Ratings and how they should be determined...

randy baum wrote:this approach results in the chance that a climber may start a climb that she feels is in her range, only to be shut down, possibly hurt, on the route.

If you cant figure out how to get down or properly asses the risk you are taking when you step up to a route then maybe you shouldn't be climbing. You really arent going to get in over your head unless your local crag is super soft. With a select few exceptions there really isn't such substantial deviations in grades across the country that once you are familiar with the way the rock climbs you arent going to send for a given grade.

As for standards, I think there have always been test-pieces at crags that embody the techniques and skill required to climb a certain grade at a certain crag. With the exception of cryptic climbing like has been discussed climbing a specific grade at one location should not differ greatly from any other location if you are a well rounded climber.

rock_fencer wrote: With the exception of cryptic climbing like has been discussed climbing a specific grade at one location should not differ greatly from any other location if you are a well rounded climber.

i hear you. but reality is quite different.

for example, take a steep WI crag like willow. natural selection is given 12b/c there. at rifle, it would be 11d, 12a even. same can be said for genesis effect (12d in WI; 12b in rifle).

the same can be said for a more vertical crag like necedah or even the lake. whiskey is 13a at necedah; on el cap, it would be 12b. shit, there's a 11a pitch on the salathe (pitch 27) that is the same style as whiskey yet way, way harder (same can be said for pitches 23, 25...).

but, don't misconstrue: i have no problem with these differences.

i agree that once one has adjusted to a crag, ratings feel less stiff. once one has begun to feel comfortable on yosemite granite or on desert splitters or rifle limestone, the grades seem more normal. yet, to say that climbs across the US (or the world) are the same grade just doesn't mirror reality.

I think the on-sight vs redpoint grading depends on style. For boulder problems and sport routes it should be rated based on the redpoint difficulty because people can and frequently do project these routes long enough to suss out the best sequence for them and the protection is such that they can safely fall as neede to figure it out and send. However, trad routes are (generally) climbed in much more of an onsight style (not always but frequently) and thus should be rated as such, particularly because the consequences of falling on a trad route CAN be much more serious than falling on a sport route and most people don't project trad routes where they fall repeatedly trying to figure out a move. A more interesting scenario is a mixed climb that has a bolted crux and thus can be projected in which case I would lean towards the redpoint grade. So to boil things down I think the redpoint vs onsight grade should depend on the safety of falling of the crux and thus the ability to project it or not... Just my $.02

randy baum wrote: i grade climbs not only in relation to the surrounding climbs, but also on a crag-by-crag basis. if i'm in, say maple canyon, i give a softer grade. if in rifle, a harder grade. to grade a devil's lake climb using the standards at, say a totally different area (in terms of rock and ethics) like jack's canyon, is illogical.

This is quite sensible. Although we try to apply one number system to all rock climbs, nationwide, that level of uniformity hasn't been achieved. Until we find a way to truly standardize, we will have to go on grading things based on local conventions. 5.11 at one crag means a different thing than 5.11 at another crag. Grades are even specific to styles; a 5.11 climb in one style will be totally different than a 5.11 climb in another style. Offwidths are a prime example of this; a 5.11 offwidth is an entirely different animal than a 5.11 face climb, and will often leave one wondering "How could these two climbs be the same grade?"

Given the diversity of climbing, and of different climber's specializations, I doubt that a standardization of the grading system will ever be possible. You really can't directly compare the difficulty of a pure-enduro jug haul in the Pipe Dream to a short, powerful bouldery sport climb at Rumney.

As such, a number rating, by itself, will probably never be adequate to fully describe a climb, and various verbal modifiers are neccesary. Just saying "5.11c" tells you little about the demands of a route. Saying "enduro 5.11c at the red" or "5.11c ow at Vedeawoo" or "5.11c slab at Suicide" will, however, give a fairly specific idea of what to expect.

Grading scales really only make sense within the confines of a given style and area. As such, grading is probably best done by comparing a route's difficultly to other nearby climbs of the same style. Even then, though, grades are still pretty subjective and specific to the individual.

Grading isn't a precise science; the best we can hope for is a ballpark description of what to expect.

well put, jon. that's what i was trying to say, only you said it much, much better!

Chris treggE wrote:The Lake is not stiff, it's the standard!

If DL is the standard Sharma only climbs at best 5.13d. LOL!

Good discussion here.

For the record I take into account others rating because perhaps I was just having an off/good day. For example, on SAM I would have giving it 12a or b but if everyone else says it's 13 its gotta be harder than 12a. I also think rating for on-sight has too many variables to provide an accurate difficulty rating.

Sharma never used to rate things because he knew it's just so arbitrary AND he knew that (unfortunately) having an opinion is to invite controversy! That Sharma, always above us all.

randy baum wrote: natural selection is given 12b/c there. at rifle, it would be 11d, 12a even. same can be said for genesis effect (12d in WI; 12b in rifle). .

Now you are just hurting the Ninja's feelings. What if ...... You blow up your ankle like a hot-air ballon and can't walk. I am sure then the climbing at Rilfe must get easier. I have seen it happen.

It's all just a big number game. Do ratings really matter in the big picture? The only reason we really have ratings is so that we can look in a guidebook and know which routes we are capable of doing, or at least want to try.

With everyone having different styles, strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and aesthetic endeavors, all ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. There are too many factors that could be included in how hard a problem should be. In the end, shouldn't it just be 5.fun and 5.not fun. You guys are quantifying a sport that needs no numbers. Just go climb and stop worrying about how good you are.

Reedrombo wrote:With everyone having different styles, strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and aesthetic endeavors, all ratings should be taken with a grain of salt. There are too many factors that could be included in how hard a problem should be. In the end, shouldn't it just be 5.fun and 5.not fun. You guys are quantifying a sport that needs no numbers. Just go climb and stop worrying about how good you are.

The statement seems contradictory. If everyone has different styles and preferences, shouldn't then some of us feel free to consider grades when climbing? If you are against grades in general, then just say so.

And, regarding those that do care about grades, I don't think the vast majority of these people do so to "quantify" the sport. Rather, grades give one goals, and goals are great motivators. Don't let the occasional grade chaser or pro ho taint your opinion of most climbers. Come on, man! 8a members are people, too. :)

Using a grade as a goal is exactly what I just talked about. That's what they're here for. However, using your grades as a stamp to prove your badassness is what most people seem to care about. You know, like saying "Come on, man! 8a members are people, too. :)"

Reedrombo wrote:. . . most people. . . .

You need to find a better class of climbing partner!

Another factor seldom taken into consideration is a 5.8 for someone 6'1" ft tall may be a 5.10 for someone 5'2" tall. It is common in reachy, roofy places like the Gunks.

The first "ascenter" sometimes inflates the grade because their ego adds a number or letter grade. That is how we have gotten steady grade creep, especially at sport climbing venues. Grades shouldn't be adjusted up at old school climbing areas like the Gunks,NH,Eldo to keep in line with current inflated grading. The newer routes should be adjusted down to remain in comparison with the early routes. Realistically, this isn't likely to happen so the best way to grade a climb is the Mountain Project model...by consensus.

Johny Q wrote: Now you are just hurting the Ninja's feelings. What if ...... You blow up your ankle like a hot-air ballon and can't walk. I am sure then the climbing at Rilfe must get easier. I have seen it happen.

Feelings?!? If I knew I could go to Willow and add a few inches I would have and loved it! I've been to Rifle and I thought the ratings were spot on but I only climbed on a few routes.

The thing about these severally overhanging areas is that the grade gets inflated by the pump factor. If you haven't been training on that type of thing it seems hard at first but later gets much easier.

I also recently took the liberty to downgrade a V7 to a V6. I would have stuck with V7 but when I read all the comments on MP it seemed that everyone thought it was easier than V7 but was unwilling to take a direct stand. I thought it seemed easier than V7 so I took that stand. Mike, have I committed a faux pau? Here's a link to that route: mountainproject.com/v/illus…

BTW, I think its import to discuss ratings and not just totally write it off as arbitrary because otherwise grade inflation/deflation is more likely to occur undermining the very reason we have grades in the first place. If you don't like to grade things, then don't and leave the consensus to the rest of us.

Haha Doug. May be! But my comment was sparked from the unnecessary inclusion of bravado you find in the comments from guys so heatedly debating about how good they are in this discussion.

I've decided as of this fall that grades confuse the heck out of me.

This fall, I sent my first 5.12 since mid-spring because the conditions finally got good again. This route was Code of the Sea at Devils Lake. The suggested ratings for this route ranged from 5.12a to 5.12c/d. I personally felt that it was harder than the .12a's and the one .12b I'd done, so I tentatively went with 5.12c for the grade (a friend who did all the moves said it felt like 5.12b for him, and I couldn't even do his beta). The Ninja and Remo have since suggested .12a for that route.

A week later, I did Bagatelle (consensus 5.12d on this site), which I found to be harder but only slightly so in that it was more sustained but I didn't think any of the individual moves were harder than anything on Code of the Sea.

So based on that experience I feel like there's no way Code of the Sea could be 5.12a and Bagatelle could be 5.12c/d, based on the fact that the latter felt maybe only a letter grade or so more difficult to me, not three (I linked Code in 3 tries, Bagatelle in 4.5 tries). Maybe I'm just crazy.

Two weeks after that, I got shut down on Hammer Case, a 5.12a which I just couldn't seem to link despite many attempts, and couldn't even do the moves on Steak Sauce, a consensus 5.12c.

These experiences make sense to me if all are about the same grade, but there's a big range in suggested grades. Perhaps the thing to take away from this is don't trust any grades I give things.

Also, 5.11+ steep enduro routes at the Red still kick my butt.

Also Rhoads+Remo if you guys haven't done Bagatelle yet you should, I'd love your opinion on its difficulty and the route is also awesome.

Reedrombo wrote:Haha Doug. May be! But my comment was sparked from the unnecessary inclusion of bravado you find in the comments from guys so heatedly debating about how good they are in this discussion.

Just tugging your chain, of course.

"unnecessary inclusion of bravado": I read a lot of mocking self-deprecation, but I know quite of few of the people posting here. I suppose if you don't know the folks involved it could easily read the other way.

All a part of Internet communication. Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

Devils Lake routes weren't given a grade until all members of the dlfa had sent, and every hidden hold and key sequence was discovered.

I believe in an onsight grade. Of course a 5.9 will start to feel like a 5.8 or 5.7 after climbing it ten times and improving beta. I think the grade should reflect how much thought has to be put into figuring out the moves on a route. There's a great discussion on grades in Cole Fennel's Arkansas handbook that's worth checking out.