Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
+/- Ordering in Grades...
|
Stirring the pot... I've always thought the order of grades from less difficult to more difficult was: 11d,11+,12-,12a,12b,12c,12d,12+,13-,13a etc. However, when adding routes, it seems that Mountain Project believes these + and - grades go between 12a and 12b, 12c and 12d. I've always used the first system I described. Thoughts?  |
|
I've always thought of 12- (for example) as being a soft 12a, which most of the time is easier than 11d (because the FA didn't want to look soft and make it a 12). 12+ is tricky. Some people seem to think of it as 12.a+ and some think of it as 12.d+. Essentially, just a touch harder than 12.a , or just a touch harder than 12.d, but not quite a 13a. Again, 12d or 12d+ is almost always going to be harder than a 13a. Never climb a 5.9+ or 5.9++ unless you can confidently lead trad 5.11. Those old 5.9's that people have added a "+" to because they don't want to change the actual grade, are usually scary runouts with 5.10+ climbing. (sorry in advance if this makes the thread drift) |
|
In my mind: 5.10- = 5.10a/b 5.10 = 5.10b/c 5.10+ = 5.10c/d Isn't the Yosemite decimal system great?! |
|
I'm not a good enough climber to distinguish between a 5.10c+ and a 5.10d- etc... so I don't even bother. To be honest, because areas vary so much, I'm not even sure I can tell the difference between 5.10b and 5.10c which is why they get lumped together in my mind. |
|
My impression is that +/- grades are typically used to grade trad routes and YDS (a,b,c & d) grades are used in sport climbing. This isn't necessarily a rule but you do see this often enough. So for example within the 5.10 grade there are only 3 grades with the +/- system, 5.10-, 5.10 & 5.10+. Within that same 5.10 grade applying the YDS system there are 4 grades, 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.10c & 5.10d. So making three +/- grades fit into the same space as four YDS grades means that you'll end up with slashed YDS grades when you compare them. Taylor your interpretation would mean there are six (maybe 7) grades within each number grade from 5.10 on up. I don't think that is the case. I do use those +/- grades to grade new routes sometimes when I'm not decided yet on where to place it. So If I say I put up a 5.11 it generally means I haven't narrowed it down yet but it will probably fall in the 5.11b or c range. A new 5.12- means it could be a 5.12a or 5.12b. If I thought it was on the cusp between 5.11 and 5.12, I'd probably guess 5.11d/5.12a. Your MP screen shot makes it look like there are 10 grades within each number grade, including slash grades and they haven't even included the slash grades between the numbers which would look like 12 grades smashed into one number grade. Totally ridiculous! Maybe I've further muddied the water.... |
|
I do think that for new sport climbs, using 12-, 12, 12+ until a consensus grade on the a,b,c,d scale seems like a good idea. It's all f*^ked so I'm gonna stick with that. |
Mike Snyder wrote: Let's really muddy the waters and create a Bighorns grading system... |
|
I've never really liked the a,b,c,d system, it seems unnecessary, at least at the lower end of grades (10s and 11s). That being said I've always thought it worked like this: 10a = 10- 5.10 = 5.10b and 5.10c 10d = 10+ Remember, climbing grades are very subjective and may vary significantly between people. YMMV |
|
10- = 5.10 and below 10= 10a to 10d 10+ = 10d and above only 3 grades needed... oh wait 5.9+ = 5.oh-crap |
Nick Sweeney wrote: This works but I would even take it a step further and say 5.10 doesn't exist and any grade that has - is a/b and + is c/d and outside of that everything else will be a,b,c,d. You only get into hard or easy number for grades without a letter so 5.9 and easier you would have 5.8-, 5.8, 5.8+. Those would basically be easy, normal, hard 5.8. Given grades and letters are pretty pointless in most areas and I would almost prefer them going back to just 5.10, 5.11, etc because humans suck at judging the letter grade... lets not even get into gym grades they suck pretty much everywhere. |
|
Eh, to be fair there's a huge gap between 11a and 11d. I think that subdivisions are beneficial, especially considering the difference between 10a and 10b is supposed to be the same as 5.9 to 5.10. Or we could just adopt the French system... |
Ted Pinson wrote: I’ve often thought that if French grades were adopted for sport routes right from the start in the US, that a lot of the trad animosity would have been avoided. For myself, I usually advocate for just three grades. Easy, hard and impossible. As for letters vs +/-, my recollection is that it was regional, with New England using +/- and California using letters. But nobody used both in the same place. |
Ted Pinson wrote: Perhaps I haven't climbed enough 11s to be a good judge. But the difference between 10a and 10b is pretty small, at least when it comes to the sport climbing around here. I think that the letter grades were supposed to be an equivalent jump in difficulty as a number grade but that didn't really end up happening for 5.10. At least it didn't end up happening for my local climbing area. |
|
My understanding is something like this: | 5.10 | | 10- | 10 | 10+ | | 10a | 10b | 10c | 10d | |a/b| |b/c| |c/d| It could also definitely be argued that +/- grades fit more like this: | 10- | 10 | 10+ | Not that any of it really matter because softies and sandbags and grades are by no means ever very accurate about how hard you will think a route is... Anyways, it's all just 5.9+ |
Taylor Spiegelberg wrote: Looks like a function of a spreadsheet sort, rather than a definite breakdown or scale. I'll use a (-) if a climb only has one or two moves of the grade. (Chemical Endeavors is a classic one move wonder that deserves the (-) description over the a,b,c,d.) |
|
I thought it was mostly for crack climbs where hand/finger size can make a difference in difficulty, so it's a bit less specific than abcd. |
Ben Schuldt wrote: |
|
climbing friend, it is widely known to be better for skipping of d grades, since they are likely "san-bag" and do not provide the satisfactory ego boosting as reaching the next numbering. for example it is quite pointless to climb 12d if it is just as stiff or more hard than 13a and leaves your ego somewhat limp rather than fully engorged. |
Nick Sweeney wrote: This is exactly right! it's not just your mind, it's the entire community who has experience. End discussion now. |
Aleks Zebastian wrote: Like my local gym, you never climb pink routes. They are evil. I onsighted three 5.11 / 5.12 routes than jumped on a 5.9 route that was pink and feel off 3 times before getting to the top. |
|
In the Gunks there's a saying: They're not plus signs. They're "t"'s for "terror". My personal experience is that a + or - means the rating is wrong and there's no way to tell how wrong it is until you do the route. |
