Darth grader and G,PG,R,X ratings

I might be late to the game, but I have only just found out about the website darth grader. It is an interesting concept. I've been climbing for 20 years and always worked of the practice of grading my routes based on hardest move. Where in this app routes are graded higher due to poor rest and a consistency.  I do not climb 5.14, so this might be a very legitimate practice the harder you climb.  

My question is this, if darth grader will inflate a grade due to rests, why does it not have the ability to express run out and gear replacement.  These are things that historically do not change grade either, and instead changes the seriousness at the end. However, the seriousness of an R or x rated climb is a major factor in people's choosing of which route to Attempt.

Should the seriousness of a climb contribute to what the climb's grade actually is, or is this slowly bastardizing what climbing grades mean?

Evan LovleyMeyers wrote:

I might be late to the game, but I have only just found out about the website darth grader. It is an interesting concept. I've been climbing for 20 years and always worked of the practice of grading my routes based on hardest move. Where in this app routes are graded higher due to poor rest and a consistency.  I do not climb 5.14, so this might be a very legitimate practice the harder you climb.  

My question is this, if darth grader will inflate a grade due to rests, why does it not have the ability to express run out and gear replacement.  These are things that historically do not change grade either, and instead changes the seriousness at the end. However, the seriousness of an R or x rated climb is a major factor in people's choosing of which route to Attempt.

Should the seriousness of a climb contribute to what the climb's grade actually is, or is this slowly bastardizing what climbing grades mean?

Danger levels don’t change the difficulty of a climb. Grades are for difficultly levels, danger ratings are for protection levels.

No

As you have been doing, routes should be graded based on their hardest moves.  But rests certainly play into the grade.  You ever done 4x4s on a boulder? That 4th lap (even though it might only be V4 or whatever) is certainly going to feel harder once you're tired.  Also if you had two routes side by side that both have V7 boulder problems followed by a V5, if one has a rest in between and the other doesn't the latter route is going to be harder and should be graded harder. I think you said it yourself, the seriousness of a route doesn't change the grade, but the lack of a rest certainly will.  

Someone's mental game could be on point and it wouldn't change the fact that a 5.12a pg13 or R rated route is still only going to be 12a in difficulty.  Sure lots of people will overgrip and pull way harder than they need to so that they don't fall, but it would be because they are uncomfortable, not because the grade requires it. 

If for example a 5.8R was simply rated 5.10b that would be giving me less (important) information about the route. 

if it was rated 5.10b R then that would just be confusing.

Not helpful at all.

This is why E grades are stupid.

X C wrote:

This is why E grades are stupid.

Disagree. E grades are overall grades, so do include the seriousness/danger aspect, but for them to be useful, they need to be ( and almost always are) accompanied by a number grade for the technical difficulty alone, i.e.; a route rated E5, 6a would be roughly the same technical difficulty of a route rated E3, 6a, but likely to be significantly more 'serious'.

CritConrad wrote:

As you have been doing, routes should be graded based on their hardest moves.  But rests certainly play into the grade.   

Seems like you are arguing with yourself?  The current practice - which is changed from the original concept - is that lack of rests ("Resistance" climbing to use the lingo of the very serious climbers) - ups the grade.

As others have noted, OP is basically talking E grades if considering danger in the overall grade. And if talking E grades, that's what the E Grader is for:

https://egrader.co.uk/

Eric Engberg wrote:

Seems like you are arguing with yourself?  The current practice - which is changed from the original concept - is that lack of rests ("Resistance" climbing to use the lingo of the very serious climbers) - ups the grade.

I think that grading based upon the ' hardest move' vs 'sustained' was a somewhat 'fuzzy' concept from the beginning and, even then, not consistently followed. For example, Open Book at Tahquitz, the 'official first 5.9' seems to be graded more based on the fact that the crux is a series of powerful layback moves rather than how hard any one of those moves may be in isolation.

Going back to the original question, I agree that the danger or seriousness should be differentiated from the technical difficulty of the route. One factor, though, that does impact the difficulty is how hard/ time-consuming it is  to locate and place the protection. A route where the leader has to spend time in a difficult position locating and then putting in the protection will definitely require additional physical effort on her part--thus making the pitch harder to complete. While this is primarily an issue on trad routes, it can also impact sport climbs, as shown by the presence of perma-draws on certain routes or situations where leaders skip clips on their redpoint attempts.
This factor  then raises the question if a route should be graded based upon how hard is it to lead or to climb as a top rope--which would be a more 'pure' expression of the inherent technical difficulty.

Alan Rubin wrote:

 question, I agree that the danger or seriousness should be differentiated from the technical difficulty of the route. One factor, though, that does impact the difficulty is how hard/ time-consuming it is  to locate and place the protection. A route where the leader has to spend time in a difficult position locating and then putting in the protection will definitely require additional physical effort on her part--thus making the pitch harder to complete....

This factor  then raises the question if a route should be graded based upon how hard is it to lead or to climb as a top rope--which would be a more 'pure' expression of the inherent technical difficulty.

I don't have any comment on how it "should" be and what the rules are. But in practice, it seems like the physical effort of placing gear is a factored into the YDS grade, at least in the context of strenuous crack climbing. 

Indian Creek is a good example. Many of the 5.12s (especially on fingers, or laybacks) there feel notably easier (5.11+ ish) if you're on toprope and can sprint. But the full 5.12 difficulty comes when you have to stop and place gear.

On the upper end of the YDS scale, Magic Line is another example. Originally graded as 14b on preplaced gear by the 1st and 2nd ascents, then when people started doing it redpoint style (placing gear on lead) it got graded 14c for that style, based on the added effort of placing gear.

I don't really care much how it "should" be, but is how it seems to be happening now.

JCM wrote: it seems like the physical effort of placing gear is a factored into the YDS grade

So do I get to take a higher grade when I hang my own draws….?

Not Trevor wrote:

V4, in your example, isn’t magically more difficult just because you’re getting tired from climbing other climbs whereas doing moves at the end of a 100ft route are physically harder if you get no break on that same route. The main difference in your example is that the V4 is made to feel more difficult due to being fatigued from other climbs whereas a move at the end of a sport route is more difficult due to getting fatigued on that same climb. 

I feel like we're arguing the same point. When I have done 4x4s in the past, it is intended to be training for climbing sport routes and I do boulders back to back to back with zero rest in between.  IMO it should similarly simulate that amount of fatigue that you would feel when reaching that same V4 at after 100ft of preceding climbing.  Regardless of whether someone does numerous V4 boulder problems with no rest or 100' of pumpy jugs with no rest, that last V4 is still going to feel harder and the grade should reflect that.  

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

So do I get to take a higher grade when I hang my own draws….?

Eh, IMO sport climbing is different. Trad is about the gear. Sport climbing isn't. That's why the "pinkpoint" distinction is generally not relevant in modern sport climbing.

That said.... Can we ever really separate the difficulty of tasks like clipping, from the true difficulty? I.e. if a sport route has a strenuous mandatory clip just before the crux, which powers you out and makes the crux feel harder, that probably gets incorporated into the grade. Realistically it's not possible to disentangle whether you're pumped from the moves or from the clip. It all gets muddled together into how hard the route feels, and ultimately grades are just an attempt to capture the "feel" of the difficulty.

So in theory, a FA could climb a sport route hanging the draws, and think it was one grade. Later with permas, the route could feel easier. Is this enough to change the grade by a full letter? In most cases probably no, but in some cases it could.

I don't think sport routes should get two different grades for hanging draws vs preplaced, but it's unavoidable that the way most people climb the route (with permas or not) ends up impacting their perception of difficulty, and the consensus grade.

If I had to give my vote for how it "should" be, I think routes should get one grade based on the typical accepted style of ascent. Trad climbs (in general) should get graded for leading placing the gear. Hard sport climbs typically repointed with permas or project draws should be graded for the difficulty climbing in that style. For sport climbs typically climbed placing the draws, the grade should reflect that style. 

Eric Engberg wrote:

Seems like you are arguing with yourself?  The current practice - which is changed from the original concept - is that lack of rests ("Resistance" climbing to use the lingo of the very serious climbers) - ups the grade.

I guess I should have formatted my original sentence differently.  I would say "As you have been doing, routes should be graded based on their hardest moves AND THEN rests should be calculated into the grade".  

It is already pretty much exactly what Darth Grader does.  It takes the hardest moves and assigns a grade as a starting point, then factors rests and other boulder problems/route grades to factor a final grade suggestion.  

CritConrad wrote:

I feel like we're arguing the same point. When I have done 4x4s in the past, it is intended to be training for climbing sport routes and I do boulders back to back to back with zero rest in between.  IMO it should similarly simulate that amount of fatigue that you would feel when reaching that same V4 at after 100ft of preceding climbing.  Regardless of whether someone does numerous V4 boulder problems with no rest or 100' of pumpy jugs with no rest, that last V4 is still going to feel harder and the grade should reflect that.  

I get what you are saying but, either I’m missing what you’re saying or I don’t agree with how to grade something. Grading individual moves and problems is not how grades are typically done anymore, in regards to overall route grades. Resistance and consistency of difficulty are factored in now-a-days. To your example; grading a boulder problem (individually) after doing numerous other boulder problems is not the same as grading a boulder problem (on a route) after doing other moves on the same climb. The individual boulder will always be V4, for example, whereas the boulder problem up high on a sport route could be argued that it is more difficult (even if it had the same exact moves) due to the required climbing it took to get there in order to send. This is why no hands rests, knee bars, etc. lead to downgrades, like in the case of Paradise Lost, even though the hardest move is not theoretically any more/less difficult in isolation.

Diverting the thread slightly, but can we get a poll on the actual meaning of G/PG/R/X? Seems to me that usage varies wildly. It's tricky, because both probabiilty of falling and severity of consequence need to be taken into account when deciding on the overall "risk level" of a climb.

Here's my take: 

G: Injury chance practically nil. Examples: most sport climbing, splitter crack climbing in popular US trad destinations.

PG: Moderate risk of minor injury, or minor risk of moderate injury. Moderate (eg, non crux, but still relatively difficult) sections may be protected by only one piece of solid gear, or the route may feature larger runouts on similar terrain with clean-ish falls. A 25ft whip into a slab face might result in a bruised foot or mild sprain, or ripping a solid cam, decking from <25 ft could lead to breaking an ankle. Most trad climbs are probably PG by default.

PG13: Moderate risk of moderate injury, or minor risk of major injury, or major risk of minor injury. The crux might be runout/clean fall (major risk of minor injury), the easy start of the route might be unprotected (minor risk of major injury), falls from noncrux sections might involve small ledges or poor gear. Ex: Yellow wall (gunks);

R: Major risk of moderate injury, moderate risk of major injury. You risk breaking an ankle from the crux, either because of decking, hitting a ledge, or just taking a massive 50ft+ heartstopping fall on vert/slab terrain. Noncrux portions of the route may be high consequence. Ex: Forbidden Zone (gunks), Bachar Yerian P2

X: Major risk of major injury. Falls from the crux sections lead to decking from a significant height (eg, 45 ft or higher). Ex: To be or not to be (Gunks)

The LD50 for fall height is about 45ft and the LD90 is ~80 ft so maybe there needs to be another category for "guaranteed to die" type of routes where the crux is over 80 ft high and the gear is worthless (eg, Indian Face).

szheng wrote:

Diverting the thread slightly, but can we get a poll on the actual meaning of G/PG/R/X? Seems to me that usage varies wildly. It's tricky, because both probabiilty of falling and severity of consequence need to be taken into account when deciding on the overall "risk level" of a climb.

Here's my take: 

G: Injury chance practically nil. Examples: most sport climbing, splitter crack climbing in popular US trad destinations.

PG: Moderate risk of minor injury, or minor risk of moderate injury. Moderate (eg, non crux, but still relatively difficult) sections may be protected by only one piece of solid gear, or the route may feature larger runouts on similar terrain with clean-ish falls. A 25ft whip into a slab face might result in a bruised foot or mild sprain, or ripping a solid cam, decking from <25 ft could lead to breaking an ankle. Most trad climbs are probably PG by default.

PG13: Moderate risk of moderate injury, or minor risk of major injury, or major risk of minor injury. The crux might be runout/clean fall (major risk of minor injury), the easy start of the route might be unprotected (minor risk of major injury), falls from noncrux sections might involve small ledges or poor gear. Ex: Yellow wall (gunks);

R: Major risk of moderate injury, moderate risk of major injury. You risk breaking an ankle from the crux, either because of decking, hitting a ledge, or just taking a massive 50ft+ heartstopping fall on vert/slab terrain. Noncrux portions of the route may be high consequence. Ex: Forbidden Zone (gunks), Bachar Yerian P2

X: Major risk of major injury. Falls from the crux sections lead to decking from a significant height (eg, 45 ft or higher). Ex: To be or not to be (Gunks)

The LD50 for fall height is about 45ft and the LD90 is ~80 ft so maybe there needs to be another category for "guaranteed to die" type of routes where the crux is over 80 ft high and the gear is worthless (eg, Indian Face).

I think you've characterized the definitions accurately. I don't think X needs further categorization.  Flexibility  allows for the variances encountered. The X classification provides a mindset for the climber as much as anything. Death from a fall doesn't need to be guaranteed.  How is that possible anyway?  A fall from the wrong spot on an X rated route could result in death or worse; you'll be maimed enough that you wish you were. 

The seriousness of the BY is an ocean of difference from Forbidden Zone. The latter is child's play in comparison.

Half of the OP's query doesn't actually exist. No route specifically has a G, or even a PG added on to the difficulty grade in a description. PG-13 is certainly a thing, but it's more of a recent thing, R and X were traditionally(bitd) the only real added danger  considerations that would get a mention.

What constitutes a PG-13, an R or an X can get haggled on all day, but adding a G or a PG just isn't actually mentioned on any climb or pitch that I've ever seen or heard.

Hank Caylor wrote:

Half of the OP's query doesn't actually exist. No route specifically has a G, or even a PG added on to the difficulty grade in a description. PG-13 is certainly a thing, but it's more of a recent thing, R and X were traditionally(bitd) the only real added danger  considerations that would get a mention.

What constitutes a PG-13, an R or an X can get haggled on all day, but adding a G or a PG just isn't actually mentioned on any climb or pitch that I've ever seen or heard.

G and PG have been included in Gunks guides dating back until at least 1986.  I'll agree that I haven't seen it listed in other guides of the era.

Jon Clark wrote:

G and PG have been included in Gunks guides dating back until at least 1986.  I'll agree that I haven't seen it listed in other guides of the era.

I didn't mean to sound so emphatic on the subject, it's just nothing I've ever seen or heard, ever. I'm not sure why a guidebook would specifically add and then also draw a differentiation between being a safe route and a super fucken safe route, but I believe you.

It'd be cool if you could find the ratings index for these Gunks guidebooks and tell us what those authors thought constituted a G or a PG route. If it's in the guidebook then surely the author gave his thoughts on that novel idea.

Big 'ol edit right here, I was looking at Steve Levin's guidebook for Eldorado Canyon and he fully lists and explains the "G, PG, PG-13, R and X. I'm as misinformed as misinformed can be on this subject. I didn't think it was a thing and it totally is, gotta admit that. Carry on folks.