UKC

Should some routes be downgraded as climbers' general strength and endurance levels get higher? When I first heard this it seemed like a crazy idea. But if you think about its quite logical and might even be happening in some ways without anyone noticing.

If you have a crag where the rock is fairly easy to read and the difficulty is more about just keeping pulling, locking off, not getting too pumped etc. then as you get stronger/fitter the routes will feel easier. But, on other crags where the difficulty is more technical, more about balance, reading the rock and figuring out the moves then your increase in strength/fitness is going to be less of an advantage.

Now if everyone is getting stronger/fitter with the use of training, modern walls etc. the straightforward routes are going feel easier than the more technical ones - for everyone, so there's a logic in downgrading them. (Perhaps though its the opposite that happens - the more technical routes are getting upgraded?)

I sometimes think this has happened to an extent at indoor walls already. The routes tend to be more basic than outdoors, follow the coloured holds, but for some they can feel much harder. But for those with enough strength/fitness they perhaps feel easier than the more technical outdoor routes.

In reply to stp:

No because that would make the grade about the climber and not the route.

Al

In reply to stp:

If most climbers in the future end up as super-fit plastic pullers, and then get set loose in the great outdoors, they dog to death a technical 6c and then cruise the obvious, stamina-based 7a next to it, over time voting will start to reflect that, and the grades might be adjusted accordingly.

In reply to stp:
no because the routes are all equivalent any way as it is just as easy to improve technique, balance etc. as it is to gain fitness in the gym, if not easier.

there will also be people (the majority of climbers) that dont feel the need or cant be bothered (which is fine) to go to the gym (to train) so an E4 5c that is safe as houses but pumpy and about would be just as hard (to them) as an E4 5c that bold or technical.

and with that argument you could say that we should up grade technical routes where gym train would be of no use like The Medium (8a) and keep physical routes the same grade. but that would be totally out of order.

+ what i was saying before that most climbers dont train so the grading system would still be as relevant to them.

In reply to stp:

No need. There are tons of safe, pumpy extremes out there with hardly anyone on them... increasing their grade to take into account modern fitness won't help as other factors seem to make fit climbers stay away. I've never known a time with more fit climbers and so few pumpy safe trad ascents.

In reply to stp:

Grades stay constant, but the average grades being climbed get higher. however the lower grades are just as difficult as they once were just that the average person is better.

In reply to stp:

Grades determine the difficulty of the climb. What grade a climber climbs is determined by (whatever: fitness, technique, mindset, etc.) factors. Don't mix them up.

Otherwise we will have a new set of "Scottish VS" which freak me out.

In reply to stp:

I don't see why not over time. The grade of a climb reflects the proportion of the climbing population capable of onsighting it, so if typical skillsets/strengths change, grades might change to reflect that.

Visiting American climbers will typically find our crack grades soft because they generally have better crack climbing skills whereas they might well be intimidated by typically complex British face climbs requiring cunning nut protection and find those grades stiff; if all our routes were transported to the US, their relative grades might change to reflect this. So grades are not just a function of the route, they also reflect the skills and strengths of the climbing population they serve.

In reply to stp:

It's been happening for years. Many old thrutchy HVSs are now given various E-grades because people are less likely to be good at climbing them nowadays, so 'your average climber' finds them proportionally harder. The opposite for fingery routes that wall-trained (i.e. most) people can climb nowadays with relative ease, so often get pretty stingy grades.

In reply to stp:

I'd say definitely not. The route has a move or series of moves that require a certain effort or technique from its climbers. That pretty much determines the grade. How easy or hard each climber finds it is down to the climber, not the route.

In reply to stp:

Same could be said for improvements in equipment.

In reply to stp:

No.

The grade should stay constant, week just see more climbers climbing higher technical grades.

In reply to stp:

Grades should reflect the historical nature and circumstance of the first ascent

In reply to GridNorth:



Rubbish. There are no mathematical constants. Grades should reflect the experience of the average climber, and the skill set of the average climber changes over time. The number or value we assign to that experience is only relevant in relation to other grades, so a route isn't E1 simply because it's always been E1. If 90% of climbers find that E1 harder than most E2s, it's under graded. Or all the E2s are overgraded, it doesn't really matter, except that it's easier to change 1 route than 10.

Or we stop getting worked up over grades, stop trying to be ultra accurate. Skiing and mountain biking get away with 4 grades !

In reply to stp:
Certainly a case there for steep, pumpy routes which are already soft at the grade, for example a lot of the classic routes at Lower Sharpnose - if you're wall fit, the grades there are rather flattering.

In reply to stp:

If you changed the grading for one route you'd have to change them all. The idea of grading is to give an idea of relative difficulty for all climbs.

If everyone started running 100m in under 10seconds, you wouldn't make the 100m longer and still call it a 100m race.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Depends on the crack type and the climber. I watched a US climber destroy Goliath at Burb South onsight and he was nothing special bouldering beforehand. In some of the areas I climb in the US hand cracks are often graded soft cf grit and the main place they are not (JT) the slab grades can be brutal. Even there things can be friendly .. Lynn and I just did our first ever multipich 10a: Bird on a Wire.. which has a delicate slab finger crack as a crux which was made for Lynn... we have been shut down by 5.7s of a similar style before in the park.

We gave a hitcher a ride into JT NP... guy with the ace name of Dick Cilly .... he was bemoaning the decline in numbers of those leading above 5.10 (he said hi to his UK pals... it still feels freaky meeting people like that with a sizable overlap of those we know.. climbing can still be such a small world.)

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That's because you can measure 100m, you can't measure an E1, nor can you quantify the effort involved, skill and bottle required. You could, theoretically, say that E1 lies at the 50th percentile- I.e within the abilities of 50% of climbers. And that E2 lies at the 45th percentile. That would introduce its own problems, but would at least do what we want grades to do, give an adequate warning of the level of difficulty to the average climber

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Remember this...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69738

In reply to GridNorth:


Surely it has to be about both. Or more accurately it's about the climber's relationship or experience with the route.

In reply to bouldery bits:


Absolutely. If a route that previously had a high grade for being runout becomes much safer because of say, camming devices then the grade should be changed to reflect that.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Good point, well made. I forgot about the SteMacOMeter.

Never let it be said that I can't admit when I'm wrong. Yes, you can measure an E1.

In reply to Offwidth:


In the 70s, he strode up to some mates of mine who'd just arrived in the Valley and announced himself thus: "My name's Dick Cilly. 'Expect you'll have heard of me." To which Boggie replied deadpan, "We're from Yorkshire. And we haven't!" Which would stop most folk in their tracks.

Boggie did say he was a great guy. I gather he can still climb pretty hard.

An ace name indeed.

Mick

In reply to stp:


Adjectival grades may change if gear allows a route to be better protected, technical grades should remain the same. If a climber maintains the same level of strength, fitness and ability over the years they shouldn't find that the grade that they can climb declines.

In reply to Offwidth:

That's the YDS for you

I did that route a few weeks ago and found the crux quite delicate and pushy, no push over for 10a (running the pitches together). Not helped by climbing with an American on a single rope giving me the choice of either rope drag or scarily long extensions on the runners........

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What's rubbish? All I said was that the grade should be about the climb NOT the climber. I didn't say anything about routes being regraded. You might want to learn to read before being so dismissive.

Al

In reply to stp:
It should then also work the opposite way.

Should some routes be upgraded as a climber's general strength and endurance levels get lower?

The number of E8s I've climbed in my time, I'll reach E12 by my 80's

In reply to Orgsm:


It's not about you; it's about the average climber.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's not about the average climber it's about the climb. The proposal is completely unworkable.

In reply to Robert Durran:
We thought it was delicate grit E0 5b taking into account it was quite warm. Climbed to maximise chances of success as 5 pitches UK style on a doubled 8.5mm and with offset aliens. The head crux was arguably further up... some 5.7 padding on pitch 3, when the crack runs out, up a slab into a rounded scoop. The psychological crux was being told on the descent two crows had pecked open the zip on our rucksack and flown off with the bag containing our car keys... luckily they dropped it soon after and it didnt drop down a hole in the boulder field. All that and meeting Dick hitching made a pretty memorable day.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/150092/Funny-things-said-by-Dick-Ci...

In reply to Robert Durran:

It's not about the climber, it's about the climb.

If the average climber gets better then the average grade climbed will increase.

In reply to timjones:

Except that didnt happen as gear got better through the decades aftre wwII very severe used to mean that when protected by rope slings and using hemp rope.

In reply to timjones:


I don't think anyone is suggesting dropping grades because of general standards rising. It is about the average standards rising in particular skills or for particular types of routes which could result in route A having a higher grade than route B but most climbers finding route A easier; the grades would seem the wrong way round to the majority.

In reply to Orgsm:

Nonsense. Grades are given by climbers to reflect how hard climbers find the routes. Of course it's about the climbers; without the existence of climbers grades would be completely meaningless.


Why? Grades go by consensus. If the consensus changes, the grade changes.

In reply to GridNorth:

I was dismissive because your statement was glib and meaningless.

Think about what you want a grade to tell you.

Someone tried to say it was similar to a 100m, but it's different, and those differences are key. There are a number of reasons why more climbers will be able to do a certain route than 25 years ago - fitness, mentality, gear, training - but it is nonsense to state that those factors apply equally to all routes.

In reply to Big Ger:

That's an interesting idea. So the grades would never be changed then?

I get the impression this is what they do in France. The grades at Buoux are the same now as they were in the 80s. If you know both the grade and year of F.A you'll probably have a pretty good idea of how hard the route is. I think the grades at Buoux, whilst hard by modern standards, are fairly consistent at the crag.

But then somewhere like Stanage, with a very long history of development, might have a strange mix of grades. Or perhaps first ascentionts would try to grade consistently with other routes at the same crag.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yet despite that it's clocking up more likes than any other contribution. I prefer to think of it as concise and to the point.

Al

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's not what the OP proposal was though. Their original proposal wasn't about grades changing through consensus voting.

In reply to JSH:
An e4 5c that is "safe as houses" ?? there is no such thing. If 5c is "safe as houses" then it gets e1 not e4! If a route is 5c but gets e4 it will likely be protection less or have huge fall potential.

In reply to GridNorth:



Yep, epitomises the modern world, people will fall for a hollow slogan and won't bother to read a well reasoned argument

Merry Christmas

In reply to climberchristy:


Not True. For example: Lime Street (E4 5c)

Plenty others I'm sure.

In reply to Orgsm:


Not necessarily formal voting; just a general feeling that most people now find route A easier than route B and that the grades should reflect that.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




Quite.

A grade refers to the difficulty of a climb compared to another climb. E2 is harder than E1, but not as hard as an E3.

If you think about the process of grading. Someone climbs it who can climbs E1 and E3 and announces they think it's E2. Then a few others have a go and discussion ensues until a consensus is found.

If climbers get better then the top end just increases. E10, E11. E2 remains at E2 just more people are able to climb at E2.

You won't find many people from 1920, climbing E10s with hob nail boots, stone chocks and hawser.

No need to regrade anything.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Eh? You appear to agree with what he said (that you quoted), but then disagree in your conclusion!

In reply to climberchristy:


Wellington Crack (E4 5c)


A route with a short-lived 5c crux that is well protected gets e1. A route that's sustained, well protected 5c gets E3, but if it's super-sustained hard 5c, then it'll get E4.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Is there any difference between overall standards rising and standards within a particular skillset rising. I'm sure that we all have areas that we are good in and others that we are weak in. If you're good at slabs but weak at steep cracklines you take this into account when selecting routes. Moving the grades for one style of climbing is going to get messy for those who don't excel in that style of climbing.

In reply to timjones:


Yes.


Of course


Yes.


Why? As we've just agreed, individuals already take their specific strengths and weaknesses into account when selecting routes, so there would be no change in that. Grades are about the whole climbing climbing population and I think they should reflect that.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Am I not allowed to do that?

He says not all grades are different in the same way. He's right. But someone doesn't go and measure the differences. A few people have some input using real world judgement and experience. Hopefully these people are not exactly the same 'average' person so will find it difficult/easy depending on their ability.

So we already take into account different abilities. No need to regrade anything.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Sorry, I really have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here!

Do you or do you not think that route A should get a higher grade than route B in a forthcoming edition of a guidebook if, say, 75% of the current climbing population find route A harder than route B?

In reply to Robert Durran:



It would be nice if it was that simple. But technically, yes, and that's what generally happens.

My impression was that the OP is advocating changing grades for all climbs and downgrading them because people are now better climbers.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think you need to read the first four words of the OP again!

In reply to Robert Durran:


It doesn't apply just to 'some' routes though. The technical parts of the grade cover the technical moves don't they?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Again, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. I think the OP was perfectly clear; if indoor training is making people generally find some routes easier relative to others, should grades be adjusted to reflect that?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Try telling that to the folk who write the Railay/Tonsai guides! Once known for its soft grades, some of the routes there are now so polished they've become the right grade at last; most of the others now feel pretty stiff - some of them ridiculously so.

In reply to Robert Durran:



What happens when you have some steep cracklines that have been regraded to match the perceived skillset of a "majority" of climbers and others that haven't.

The idea of regarding certain styles of routes is unworkable and ias likely to increase inconsistencies due to the difficulties of applying arbitrary regarding in consistent manner across the country.

In reply to stp:

It does already happen, for all the voting based online route DBs.

Albeit it works a bit differently than what you describe.

The stamina routes they the same (=ego boost) and then the tricky ones get upgraded (=grade inflation).

In reply to HeMa:

For example Goliath's Groove is now given HVS and yet it was quite comfortable at VS before wall trained climbers were in vogue.

In reply to stp:

Can we upgrade the "Traditional" awkward crack climbs to compensate?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Indeed...

But don't worry, quite soon you'll have a logbook full of E5s, when all the old VS and HVS have been upgraded since a wallbread climber can't figure it out...

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes for non established / new ones.

However, not true for well established routes. Providing the route it self hasn't changed, that is.

In reply to HeMa:



But the whole point of this thread is to discuss whether this should happen. Not whether this does happen.

In reply to HeMa:



Grades of established routes change. Scoop wall, the butcher etc. Grades are just a crude attempt at putting all routes in difficulty order so it makes sense that even established routes will slide up and down the scale (or alternatively you could think of it as other routes moving around your well established classics.)

In reply to HeMa:



Yep.

As grades change to reflect the changes and influence of wall bred skill sets, expect in 10 years time to see Chequers Crack upgraded to E7

In reply to Robert Durran:


That may be why you're getting confused with my posts.

The thread asks should it happen AND does it happen?

Yes it does. Should it? Well, you can't stop it, it's evolution.

It is however, very slow, it's not a sea change.

Really, they're just a guide and local topo is what you really need to understand each book.

That way, if all the climbs in a book are undergraded; it is all academic as it becomes quickly well known that they're harder than the book suggests.

Although, I suppose, there are some people who read a book and treat it as gospel.

An interesting thread. Anyway I'm 51 years old but, due to advances in medicine and health care, should I tell everyone that I'm only 43?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


The opening word of the OP is "should". He only says he thinks it is already happening indoors.

In reply to Flatus Vetus:


Your age is objectively measurable. Grades are not. A better analogy would be to ask whether the pension age should be raised.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Grade could probably be objectively measured but it would be hugely complex calculation

Recalibrating a scale on the grounds that it is hard to measure will do nothing to aid consistency or clarity.

In reply to Robert Durran:


You find some shocking grading in some walls, but that is a different thing to consciously shifting grades.

In reply to timjones:


As it happens it is not complex at all, though difficult in practice. The grade of a rock climb is a statement of the fraction of the climbing population that can or are willing to climb it. So you just need to assemble a large randomly selected sample of climbers and point them at the routes.

If fewer people get up one climb than another, then it is by definition harder.

You now have an accurate (the accuracy being dependent of the number of climbers in the sample) list of the climbs in order of difficulty. Where you but the boundaries (VS/HVS etc.) is then up to you/history.

Note, this works for all rock grading systems - French, UK tech and adj, USA etc. But not for aid or alpine. A slight complicating factor is what to do about climbs/rock that are unique to an area. E.g. off-widths. It seems this is normally handled by the assumption that the sample of climbers is local and well versed in the necessary techniques. This is close to the truth, as locals tend to write the guide books and grade the climbs.

Of course this is not how we grade new climbs - we just use gut feeling. However, it is well worth keeping in mind, and I think it a great shame that people sometimes forget this basic theory behind grading. I often find routes with a UK tech grade of 5a that almost anyone can top rope, but 4b's that leave people hanging on the rope. This should not happen.

In reply to David Coley:


You could be right BUT surely it is the percentages used in the calculation that shift with time and advancing standards rather than long established routes being downgraded?

In reply to timjones:


It seems to be a bit of both, and technology plays a role too: long ropes and pro now mean that the average multi pitch v diff is easier than it was once.

In reply to timjones:

But the percentages are going to change differently for different routes, because changes in gear, training and so on are going to make a lot more difference on some routes than on others. Relatively, the proportion of people who can power through an overhang on obvious jugs will have increased more than the proportion of people that can figure out a tricky sequence from a good rest. Even if you change the proportions that you use to define the grade, you're going to have to change some grades when the balance of the average climber's skillset changes. This is the whole point of the thread.

In reply to David Coley:


I'd say less commiting rather than easier. However, I'd also suggest that the last thing we want to do is start messing about with the grading on multi pitch V diffs.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


That is the question that is being asked.

As you may have noticed I disagree fairly strongly with the idea of messing about with long standing grades that have been broadly speaking correct for many years.

It's up to the individual climber to recognise their strengths and weaknesses and select routes accordingly. When climbing for the first time in a new area you start at a lower grade and work up. You may find that if you're not at ease with the style or unfamiliar with the rock you won't match the grades you can achieve at home. On the other hand sometimes you get lucky, things just click into place and your grade soars

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Fair point. I stand corrected, cheers!

In reply to stp:


They aren't. Training and "modern walls" have been around for donkey's years.

In reply to timjones:

Multi-pitch VD's are too often wrong and only the guides in the last decade have been seriously dealing with this. Lands End Long Climb is a classic example of an existing classic sandbag...it can just about be climbed as a VD weaving around and avoiding all the best bits but at least two of the pitches are pretty serious HS and one is brutal but safe S. Many old school classic VD's have advertised HS pitches now (even if the pitch in question is easier.... like Bowfell Buttres).

In reply to Ramblin dave:

You might think that. Yet the evidence to me on the crags is that blasting through overhangs on wall based power seems to be way too necky for wall bred climbers. Safe brute routes are also quieter than they used to be (especially above VS) despite increases in trad numbers overall (am I the only climber who used to target these as an apprentice?)

In reply to Dogwatch:
Well said... I've been climbing nearly 30 years and serious indoor wall training predates my start by many years. What has changed is that wall climbing is much more an end in itself now. For my first two decades in climbing I trained skills for routes and problems that needed them.

In reply to Dogwatc


I think it's a hard question to answer, without any proper data. There are more walls about than ever I believe, so it's easier than ever to train and keep fit through the winter. Unfortunately this is just speculation, I don't really know if fitness levels have changed on average, and I suspect nobody else does either.

In reply to Offwidth:


True on both accounts. But I can honestly say, that at least boulders and sport crags are getting a bit busier where I live (mainly because during the last 5-10 years, we've got one stellar new climbing gym for ropes and a few bouldering caves). How ever, it hasn't changed much in the number of people on trad crags (or trad lines).

So perhaps the effect won't be as big on trad climbs than on sport climbs (or boulders). How ever, the grade creep is already evident on some boulders (old benchmark routes/problems) that are getting upgrade because the they are now considered hard for the grade (even though they are benchmark ones).

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I suspect fitness averages may even have dropped. Climbing used to involve much more walking, harsh conditions and proportionally more people climbing in the higher grades of the time. Put average modern climbers in pre-war kit and public transport and see how they fare on the routes of the time.

In reply to HeMa:

Can you illustrate some examples of grade creep on boulder problems. Most problems in Font sub 6 need an upgrade in my opinion, not due to creep but due to problems getting harder through polish. I cant think of many UK examples of change as they haven't been established with grades that long.

In reply to Offwidth:


Might be true. For example, in Joe Brown's day, I guess a far greater proportion of climbers were very committed. Even if nobody had the fitness levels of today's top sport climbers, there also weren't as many indoor dabblers, who see climbing as more of a social event with a bit of added excitement. Hard to say for sure...

In reply to Offwidth:


Routes that are quite simply incorrectly graded graded need correcting regardless of any move to alter grades for perceived changes in average abilities.

That said, if a route has a lot of diff pitches and a few HS moves is an overall grade of V diff going to be far wrong? Surely adjectival grades are about the whole route rather than just the hardest moves?

In reply to timjones:



I'm not sure that makes sense. If a 10m single pitch route was to get HS, then giving it VDiff if the same moves occurred in the middle of a 3 pitch route would be a little strange.

In reply to Offwidth:

https://27crags.com/crags/grottan/routes/nameless-problem-2-373

It's a classic 6a/+ assis problem. Not polished at all (it's granite after all). But it's quite technical and precise, not the forte of indoor climbers.

There are similar examples in Finland.

This, how ever is not always true (polish & poff on sandstone, grit and limestone) can naturally affect the grade.

But as stated, if the problem/route hasn't changed (eg. my example) the grade creep is unfounded.

In reply to David Coley:

Exactly.... imagine .... if a route has a lot of E1 pitches and a few E5 moves is an overall grade of E2 going to be far wrong?

Somehow the wonderful UK grading system keeps getting tangled in the weeds when it applies to lower grades.

In reply to Offwidth:


Not, of course, that there is any such thing as an E5 move anyway.

In reply to stp:

I don't think modern climbers are necessarily fitter and stronger - most jobs and lifestyles involve significantly less physical work than in yesteryear.

In reply to Toerag:


"Physical work" and climbing specific fitness are very different. If anything the reduction in manual work allows people to be potentially much better at climbing because the need for recovery time from heavy manual work has been removed.

If you look at the sorts of sport routes people can climb these days, and you look at stamina trad venues like sharpnose, where the grades used to be a grade higher on many routes and even after a downgrade are regularly considered soft, then it seems relatively uncontroversial to suggest that the opportunity is there to become significantly climbing-fitter than in years gone by.

In reply to Toerag:


Depends... sure overall fitness might be less (due to sitting in a cubicle instead of manual labour in a coal mine). But I kind of doubt that after pullin' a 10y shift in the mines, the people went to the gym, no? More likely bed or pub.

But then again, modern people might have focused their excessive more, as in every second day 2h at the bouldering gym. Do that for a year*, and I can say without a doubt that non technical moves of mid F7s wont' feel hard.

A prime example of a "wall bread" climber with limited time is none other than Ines Papert. She became a mother and also a single parent even before she won her 1st ice world cup. And she dominated the IWC for quite a while. In her speaks it became rather evident, that she could only train a few hours a few times a week (when her mom was lookin' after the kid).


* If you don't break yourself, that is.

In reply to HeMa:


Not if you are as naturally weak as me.

In reply to David Coley:

The grade of a rock climb is a statement of the fraction of the climbing population that can or are willing to climb it.

This isn't really true. It is how hard a climb is compared to established benchmarks. Otherwise we'd have never added to the we've had in the past (nor be able to add to existing grades now)

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm weak as well , and still find it possible.

Besides, do around 350h of training in the bouldering gym for a year... and then report back if you're still weak. Oh, and I do really mean training (systematically) not climbing.

In all honesty, getting fit is easy (albeit rather boring). Learning technique takes a lot longer... as does the fact that you don't overtrain and/or break yourself.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:



What's the problem?

If, say, Left Wall is a benchmark defining the boundary between E2 and E3, a route that fewer people can climb gets E3 or above and a route that more people can climb gets E2 or below. In the perfect hypothetical graded list, route A is above route B if fewer people can climb route A. Grade boundaries are arbitrary cut off points on that list and there is nothing wrong with using established benchmarks for them.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

>> The grade of a rock climb is a statement of the fraction of the climbing population that can or are willing to climb it.


Indeed, the willingness only has relevance to trad routes, where danger is an aspect.

Sport (and boulder) measure physical skills (straighten, stamina, technique etc.) and atleast in theory the aspect of fear is removed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Benchmarks can be handy when grading systems are being introduced, but they shouldn't be regarded as being forever set in stone. When the majority of routes at a grade are considered a good bit easier or harder than the 'benchmark' route it's probably the latter which needs consideration, not the former. Savage Slit at V always seems an odd one to me when IMO it felt a fair bit easier than any other V.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


If it's not set in stone then its not really a benchmark. No point in having them if you are going to ignore them.


It is certainly very soft for V. If it is a benchmark, it marks the bottom end of V.

In reply to Robert Durran:

or solid IV

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No, because if it is a benchmark it is "by defintion" V.
But I do agree that it should probably be neither V nor a benchmark!

In reply to Robert Durran:



They're not designed as cut off points. They're designed as difficulty ratings.

There is no test that you can apply regarding %ages of people able to climb a route to determine its grade. It works the other way around.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


The grade determines the percentage of people who can climb a route? Surely not.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


No not quite. The number of people who can climb it is determined by how good people are.

Grades are just an indication of how hard the climb is. Everything else is just an effect of it being harder or easier.

It's nonsense to regrade climbs because a certain percentage of people are getting better at climbing in a certain way.

Someone posted up thread that it's down to the individual to start at the bottom range in a new area and aquaint themselves of how the grades have been applied.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Do you think climbs should be graded by consensus? Can it be done any other way?

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


>> This isn't really true. It is how hard a climb is compared to established benchmarks. Otherwise we'd have never added to the we've had in the past (nor be able to add to existing grades now)

I didn't say the fractions were static!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.


Again, not clear what you mean.

All we're saying is that fewer people can climb route A if it has a higher grade than route B (or is higher up a graded list). Seems reasonable. What else do we mean by saying people generally find something more difficult than that fewer people can do it?

So, in principle, if, say, two routes are both middling E3, roughly the same percentage of climbers would be able to onsight them.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


So tell us what "hard" actually means. Presumably you need to know if you are going to use grades as a measure of it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

We can say one hill is steeper than an other. We can directly measure its steepness or grade. It doesn't mean that fewer people can walk up each hill. It means that it's harder to walk up the hill.

It's harder for everyone. We don't measure a hill's steepness against the number (%age, fraction, proportion whatever) of people who can walk to the top.

Grading climbs is a way of saying how difficult they are, they're not an arbitrary cut off for worse or better climbers.

The fact that climbs can't be measured against a physical scale doesn't change this, grading is just an opinion. That opinion may naturally slightly change over time but not significantly.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Of course not. Nobody says we do. What is your point?


But you still havn't said what you mean by "hard" or "difficult"


Whose opinion? And how is this opinion formed when we don't even know what "difficult" means?

In reply to Robert Durran:

That's the whole point of adjective grades. They're adjective you don't measure them.

You could always grade a hill by how hard you found it to walk up. You'd compare it to other hills you walked up.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Again, absolutely no idea what you are on about here.


You still havn't defined "hard" in a collective consensus sense? How hard you found it is just your own subjective opinion.

You are just waffling I'm afraid!

In reply to Robert Durran:

You're asking me to define 'hard'. I can't. It's an adjective. It's not a physical quantity that can be measured.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


My dictionary gives definitions of plenty of adjectives.

I agree you can't measure hardness like you can measure, say, length. But if you are going to put routes in order of "hardness", you've got to decide what you actually mean by it and, specifically, what it means to say that route A is harder than route B. You seem to be refusing to do so.

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is obviously such a thing as an E5 move... a single move adjectival crux on a particluar (quite rare) E5 that climbs that way.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It depends on the grading system.

French (and quite a few of others) measure how hard the physical aspect is going to be. Either because of hard individual moves or due to the pitch being sustained and thus stamina is required.

UK trad, well, you also add the overall experience to the mix, as in how sustained, scary or deadly the climbing is related to the technical aspects...

In reply to HeMa:




But in all cases it comes down to the same thing. If one route is harder than another then fewer people are able to climb it.

In reply to David Coley:


To and extent yes.

But the grade per se is not based on statistical analysis of which percentage can get up the route.

In reply to HeMa:

The factors contributing to the grade are many (sustained, fingery, scary, perplexing, painful, etc., etc.) Most of them are hard or probably impossible to quantify objectively but they're widely agreed to contribute to the grade overall. What is in discussion here is the relative weighting of each factor and whether this weighting does or should change with the overall strengths, weaknesses and preferences of the climbing population.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Oh yes it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale_of_mineral_hardness

Seems to me we may have been doing this "grading " thing wrong all these years!

Chris

In reply to john arran:

True,

And is I already answered way way higher in this thread... most gym bread climbers are getting rather good at doing stamina routes (which is where gyms really shine). So a long sustained but easy to read stamina cave route might feel easy for them. Where as the "same" grade short technical slab might feel impossible. Think of Rodeller cave route vs. La Pedriza slab. Both climbs would be bolted, in Spain and most likely reasonably safe.

A well rounded climber would find them the same grade/difficult as they are indeed the same. But a gym rat, with stamina will find the Rodellar route easier, where as a visiting Mello slab master would prolly find the Pedriza one easier...

And in my opinion, the change of overall weaknesses & strengths shouldn't affect the grades.

The only way an established route changes grade, is when something physically changes on it (limestone, it gets too polished or a hold breaks). Not well established or new routes are graded by consensus (of FA, and repeat ascenssionists). Which means that especially in the early days, they might be off (depending on experience and background of FA and repeaters).

OH, and to be clear, I'm now once again only referring to physical difficulty. Overall grade might change more easily with some new fancy protection devices. Not sure if that really happens though. Think of it this way, a sustained splitter crack won't eat all that many nuts or hexes. And fiddling them in would also burn you out -> high overall grade. Now with cams, you can get solid protection 15cm apart quickly and easily -> overall grade should be less than in the time of nuts and hexes.

In reply to HeMa:


Very true. It is, as I'm sure we can all agree on, often based on little more than gut feeling. However I think it is important to remember the basis that "If one route is graded harder than another then fewer people should be able to climb it". For this to stay true then it is enviable that routes move between grades as time goes by if there are large changes in the climbing population or climbing technology. It we don't do this, the whole system comes tumbling down.

An extreme example: imagine a route where the use of the crux micro finger hold can be avoided by anyone over 6ft 6in reducing the grade from UK 6b to 4c. Improvements in diet leads to the median height of climbers changing from 5-8 to 7ft. It would seem likely the guide book might have once said, 6b except for the very tall, might now say, 4c except for the very short.

Although this example is OTT, the point seems valid, individual climbs will need to move around as we and our technology change. The explosion in training, the increased numbers of women climbing, use of bouldering to build strength and key skills, the intro of cams, better boots, bolted anchors on long routes, much lighter gear etc. will have big impacts on some routes and none on others, hence some routes will move. Some of these might even be the key defining routes. If so, then so be it.

In reply to David Coley:

I don't think so. All that happens is more climbers are able to climb those routes. Then, as I said before, we start seeing harder grades at the end. E20 etc...

In reply to HeMa:

What you say makes logical sense but would be unhelpful at best in he real world. I rather think that giving a route HVS and saying in the text "All except Mello slab-masters will likely find this to be around E3" would be missing the point of grades being useful guides for the people doing the climbs, which is precisely what they were developed for.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I find that surprising: if a climb was previously unprotectable and then because of the invention of cams becomes totally safe you won't drop the grade?

In reply to HeMa:


Scoop Wall to name just one.

In reply to HeMa:


Isn't that just a circular argument? They are the same difficulty because they'll feel that way to the well rounded climber. You're a well rounded climber if they feel the same difficulty.

What makes them the same difficulty, hence the same grade? Assuming they are the same grade.

In reply to David Coley:


The problem with that approach is every advance would see downgrading as the routes become 'easier'. The File was a solo (at VS) back in the day, then along came big nuts making it safer (and easier?) and then chalk, and then sticky rubber and then cams and now crack gloves. Is it still VS or VDiff? (Or E3 as some seem to think!)

Chris

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

>There are more walls about than ever I believe

Not sure about that. The wall building boom was a couple of decades ago. Within an hour's drive of where I live there's one fewer wall than 10 years ago, albeit the one that closed wasn't a huge loss.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Chris I'm not taking about mass changes in grades, but of select routes. In the case of The File, I would suggest it would have gone up in grade if it hadn't been for the invention of modern pro as part of the general realignment of grades. Do you not think an unprotechable route of that difficulty might warrant more than VS?

When I was young, I remember there seemed a great difference between the difficulty of peak grit and the longer routes in north Wales. The invention of cams and the up-grading of some peak routes seems to have removed this, now. However, at the time my friends and I went through a phase of trying to climb routes using roughly the same technology as those that put up the climbs might have used. We tied short ropes around our waists, bought pumps from Woolies, filled out pockets with pebbles and totally shat our pants. What was really interesting was that the grade difference between the peak and north wales evaporated. The peak stuff became close to soloing, but one could normal slither back down to safety - or the hard move was below 15ft. With north wales the climbing was easier but required guts to keep going knowing that you would have to reverse the pitch if the spike belay was poor, or the pebbles didn't fit. Dinas Mot was particularly memorable. VS in the peak really did feel like VS in north wales. It is interesting to me that most of the movement has been to up-grade peak routes rather than down grade routes in north wales over the last 30 years. I guess it pampers better to egos.

In reply to Dogwatch:


Neither am I, but if I had to put my money on more or less, I know where I'd put it.

There do seem to have been a lot of new ones opening in Yorkshire, especially if you include bouldering walls. Perhaps closures are less well advertised.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


The fact that it requires the "same" amount of effort to get up. For the well rounded climber (ie. has enough stamina and also skillz).

In reply to HeMa:


Isn't that back to the same circular argument? Anyway, time to get some work done...

Not really.

As has been already pointed out, grades can't be quantified by conventional ways (like measuring the distance between the holds, the friction coefficient on the holds and so), at least in a useful way.

We have to "invent" an ideal climber, ie. the well rounded climber. That is the master of all techniques, knows all the tricks and to boost has endless supply of stamina. For him/her climbing routes of similar grade will require the same amount of effort. And by effort I don't solely mean physical effort, it can also mean precision and route finding skills and so on. This is the grade which is pretty much the definition of the french grade. Overall effort required in climbing the route.

As humans are flawed, and near their top grades the flaws they have will become rather evident.

For a good boulderer, climbing a long stamina route might feel hard... as while the cruxes will feel easy, it's the stamina that get's them. A (indoor) face climbing jock will similarly find a Yosemite style granite hand-crack utterly desperate. As the're used to pulling on crimps and sidepulls, not enjoying a lovely hand crack.

In both examples the route will feel much more difficult/harder/higher grade than what it really is (if you have stamina or know how to jam).

And what work?

In reply to HeMa:

I'm back in gainful employment. You can always tell when I'm in a job...I post more! Got to #4 in the top posters in my last job.

But seriously, I think if you want to come up with some objective measure of grading, you need to define what it means and how to test it.

So you can say..

E2 is 'harder' than E1.
E3 is 'harder' than E2.
The 'difference in hardness' between E1 and E2 is the same as the difference in hardness between E2 and E3.
Etc...

But then like Robert says, you need to define 'hardness', and 'difference in hardness' in a testable way, in theory at least.

BTW, I really don't care, my guidebooks work and I like to get out and use them. If grades move about a bit, so what?

In reply to HeMa:



I don't see it this way. At my local crags I have had large numbers of people follow me up the same routes for years. If most fall off one route, but not another, I know the first route is harder. If the guidebook says the opposite, the guidebook is wrong.

In reply to Robert Durran:



I think you are agreeing with me (?)

In reply to David Coley:


It really depends... are the seconds experienced climbers and good all rounders? If they're noobs, then it just tells that one route is a ladder where as the other is a nasty offwidth .

In reply to HeMa:

You seem to be insisting on grades being for some hypothetical globally well-rounded climber, which is a nice theoretical ideal but simply not the case in practice. Grades indicate to people what kind of chance of success they might expect. The people they're written for are a typical cross-section of climbers who will be more or less used to climbing the kind of routes that exist in that area. Newcomers to grit will be expected to find jamming cracks hard for the grade, Yosemite specialists may be expected to find them easy for the grade. That's because cracks are graded higher in Borrowdale but easier in Yosemite. The grade therefore is a rough average of the level of difficulty expected to be experienced by a broad range of climbers who actually go there. You can't reliably compare grades around the world because some areas require very specific techniques or strengths so climbers who typically climb there are good at that kind of climbing and therefore find it easier so grade it lower than other climbing they aren't so practised at. Grades therefore will reflect the chances of success among climbers who typically will be trying those routes at that area. It may be a problem for the objective scientific mind but in practice it works very well.

In reply to HeMa:


Yes experienced, some been climbing 30+ years.

In reply to john arran:


How else can you do it.

And as you also stated, new routes get graded by the FA and then those repeating the route also voice their opinions. So new routes get the grade from consensus.

And oddly enough, quite often nowadays logbooks and such seem to reflect that well established old-school climbs are now considered hard for the grade, even though they really haven't changed at all. The only variable that has changed is the climbers (or mainly their climbing style and also preference).

People change and also how they train, so do their flaws and strengths. But if the actual route hasn't changed at all, and the initial grade was well established (say, Buoux, Chulilla and so on) for tens of years. How come suddenly they are supposed to be harder now? To me, that points on that perhaps the grade chasers should need to look into the mirror...

This only gets to be a problem at higher grades though. And given my example from Åland. old schools and spot on 6a/+ from early 90s. Doesn't have enough climbers (yet) to polish the holds and nothing has broken. Still the nature of the climb just happens to be technical and precise. Not the kind of climb generally found on indoor gyms. And now suddenly people vote it to be 6c or even hard 6c+. Thats quite a big step from 6a/+. And to me, that summarizes the problem really well. Which also means that sometimes the consensus can be completely wrong...

In reply to David Coley:

Then I do agree with you... perhaps some of the routes are notorious sandbags or mis-graded.

In reply to HeMa:


Now you're just getting silly.

In reply to HeMa:


I thought I'd explained quite clearly how it appears to work in practice, but if you want to continue insisting on an unworkable theoretical ideal then go ahead. The rest of the world will no doubt keep doing what's most useful rather than necessarily what's most correct. And human nature being what it is, grade creep will continue too Probably easier to go with the flow rather than getting worked up about it - it's only numbers, after all - doesn't affect the climbing at all.

In reply to Offwidth:


Not quite sure what you mean by that. The adjectival grade is for a whole route, so unless the route only has one move (ie it is a very short boulder problem and not a route at all!) you cannot have a move with an adjectival grade.

In reply to HeMa:


It is based on an estimate of that percentage.

In reply to john arran:


Yes, that was what the OP was about, but first we have to agree on what a grade actually means before we start changing them!

In reply to Chris Craggs:


And why not? The grade takes into account the seriousness; if a previously unprotectable route becomes well protectable with standard protection devices the grade should drop.

In reply to john arran:


Precisely.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Some routes are one move wonders in an adjectival sense. Its not common but the E5 move does exist. It could be an X rated 5c move to a well protected 6c.

In reply to Offwidth:

That's not an E5 move though is it? Surely it's a sequence of moves that tot up to an E5.
Genuine question, I'm crap with grades and tend to take them with a pinch of salt.

Tbh if I was climbing an E5 6c I'd expect it to be as safe as houses.

In reply to Offwidth:

All very well in theory but rather presupposes anyone can ever agree on what constitutes a move (as opposed to a single movement or a short sequence.)

In reply to Offwidth:

You'd usually say a 6a / 6b move or sequence. The 'E5' only comes into play within the context of the whole pitch. You can have an E5 route/pitch but not an E5 move.

In reply to Offwidth:

The only way I can see it sensible to describe a move as E5 would be for it to be at least 6a with dangerous fall potential and very, very easy climbing below and above. But then the very easy climbing below has created the height which makes it dangerous and so also contributes to the grade. So, no, I don't think you can have an E5 move or, indeed, a move of any adjectival grade. Likewise you cannot have a move of any given French grade (though some trad topos seem to try!). As for the YDS.............

In reply to Robert Durran:


Hi Robert, I guess one way you might think about this is an E5 move is a move that can be done by the same fraction of the climbing population as can climb E5 or above. But I agree, it doesn't really make sense.

In reply to David Coley:

Could you then have, say, an E5 maths problem (one that can only be solved by the same proportion of the population that can onsight Right Wall)? Actually, I quite like this idea; I think I'll start using UK adjectival grades on school reports "Jonny hasn't even managed to flash a V. Diff sum this term despite me spoonfeeding him loads of beta.........". No doubt the English department would insist on using the YDS though(so that their grades wouldn't actually reflect attainment) and the whole thing would collapse into an prolonged and acrimonious grading debate.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think we're in agreement here. UK Tech should be for one move. French for a sequence or effort to get up a full pitch.

And YDS... well, anything from a move to effort for the full pitch.

In reply to all

If there is a single move or short sequence that defines a technical crux then just by logic it can also sometimes define an adjectival crux (with the rest of the route significantly adjectivally easier and the route given E5 what else is there but a range of E5 moves of differing technicality depending on protection, postion, exposure, rock, quality, etc?). UK grading becomes problematic where interlinked sequences get longer or when technicality hits the stupidly wide 6c band and then US and French grades seem better to me to define their 'technical' character.

In reply to Offwidth:



Not quite sure what you mean here. The adjectival grade is for the whole route. There is therefore, by definition, no such thing as an E5 move. A move can only contribute to the grade, never define that grade.

In reply to Robert Durran et al:

Deary me, this is all like nit picking over semantics.

Of course E5 doesn't describe an individual move but what (I think) Offwidth is trying to say is that if the E5 grade is only because of a particularly hard single crux move, then that is effectively an E5 move (even though it is technically incorrect usage).

In reply to Michael Hood:


But if you had a sustained series of moves of the same difficulty as this E5 crux move, it might be an E7. I agree with Robert, saying E5 move is just confusing, and I wouldn't say it's nit picking. Even you don't seem to be sure what he's saying.

We have a tech grade, which some people might not like, but at least it attempts to describes how hard a move is, not a route.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Not "technically incorrect". Just plain wrong. Suppose you could isolate the move in question, straight off a fat bouldering mat. Could you give it a UK adjectival grade? No.

Yes, the difficulty of a single move could make a big contribution to a UK adjectival grade, but it is completely meaningless to give the move a UK adjectival grade when, in another context (say, simply in a more dangerous position) the UK adjectival grade would be different.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I think a good deal of adjectival grading occurs based on the feel of crux move sequencies in the context of the situation on lead. It can be more difficult to assess the pure crux technicality of the key move of that sequence in isolation. Just like its rare to have an adjectival move, its also rare to have a whole route that determines the adjectival grade. Personally speaking, I often need to repeat routes on a top-rope to suss out technicality and am often suprised how different it can be from the feel it has onsight (in both directions). Defining crux technicality can also be unhelpful, as it can disguise the adjectival crux, especially if the technical crux is in a different place or the route is super sustained... the text of the route description then needs to drop hints.

In reply to Offwidth:


Surely you have to go with what it felt like onsight though?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not for the technical grade

In reply to stp:
Surely as different people have a different fitness level,everyone should have individual grades tailored to their fitness

In reply to Wsdconst:


I think that if, you take this idea to its logical conclusion, you will realise that it is completely daft.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I totally agree,that's what I was trying to get at,it doesn't matter if fitness is better in general,it just means the average grade maybe moves up a bit, but it all stays relevant to each other.obviously in elite climbers there's always progression,but they'll always be a lot more people at the other end bumbling about.

In reply to Wsdconst:


No idea what you were trying to get out. It's about adjusting grades for average fitness levels, not individuals'.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If everyone is fitter, then the average grade is slightly higher but there's no need to re grade anything because it is all relevant,what's the point in saying all hvs is now e1,it won't make a difference.

In reply to Wsdconst:


You are completely missing the point. Not all HVS's, just those which are largely dependent on fitness.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You're missing the point too, not everyone is fitter a lot of people are fatter,why change anything,it doesn't make sense,who's fitness would these new grades be tailored too ? Me ? You? How would you know the fitness level of the person grading them was a representation of the average?,surely the person grading would also have strengths and weaknesses,so you would still end up with grades that people disagree with.to me the grade is a vague idea of what to expect,not a set in stone measurement that fits everyone.

In reply to Robert Durran:


So it should be based on the average time for the marathon. What mythical measure of average fitness will you use?

In reply to Wsdconst:

Oh Dear. I give up.

In reply to Orgsm:

Ditto.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well, I was expecting a bit more than that,maybe the best idea would be for you to design a totally new grading system that better fits modern climbers ? Come back and explain why it's better/more apt for today's climbers. I'm just struggling to find a valid reason to start regrading stuff, can you imagine the arguments on here. I respect the fact you think there's need for change, I just can't comprehend it.

In reply to Wsdconst:


Ok. One last go. Suppose 90% of climbers magically woke up one morning to discover that they had acquired almost limitless endurance and strength. As a result a large number of routes would now feel much easier to 90% of the climbing poulation; lots of routes graderd E3, say, would feel easier than lots of E1's. Would there be a case for some regrading to reflect this?

In reply to Robert Durran:

No,because everyone would just climb a higher grade and maybe we'd see a few E20's.you could change the grades to keep the average climber climbing at say E1,but it would be a lot of messing about, when instead you could just let the average climber climb E3 and change nothing.think we should just agree to disagree on this one.actually our difference of opinion maybe due to our different relationship to climbing, I mean I'm just a week end punter really ,I'm never going to push any grades so maybe it's just less important to me than it is to you.

In reply to Wsdconst:
Now I really do give up. I'm not sure I can be clearer about what this thread is about. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing; first you have to underrstand what is being discussed. Try reading the Op.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Just because someone doesn't agree, it doesn't mean they don't understand. You seem to have a habit of trying to dumb people down,my opinion maybe different, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.the opinion for and against seems to be split with the majority wanting to leave things as they are(I might be wrong but I'm not gonna count them). So surely we can't all be wrong.anyway I'll have to agree to disagree and leave it there.

In reply to Wsdconst:

No, my point is that it's impossible for you to agree or to disagree when your posts show that you clearly havn't understood what you claim to be disagreeing about.

One last go (referring to my post of 00.52). Would it make sense for 90% of the climbing population to find a particular safe route graded E3 for being powerful and pumpy easier than a particular bold E1 slab?

In reply to Wsdconst:


I suspect that's the main part of the problem. People are so attached to the idea of a world where grades are static and unchanging, they've let it cloud their thinking a bit. Grades can't be just about the rock, just about the route, they need climbers to climb the routes, and sort they into an relative order of difficulty. This will obviously take into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of the climbing population. It's not a case of wanting grades to change, it's just inevitable and the only system that makes sense.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Not sure about that. Since routes are usually attempted onsight it makes sense to grade them based on one's experiences climbing in similar fashion, and this goes for both overall and tech grades.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


It would be quite difficult to see how an isolated move can be realistically imagined "onsight". How long are you allowed to imagine looking at it for and from what angles and how closely? The same move could feel very different "onsight" on different routes depending on the sense of urgency due to fear and building pump when sizing it up and trying to read it. So I think that in the case of individual moves it might make more sense to grade for the ideal method and build the difficulty of reading the move into the adjectival grade.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Unless we're talking about headpointed first ascents or top end stuff, nothing needs to be 'imagined'. Generally you climb a route onsight and in the process think yes that felt like 5b/5c/whatever, no? The same way you decide, 'yes that's probably an E2'.

In reply to Robert Durran:


That's a big IF.

In practice this probably happens on a very small scale gradually over time. Or more probably doesn't due to inertia.

The route description should include whether it's a slabby, juggy or crimpy move and the individual should be able to judge and understand their strengths.

So if you're capable of climbing that E3 juggy route and not capable of climbing the crimpy E1, you need to do more work on crimpy moves. Not simply move the goal posts.

In reply to Robert Durran:



No it wouldn't make sense tbh, I've thought about it a lot and I would say that yes if general consensus on certain climbs was that the grade was way out then it changing it to a more accurate one wouldn't be so bad. Although this already happens as I've noticed some grades differ from one guide book to another.

In reply to stp:

To answer the question posed by the OP, if fitness levels are actually changing and consensus dictates that certain routes feel easier/harder than their counterparts then YES they should be regraded. However, this happens (gradually, on a case by case basis) anyway!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I agree with your point to, but it's not technically a regrading, just a natural adjustment that reflects the changing skills and abilities of climbers at a specific time. The grades will naturally ebb and flow as certain styles come in and out of fashion anyway. As you pointed out, the adjustment is based on consensus, not an arbitrary statement that "climbers are stronger, all E1's must now be retrograded VS"

Now, back to arguing

In reply to Michael Gordon:


The wooly word "felt" is the giveaway. With no underpinning principle on which to base an estimate it is meaningless. With adjectival grades there is a sensible underpinning principle: the fewer people who could onsight it the higher the grade.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I agree but my example was an extreme hypothetical one in attempt to get over to Wdsconst what this thread is actualy about.


Yes, but you too seem to have missed the point: it's not about any individual's strengths and weaknesses; its about possible changes in typical or average strengths and weaknesses over time in the whole climbing poulation.

In reply to Wsdconst:


Good, so do you now agree that relative grades should be adjusted to reflect possible changing average skills and strengths of the climbing population?

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, ha ha only joking, yes after careful thought I've decided to join your camp, I'm not too sure whether I've been brainwashed or not though,but I guess progression is just that and everything moves on.

In reply to Robert Durran:

In which case climbers are not getting better at climbing, they're just getting stronger. In fact their training isn't really targeting their weaknesses, just playing to their strengths, so isn't really effective correct training for climbing.

In which case what I'm saying still stands. You're moving the goalposts.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Getting stronger is (obviously) part of getting better at climbing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Problem is it can correlate with diminishing skillsets (from bitter experience!) And it can correlate with diminishing awareness of the importance of balanced skillsets.

A kind of, "Strength rules OK!" Well yes, until...

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


Yes, but all other things being equal, I don't think you can ever be too strong!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Not if it compromises skill.

There are loads of people who can do 100pull ups but only on jugs. That's useless.

Compare it to running (because we've already done that on the thread) is Usain Bolt a good runner?

No. He's not. He's an excellent 100m sprinter. To find a good runner you need to look at someone like Mo Farah. He's not an awesome 100m sprinter but he'd beat 99.9% of the population at 100m, but his skillset goes much further than that.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Oh God, don't worry, I worship at the shrine of strength.

Mick (63, eek!)

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm not convinced getting stronger will necessarily compromise skill. I'm assuming the skill levels will stay about the same but strength and endurance will be increased more.



I was thinking more about getting stronger from modern indoor walls not by doing pull ups (which is something climbers have been doing for a very long time anyway).

In reply to Mick Ward:

Indeed and spot on.

Which is why I find it interesting that now with online voting gym rats are already voting on classic (benchmark) routes to be hard for the grade ("physical" grade, as in Font or French), due to them requiring more than just indoor jug-hauling stamina & strength.

To route hasn't changed at all, not even the least bit polished (it's granite and climbing isn't as popular here than it is in the UK). I already gave the example above of a boulder that is old school (as in technical) 6a/+, but people are voting it to be 6c and even hard 6c. And I'm not talkin' about a few climbers, but infact a whoppin' majority.
https://27crags.com/crags/grottan/routes/nameless-problem-2-373

Heck, one only needs to find a nice old school route at a reasonable grade... then wait until that area gets popular with them gym rats, and soon you've ticked quite a bit harder routes.

This is going to be problematic, as quite soon these gym rats can also be opening new problems and routes and then grade them on how they feel about them. And the consensus is formed, but there is going to be a bias (or rather there can be). Quite soon, there's an odd thing happening... there's a bunch of "new school" routes & problems that are "solid" and then there are these "old school" routes (that were even benchmark routes) that are hard for the grade or even get upgraded (in online voting systems).

Of course this will reflect the "active" climbing populace and their shifted skill-sets. But I'm having a hard time gettin' in line with the idea that a benchmark 6a/+ suddenly becomes a solid (or even hard) 6c.

NB.
This is *only* about the technical grade (or physical overall grade), not UK overall grade. And also expects that the route it self hasn't changed (ie. holds broken of or polish made the tiny footholds too darn slippery).

In reply to HeMa:

Alternatively: Back in the good 'ol benchmark days climbers were weak as piss and vastly overgraded anything steep. Nowadays steep has become the norm and modern climbers have a much fairer view overall so all the hard slab nasties have to be upgraded in line with the new consensus


N.B. The same is actually happening with Adjectival grades too, I'm guessing because of demographic changes in the sport, meaning a relatively low proportion of climbers happy in risk situations.

In reply to john arran:

Quite possibly, because in the good old days, there weren't gyms and such to train.

Oddly enough here in Finland the angle can be anything, but still old school routes are considered hard for the grade. IMHO they are pretty spot on, and it's just certain newer crags that seem to have ego-boosting holiday grades... even on the techy-slabby things.


I believe you're right, albeit since we do not use your system here. Can't really comment from personal experience. Oddly enough, it should go the other way around with new protection gear available as getting protection in routes is now easier (both placing it whilst on lead and also simply getting some protection in). But this hasn't been the case, from what I've gathered. Bold routes get upgraded and previously bold but now safe (with modern gear) stuff stays the same.



IMHO, this should not happen. At least for the physical aspects (if the route does not change). Alas, this is the reality we live in. So soon if you ticked an old school f6b route, even without ever progressing on your climbing skills ever since, these days it is quite likely that you now have already climbed f7a and perhaps in the future it'll be f7c.

In reply to HeMa:

That's a lot of 6C votes! If you are very sure this isn't just a sandbag or people are missing the beta, maybe you should list some similar international problems of that standard in the comment box and embarrass the voters. UKC voting on UK stuff doesn't seem to suffer this, worst case is we get classic VS soft touches on Stanage Popular End (a soft graded grit crag for popular classics) voted towards mid grade VS en masse.

On the point about steep routes the old ones around low extreme were not always so soft graded in the UK and they still don't get climbed as much as you might expect given how strong many modern climbers are. The busy steep stuff is sport climbs.

In reply to Robert Durran:


hi Robert, your middle name isn't Wolfgang?

In reply to stp:

Back to the OP, is there any evidence that the average level of fitness and strength has increased in, say, the last 30 years? The stats would suggest that HS/VS is still the norm, and general levels of fitness in the population has fallen while obesity and associated health problems are rising.
At the elite level, 1-5-9(or 8.5) is still the de facto goal on the campus board, SteMac, Gaskins, Wolfgang and Ben's top routes have still only had a small amount of ascents (if any). Maybe there's a case for upgrading rather than downgrading as time goes by?

In reply to Offwidth:


Unfortunately it's a problem in the voting system. If you don't comment on the grade, it picks the current value as your "vote". Some idiot gave it 6C and the herds though it's like that. It is tricky, true but far easier than most slabs @ F5 and about the same as Marie Rose.

Even though I gave it the 6a+ vote... one against 240 or so doesn't really count .

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


I'm going to say that the fitness levels are hardly reflected with trad grades. Most likely you might see some trends if you'd look into bouldering and sport climbs.

At least that's how it is in Finland. Most gym rats (from bouldering gyms) stick to outdoor bouldering and sometimes progress into sport. Only a few show an interest on trad (or other disciplines other than boulder or sport).

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


The point was not an overall fitness/strength level raise but a relative one. Climbers of all standards are likely to spend a greater proportion of their time in walls/gyms nowadays than in days of old, so, for example, VS climbers may now get on better with steep, juggy VSs than they do thin, smeary ones. Hence the gradual shift in relative grades for these kinds of routes.

In reply to HeMa:
If it's a site problem why are you raising it as a big issue about mis-votes??

Marie Rose is pretty hard even for 6A+ (easier grades even into the low 6s are hard there, especially at Bas Cuvier) and as a new problem rather than a top-end, classic grade-marker it would likely be graded slightly higher than that. As a UK problem it would likely be somewhere in the 6B's. Also Ondra famously failed to flash it.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's not per se site issue. But also reflects how people now behave. Were it initially given 6a/+, some would state that it is hard and perhaps voted correctly.

Now they are happy with the egoboosting grade given ('cause it looks good in their logbooks).

As stated, it ain't easy. But not really hard either. Just something that you're average gym climber is not good at.

It however clearly reflects the point that I've been trying to make. Gym rats can and will cause mis-grading and if the majority of climbers are gym bread (true now in Finland), they will amplify the problem.

It's not as bad here in UKC logbooks, as you need to actually select something to vote. And because of the added work needed, perhaps as much stuff won't get upgraded.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And I suppose Adam Ondra isn't s good climber either.

First you say that getting stronger does not make you a better climber and then this. What utter nonsense!

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


No, it's Wiliam. Anyway, I thought i was paraphrasing Moon, not Gullich!

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's only nonsense if you only quote one line of my post.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


But the other lines were what revealed the nonsense thinking. It was like saying improving your forehand doesn't make you a better tennis player because you might, at the same time, be having problems with your backhand.

As for the Usain Bolt thing, it was like saying that Ayrton Senna wasn't a good driver because he wasn't great at rallying (or indeed probably didn't do it at all). Likewise the fact Ondra isn't a great ice climber doesn't mean he's not a good climber.

In reply to john arran:


Hi John, there's also been a shift from active manual employment to sitting in call centres 40 hours a week. I take your point on gyms and walls, but wonder how the other factors blunt the effect?

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think Ben paraphrased Wolfgang.....

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


Part will become fat... and already have.

How ever, those that do sport, might have more energy left and thus hit the gym (for iron or for plastic).

In reply to Robert Durran:


That's exactly what I'm saying.

It's not nonsense.

If you take the Tennis example; if you can't hit backhand and your opponent works that out, he'll target your backhand and it won't matter how good your forehand is, you'll lose.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

According to you:

So Ondra is not a good climber:
Bolt is not a good runner.
Senna wasn't a good driver.
And if Andy Murray improved his forehand it wouldn't make him a better tennis player.

All utter bollocks. And no amount of absurd and contrived qualification of these statements can change this assessment.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




But you're still assuming that having a good forehand means that you can't hit backhand.

Or to return to the case of climbing, that because you use dark wet Thursday nights in February to get beasty strong, you aren't also doing everything you reasonably can to get out on actual rock.

In reply to Robert Durran:





Not quite what I'm saying is it? You're twisting my words.

If he can't hit backhand then it doesn't matter what he can do with his forehand does it?

I'd suggest in the case of Andy Murray, he can hit both forehand and backhand.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yes, and if he improved his forehand further he would be a better player. And Ondra would be a better climber if he got even stronger.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Quite possibly but that's not what we're arguing.

We're saying someone who can climb E3 on jugs but can't climb E2 crimpy holds. Works even harder on the jugs to climb E4. He still can't climb E2 crimpy holds.

So then says the crimpy hold climb must be an E4. He's not got any better at crimpy holds, he still can't climb them and is just pretending they're harder rather than accepting he's a rubbish climber.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



No, but he is still a better climber. He would be a better climber if he got better at crimps instead, or at hand jams, or at heel hooks. Or at footwork. Or whatever. Just like Andy Murray would be a better tennis player if he improved his forehand. Or his backhand. Or his footwork. Or whatever.


Absolutely nobody who understands what this thread is about is saying that.

I really have no idea why you are in such a muddle over all this.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Not really. We're arguing about someone who can blast through obvious strength or power-endurance sequences on good gear, but gets shut down by (say) tricky head or technique-dependent moves.

If the reason that they're relatively better at strength and power-endurance is because they spend a lot of sunny Saturdays camped under the system board at the wall when they could be outdoors then yeah, there's an argument that they're not a "rounded" climber and they should look at balancing their training or accept that some routes don't suit them.

On the other hand, if they're relatively better at power-endurance because they've been outdoors as much as their level of commitment will allow, but also trained efficiently at the bouldering wall when they can't get outdoors and got on the fingerboard at home when they can't get to the wall then I'd say that they're a more "rounded" climber than someone who won't climb indoors on principle or who tits around indoors with no particular training plan (like me) and hence has unnecessarily crap strength and endurance relative to the amount of commitment that they're willing to put into climbing.

Edit: and if we accept that grades are based on a hypothetical "well rounded climber" and if[1] we're now so much better at training indoors that routes that used to feel fairly graded to people who went walking or running or watched the telly or climbed indoors unproductively when they couldn't climb outdoors are going to feel misgraded to people who train productively indoors when they can't climb outdoors, then those grades should change.

[1] and it's a big "if"

Well, I disagree.

You don't get better at any sport by concentrating on the aspect you're good at, at the expense of the aspect that needs improving.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
It's not the best way of improving, but it is rarely worse than not training at all.

The point is that if the world had, for example, higher gravity, steep stuff would be harder and slabby stuff would be (comparatively) easier. Thus a slab and a steep climb that both got E2 in our world might get E1 and E3 in that world, respectively.

If all* (note ALL) climbers suddenly got massive fingers, so really struggled with crimps, slabs would become harder and steep jugfests (comparatively) easier. Now it would be reasonable to grade the slab and the steep climb E3 and E1 (or E4 and E2, the normalization doesn't matter).

*ALL climbers not just some climbers, not just one climber, but ALL climbers.**
**EVERY CLIMBER IN THE WORLD. Really. Responses pertaining to a single climber, not the population, are irrelevant.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


So suppose someone is capable of onsighting any E2 and the odd powerful E3. They then do some strength training and become capable of onsighting a fair number of E3's and the odd powerful E4 as well as any E2. Have they become a better climber?

Or suppose a sprinter is a slow starter but very fast once they get going. They then manage to get even faster without improving their start, so that their 100m PB improves. Have they become a better sprinter?

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Of course you do, just a lot slower than if you were to work your weaknesses.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I was talking about grading routes generally, i.e. deciding which grade they were. The best way to do this is to compare it to other routes you've done and decide if it was easier/harder.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Agreed!

In reply to Michael Gordon:


That'a easy, as in reality there are only 3 grades...

Can do, might be able to do and no freakin' way.

Since I'm shite, can do is f6a max, might be able to do tops at f6b and no freakin' way is harder than f6b.

In reply to HeMa:

That was always trite nonsense. There are many levels of noticeable difference for anyone ....can walk up, find easy moderatly taxing, a little difficult , find very difficult etc .... to being at ones extreme limit, beyond limit but can climb with prepractice, need to get a little better to work it. All of which can vary with fitness weight and conditions for the same skill set.