Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Climb Quality - how do you rate it?


tnd

12-Sep-2012
9:18:34 AM

On 11/09/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>...I'm with you on the star rating thing, tnd.

And I'm with you on boobies :-)

Re: Muldoon...ok it's not crap, just ordinary.

anthonycuskelly

12-Sep-2012
9:34:19 AM

Just to really drag out the thread drift... I'd be interested in ODH's list of 50 easy climbs as good as Muldoon. Not because I think he's wrong, but so I can go and do them.

I think stars are useful as somewhere to start, especially somewhere like Araps where there's so many options. I've always suspected that multi-starred routes are going to be "solid" at the grade (Morfydd, Mari, etc), though it's by no means a given.

Back on topic... what I actually want from a climb depends on grade. If it's easy (for me) then I'd like something nice and consistent, and the longer the better. If it's hard then I'm all for bouldery cruxes :D


pmonks

12-Sep-2012
9:47:11 AM

I've been accused of having highly unusual tastes, but I found P1 of Muldoon more interesting than P2. I can still remember thinking the little sequence out to the belay was bloody great - better than anything on P2!

While we're on the topic, why does "I'm a little asteroid" get any stars? The climbing is nice and all, but it's certainly not a classic by any stretch!

And yes Arachnus is FTW - one of the best routes at the grade anywhere! As is "Elspeth" at Point Perp - best 10m of grade 14 climbing in the universe.

anthonycuskelly

12-Sep-2012
10:11:32 AM

I really like I'm a little asteroid. As someone nudging into leading 18s, it's got nice moves with "good enough" gear, good rock, in an interesting spot, and it feels that little bit scarier than it probably should. Not as good as something like Eurydice, but I'd still say better than the average.


nmonteith

12-Sep-2012
10:12:55 AM

One of the biggest "controversies" in creating a quality star system is comparisons with other routes. Should the best route at a crappy crag get 3 stars? Or should stars be given when comparing ALL of the routes in Australia/World?

When I give stars to routes (my own and others) I compare regionally - probably about a 200km radius. A Nowra climb should be given stars in comparison to a Point Perp or Bluies route as they are all within day trip distance of each other. You have a choice of any of these crags when going out for the day climbing. But comparing directly a route on Taipan Wall to a route in Margaret River seems a bit pointless (unless you are traveling). I think the majority of climbers climbing are 'locals' out for the day or weekend.


rodw

12-Sep-2012
10:18:48 AM

I always viewed stars as a local comparison only, semi useful in finding the crag your at best routes...seriously when your at a crag how does it help how it compares to something 200km away......a ranking at Crag level might help in determining your destination in the first place (like ACA site tried to implement) but once your there whats the point?....I've always thought the system very flawed anyway as it just comes down to personal preference.


ajfclark

12-Sep-2012
10:21:49 AM

On 12/09/2012 pmonks wrote:
>And yes Arachnus is FTW - one of the best routes at the grade anywhere! As is "Elspeth" at Point Perp - best 10m of grade 14 climbing in the universe.

What meaning of FTW are you using here?

Neither For the Win or f--- the World fit...


nmonteith

12-Sep-2012
10:25:45 AM

On 12/09/2012 rodw wrote:
>I always viewed stars as a local comparison only, semi useful in finding
>the crag your at best routes...seriously when your at a crag how does it
>help how it compares to something 200km away......a ranking at Crag level
>might help in determining your destination in the first place (like ACA
>site tried to implement) but once your there whats the point?....I've always
>thought the system very flawed anyway as it just comes down to personal
>preference.

Nothing more disappointing than turning up a to do a 3 star route to discover it wouldn't even get 1 at a cliff a few kilometres away.


rodw

12-Sep-2012
10:29:16 AM

On 12/09/2012 nmonteith wrote:

>Nothing more disappointing than turning up a to do a 3 star route to discover
>it wouldn't even get 1 at a cliff a few kilometres away.

1st world problems :) ... wish my lifes biggest disappointments were that insignificant.

If only a few Km its easily fixed but you were talking several hours away.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

12-Sep-2012
10:34:53 AM

On 12/09/2012 ajfclark wrote:
>On 12/09/2012 pmonks wrote:
>>And yes Arachnus is FTW - one of the best routes at the grade anywhere!
>As is "Elspeth" at Point Perp - best 10m of grade 14 climbing in the universe.
>
>What meaning of FTW are you using here?
>
>Neither For the Win or f--- the World fit...

pm is learning typing skills off ww&s!
It is probably shorthand-mis-type for what it's worth? ... as for the wecord doesn't sound wight?

On the topic of stars, what about an anti grade system like awarding sneakers/runners? eg ollie over on another other thread possibly reckons that Snake Dyke could be a 4 runner climb?
;-)

Back on topic...
As others have noted climb quality varies considerably depending on the yardstick used to measure it, and I agree with this; but what I find intrigueing is the 'repeat experience' and the climbs I rate as having a quality of true worth are those that still continue to give great satisfaction when one does a repeat ascent/s again sometime/s down the track.

This for me is a more real measure of the summation of the climb 'quality', and I guess 'classics' attain that status by concensus as others repeat them.


tnd

12-Sep-2012
11:00:05 AM

If one is planning ahead, then I like theCrag.com rating system. If a route has a large number of recorded ascents you can take the average of the ratings reported by those people and get some idea of how it's perceived.


nmonteith

12-Sep-2012
11:13:31 AM

On 12/09/2012 tnd wrote:
>If one is planning ahead, then I like theCrag.com rating system. If a route
>has a large number of recorded ascents you can take the average of the
>ratings reported by those people and get some idea of how it's perceived.

Although I wish users would put their ego to the side when using that site. When you cop a sandbagging or an unexpected loss on something you expected to onsight then don't rate a route as crap quality. Your climbing ability is what is shite not the climb! It kind of works both ways as well - routes get rated classic+ when people onsight them unexpectantly!


ajfclark

12-Sep-2012
11:19:37 AM

I think that's one of the issues with crowd sourced guidebooks.

With an edited guide you get one perspective. It might be skewed or biased, but for the most part, it's fairly consistent (with the books I've seen at least).

Crowd sourced guides seem to lose a lot of that consistency unless someone diligent comes through and edits things and cleans the up.


rodw

12-Sep-2012
11:26:08 AM

But comes back to whats a rating system for...to pick out climbs that a majority of people have enjoyed more than most..so for whatever reason a climb gets an average high score, it still means to most people its above average.

I think crowd sourced guide rating overtime are a better representation then a single guide book author....bad rating get averaged out as well as the over enthusiastic ones...so if you are prone to using ratings...crowd sources ones with enough feedback would have to be your best bet...rather than the single guidebook author who probably hasn't climbed most of the routes and has asked the "experts" for advice...normally the FA who is biased anyway.

Or you could just turn up at a crag and climb what you think looks good and just have fun anyway.


Big G

12-Sep-2012
12:03:59 PM

>Or you could just turn up at a crag and climb what you think looks good
>and just have fun anyway.

exactly


Superstu

12-Sep-2012
12:47:59 PM

Crowdsourcing popularity is great... It helps you to avoid crowds....

Popularity and quality rarely go hand-in-hand however.

Popular climbs are over bolted, close to the car, and usually contain moves similar to those in an indoor gym.

Quality climbs are often aesthetically attractive, challenging, thoughtful, exciting, mentally strenuous, or sometimes just pleasant and enjoyable, but ultimately a memorable experience.

The only climbs at Nowra I can remember are the ones I have injured myself on. But I will still climb there. Some days I just want to climb popular climbs instead of quality ones.


nmonteith

12-Sep-2012
1:21:37 PM

On 12/09/2012 Superstu wrote:
>Quality climbs are
snip
>ultimately a memorable experience.

I like that.


pmonks

12-Sep-2012
1:23:28 PM

On 12/09/2012 rodw wrote:
>Or you could just turn up at a crag and climb what you think looks good
>and just have fun anyway.

I've thought about that too - but ditch both quality AND difficulty ratings at a particular crag. So the climbs would all be described as per usual (i.e. factually e.g. "Sexy Seppos from San Francisco - Start 3m left of tree. Hard moves to gain crack then good fisting to climactic finish."), but without grades or stars.

Given what I said over here I'd be interested in seeing whether rocking up and just trying whatever looked good and achievable, without knowing a grade, would help get over the psychological block that grades impose. Maybe that's one of the unique attractions of doing ground up first ascents?

Estey

12-Sep-2012
1:28:17 PM

I read this somewhere once- seemed like commone sense.

* a good climb relative to the rest of the crag and surrounding areas
** crag classic
***a classic anywhere

Over starring should be opposed at all costs, just like grade inflation.


ajfclark

12-Sep-2012
1:32:51 PM

On 12/09/2012 pmonks wrote:
>would help get over the psychological block that grades impose.

I find the opposite sometimes applies too. "That looks impossible for me but the book says it's X..."

There are 111 messages in this topic.