Second link turned into a TR
http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/6 ... nosze.html

yatsek wrote:I am pretty sure UIAA IV = YDS 5.5/5.6
So, UIAA III must be about YDS 5.3/5.4
Then UIAA II = YDS 5.2/5.3
And UIAA I = YDS class 4 to 5.1

class 4 = approx. UIAA 0+

Hi guys, thanks for the invite, though I just stumbled on the thread.

I think UIAA II is roughly class 4. It's really hard to tell the difference between class 4 and ratings up to about 5.3. You'll never see an argument where people are finding much difference between 5.1 and 5.4. But at 5.6 things firm up. That's usually the first grade people got on where they thought they just might really fall and die if they aren't careful.

I guess my views align with the chart I posted here a few years ago.

This thing about class 4 being UIAA 0+ is ridiculous. I'm suddenly picturing some scared European hiker on the West Ridge of Forbidden Peak (sometimes underrated as class 4) who read that climber.org site!

mvs wrote:

yatsek wrote:I am pretty sure UIAA IV = YDS 5.5/5.6
So, UIAA III must be about YDS 5.3/5.4
Then UIAA II = YDS 5.2/5.3
And UIAA I = YDS class 4 to 5.1

class 4 = approx. UIAA 0+

Hi guys, thanks for the invite, though I just stumbled on the thread.

I think UIAA II is roughly class 4. It's really hard to tell the difference between class 4 and ratings up to about 5.3. You'll never see an argument where people are finding much difference between 5.1 and 5.4. But at 5.6 things firm up. That's usually the first grade people got on where they thought they just might really fall and die if they aren't careful.

I guess my views align with the chart I posted here a few years ago.

This thing about class 4 being UIAA 0+ is ridiculous. I'm suddenly picturing some scared European hiker on the West Ridge of Forbidden Peak (sometimes underrated as class 4) who read that climber.org site!

Hi,

Really nice to see you here.

How about my latest post about that? (just above the two big pix above)

yatsek wrote:Been studying the problem The way I see it now is
UIAA I = Scrambling (both US and UK ) grade/class 3.5 (i.e. upper 3 or lower 4) = around YDS climbing grade 5.05
UIAA II = upper class 4 (scrambling) = YDS 5.2 (trad climbing)
UIAA III = YDS 5.35
UIAA IV = YDS 5.55
UIAA V = YDS 5.75

yatsek"
...
Hi,

Really nice to see you here.

How about my latest post about that? (just above the two big pix one page back)
[quote="yatsek wrote:Been studying the problem The way I see it now is
UIAA I = Scrambling (both US and UK ) grade/class 3.5 (i.e. upper 3 or lower 4) = around YDS climbing grade 5.05
UIAA II = upper class 4 (scrambling) = YDS 5.2 (trad climbing)
UIAA III = YDS 5.35
UIAA IV = YDS 5.55
UIAA V = YDS 5.75

[/quote]

Hee hee! Well now that we are in the realm of fun I'll propose this: no Euro-trash climb can ever be as hard as a solid 'Merican 5.8. Now 5.8 is where things get interesting. The muscles become burly and the commitment becomes grim. The walls are smooth and the cracks are greasy. So this must be the definitive scale:

Code: Select all

limit       ConvertUIAAToYDS(x) = 5.8
x->inf


With that in mind, UIAA VIII is probably around 5.789132..., UIAA X+ is approaching 5.79634323..., etc. Makes perfect sense!

mvs wrote:Hee hee! Well now that we are in the realm of fun I'll propose this: no Euro-trash climb can ever be as hard as a solid 'Merican 5.8. Now 5.8 is where things get interesting. The muscles become burly and the commitment becomes grim. The walls are smooth and the cracks are greasy. So this must be the definitive scale:

Code: Select all

limit       ConvertUIAAToYDS(x) = 5.8
x->inf


With that in mind, UIAA VIII is probably around 5.789132..., UIAA X+ is approaching 5.79634323..., etc. Makes perfect sense!

Now it's Kamil's or Borut's turn to defend the honour of this peninsula of Asia as such heights are yours and his playground. I've never crossed that 5.75 gate to heaven.

mvs wrote:It's really hard to tell the difference between class 4 and ratings up to about 5.3. You'll never see an argument where people are finding much difference between 5.1 and 5.4.

Exactly. When it comes to scrambling, I get the feeling that the real problem is how "chossy" the rock is, and this seems to be – surprisingly – ignored by the scrambling grading systems. You've been there and here. I wonder what you'd say.

yatsek wrote:

mvs wrote:It's really hard to tell the difference between class 4 and ratings up to about 5.3. You'll never see an argument where people are finding much difference between 5.1 and 5.4.

Exactly. When it comes to scrambling, I get the feeling that the real problem is how "chossy" the rock is, and this seems to be – surprisingly – ignored by the scrambling grading systems. You've been there and here. I wonder what you'd say.

The rating systems definitely do ignore the rock quality. If it's bad, the author of the description or topo usually feels compelled to state something.

It's a particularly hilarious aspect of our sport that beginners who are looking for the easiest technical climbs are shunted onto the loosest and arguably most dangerous terrain on the mountain. Before they even began they have to get comfortable with long run-outs on asthetically unpleasant terrain. Those that survive with enthusiasm intact will finally get to do some real climbing later on steeper (read cleaner) rock.

Thanks for dropping by, Michael!

mvs wrote:

Code: Select all

limit       ConvertUIAAToYDS(x) = 5.8
x->inf


With that in mind, UIAA VIII is probably around 5.789132..., UIAA X+ is approaching 5.79634323..., etc. Makes perfect sense!

Luckily I still remember a bit from my technical education
Your joke sometimes happens in reality. Back in the time there was really something like this with VI UIAA which was traditionally the hardest stuff. And not so long ago it was the same in Poland (late 80's and early 90's) with our own Polish grade VI.5 (about IX+ UIAA), with much harder routes still being graded the sacred VI.5

Of the late 1980's, I remember a guy who was about the same age as I am now and who always climbed those VI's in what we'd call heavy hiking boots these days.

Banikov

yatsek wrote:Our East Central Europe is supposed to stand for the mountains and hills that rise within the right-hand half - east or north of the Alps - of what's called Central European on this map, namely the Bohemian Massif in the west, the Carpathian ranges north of the lower Danube in the south-east, and all that's in between, e.g. the volcanoes by Lake Balaton or the hills, crags and caves of Moravia or Krakow-Czestochowa Jura.

Interesting definition of Central and Eastern Europe. Before skipping to the last paragraph where the point is explained, it's well worth reading the whole text

Kamil,

Regarding the introductory paragraph: Do you mean Balkan Peace Park is not anything near YDS 5.10 but in fact something around 5.05? Or is it actually 5.12?

With reference to the conclusion: As far as this thread is concerned, the proposal for name change has been dismissed for the following reasons.

1 It would have to embrace the Slovenian Alps, to which Borut is bound to strongly object.

2 It would delete the Gascon, and this disagrees with what I wrote at the very start and what I am not going to change

yatsek wrote:I've decided to open up a new forum under the banner of the mountains of East Central Europe. Please use the English language (not necessarily correct ) here so that everybody can participate regardless of their native – Czech, German, Hungarian, Polish, Slovak, Romanian, Rusyn, Ukrainian or Gascon - language.

All the Gauls are still welcome here (and anybody else whether or not we get on well with one another) although there's no denying one has wk… me a bit recently.

3 And the Czechs are not so sure as one of the comments reads:
"Ať chceme či ne, K-slova jsou polskou jazykovou realitou. Na téma toho opravdu sprostého K-slova více anglicky: The whore-queen of Polish maledicta"

Having dismissed your proposal, I suggest you open another thread yourself: Curvopean regional discussion and condition reports.

BTW Kamil, you'd better watch out because some already realize it's not Bob who leads the Great Purge – it is I who is Bob's Supervisor

Bob Sihler wrote: this is what I do to bad pages

Yatsek, now it's going too far. It is continuing non stop for one week day and night, and now overflowing on all possible threads.
Despite I tried to ignore you it looks like you still have not understood.
Please read again thisand this.
Eric

Eric,
I'm not sure you have understood that I am NOT a moderator. I did notice you ignored me and my arguments. I admit I occasionally have difficulty understanding English/American speakers, but I do understand that people whose native language isn't English may misunderstand quite a bit of both the language and the culture. I'm sure you remember one SP'er we both liked felt offended recently by an SP thread and AFAIR you opened up a "stop this post" thread, which helped bring him back here on SP (although I'm not sure that he has returned). So if you ask me, I suggest you open another thread like this, or argue your case on the "delete this user" thread, or PM Bob Sihler right away.

Jacek
PS If you find the two messages above pornographic, whether Kamil's or mine, or maybe both, you can report it/them to the Elves as well.