UKC

Will climbing grades ever plateau?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Slackboot 13 Dec 2019

Once upon a time E5 was the hardest. Who at that time could conceive grades would reach E10 or E11 or wherever it is now. Where will it all end?

4
 ChrisClark1 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

There will be a limit to physical human achievement. The hardest routes now take months and months of extremely specialised training and committment. Although that's not to say it won't get harder, but plateuing surely will be a possibility eventually.

3
 Dan Arkle 13 Dec 2019
In reply to ChrisClark1:

Thought experiment. 

A person is brought up in a climbing family, with access to the best knowledge about training and is coached from an early age. He is genetically gifted, and psychologically suited to performing and training. 

After years of honing his craft, he then spends years on a specific project that perfectly suits him. 

How do we get better than this? 

Adams Ondra climbing Silence is a reasonable example of this. There aren't huge areas for improvement.

We could hot-house kids more from an early age, which is ethically dubious. 

He spent 4 years on Silence, what if he spent ten years on one project? A lifetime? 

Training and coaching knowledge is improving steadily. This will continue.

Due to the increase in climbing popularity, the pool of ability will increase. We'll find the genetic freaks that can push the limits more.

So, as an overall answer. Yes, standards will increase indefinitely, but with a law of diminishing returns.

Higher grades will be further and further apart. And, in reference to your original question - E grades are a poor measure of that. I predict F10a by 2030, and F10a+ by 2050

In reply to Slackboot:

> Once upon a time E5 was the hardest. Who at that time could conceive grades would reach E10 or E11 or wherever it is now. Where will it all end?

I see the problem (no pun) being that the metric by which we measure 'grade' is not absolutely quantifiable. It's why SMG (seconds - metres- grams) type sport is easy to wrap the brain around. For me it can't be what the numbers say, rather what becomes more probable.

 tjdodd 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

> Thought experiment. 

> A person is brought up in a climbing family, with access to the best knowledge about training and is coached from an early age. They are genetically gifted, and psychologically suited to performing and training. 

> After years of honing his craft, they then spend years on a specific project that perfectly suits him. 

Corrected for you.

15
 Dan Arkle 13 Dec 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

Thanks, I did consciously self correct the beginning, changing it to 'person'.  I try to remain open minded and am very interested in the current gender mix in elite ultra running.

Post edited at 11:26
 tjdodd 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Was not a dig at you.  I believe in certain sports including climbing that gender differences are not necessarily key to who will be pushing the boundaries in the future.  I think it will be interesting to see how the mix of strength, stamina, technique, flexibility and other physical and mental attributes contribute to pushing elite climbing.  It will be really interesting to see how things develop in future years.

1
 MischaHY 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Dan Arkle:

Worth pointing out that he didn't actually spend 4 years trying Silence. He bolted in in 2013, decided it was too hard and then came back when stronger. He spent 40-50 days trying it over a period of 7 2-3 weeks trips. This is certainly a lot, but doesn't represent 4 years of consistent effort. 

I feel the difficulty of routes has a long, long road to travel yet. 

 john arran 13 Dec 2019
In reply to MischaHY:

> I feel the difficulty of routes has a long, long road to travel yet. 

I think you're right, although inevitably the pace of change will slow.

What I think often gets overlooked in these kind of discussions is the power of peer psychology. People were training just as hard 20 years ago as today and yet the standards have risen hugely during this time. Part of that is probably due to improved training knowledge, but I think very little is to do with freak genetics, as the number of climbers now getting up 9b or more I think shows. The overlooked factor I think is that talented athletes will tend to quickly rise to the rough standard of their peers, and then exceptional ones will progress further. The peer standard is higher now than ever before, with 9a/+ no longer being particularly exceptional in many countries, so we soon should expect the pool of talented youngsters attaining that standard to be quite large, giving plenty of scope for the truly exceptional ones to push even further.

 Michael Gordon 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

It has already started to plateau. E6-E9 in the 80s, E10 in 2000, E11 in 2006. No further this decade, perhaps for the first time in recent history. No doubt someone with Ondra's ability could in theory do E13, but to get that good you've really got to focus on sport climbing and only do occasional trad, which doesn't help the cause of future death routes (not a must, but does help increase the E grade!).

Post edited at 13:09
2
 AlanLittle 13 Dec 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

I suspact you're mistaken. Clearly there are lots of very impressive and strong women climbers, but at the actual current limit of sport climbing and bouldering there's still a two grade gap. I would be surprised if thtat were to change much.

2
 Martin Haworth 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot: It's interesting to compare it to other events like the 100m and marathon where we have seen standards continue to slowly rise but then occasionally take a jump due to a specific circumstance. With the 100m we saw times lowered in the 1990's and 2000's because of PED's then a further improvement more recently due to an individual(Bolt- freak of nature?). With the marathon we saw standards improve because a group with inherent genetic ability(East and North Africans) gained access to the event and the means to train. We also recently have seen the introduction of the Nike next%, which has seen the standards jump.

So if we look at climbing in the context of the above I predict a few things will lead to a rise in standards, and they are all likely to be linked to one thing ...the Olympics. The Olympics will make the sport more attractive and so increase the pool of athletes. It will also increase the financial incentive for athletes(PED's risk), and the marketing benefits of equipment manufacturers(Will we see a breakthrough in shoe design or chalk/chalk substitute etc?)

 profitofdoom 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

> .......Where will it all end?

I expect that Severe was once seen as the limit, then VS was seen as the limit, then HVS was seen as the limit, then the limit went up through the E grades, and so the limit continues on up today and into the future. I also think the barriers to breaking through the limits are primarily mental, not physical (that's certainly been my experience) and also I can't see any end to it or absolute limit

4
 Fruit 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

In the film Fingertip Phenomenon Ron Fawcett was asked about whether there was a limit. His reply was interesting, no doubt considered. He sumised that there was a physical limit to what was possible in terms of technicality and that it had been reached (or near to it) -this being the 1980s- but better training, etc. Would allow more of the most difficult moves to be strung together.

this seems to make sense. I guess therefore standards may continue to rise in terms of sustained difficulty/complexity/physicality but fingers and toes are governed by physical limits of what they can gain purchase on.

 Purple 13 Dec 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

Why ‘his’ but later ‘they’ in the last corrected line?

 tjdodd 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Purple:

Damn.  Because my attention to detail is clearly awful.  I missed a his and him in the last line.

I try to avoid using him/her these days and stick to they/their etc.  In general I think we should just refer to people as people.  There is often little need to use masculine/feminine pronouns unless the context specifically needs it.  Whilst in this context it can be argued that it is most likely it will be men pushing the grade boundaries I think it is better to be non-specific.  Ultimately it will be a person pushing the boundaries and their gender is irrelevant.

6
 HeMa 14 Dec 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

You’re looking at the future with glasses from the past.

I would say that it should not be assumed that males would continue to push the boundaries. E.g. Ashima a few years back reached the highest grade of the time (in bouldering) and the amount of men at same level wasn’t big either.

So whilst males typically have a better foundation for force/strength, I’m not sure that is the way to go. Ondra and other top end climbers these days are anything but the likes of Haston, Andrade or even Sharma. Those guys were muscular and bulky, where as most of the modern top ends are in fact rather skinny/lean. And typical/average athletic female body type is a lot closer to the lean than bulky.

my guess is that in 20 years (provided climbing stays as an Olympic discipline) well trained females (think of East Germany or a Soviet gymnastics) might be leading the pack. Perhaps not in every climbing discipline, but in the realm of sport climbing at least. And like perhaps also in high end trad. Bouldering, expeditions and winter climbing might suit different body types, so they could have a different future.

As for the limit. To an extent, no it will not stop it will but it will take a longer time to get higher. As has been mentioned, there is going to be a limit on the smallest holds a human is capable of using. So in that sense things can’t get harder. But as has been said, you can make the hard section longer and longer. You just bought a 70m, too bad as soon you can barely reach the anchor with said rope (on single pitch sport).

1
 tjdodd 14 Dec 2019
In reply to HeMa:

Eh?  More than a little bizarre response to my posts given I am arguing we should not consider gender when looking at/predicting who will be pushing boundaries.

> You’re looking at the future with glasses from the past.

2
 HeMa 14 Dec 2019
In reply to tjdodd:

> Whilst in this context it can be argued that it is most likely it will be men pushing the grade boundaries I think it is better to be non-specific.

 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

I think that climbing standards will always continue to rise, asymptotically approaching a theoretical human physical limit, but grade width will, simultaneously, asymptotically approach zero, so grades will continue to go up indefinitely with no upper limit.

Post edited at 09:19
 john arran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think that climbing standards will always continue to rise, asymptotically approaching a theoretical human physical limit, but grade width will, simultaneously, asymptotically approach zero, so grades will continue to go up indefinitely with no upper limit.

Sounds reasonable; to be expected almost, especially when taken in relation to, say, running, where records are typically broken by decreasing margins.

But in climbing, how can we measure 'grade width'? And is there any way to assess whether the existing higher grades are narrower than lower ones?

 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to john arran:

> But in climbing, how can we measure 'grade width'? And is there any way to assess whether the existing higher grades are narrower than lower ones?

I'm not sure it is possible to measure grade width*, but I think that top climbers will always at some point say that route B is definitely more demanding than current hardest route A and will give it a higher grade. After all, for any given climber the difference between their personal top grade and the one below will feel big, while they probably can't tell the difference between a 6a and a 6a+!

*Though some specific aspects of difficulty such as absolute finger strength could be measured.

Post edited at 09:58
 john arran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm not sure it is possible to measure grade width*, but I think that top climbers will always at some point say that route B is definitely more demanding than current hardest route A and will give it a higher grade. After all, for any given climber the difference between their personal top grade and the one below will feel big, while they probably can't tell the difference between a 6a and a 6a+!

That just suggests a rephrasing of the question: Is there anything to suggest that those climbing higher grades have a lower threshold of perceived increase in difficulty that justifies a new grade compared to those climbing lower grades?

 wbo2 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:you've plateaued when everything above UK 6b is 6c ...

 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to john arran:

> That just suggests a rephrasing of the question: Is there anything to suggest that those climbing higher grades have a lower threshold of perceived increase in difficulty that justifies a new grade compared to those climbing lower grades?

It has always been the leading climbers who have pushed grades. When 6a was the top grade, the step to 6a+ probably felt desperate, just as Ondra probably found the step to 9c.

 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> you've plateaued when everything above UK 6b is 6c ...

Yes, grades can plateau while difficulty goes on increasing if  you organise the grading system to do that. Grades are arbitrary boundaries and 6c need not have an upper bound.

 Andy Farnell 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

E grades are a very poor way to judge difficulty. French 9c may be the current hardest (that would get ~E14 7c) , but I'd hazard that 10a will get climbed before 2030.

Andy F 

 McHeath 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, grades can plateau while difficulty goes on increasing if  you organise the grading system to do that. Grades are arbitrary boundaries and 6c need not have an upper bound

The rest of the climbing world seems to have it better organised in this respect, here's a comparison:

British Tech 6a-7c (6 grades)

=USA 5.11c-5.15c (17 grades)

=French Sport 7a-9b+ (16 grades)

=UIAA VIII-XII (16 grades)

Simply adding a + or a - to each tech grade would give us 18 grades for this span instead of 6 and a huge increase in precision, not to mention discussion fodder for decades to come!

 john arran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It has always been the leading climbers who have pushed grades. When 6a was the top grade, the step to 6a+ probably felt desperate, just as Ondra probably found the step to 9c.

That much is plainly evident, but doesn't answer the question!

Is there any measure by which we can assess the width of a hard grade compared to the width of an easier one? Is grade assessment at the top of the scale more finely constrained than lower down?

If the grade widths get narrower with difficulty, we should continue to see new grades appearing for quite some time, maybe with broadly similar frequency to today. If the widths stay the same, we could foresee that new grades should become increasingly rare.

 Robert Durran 14 Dec 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Is there any measure by which we can assess the width of a hard grade compared to the width of an easier one? Is grade assessment at the top of the scale more finely constrained than lower down?

I imagine that someone like Ondra adds a new grade when he does a route that subjectively feels like it took sufficiently more effort than an "average" route of the previous grade, so in that sense the extra effort required to climb a 9c rather than a 9b+ is probably similar for him to the extra effort required to climb a 9b+ rather than a 9b. However, marginal gains in strength and endurance become ever harder won as a climber gets stronger and fitter, so the absolute (measurable?) increase in strength or endurance probably differs less between 9c and 9b+ than between 9b+ and 9b. This would be consistent with what I suggested earlier about grades continuing to increase indefinitely but approaching a human physical limit asymptotically.

Removed User 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

There's loads of headroom in the trad system. Just need a few death falls combined with 8c+ and above.

 Michael Gordon 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Andy Farnell:

> E grades are a very poor way to judge difficulty. >

Why? If we were talking about difficulty of trad climbs (which personally I find more interesting) then E grades would be a better measure than french grades.

2
 Michael Gordon 15 Dec 2019
In reply to HeMa:

> I would say that it should not be assumed that males would continue to push the boundaries. E.g. Ashima a few years back reached the highest grade of the time (in bouldering) and the amount of men at same level wasn’t big either.>

Good point. It very much depends on when we decide to consider the current bests. People are fond of saying that the current men's best is two grades harder than the women's, but was this the case the day before Ondra climbed Silence? I think one also should consider the breadth of talent at the top level - Ondra is evidently an outlier from the rest of the pack. 

Perhaps we should take bets on which will be reached first, 9b+ for women or 9c+ for men. My money's on the former.

OP Slackboot 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Is Ondra a lot better than Sharma and Megos or Mclure? 

1
 Michael Gordon 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

I'm hardly well qualified to say, but my understanding as a typical punter is that there's a bit of a step between Steve and the likes of Sharma and Megos. Ondra isn't a lot better, but the difference is significant. 

OP Slackboot 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I guess Ondra has taken over from Sharma.

1
 AJM 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I suspect 2 grades difference isn't that unrepresentative over time as an average. I don't have dates to hand, but female bests at 9a or 9a+ whilst male bests hit 9b and 9b+ respectively don't feel unreasonable.

And in terms of depth of the pack, 2 random thoughts - the first is that female 9b looks nearly as much an outlier as male 9c currently doesn't it (as in a handful of people have done x-1, but only one person grade X in each case?), and that from watching Rotpunkt the comparatively short time it took Megos to do Perfecto Munro makes me wonder how much of an outlier Ondra is (is it just that Megos hasn't previously invested the time that makes Ondra the only one to have climbed 9c? Who knows?)

 Michael Gordon 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

My take on Ondra is that his greatest strength in pushing boundaries is natural technical climbing ability. Can anyone else climb as fast while still being so precise?

 Michael Gordon 15 Dec 2019
In reply to AJM:

All good points.

OP Slackboot 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I wonder how the sponsorship deals compare between the climbers we've mentioned. And whether this makes any significant difference  in their performance. ( ie. The best sponsorship deals might mean better training facilities, equipment, physio 's etc)

1
 Ian Patterson 15 Dec 2019
In reply to AJM:

> And in terms of depth of the pack, 2 random thoughts - the first is that female 9b looks nearly as much an outlier as male 9c currently doesn't it (as in a handful of people have done x-1, but only one person grade X in each case?), and that from watching Rotpunkt the comparatively short time it took Megos to do Perfecto Munro makes me wonder how much of an outlier Ondra is (is it just that Megos hasn't previously invested the time that makes Ondra the only one to have climbed 9c? Who knows?)

On the question of how much better Ondra is than the rest , in terms of actual  achievements and climbs done he really is a level above.

9cs 1, next best 0

9b+s 3/4 , next best 1

9bs 20ish, next best 6ish

9a+ flash 1, next best 0

9a onsight 3, next best 1

8c+ onsight 20ish, next best 2/3?

And that doesn't take into account his comp results (think only Schubert of top outdoor climbers has really achieved anything in comps) or his multi pitch stuff.

I understand the thoughts about what could Megos achieve if he put the work in, but at the moment he's not in the same ball park.

Post edited at 22:43
OP Slackboot 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Ian Patterson:

I didnt realise he was so much better.

1
 remus Global Crag Moderator 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> On the question of how much better Ondra is than the rest , in terms of actual  achievements and climbs done he really is a level above.

> 9a onsight 3, next best 1

Small correction: megos has actually onsighted 2 9as, Estado Critico and TCT.

https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/interviews/alexander-megos-interview...

https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/alexander-megos-claims-seco...

 AJM 16 Dec 2019
In reply to Ian Patterson:

> I understand the thoughts about what could Megos achieve if he put the work in, but at the moment he's not in the same ball park.

Yeah, sure, the way you set that metric up it rewards people who've been at the top level for longer. I assume Sharma might still look second place, in redpoint terms at least, on that measure, whereas instinctively and subjectively I would assume at least that Ghisofi and Megos (the other 2 9b+ climbers?) would be more likely contenders for the other podium spots in terms of recent performance. 

 Ian Patterson 16 Dec 2019
In reply to AJM:

> Yeah, sure, the way you set that metric up it rewards people who've been at the top level for longer. I assume Sharma might still look second place, in redpoint terms at least, on that measure, whereas instinctively and subjectively I would assume at least that Ghisofi and Megos (the other 2 9b+ climbers?) would be more likely contenders for the other podium spots in terms of recent performance. 

Not really trying to set the metric up in any particular way, just if you look at the numbers in terms of both difficulty and volume Ondra still seems to be a level above everyone else.  Agree on the contenders at the level below since I guess Sharma is maybe finally dropping away, though would add Seb Bouin as well (Move at 9b/+).  Interestingly all 3 are 26 so exactly same age as Ondra, though guess Ondra does have an advantage in volume terms from his days as child prodigy. 

 AJM 16 Dec 2019
In reply to Ian Patterson:

True, I'd forgotten him.

I was meaning more implicitly - the thing you rank by determines what achievements you weight more heavily

- If you look at volume of things achieved with no time limit then you automatically end up favouring the people who've been in the game longest. I think you need some sort of time filter.

 - lf you looked at achievements this year you're right at the other end in terms of recent performance and might not even feature Ondra (Silence was pre 19, right, and I forget whether he's done a 9b+ this year? Was Crackinette this year? Having children has destroyed my memory!). That would be obviously too short a filter.

-  If you ranked by the fastest ascents at each grade you'd get a different order again. Ondra scores well at 9c, 9a+, but I don't have any clue re 9b and 9b+.

 Ian Patterson 16 Dec 2019
In reply to AJM:

> True, I'd forgotten him.

> I was meaning more implicitly - the thing you rank by determines what achievements you weight more heavily

> - If you look at volume of things achieved with no time limit then you automatically end up favouring the people who've been in the game longest. I think you need some sort of time filter.

Possibly, really it was just a simplistic way to give some overall view.  If you look at timescales then 9b ascents since 2016 gives:

Ondra 2016 2* 9b 2017 5* 9b, 1* 9c 2018 2* 9b 2019 1* 9b

Megos 2016 2*9b, 2017-,  2018 1* 9b+ 2019 -

Ghisolfi 2016 -, 2017 1* 9b, 2018 1 * 9b, 1* 9b+, 2019 1*9b

Bouin 2016 -  2017 -  2018 -  2019 1* 9b , 2*9b/+

(source https://www.99boulders.com/hardest-sport-climbs + google)

Other than possibly Bouin's  2019 being ahead of the others who have all been doing comps (still significantly behind Ondra's 2017) I guess the point still stands.

 springfall2008 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

Given the scale between grades isn't fixed aren't they just getting closer together compared to a absolute difficult scale, e.g. there's a bigger gap between 7a and 8a than there is between 8a and 9a?

OP Slackboot 20 Dec 2019
In reply to springfall2008:

> Given the scale between grades isn't fixed aren't they just getting closer together compared to a absolute difficult scale, e.g. there's a bigger gap between 7a and 8a than there is between 8a and 9a?

I think so. But how close can the gaps get?

 springfall2008 27 Dec 2019
In reply to Slackboot:

> I think so. But how close can the gaps get?

Good point, I guess at a certain point you can't tell if one route is harder than another or not.

 Misha 28 Dec 2019
In reply to MischaHY:

Think you’re right about routes. The hardest short boulder problems have movers and sequences far beyond anything on any route. Clearly boulderers have trained for a different physical activity compared to sport or trad climbers but surely if they really wanted to they could drop the difficulty a bit and adapt their training to bust out some routes (particularly sport) with very hard cruxes or a lot of fairly hard moves, beyond anything currently being done? Some might say that’s like expecting Usain Bolt to do well in a 1,500m race (sport) or a marathon (trad). But I’m not convinced it’s that far apart, especially sport as that doesn’t have the head game side. Some might say that no one has managed this yet - but that’s because no one has really tried properly. The boulderers are generally happy bouldering...

Clearly at some point there will be a limit but don’t think we’re anywhere near that with sport or trad. Possible not far off as far as short boulder problems are concerned but who knows. 

1
 Alex1 28 Dec 2019
In reply to Misha:

> Clearly boulderers have trained for a different physical activity compared to sport or trad climbers but surely if they really wanted to they could drop the difficulty a bit and adapt their training to bust out some routes 

 

You might want to look up this guy called Adam Ondra’s bouldering CV and the boulder grade of the crux on silence

 Misha 28 Dec 2019
In reply to Alex1:

Fair point. But as has been mentioned above, the next level is to string together more moves / sequences of that difficulty. So it seems there’s plenty more to go.

 Alex1 28 Dec 2019
In reply to Misha:

Agree there - just pointing out that the top sport climbers are already top boulderers (not necessarily true the other way round) and they are already pushing grades up via exactly the method you describe. Post Olympics will be interesting when some of them hit the rock after a two year training cycle...

In reply to Slackboot:

> Once upon a time E5 was the hardest. Who at that time could conceive grades would reach E10 or E11 or wherever it is now. Where will it all end?

I think it's more of a sociology question than a science one because climbing grades aren't hard physical measures like times in a 100 metre sprint.   

Ten is a psychological number and when we get to F10 it could go two ways.  Either there will be so much resistance to the idea anything climbable could be more than F10 we will end up with a de-facto 1 to 10 scale with very gradual grade deflation to deal with new even harder hard routes being added.  Or we will charge straight through F10 with gradual grade inflation giving the illusion of continual progress even though we are pretty close to a physical limit  (in the absence of large technical improvements in equipment).

 RupertD 28 Dec 2019
In reply to Alex1:

> Post Olympics will be interesting when some of them hit the rock after a two year training cycle...

Possibly, but there's every chance training for the Olympics will make the olympic cohort go backwards on rock as they will have spent time training Olympic format weaknesses like speed climbing and co-ordination dynos that won't translate back to rock that well.

 Misha 28 Dec 2019
In reply to RupertD:

Might we now see someone do the Dawes double dyno on Wizard Arete (or am I mixing things up)?

 Merlin 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Slackboot:

I do wonder if objective grades have been manipulated by pros. Surely while a tech grade can increase with human performance, the objective grade should stop at the point of ‘if you fall, you die’. The fact that they have continued to be progressed suggests that perhaps the margin between, as others suggest, is now wafer thin, even succumbing to variations in climbing style which seems to be seldom the case for low grade routes. 
The upper E grades get very few repeats and so don’t really get the same scrutiny as lower grades. The cynic in me wonders whether someone repeating a tough feat would really be motivated to downgrade it if they thought it wasn’t worth the grade given their sponsorship and Instagram feed is based on the notion of hard ascents.

7
cb294 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Merlin:

> I do wonder if objective grades have been manipulated by pros. Surely while a tech grade can increase with human performance, the objective grade should stop at the point of ‘if you fall, you die’.

Listen to the experts, hard aid climbers:

youtube.com/watch?v=boQHYBhlOcs&

CB

 john arran 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Merlin:

> I do wonder if objective grades have been manipulated by pros. Surely while a tech grade can increase with human performance, the objective grade should stop at the point of ‘if you fall, you die’. The fact that they have continued to be progressed suggests that perhaps the margin between, as others suggest, is now wafer thin, even succumbing to variations in climbing style which seems to be seldom the case for low grade routes. 

Firstly there is no such thing as an objective grade, they're all subjective. And even if (as I suspect) you mean some kind of danger rating, there isn't one of those either.

That E grades (an 'overall' grade remember) continue to creep up slowly is not because routes get any more dangerous, nor that climbers are in some way distorting the system. It's because similar levels of danger are being faced alongside ever increasing technical difficulty.

 Luke90 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Merlin:

A degree of cynicism can be healthy but a lot of what you've written here is just nonsense. Mostly, you've made the classic error of misunderstanding the British grading system by overemphasizing the contribution of danger to the adjectival part of the grade. It's not a 'danger' grade that should top out at 'die if you fall'. It's an assessment of the overall difficulty of the route, to which danger is only one contributor. I've climbed a 'die if you fall' route at E1, do you really think there's nothing harder than that except made up nonsense by sponsored climbers?

I can half see your point that sponsored climbers could have a motivation to not downgrade but in practice grade debates are quite common. And actually, a grade dispute can get quite a lot of coverage. Look at James Pearson's Walk of Life grading for one particularly high profile example. A cynical high-level climber would have every motivation to downgrade a high-profile climb if they wanted exposure and social media engagement.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...