Climbing Grades

We do not generally include climbing grades in this section of Appalachia. They have become very complicated; for example A3 WI4+ M5/6. Usually the higher the number the harder the route. But not always.

When I started climbing in the Shawangunks in 1952 it all seemed pretty simple: routes were either 4 or 5. This was quite informal--there was yet no guidebook. The numbers derived from an old 1 to 6 system, in which the lower grades required no ropes, and 6 meant direct aid--usually rope loops attached to pitons driven into cracks. But finer distinctions were inevitable. We started to talk about easy 5’s, hard 5’s. etc. Then it was formalized. Because virtually all the routes were 5’s, we followed the Yosemite Decimal System by adding a decimal point to distinguish them: 5.1 and up as they got harder. In those days the Gunks had almost nothing beyond 5.7. There was a tantalizing 5.8 at the Skytop crag, initiated by the great Fritz Wiessner. A single carabiner twenty feet up showed where he had been, but it was some time before anybody else got up there.

New equipment, more climbers and competitiveness pushed limits higher. After 5.8 came 5.9, at one time considered about as hard as you could go. But it wasn’t. Defying the conventions of mathematics, the next grade was 5.10, not 5.91. We are now up to 5.15, with sub-designations (a,b,c,d) for the harder ones. Even these are imprecise. They do not, for example, distinguish between a segment that has only one 5.9 move and one that is 5.9 all the way. Direct aid sections have a scale of their own: A1...A5.

These terms are now used only for climbs purely on rock. There are other scales, such as M for mixed snow, ice and rock; WI for water ice etc. Bouldering has grades all its own.

How far can these ratings be pushed? Records are made to be broken. For example: the fastest mile run in the 19th century was about four minutes and 12 seconds. It wasn’t until 1954 that Roger Bannister broke the coveted 4-minute mark. Since then, the record has dropped another 16 seconds. And even high-schoolers have run four-minute miles. Whatever one can do, another can some day do a little better. There is doubtless a limit, but no one knows what it is although it is safe to say that no one is likely to manage a 3:30 mile.

Climbing is more subjective than running. I think that psychology plays a larger role. Furthermore, some people are good at slabs, others at chimneys, others at overhangs. On many routes it helps to be tall; on others, though fewer, height is a disadvantage. There have been endless debates in campgrounds and bars, as well as in climbing journals, about degrees of difficulty.

Danger and difficulty are different categories. An easy rock climb can be hazardous if there is no way to thread the rope through protection; a gentle mountain may be prone to avalanche. American rock guidebooks have borrowed from the movies for a risk rating: G, PG, R, X. G is very safe; X means you may die if you fall off.

International ratings have developed independently, producing the confusion outlined in the American Alpine Journal's final page. The British, who for many years eschewed pitons and declared that “the leader must not fall,” used words like “severe” and “hard very severe” (HVS). By today’s much loftier standards HVS is pretty moderate, so the Brits have devised E1 .. E11 for the newer climbs.

Whatever the scale. ratings will rise, at least for a time. Climbers are already working toward 5.16.

But finally the best way to anticipate a climb is to talk with some who has done it. That person should preferably be the same height, weight, gender and temperament as yourself.

Return to Climbing page.

Return to travel page.

Return to home page.

Return to Climbing page.

Return to travel page.

Return to home page.