In reply to UKC News:
The rationale for grading is really interesting; not least in the context of the famous bankruptcy of the UK tech grade after 6a. What he's basically driving at (it helps to speak German - you can retranslate some bits) is that climbing standards in elite sport climbing have advanced far quicker than the grades; that in other words the gap between 9a+ and 9b is far larger than between 8c+ and 9a. If this sounds like someone hitting their limit, then he provides a rationale that is actually familiar to sport climbers - if you onsight, say, 7a, you should be able to work 7a+ or 7b in a day; a 7b+ or 7c in several days and 7c+ or 8a as a long term project. So he reasons that if he feels that he can easily manage 9a, he should be able to work a 9a+ or 9b pretty quickly - and Ondra should give projects that have taken him 9-10 days more than 9b. This is a boulder problem, but it is a short step to think that bouldering grades also have a problem as they approach the 9s.
I've no idea if he's right. But we know that this can happen to grades, especially when climbing standards increase fast and the broken UK tech grade is the prime example.