Normal
0
21
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tableau Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
The 8a
ranking system is a nice tool, allowing to follow every climbersย progress over
time, for himself and in comparison to others.
However,
the point scale could be dramatically improved.
Apart from
the ยgradeย points (1000=8a), the bonus points do not reward the climberยs
effort accordingly.
The 145
bonus points for an onsight ascent mean a 24% bonus for a 6c, but it represents
only 12% for an 8c. Onsighting 8c however, is a much greater performance and
the points awarded should show it.
I suggest
to award, instead of a fixed amount of points, a fixed percentage of the ascent
base points. For instance, letยs say that the current 145 points are coherent
with the 8a 1000 points.
It means
onsighting a route gives you an extra 14.5%.
6c onsight
would be granted an extra 87 points, 7a would mean 101,5 bonus.
The current
system flattens the distribution, when everyone knows every step up the
climbing is significantly harder than the previous one.
A similar
system could of course be applied to the other bonus points (flash, FA, 2 nd
go, etcย )
What do you think?
What u point out is true, but that happens because the value of the onsight is: "3 grades more than redpoint -5". If we change to your system, when onsighting an 8a you would get the points of 3 grades more, but when onsighting a 6c it would be like 1.5 grades more, and when onsighting a 9b it would be like 4 grades more. I guess they have to choose, either keep "3 grades more -5" fixed or either have a fixed percentage. Either way you can make a "non-fair" analysis
I'd say that 2 things should be (re)established 1 - The same points should be awarded for the red point of grade X and for the on sight of grade X - Y. What should the difference be? On average, if people can onsight 7b, can they redpoint 7c? or 8a? 2 - The difference in points between a full grade. I reckon it should be at least 100%. Or maybe more. Should the points given for one 9b (redpoint) equal those of how many 9as (redpoint)? Two 9as? Four 9as? I reckon that a fixed factor would be limiting, given that current top climbers seem to have taken no less than 4 years to go from 9a to 9b.
The 8a ranking system, revised