Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!eugene From: eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Newsgroups: net.rec Subject: Re: Rock-climb rating systems Message-ID: <1109@ames.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 14:14:27 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1109 Posted: Mon Aug 26 14:14:27 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:29:11 EDT References: <831@utcs.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 125 > What is the basis for the "North American" (?) > rating system of climbs, which goes 5.1,5.2....5.14 (I believe). > Also, who started it? > > Finally, what other systems are there? > > Can anybody fill me in? > -- > Jon 'Big J' Alexander, U. of Toronto Comp. Serv. Hum, Just got back from Lover's Leap. There are three basic systems in use (in NA) with several local systems. The basic systems are the Decimal System which you refer, the NCCS (National Climbing Classification System) developed by the American Alpine Club, and the UIAA [international]. Local systems include a system for rating ice climbs [tenuous], the open ended Australian system which I now believe goes from 1 to 31 (generally thought to be the best rating system: good granularity and open ended), and two European systems: English using Roman numerals and +s and -s for difficulty. The alpine system (French) uses descriptors like D, TD, ED with -s and +s. These rating systems only rate the hardest individual move over a climb or a pitch on a lead (top roping does not quite count). [Obviously, hardest move is a problem, consider sustained problems]. It's mostly subjective, but it has objective elements in it. You notice the size of holds on 5.7s tend to be about the same size where every you go (roughly). Exposure should not be taken into account, only 'technical' difficulty (subjective). The UIAA also has a system of grading overall difficulties of climbs. It goes from I to VII. A IV is a major one day climb with significant technical difficulties. A VI is a multiday technical climb such as an El Cap Route. Problem: how to grade a climb after a 'freak' ascent: Henry Barber's 2 1/2 hour ascent of Sentinel rock [normally a two day climb for most] or the 10 hours ascent of the Nose on El Cap [normally a 3-5 day climb]. The basis for the Decimal system, also known in some areas as the Sierra Club system [not appropriate] was from Alpine Guides in Europe who just rated their 'walks' from 1-5. I use walk because this is what climbs consisted of around 1890 when this system 'sprung' into use. Aroung 1950, near Los Angeles, CA, it became clear that class 5 in particular was inappropriately partitioned. Class 6 was added prior to this time to describe obvious artificial aids. People suggested dividing 5th class climbing into ten subclasses. The principal people behind this were Royal Robbins [a teenager at the time] and probably the first to climb a 5.9 and Chuck Wilts [at Caltech]. Ten? We have ten fingers and toes, our numbers systems are based on 10. So began the decimal system 1-5.0-5.9. 6 was temporarily divided from 6.0 and 6.9 but was replaced with the A1-A6 classification from the UIAA [early copies of the Yosemite Climbers guide show it fractions of 6]. The problems arose around 1959-1964 when people were clearly doing climbs harder than 5.9 thru skill, trickery, and technology. Chuck Pratt is generally credited with doing the first 5.10. [I think Crack of Doom at Elephant Rock in Yosemite.] You will notice what appears to be a California slant. This is because during the period from the late 1950s thru the 1960s, the good weather of Yosemite Valley, the technology developed by Yvon Chouinard [mass produced hard steel pitons], and so forth pushed climbing beyond what it was conceived. True, the English had developed jamming [counterforce climbing techniques] in the early 1950s by Joe Brown, and ice climbing thru John Cummingham [sp], but this was california's time to shine. Between 1964-1966 there were climbs clearly beyond 5.10, one in Yosemite and one in Colorado which vied for the first 5.11. People began thinking about the possibility of 5.12 shortly. This issue was briefly side tracked when it was argued there were a great variation in 5.10s. Around this time it was 'proposed' in a Mountain article to break 5.10 into 5.10a-5.10d and 5.11 into 5.11a and 5.11b [Now to 5.11d]. 5.12 was added in the late 1970s [I've only seen my first 5.12 a month ago: a woman (!) climbing a 35 foot overhang roof (horizontal) split by a handjam, she peeled off three times while I was watching, each time putting in another piece, each time getting pulled back into the belay stance (I've off alpine climbing for the most part).] 5.13s were added recently. I've yet to hear of a 5.14 yet. Consistency was a problem during the 1960s. In Colorado, many ratings were 2 points off their CA ratings CO 5.9 was a CA 5.7 [worse case] and this has pretty much been corrected. Asides: I used to climb with an English fellow who is a UCSB physicist who has several articles on climbing. It's interesting to hear his European rating of pitches on say the East Face of Mount Whitney (our variant 5.6) (TD+) [he wanted to do popular routes]. Supercomputers are rated from Class 1-6 [why not 5 or 10?]. I suspect that the physicists who did this were climbers. I know Edward Teller was a climber as a young man before losing his foot. I asked two of the people responsible for rating supercomputers if we had entered class 7 yet [one Y and one N]. Where are these systems going? Climbs are being done which are physically impossible for people of certain size or proportion: squeeze chimneys (ies) and superwide chims, or long reaches. Some climbs are not even climbs, but long jumps followed by fast friction moves [otherwise certain death]. Only time can tell how far these rating system are going to go. You pretty much have climb continously to climb a 5.12 standard or higher and they are the only ones who can rate these climbs. [My brother in law climbs 5.11 consistently. I could climb a few 5.10abs at my peak.] These systems break down with ice climbs, alpine climbs, and superalpine climbs as done in Pakistan right now. Sources: many but only indirect. There is a date but famous Sierra Club publication from the 1940 entitled Belaying the Leader, the Climbers Guide to Tahquitz Rock (Wilts), Climbing in NA by Chris Jones, Climb by Dudley Chelton and Bob Godfrey, one book which escapes me now. Numerous other books by Blackshaw, March, Rabbitface (sic), Robbins. The Freedom of the Hills text and the Sierra Club's Learning to Climb texts are okay. But remember, you have to go out climbing. Ignore books by Casewit, Ullman (to a degree) waste of time. It is probably possible to reach Wilts via the net, but I suspect he doesn't really respond to Email. People sources: C. Wilts, Y. Chouinard, J. Dozier, J. Cardy, D. Chelton, J. Harlan, III, many others. This is obviously short, it doesn't cover fine points. If you need more info, send me mail. If I can't answer it, I will forward hardcopy to people who can. --eugene Formerly with the GPIW. Now Yosemite has been. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb