UKC

Just  a question re grades. I recently purchased the new lakes guide, tis very impressive, i originally used the rockfax or lakes bloc and I was reticking all my completed climbs in the new lakes guidebook and noticed some major shifts in grades. I also have found when logging new climbs I have done recently they seem very different from what grade is on UKC. So I was wondering do authors regrade problems or did rockfax/ukc get it wrong??  I know grades are a controversial subject I was genuinely just interested in how some grades differ so much from guide to guide. 

The Rock Fax guide was the lakes first proper guide to bouldering in the area and apart from the honey pot locations many hadn't had many ascents so there is probably a much better concensus now. Along with all the beta videos some problems are genuinely easier!?

Also places like the Stone tend to shed holds quite often so grades can differ over time.

Cheers for the response. Makes sense

I think Greg Chapman might have something to say about that. 

There are a few grade changes to things, some up some down. Quite a bit is just because there has been time to get a better consensus or in some cases better beta was discovered which has made them more attainable. 

The old rock fax guide was a bit crap to be honest, the bowderstone section in particular was all over the place although there are a still a few minor errors with the new one 

Still it's a good guide and is certainly a major improvement over anything which has existed beforehand.

Yeah the new guide is quality and I also felt rockfax was a slight let down. The new guide is So extensive and looks like there's some quality areas that I'd not even heard of. I def remember thinking some of the crimpy wall routes at carrock and at At Bees were given V3 in rockfax felt loads harder and most seem to have been changed  to something more reasonable the new guide.