm the subtleties of a +/- or abcd.  

As an example, An offwidth might seem absurdly difficult to you, but an experienced Vedauwoo climber will not have much trouble, just because of experience.

So arguing too much about grades is silly.

Remember that grades are SUBJECTIVE and RELATIVE, and most useful for making a relative comparison between routes, and especially when comparing routes within an area.