Re:How would you rate...........

[guest]

As far as rating anything. i won't! Weither it is climbing, access, aerials or whatever every time is different. My mental attitude and the weather keep them changing everyday. I was taken under a wing and tought how to jump. Knowing my ability and limits played a big part in it. I will NEVER rate a sight and tell a newbe it should be ok just because of the rating it has. unless I missed a major point to this "proposed" system then as far as I am concerned with it it is useless and might as well be thrown away.I see VERY little positive and a greater possibility of negative things happening. In other words IT IS NOT VERY IMPRESSIVE.That is just my two cents
C-YA
jack



mknutson Jan-19-00, 04:58 PM (PST)
"How would you rate these difficulties???"
This is, what I believe, almost the last step. Below are some comments from Robin Heid. I think that a measuring stick needs to be established that is agreed upon world-wide.
That means, if a site rating has a scale from 1 to 10 (like climbing has 1 to 6 I think), We need to detail out those levels.

I would love to have everyone fill in a simple form! Give me your idea of the difficulty of the 3 categories from 1 to 10.

Define your idea of the following difficulties:

Approach / Withdrawal difficulties:
===================================
1 =
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 =

Exit / Aerial difficulties:
===========================
1 =
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 =

Landing difficulties:
======================
1 =
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 =


--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--


> Dear Mick:
>
> One more thing on site ratings....
>
> what determines the number rating?
>
> If you say a moab cliff is a 3-6-4 (approach/jump/landing), what is it
that
> makes it a 3-6-4?
>
> Is there an objective standard to apply? I'm not sure how the climbers do
> this part, but there has to be some sort of criteria everyone understands,
> so that people rating sites are on the same page...
>
> now, in both surfing and climbing, there are variations... for example,
> "3-foot Hawaiian" waves are "8-foot L.A." and a "Yosemite 5.9" is
> generally harder than a "Joshua Tree 5.9"
>
> Maybe we just leave it to intuition, but I'll check with some of my
> climbing buddies and ask them about the climbing ratings and how someone
> decides a new route is a 5.10 or 5.11c or whatever...
>
> THe Moab example is quite nice, partly because you don't need to fill in
> all the blanks for it to be useful, so guidebooks for Moab, for Yosemite,
> et al, can grow by bits and pieces until there is comprehensive
> documentation...
>
> Later,
>
> RObin

[imported_mknutson]

You are misinterpretting my question then!
In rock climbing, there is a measuring stick to grade climbes.
Grade 4 = steep hike.
Grade 5 = Assisted climb
etc...

In rock climbing, weather and other conditions make each and every climb different every time. Just like in base jumping. That is also why many climbs are re-rated over time due to changes.

But one this is consistant, the measuring stick!

I am asking for everyone to help me with their opinion of that measuring stick.
Please refer to:
http://www.baselogic.com/forum/board/606.shtml#

There I will add my "Opinion" on the measuring stick.
:-(
--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

"Everything you ever wanted to know about BASE Jumping, but didn't know who to ask."
--

[guest]

Jack, darling, the point you're missing is that a rating system is a _supplement_ not a _substitute_ for individual judgment.

Absolutely there are days when I can flash a 5.10 climb and others when I flail on 5.8.

And absolutely you don't tell a "newbie" or anyone else that a 2-2-3 site is okay just because it has a low difficulty rating...

Because the bottom line is, it's a BASE jump whether it's a 223 or a 101010... in fact, Jack, you make a good point.... maybe we should add a "10" prefix to all rated sites just to remind everybody an "easy" BASE jump is _still_ a potentially lethal proposition.

BUt your blanket condemnation is miplaced at best and downright reactionary and not well-thought-out at worst....

A rating system is no more than a map, a guide to what to expect...

When you look at a highway road map, you see thin lines and thick lines and blue lines and red lines and they all mean something in terms of what kind of road you might expect when you get there.

Those lines do _not_ tell you how fast to drive, or whether the car you're driving can handle the roads represented by those lines, or what those roads are like when it's raining or snowing or windy.

Those are individual judgments _you_ must make, based upon your knowledge, your ability, the ability of your car and, of course, weather conditions.

But tell me this: Would you send a "newbie" driver off on an adventure _without_ a road map?

That map may may not tell him/her how fast to drive, but it should could tell him/her whether it was a freeway or a jeep trail, right?

ANd that's what a rating system is for. In no way shape or form is it supposed to be some _substitute_ for individual judgment. It is a _supplement_ for individual judgment.

Do you grok it in its fullness now, bro?

Love,


Robin

[guest]

Robin has hit dead center in the peas on this one!

WDC