Canyon Rating System

[ratagonia]

Moderator Note: split from this thread http://www.bogley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16638

And just a heads up/warning.... The ACA recently revised their rating system.... and in my humble opinion created what will eventually become a huge rating nightmare....

I mean really: 4C3 S XX III.....

The one great advantage the original rating system had was everyone who sprayed beta was using the same system....

So.... like the last caller noted.... make certain you understand the rating system used for the beta you are looking at. It's also a good idea to try and get a general feel for how the author of the beta rates things, all the published guides are slightly different.

The original ACA rating system was developed in cooperation with many members of the US Canyoneering community. It was a group effort. Maybe even Ice helped out on that, Back In The Day.

The revised ACA system - not so much.

I don't plan on changing to the NEW ACA system, and I don't think Ice will either. The old system was simple, and worked OK. I am slowly adding in SLOT canyon ratings, but that is because that is the type of canyoneering that needs more specificity. Rich responded to this need by adding more specificity elsewhere, because he does not do the kind of canyoneering that requires a SLOT rating.

The new ACA system only becomes a rating nightmare if someone who actually puts out beta adopts it. Seems unlikely.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

The original ACA rating system was developed in cooperation with many members of the US Canyoneering community. It was a group effort. Maybe even Ice helped out on that, Back In The Day.

True dat.... the old system was developed by those who actual wrote the beta along with those that used it.... the original rating system was probably the single best thing to ever come out of the ACA.... and now they messed it up.....

I don't plan on changing to the NEW ACA system, and I don't think Ice will either. The old system was simple, and worked OK.

Nope... I'm not changing until I see something that is better, and it would really have to be a lot better to make the confusion involved worth the effort.

I am slowly adding in SLOT canyon ratings,

I just revised my 4 rating to incorporate what you include in SLOT. I figure anytime you see a 4, C, R or X in any rating you had better be reading the route description to see why the rating exists.

The new ACA system only becomes a rating nightmare if someone who actually puts out beta adopts it. Seems unlikely.

The nightmare is everyone WAS using the same system.... we even had MK on board and that's not an easy task.... now everyone's rating's are beginning to diverge.

[mdd]

I can see why Rich created the updated ACA system. True the original ACA system was created with input mostly from the US Canyoneering community (actually, the online US Canyoneering community), but back then almost all of the community was focused on CP canyons. Try to translate it to alpine canyons and everything is either 3C or 4C - not enough differentiation. So Rich updated it to add differentiation for non-CP canyons. The problem is that he built his updates on a flawed rating system to begin with. Even on the CP there just isn't enough variation in the ratings to differentiate canyons, so most turn out to be 3B. To compensate everyone decorates their ratings with R, X, PG, etc, without really standardizing what those ratings mean. Rich should have ditched his system and started from scratch.

The WCCM system is obviously a ripoff of the ACA one, and it carries the same flaws. Just about everything in Utah is either 4A or 5A, and his R/X definitions are just stupid. If anything I think it is a regression from the ACA system. Worthless.

The FFME system offers a little more differentiation, but you need a secret decoder ring to make sense of it.

These days I've ditched rating systems altogether. If I find a new canyon I tell people it is beginner, intermediate, expert or whatever, or I compare it to other canyons. Saying a new canyons is a little harder than Middle Fork Lep tells me a lot more than to say both canyons are 3A.


M

[canyoncaver]

A caver's perspective:

This kind of stuff is why cavers have always rejected the idea of a rating system for caves. Every once in a while, someone from a climbing background will try to make a system like this for caving, but it just doesn't work. The caves are too different. Plus, there are often so many different routes in a cave that one rating would not fit. Plus we hate ratings. Ratings inject competition into the sport (can I call it that?) and turn it into a measuring contest. "I can do a 4CIVR but my friends can only do a 4CIIIPG, heh heh." It's all sort of assinine really. While I admit the ratings can be helpful for planning, they tend to turn a beautiful natural feature into a measured obstacle to be conquered.

Canyons are a bit simpler than caves, but not much. There is still a myriad of variety. That is why the canyon rating systems are getting more and more schizophrenic as they evolve. I would argue that it is better to have two canyons rated 3BIII and in reality have them slightly differ from one another. This is better than one of them being a 3rB2IIIPG+ and the other one being a 3pB4III+R-

To me, the simpler rating gives me all the information I need. I know I need ropes, there will be some pools, and it will take about half a day. If I need more information, I'll read the beta. In fact, if there is beta available, why would I ever go in the canyon without reading it?

I agree with mdd. It is much more useful to compare a new canyon with something I have done already than to read me a string of numbers and letters. If you told me a canyon was like Pine Creek, but twice as long and with more swimming, I would know exactly what you meant.

These ratings systems are a holdover from climbing. They are not nearly as useful or appropriate for canyons. If ratings must be used, then keep them as simple as possible.

[rcwild]

It appears that neither Shane or Tom understand the revisions to the ACA rating system. The revisions allow those who want to use the original to do so. Nothing changed.

For those who wish to append a slot rating, they can. S = SLOT. Feel free to spell out the word SLOT if you want.

For those who wish to append a more detailed Class C rating, they can. C is still C, but you can describe it more precisely if deemed desirable.

Unlikely you will ever see an S in the same rating as a C3. They are two completely different kinds of canyons.

The revision discussions ran from 2005 to 2009 on the ACA forums -- http://canyoneering.net/forums/showthread.php?t=416 -- and on the Yahoo group. Can't recall if it was discussed here.

The rating system is described here:
http://www.canyoneering.net/content/...categoryid=146

[Iceaxe]

It appears that neither Shane or Tom understand the revisions to the ACA rating system.

I understand we are both kinda new to canyoneering and all...

But.... If Tom and I don't understand the revisions to the ACA rating system what makes you think everyone else will???

[tanya]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published and can make changes for another week or so, but then we are stuck with it. I am not sure what to use?

[trackrunner]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published and can make changes for another week or so, but then we are stuck with it. I am not sure what to use?

Tanya Zion doesn't really have any special S "slot" or any C canyons over a C1. So the ratings are basically the same. Maybe some B2 in Zion but you should be fine with what you have. just MHO

[tanya]

Oh good... I did not want to read any new stuff. lol

[Felicia]

I have this in my and Bo's book that is about to be published

Congrats! When will the book be ready for purchase?

[tanya]

No clue. The publisher has had it for a couple of weeks now. I guess however long it takes to fix all mine and Bo's mess ups.

[Iceaxe]

Maybe some B2 in Zion

B2?!?!?

That's a new one on me...

.

[Brian in SLC]

The FFME system offers a little more differentiation, but you need a secret decoder ring to make sense of it.

I actually like the FFME rating system.

You get vertical rating, and aquatic rating (both on a scale from 1-7) , and, a committment (length) rating (grades 1 to VI similar to climbing grades). Easy.

Very much for water canyons, to be sure.

I guess I've never really embraced the ACA rating stuff, mostly, because I really didn't feel like I needed it for the canyons I was doing (with minimal beta or the like). To this day, I couldn't give anyone an idear of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on. Just never really committed to it, I guess. Which is kinda weird, because I can debate long and hard on climbing ratings. Hmmm...(pause for self reflection)...

Folks do get all hung up on ratings.

-Brian in SLC

[jman]

this is confusing, or perhaps I'm missing something.

People say they use ACA standards. I thought that was THE "standard" for all canyoneering. Learned something new.

Then some people say they prefer FFME.

The trackrunner throws in B2 ratings.

Some say they use the revised ACA ratings.

So, what is a noob to do now?

So if Brian in SlC, for example, gives an explanation about a canyon, he says, " I couldn't give anyone an idea(r) of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on". I'm sure if he can't explain the ratings - I'm sure he can definitely tell ya what the climb or canyon entails (which is the most important). But then again, that's all based on THAT person's hiking ability. So I imagine Brian is a great climber and awesome canyoneer and can probably do most canyons a lot faster than the average person.

Even in Shane's beta for the Leprachuan Canyons (if not that one, maybe Shillelaigh, or - it says it takes about 3 hours to do. Yet, I my friends and I can do it in easily an hour and half. And that includes, the scramble to the top. I understand, though, shane is conservative with numbers - which is VERY good for the general public.

So, you would think there would be a standardized system for canyoneering, but apparently as I thought, some people don't use or prefer ACA.

That can be dangerous, so what are we to do? And also, how do I know if the person is giving me the beta, which rating system they are using? I should probably ask - but if I forget, and it's NOT what they say it is. For example a IV day might be a III, if you are fast hiker and that group might be hiking in the dark.

Is any of this making sense, or am I just over analyzing and confusing myself?

[mdd]

I actually like the FFME rating system.

You get vertical rating, and aquatic rating (both on a scale from 1-7) , and, a committment (length) rating (grades 1 to VI similar to climbing grades). Easy.

I agree, I do think it is a very usable system and as far as rating systems go I like it best. What I meant to say is that these days I just prefer adjectives or comparisons to describe how difficult a canyon is instead of codes.

For those you haven't seen it, a few years back I made my own translation of the FFME system at http://coloradocanyons.org/ffme-clas...ion-system.php. Chucky did a superior translation (at least I think so) and it is linked on that page too.

M

[ratagonia]

this is confusing, or perhaps I'm missing something.

So if Brian in SlC, for example, gives an explanation about a canyon, he says, " I couldn't give anyone an idea(r) of what canyon is rated what, or, what the ratings are even based on". I'm sure if he can't explain the ratings - I'm sure he can definitely tell ya what the climb or canyon entails (which is the most important). But then again, that's all based on THAT person's hiking ability. So I imagine Brian is a great climber and awesome canyoneer and can probably do most canyons a lot faster than the average person.

Even in Shane's beta for the Leprachuan Canyons (if not that one, maybe Shillelaigh, or - it says it takes about 3 hours to do. Yet, I my friends and I can do it in easily an hour and half. And that includes, the scramble to the top. I understand, though, shane is conservative with numbers - which is VERY good for the general public.

So, you would think there would be a standardized system for canyoneering, but apparently as I thought, some people don't use or prefer ACA.

That can be dangerous, so what are we to do? And also, how do I know if the person is giving me the beta, which rating system they are using? I should probably ask - but if I forget, and it's NOT what they say it is. For example a IV day might be a III, if you are fast hiker and that group might be hiking in the dark.

Is any of this making sense, or am I just over analyzing and confusing myself?

Yes.






Brian IS an awesome climber, impeccable arguer, wonderful person (most of the time), and canyoneer. But he don't canyoneer much, at least on this side of the puddle, so one would not expect him to have fine discernment of difficulties and nuances of canyons. One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

BITD, when I climbed a lot and 5.9 was hard, we could have extended discussions about the EXACT order of difficulty of the 5.9s in Eldorado Canyon, and we did. And there was consensus. Entirely subjective. Somewhat easier when you have done each of the climbs several times.

I think canyons are harder to rate because they are easier, or perhaps because canyons vary more. Or perhaps because canyoneers vary more. When the canyons start to be about climbing through (like Leprechaun), the experience in that KIND of canyon, those kinds of moves, reading where to put your body becomes the principle factor, and the amount of time it takes especially will vary widely with skill and fitness level. And physical size plays a big role in these canyons also. My times in The Subway vary from six to twelve hours - my times in Main Leprechaun vary from 1-1/2 to 7 hours.

The rating is based on a generalized community standard. If you and your posse of busy bees can send a six-hour canyon in three hours, it does not mean that it is a three-hour canyon - it means you move in that kind of canyon at roughly twice the speed of the average party. Check Kelsey's book - he'll call it 2 hours! A Grade IV does not become a Grade III - it just means that on that day you moved well.

How you figure out what the ratings mean is you learn by experience how each beta-provider rates things. Just like in climbing (watch out for those 5.9+s in New England!). Although, maybe the key point, is that 'difficulty' is a key element of climbing and therefore it is worth spending effort to get your personal gauge dialed in; while in climbing it does not matter a whole lot (except when it does).

And YES, I think you are over-thinkin' it. But it IS winter, afterall. Do more canyons, gain more experience and it will all become clear, and among other things, it will all become clear that ratings on canyons are not really all that 'important', really, although selecting canyon adventures that fit the inclinations of your group is kinda important.

Tom

[Brian in SLC]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

[nonot]

I think part of the problem is people are sick of requiring you to pay for beta or having people try to maintain secrecy of certain canyons. Therefore the move is to try to get the info out of the route description and into the rating system.

Everything has been proposed from lengths of slots, to lengths of ropes, to deepness of pothole problems, to grades of slots.

After all if I know it's a

3C1 S2 III R 140' P1, <200lbs
Then I know exactly what to bring. Wetsuit, bunny strap, 2x150 ft ropes, and a buddy for pothole escape, and I'm not too fat to squeeze through the slot. Should be a fun day.

Is that ridiculous rating system helpful...yes, if I have no other description that goes with it. Is it confusing as hell? Yes, it is.


3BIIIR, <pay>....OK, I know what type of canyon this is, and since it is class 3 with the R, I could get myself into some deep trouble if I don't bring the right tools. So, I have no idea what to bring and who wants to carry 400ft of rope and everything including the kitchen sink if it turns out the R is for one partner assist out of a pothole and just 50 ft raps?

[tanya]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

I have to disagree with Tom on this. Don't know Brian, never met him, but his posts are just about always right on the mark when talking about canyoneering -- the man, in a funny way, has a way of debating and making his point.

[ratagonia]

One would not expect Brian to be a good, reliable source of canyon information, whether objective or subjective.

Really?

Based on what?

Back before there was, say, a guidebook in Zion, where did information on canyons come from?

Was the information not "good" or "reliable", at least in my case?

Hmmm.....

Anyhoo, jman, thanks. You are spot on SPOT ON I tells ya. Ha ha.

-Brian in SLC

Sorry, meant to say "rating" information. Got carried away with my diatribe...

T