UIAA grades:
The + or - differenciation starts with grade IV: IV-, IV, IV+.
For grades I, II, and III, the intermediate grade may eventually appear as: I-II (I, I-II, II).

A common mistake I've done myself is to say f.i.: II+.

BK

borutb wrote:UIAA grades:
The + or - differenciation starts with grade IV: IV-, IV, IV+.
For grades I, II, and III, the intermediate grade may eventually appear as: I-II (I, I-II, II).

A common mistake I've done myself is to say f.i.: II+.

BK

The official UIAA Site's comparison chart for grade comparisons shows a rating of III+.

I have seen ratings as low as II+ in Swiss Alpine Club guidebooks and publications.

Paul Nigg in his Bergell Gebietsführer uses ratings as low as II+.

The + and - can be added to any of the grades.

Fred Spicker wrote:

borutb wrote:UIAA grades:
The + or - differenciation starts with grade IV: IV-, IV, IV+.
For grades I, II, and III, the intermediate grade may eventually appear as: I-II (I, I-II, II).

A common mistake I've done myself is to say f.i.: II+.

BK

The official UIAA Site's comparison chart for grade comparisons shows a rating of III+.

I have seen ratings as low as II+ in Swiss Alpine Club guidebooks and publications.

Paul Nigg in his Bergell Gebietsführer uses ratings as low as II+.

The + and - can be added to any of the grades.

The comparison charts on your page once show the "existence" of III+, and once not.
What you state in your post is that we start with 1-.
Like: I-, I, I+, II-, II, etc
How do you describe the difference between I+ and II-, Fred?

I see a tendency to the use of III+, yes, but it is a tendency.
I, II, and III are defined by themselves (see Gabi Roth's input).
The other tendency is one intermediate grade between I and II, namely I-II (I to II).
The + and - story gives two intermediate grades between I and II, which is indescriptable.

The + and - can not be added to any of the grades.

Go here:

http://www.theuiaa.org/guidebook_standards.html

Click on "table showing the relationship between the UIAA scale of difficulties and the scale used in the guidebook"

Pick up some European guidebooks and leaf through them.

I have never seen + and - used lower than with II

How do you describe the difference between IV+ and V-? It would be the same between any grades. It is largely subjective.

Fred Spicker wrote:Go here:

http://www.theuiaa.org/guidebook_standards.html

Click on "table showing the relationship between the UIAA scale of difficulties and the scale used in the guidebook"

Pick up some European guidebooks and leaf through them.

I have never seen + and - used lower than with II

How do you describe the difference between IV+ and V-? It would be the same between any grades. It is largely subjective.

Thanks Fred for the link!

The difference between IV+ and V-? Seemingly the difference between 5.7 and 5.8.
The translations get an even higher subjectiveness grade

I even hear someone say climb the route not the grade.

borutb wrote:The difference between IV+ and V-? Seemingly the difference between 5.7 and 5.8.

The same way the difference between II+ and III- would be the same as between 5.0 and 5.1 Not a precise comparison, just an analogy.

kamil wrote:

borutb wrote:The difference between IV+ and V-? Seemingly the difference between 5.7 and 5.8.

The same way the difference between II+ and III- would be the same as between 5.0 and 5.1 Not a precise comparison, just an analogy.

You're right, comparing one system to an other takes us no where.
I'd prefer defining IV+ and V- with the help of (my) classical examples of each grade.
Generally speaking, V- is more strenuous (maybe blocking off) than IV+.

Again, there is no + and - in the lower three UIAA grades (OK, OK, with the exception of III+).

borutb wrote:

kamil wrote:

borutb wrote:Again, there is no + and - in the lower three UIAA grades (OK, OK, with the exception of III+).

+1

The table that Fred refers is the only valid for the UIAA...

Diego Sahagún wrote:The table that Fred refers is the only valid for the UIAA...

Except it's rubbish when it says UIAA I is equivalent to YDS 5.2, and UIAA II is YDS 5.3. Neither of those UIAA grades is YDS Class 5 at all. It amazes me that the UIAA keeps publishing that misleading comparison, and has been doing so for years.

But it is the only valid for the UIAA. Isn't it

Diego Sahagún wrote:But it is the only valid for the UIAA. Isn't it

Well, I don't know of another. But the absurdly inaccurate comparison to another leading grading system suggests that UIAA hasn't given this table much thought.

Probably that's your opinion and not the one of the most SPers. Anyway, the grade scales have always been questionable in this world of climbing

Trying to create equivalencies between the different rating systems is very difficult because they are “different”.

Even within the same grading system different people often rate the same climb slightly differently and there is certainly a regional difference in the application of grading both in the US with the YDS system and in Europe with the UIAA system and now commonly applied French system.

This chart by the American Alpine Club (http://www.mountain.ru/eng/climb/2004/grade/ } is more realistic than the UIAA chart, but I am still going to stick by the chart that Michael and I put together ( http://www.summitpost.org/handy-alpine-grade-facts/173430 ). It is not perfect, but I think that it is closer in the lower grades than either the AAC or the UIAA charts.

We have both climbed extensively using both systems. The “notes” on the chart are a direct translation from an SAC guidebook describing the grades verbally. See also Gab’s description of the lower grades (link on the page).

Fred Spicker wrote:Trying to create equivalencies between the different rating systems is very difficult because they are “different”.

Even within the same grading system different people often rate the same climb slightly differently and there is certainly a regional difference in the application of grading both in the US with the YDS system and in Europe with the UIAA system and now commonly applied French system.

This chart by the American Alpine Club (http://www.mountain.ru/eng/climb/2004/grade/ } is more realistic than the UIAA chart, but I am still going to stick by the chart that Michael and I put together ( http://www.summitpost.org/handy-alpine-grade-facts/173430 ). It is not perfect, but I think that it is closer in the lower grades than either the AAC or the UIAA charts.

We have both climbed extensively using both systems. The “notes” on the chart are a direct translation from an SAC guidebook describing the grades verbally. See also Gab’s description of the lower grades (link on the page).

You've done an excellent job with that, Fred.