How would you rate these difficulties???

[imported_mknutson]

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]

Opinion by Mick Knutson

Define your idea of the following difficulties and an example object:

Approach / Withdrawal difficulties:
===================================
1 = Flat walk 20 yards on concrete. BD Exit
2 =
3 = 45 minute hike with several extended fall potentials; Tombstone
4 = 1.5 hour hike with variable conditions; Kjerag #7
5 =
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 = Trecherous extended climb.Troll Wall hike in.
10 = Alpine climb in a far remote location; Baffin Island

Exit / Aerial difficulties:
===========================
1 = Flat exit no obsticals in freefall; BD.
2 =
3 = Flat exit with ample time to avoid solid wall; Kjerag #7
4 =
5 = Flat overhung exit point with few obsticals - 390'; Tombstone.
6 =
7 = 300' Tower
8 =
9 =
10 = Odd exit point with many obsticals in freefall; Troll Wall.

Landing difficulties:
======================
1 = Flat grass area 100 meters squared; Yellow Ocean
2 =
3 =
4 =
5 = 50 meter landing area surrounded by trees and a cliff; Tombstone
6 =
7 =
8 =
9 =
10 = 10'x10' landing area on rocks and boulders; ?


I WILL BE EDITING MY ENTRY HERE AS I HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TODAY!
--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

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

[web]

is that 300-footer guyed or not? if yes, 3 or 4 sets of wires? with reference to freefall/canopy obstacles, you might want to arrange the ratings with at least partial reference to how many degrees of azimuth a jumper has at his/her disposal.

e.g.: 3-wire tower=120deg.
4-wire tower= 90deg. (most of the time)
downwind corner of a
rectangular bldg.=270deg.

[guest]

Mick et al.-

I think your idea of rating objects is a good one, I think its more appropriate and better than the idea of liscencing jumpers but thats just my opinion.

So regarding your inquiry regarding climbing ratings, there are many systems in place, predominately in different countries, but even multiple sysytems w/ in a country. In the US the yosemite decimal system rules and is most common. The 1-6 you mentioon is super rough, and basically everthing most people thinnk of as "climbing" (free climbing technically) falls into class 5 (eg., a 5.11 or 5.9) class 6 is aid climbing which we'll ignore for now. Free cllimbing basically began in its modern form in Yosemite, there was no appropriate scale so they made one up, the yosemite decimal system. IT was always openended and originally thought it would never progress past 5.10, yet now there are 5.15's! Anyhow this isn't a history lesson the point is you will have a very difficult time setting it all up and having exact rules from the begining. It needs to evolve over time.

I think the three number system discussed for access/exit/LZ makes a lot of sense. Like climbing it might eventually evolve to be shortened only to the most severe number. This is most analagous to climbing. All a 5.12 means is that somewhere on the route you will face 5.12 level climbing. That could vary from a lot of 5.11 that tires yo out and has a 5.12 "fatigue factor" or all 5.9 w/ a single very difficult 5.12 move. Ok but I digress

How is the rating decided upon in climbing. There is a strict system in place tht decides on a rating which I think would be appropriate for base. The first ascentionist for a climb rates the climb what he/she thinks the grade is. IT is the responsibility or priveledge of the second ascentioneist to basically verify this grade or change it, and basically thats it. Now in reality its reaally not the second ascentionist that has the lst word, but more of a consensus approach. ANd there is no final word, even in climbing, different guide books often have difrerent grades depemdinmg upon differing opinions. AS robin mentioned, some areas aree known to be softly graded other much more stout, but in general there is a consensus and it worksd well to tell a potentional ascentionist very roughly what they are up against.

Soo for Base I thin trying to have strict rules to pidgeon hole everything initiaqlly is going to be very exasperating and difficult. Common areas should consolidate over time to a roughly agreed upon "base grade". New sites if only one person has jumped then they are the only one apropriate to "grade" it, and as more people jump the site that grade may change but it should eventually consolidate into something useful for a new jumper to find useful at that site.

I hope this has been of some use and not too rambling, please excuse all the typos but my R. arm is still a little fucked up. I'd be glad to discuss any of this w/ you mick, you have my e-mail-

cheers

Wayne

[guest]

Moreover, mick-

Though the presently requested scale of what types of difficulties related to access/exit/LZ on the scale of 1-10, which you request, may be of some use, again I think its going to be problematic and too structured to begin w/. In order for this to be worth anything there has to be a large consensus among many if not most jumpers. Getting all of us to aggree on all these little nuances from the start, from scratch, will not be easy I presume.

Might I suggest a different approach: instead of exactly what makes somethng one grade or another I think it makes more sense to start w/ objects that most jumpers will be familiar with. something of a consensus should solidify around the grades for these well known objects and as people get more familiar w/ a rating system it might get applied to more and more objects and a consensus of sorts will build that has the momentum of the masses so to speak behind it. I fear that the present approach is going to recieve quite a bit of adversity because it will appear to many like rules and regs are being shoved down their throats, then your hard work will be for naught. One possible problem w/ my suggestion is the public naming of such sites, but I really think until BASE guidebooks are for sale (God fear the day!) it makes sense for site grades to remain a word of mouth thing anyways.

just a suggestion.

WDC

[guest]

I`m pretty sure you have seen it !
This was created for about two years ago by me and Stein Edvardsen :
http://thebasepoint.com/objects/grading.html
Or navigate from the mainpage
http://thebasepoint.com enter the objects.

-Roger-

[guest]

Two things.

Mick is pushing it on his BASE board which has an international audience, so more people talk about it. He is being proactive about something that no-one else will do anything about. Mick is doing good work as a catalyst for development in the sport.

Roger, I think Mick thinks he is pioneering due to lack of research and real knowledge, experience, and skill in technical aspects of the sport. I think Mick is providing a great information service for the BASE community but it should be up to those with the knowledge, experience, and specific jumping and rigging skills to go through the details. Those people need to pull their proverbial fingers out. Mick is trying to support that.

Mick - the Troll Wall ratings are all wrong - jump it first, then rate it.

[guest]

ROger,

I think you're really on to something here.

As I look at your ratings, it occurs to me we don't need ten grades like climbers do; five looks entirely sufficient, and is obviously simpler -- both to understand as a second or later "descensionist" and as the person who initially grades the route. .

The _only_ thing I would suggest is that you add two levels to the approach so that the three categories are the same: 1-5.

I think that would eliminate any chance of confusion from people thinking an access grade of 3 is less challenging than a jump/landing grade of 5.

Really nice job, though.

LOve,

RObin

[guest]

First thanks for the respond, and Robin; that is a good suggestion if you ask me. But before I do anything more on this, I would like to have participation of others.

Therefore I suggest Mick could open a forum called Grading Researh or similar. Mick putting this scale as a row source on the forum and giving this a name called rev01@ddmmyyyy and changing rev and date each time the change is approved by the research group.
The target for the finished scale should be at the end of 2000...no rush.

Who is the group...?
I hope me and Stein E will be approved.
There will be need for 5 others or more.
Maybe Nick at BR would like to join...(Nick are you in?) Mick K, you have already done some work.
Robin are you in ?

This way all have a fair chance to come with personal views, but the resarch group will be authorising this.

What do you folks out there think about this?
Do you agree, or are there any better suggestions out there ?

-Roger-
http://thebasepoint.com

[imported_mknutson]

I have had a forum for a while just like this.
I did not activate it since the recent server move.

http://www.baselogic.com/cgi-bin/for...nse&conf=blinc
--
Thanks

Mick Knutson
BLiNC Magazine

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

[guest]

Roger, please contact me about the above discussion. Please (if you will, include phonenumber in email)

Captn Chaos

[guest]

Thanks CC for the presentation of the excellent ongoing work performed by the "Jump Site Rating Outline" group. This work should been translated to more languages then the Bible !

Disregard last post from me !

Roger