WEA Climbing slide show

1. WEAAnalysis
 Tyler Duffett, Jackson Maberry, William
Steinmetz
 AOP 5710 2/5/14

2. WEA summary
This is an analysis of the climbing groups presentation and will cover 3 sustains and 3
improvement in each section along with a summary of how the group thought they performed.
Preparation: Three things that the group can sustain, Scheduling for group work, made good
use of time accomplished large amounts of work, research materials were comprehensive and
added to our knowledge. Threes improves for preparation, more practice runs, improved slides
for flow, and better focused questions about the take away. Planning our presentation was hard
to convey climbing grades as being part of qualitative activity like rock climbing. Adding an
educational component that connected with our topic was difficult but was accomplished.
Execution: sustains were speaking clearly, transitions between speakers, answered
audiences questions. Three improvements, set up tables closer surrounding the speaker, slide
format made it hard to read slides, and chorography. Execution was the scary part but the group
pulled through and stuck to the topic.
Audience engagement: Three sustains, stayed focused on topic and audience,
involved audience early in presentation, and engaged audience with educational component.
Three improves, Involve audience through out presentation, structure initiative questions to
create audience engagement, and wait for people to answer questions. Audience engagement is
tricky when discussing a topic I thing our group had the audience engaged about half of the time.
Facilitation / Skills: Group gained experience in presenting educational material,
teaching aspects, professional association membership and contribution of conference content.

3. WEA Summary Continued
 Facilitation / Skills: Group gained experience in presenting educational
material, teaching aspects, professional association membership and
contribution of conference content.
 Overall WEA Conference: WEA conference was fun and when it was
our groups turn after taking in some other presentations the pressure was
on and we made it through our presentation and after, talking to some of
the audience many said it was good, and were receptive to students
teaching.
 Group assessment: Duff was great at speaking and presenting the
introduction and history with confidence because duff is truly interested
and engaged in the group topic and outcome, Duff gets full points. Jack
also presented with confidence and in-depth knowledge of climbing
grades with a coaching perspective on how to teach climbing, Jack gets
full points. William pulled through and stayed on the material while
presenting even though tunnel vision was setting in, and connected the
presentation objectives to a educational concept of risk management by
contrasting commonalities and differences in climbing grades around the
world, William gets full points.

4. Making the Grade
The grading systems in
climbing and their significance
to climbers and educators

5. History of Route Grading
Benesch Scale- Created by
Austrian Fritz Benesch in
1894. Descending scale of
VII (easiest) to I (Hardest) .
0,00 added later.
Welzenbach Scale- 1924
Willo Welzenbach
compressed and flipped
version of Benesch Scale.
Adopted by UIAA in 1947
and was renamed the UIAA
Scale in 1967.
(Welzenbach Scale Demonstration)

6. History continued….
Yosemite Decimal System- Formed by Sierra Club in
the 1930’s to rate hiking and climbing routes. Climbing
section (class 5 decimal system) formed in 1950’s by
the Angeles Chapter at Tahquitz Rock in California. This
system is accepted as the standard in North and South
America.
Bouldering- The Gill “B” System using subjective B1,B2,
& B3 ratings in the 1950’s was later replaced by the
open ended Hueco V scale.

7. Rating Systems of Climbing
•UK Grading System
•The UIAA System
•The Yosemite Decimal System
•The Australian System
•Scandinavian, French, South African, and Bouldering

8. UK System
Made up of two sub-grades: Adjective and Technical
Adjective: Describes overall difficulty, exposure, and
availability of protection. Listed as Moderate (M), Very
Difficult (VD), Hard Very Difficult HVD), Mild Severe (MS),
Severe (S), Hard Severe (HS), Mild Very Severe (MVS), Very
Severe (VS), Hard Very Severe (HVS) and Extremely
Severe. The Extremely Severe grade is also broken down
into 10 further sub grades from E1 to E10.
Technical: Describes hardest move of climb (crux) and
will give multiple ratings for multi pitch climbs. Listed as
4a-7b with 4a ratings starting with severe (S) climbs.

9. The UIAA System
•UIAA is short for Union Internationale des Associations
d’Alpinisme .
•Mostly used in Austria and Germany.
•Uses single figure to describe climb difficulty.
•1-10 open ended rating system with 1 being easiest and 10 the
hardest
+/- ratings added for extra detail to route difficulty.

10. Yosemite Decimal System
•Class 1-4: Used to describe different walking difficulties with
class 4 being where roped belays begin to be used.
•Class 5: Considered to be rock climbs. Thin, exposed
climbing, involving technical moves and protective hardware.
Broken down into decimal system, 5.0-5.15c, where after 5.9
letters and + also describe the routes difficulty. PG13,R, and X
are added to describe protection on the route.
•Class 6: Shear and flat wall considered impossible to climb
without aid climbing methods and techniques.

11. The Australian System
•Used by Australia and New Zealand.
•Uses single number to rate routes.
•As the route difficulty increases the number increases
•4=easiest to 36=hardest
•Rating also based upon the level of protection on the route.

12. Variations in grade ratings from one system to the next…

13. Evolution of Difficulty
 UIAA: I-VII evolved to I-XII
 YDS: 5.0-5.9 evolved to 5.0-5.15c
 B system to V system- constantly increasing
 Addition of +/- ratings due to increasing range of routes
available.
 Addition of PG13,R, & X to YDS.
 Move from summary of experience to explanation of
difficulty.

14. Climbing’s Paradox
 Climbing is a qualitative experience
 Grades are quantitative

15. Expectations and Attitudes
 Grades determine our expectations
 Self imposed limits
 Risk management

16. Now What?

17. Using Climbing grades to
view risks
 Commonalities of risk between grading systems.
 Differences of risks between grading systems.
 Contrast in rock climbing of what is perceived vs real risks.

18. Viewing Risks Cont.
 Commonalities
 Most climbing grades have had to become open ended.
 Length of routes.
 Protection needed.
 Technical difficulty.
 Most bouldering grades do not consider danger or risk involved.
 Differences
 Alpine grades discuss commitment level.
 Remoteness of location
 UK system is base on first accent using traditional climbing methods.

19. Viewing Risks Cont.
 Real risks
 Frequency of participation.
 quality of instruction.
 Assumption and acceptance of risk by climber.
 Perceived
 Fear of falling.
 Distrust in gear.
 Sure of abilities.
 perceptions of grades in different climbing areas.

20. Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989: A conceptual model Revised
Discussion questions

21. Sources
Coley, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2013). High:advanced multi pitch climbing. Akreative. Retrieved from
http://people.bath.ac.uk/dac33/high/17AppendixGrades.htm
Heywood, I. (2006). Climbing monsters: Excess and restraint in contemporary rock climbing. Leisure
Studies, 25(4), Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614360500333911
Sherman, J. (1994). Stone crusade: A historical guide to bouldering in america. American Alpine Club
Press. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/wiki/John_Gill_(climber)?qsrc=3044
Slanger , E., & Rudestam, K. E. (1997). Motivation and disinhibition in high risk sports: Sensation seeking
and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(3), 355-374. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656697921930
Thurston, G. (2008, Jan. 14). Rock climbing grades explained.Mountain Days, Retrieved from
http://www.mountaindays.net/articles/item/rock_climbing_grades_explained/
Ewert, A. & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the adventure model: Empirical support for a model of risk
recreation participation. (page 136)