UKC

Nalle Hukkataival has written a very well argued post, addressing the somewhat chaotic situation that exists in the upper most echelon of the bouldering grading scale. This is certainly a topic that needs to be discussed. Nalle's contribution is a reaction to Daniel Woods' recent FA of Desperanza...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=54525

Some of these replies were posted on Björn's old blog website, and so won't be from registered UKC users

even though i cannot comment on the subject of climbs of that difficulty being a v7-v9 boulderer, i consider nalle´s statement one of the best contributions to the subject in a long time. climbs are foremost about quality. it´s just that harder problems tend to be better in terms of movement, rock etc...and let´s assume that we all cannot fully disregard feelings of joy when breaking into a new number...still i´d rather have my first v 10 be thriller than something that just carries the number but doesn´t deserve it.

For some reason I wasn't able to post a comment on Nalle's blog, so this post will have to suffice.
I doubt Nalle will get any negative feedback on his blog, if for no other reason than he's actually climbing at that level and has done a number of the 'problematic' boulders in question (and one or two others he doesn't name). So unlike the majority of contributors to the current debate (myself included) he can speak from an empirical rather than theoretical basis.
I think that it's generally accepted that any grade has a range (perhaps less so that these ranges may overlap a little). In the case of the V15/8C grade my own view is that there is not a sufficient number of problems at the grade (or climbers operating at that grade) to be able to agree where the range boundaries lie. Thus I cannot see how anyone can say that any boulder could be V16/8C+ at present.
That said, history shows that there have been individuals who have sent boulders/routes 10 years ahead of their time so it is not impossible. However much as Nalle proposes toward the end of his post, it is perhaps better to let the passage of time define your achievements...

So basically Nalles article support 8a on everything they do, excluded the Björn Pohl article in the yearbook about the hardest boulders in the world??????

Well Jens, I'd say Nalle agrees with you about the fact that there's a lot of confusion regarding the hardest grades, and also that this is something that needs to be dealt with. In fact, I think we can all agree on this. We can't have grade infaltion and deflation going on simultaniously, ending up in two separate grading scales.
But what he also says, is that this is a situation that must be solved by the climbers capable of climbing these grades. Those with proper credentials who, unlike you, or me for that matter, know what they're talking about.
We can speculate all we want, but we can never claim to up- or downgrade anything we haven't climbed, ourselves. I've tried to explain this to you before (the last time was when you said I had upgraded Shadow play, which is of course an utterly ridiculous proposition), but to no avail. To me there's a huge difference between stating "I think it's harder/easier" and up-/downgarding something. Even more so when an article is written somewhat tongue in cheek.
We can all speculate, and we're all entitled to having opinions, but this doesn't mean said opinions carry much weight in the real world.

Anonymous (Jens) must have read a different post to me

Both Nalle and Dave claim that 8a.nu is the main cause of the inflation. Do you agree with that statement too Jens?

Nalle is a BIG SAX OF SHIX all his boulders are not high ball & livin large is uncomvermed ... WTF i saw the game one time and it is a v11 move to a v12 move to a v13 feet moves to a v12 ... i thing thats it ... iv you have not seen Daniel latly hes reaaly cut and leen , very nice for hardclimbs like this onc accually ... i went to japan to

Stop picking fights Jens, stick to your own site please