In a democracy, there is a crucial question: are citizens supposed to vote for what would be best for them, or for what they think would be best for the country as a whole? If the population are not in agreement on the answer to that question, then the votes will not be a true representation of the will of the people - it will not really reflect a consensus of opinion.
There may be something similar going on with the grading debate of The Promise, and with grade debates in general.
James seems to embrace the subjective aspect of route grading, from what he says on his blog. "Simply put, the “rules” for climbing are very subjective and the overall difficulty will change dramatically depending on the tactics used"; "When you offer a grade to a first ascent, what you are effectively doing is defining your experience as a point on a scale".
James has written that a 'reason' for the discrepancy between the grades given by himself and Kevin is that their subjective experiences were different - Kevin used pads and may have found a better sequence.
If Jorgeson is using the same approach to route grading - merely explaining how it felt to him, then there is no real disagreement. It felt different because of different tactics (pads), and technique (sequence) and neither climber would dispute the subjective experience of the other.
However, if one or both of them were attempting to be objective in their approach to grading, then there would be a real disagreement. In other words, if Jorgeson is taking into account the fact that he used pads, and is grading the route for what it would have felt like without those tactics, then there is a disagreement. In that case Jorgeson would be saying that even though there were different tactics, which influenced how the route 'felt', it is also the case that the route is just easier(/safer) than Pearson thought it was (perhaps because he missed the 'right' sequence).
It would be interesting to know which of these approaches Kevin used in his proposed grade of E8.
On a more general level, what do grades really mean? They are obviously a consensus of opinion, but what are those opinions supposed to be about? How it felt to us, or how it would have felt if I hadnt missed that crucial foothold, or owned a big cam and didnt have to run it out, or if i wasnt too short to reach that good hold?
I have read somewhere that grades are 'supposed' to reflect how hard a route is, presuming one has climbed it in the easiest way possible, has an average rack and for the average build. This does not seem to be Pearson's system, and I would be interested to hear the opinions of others as to what grades are supposed to reflect.
I am not endorsing or criticising either system - both will work perfectly well as long as everyone is using the same one, but if there is a confusion on this issue, then it does mean that our grades do not reflect a true consensus of opinion.
Any thoughts?
