What does 5.10 even mean?

Sounds like you didn't climb enough Valley 5.9s first. Humor me, what was the casual 5.10 you lowered off of?

If it was hard, it would be 5.11 ;-)

Grading suffers from regionalism (but much less so now then, say, thirty years ago---climbers travel a lot more now), regionalism breeds inferiority complexes, and the inferiority complexes produce undergrading.

Another component is the blow-back from regional inabilities. The classic example is accomplished face-climber travels, has near-death experiences on offwidths (correctly) graded two grades below face-climber's local abilities. Face climber decides he/she isn't that good and starts downgrading (correctly) graded face climbs to match offwidth experience. Of course this plays into the inferiority complex effect if that is already present.

It is surprising to me that, by and large, we have failed to establish local standards, not to mention national ones. I think that in a more rational world, every guidebook would have a list of standard climbs for each grade, climbs that represent the spectrum of difficulties the area has to offer, and which would serve as exemplars for other grades and new routes. This would be a first step towards a national grading system bases on standard climbs around the country.

Speaking of which, there was a failed attempt at national standards in 1963, proposed by Leigh Ortenburger in Summit Magazine. A facsimile of the article is at supertopo.com/climbers-foru…. As you can see, there was an attempt to establish comparative standards across seven climbing areas that were prominent at the time.

I think the NCCS failed for two reasons. One was because it tried to introduce its own free-climbing rating system rather than embracing the already well-established decimal system. It wasn't much of a change, beyond dropping the vestigial 5. prefix---in fact the NCCS grades from 7 up were the same as their decimal counterparts, and there was some perfectly sensible compression in the lower grades. The second reason is that climbers didn't travel nearly as much in the 60's, and so the desirability of a national calibration was nowhere near as strong as it would be now.

In any case, Steve Roper put a nail in the NCCS coffin when he brought out a new Yosemite guidebook that stuck with the decimal system. What we really lost was the idea of national exemplars that would have helped to shape regional grading---the baby went out with the bath.

The NCCS grades that were totally new rather than any kind of revision did survive. The I--VI "overall commitment" grades and the A1--A5 aid grades caught on immediately and have stood the test of time.

Actually what needs to be done is to use French grades for sport like pretty much the rest of the world (even us traditionally minded Brits).
Using the same scale for trad and sport makes no sense to me.

I thought the grades in he southeast tended toward being soft. No offense.

Grades are subjective, depending on who's doing the FA and the community of climbers and how willing they are to suggest an FA rating is not what they would have given the route, and/or how much experience they have climbing in other areas.

I don't see any real way to quantify grades. What would we do - have a committee that reviewed posted grades and revised as deemed necessary? I can just see it "Damn, that fooker did the route I was about to do. No WAY am I letting his keep that inflated grade!" Or...you get the sadist anyway, who happens to climb hard and wants to rub everyone's nose in the fact that he thinks they don't - and now he's got the authority to do so....

Best thing is to go to a new place knowing that the climbing may not seem familiar to what you are used to, and that will affect how easy/hard it is for you. Don't get stuck in an "I can do 5.Whatever at home and damned if I am not going to get on that 5.SameWhatever even though it looks like a lot harder than my 5.Whatever tends to look like." Look at the route and if it seems like something you can climb, go for it, and if it seems like something you're going to have trouble on, be prepared to experience that, or find something else.

Simple solution - harden the f*** up.

There is a huge variance in grades from place to place, which is frustrating but all part of the game. Sandbagging is an art form amongst many. You're not going to change that.

A personal example - my first (and only) trip to Yosemite last year started with me getting spanked off of ....

wait for it

Pine Line.

This after climbing several grades harder multipitch routes in Oregon, Colorado, Texas and Mexico within the last year. Humbling, but an important learning experience that I'm glad to have had.

That said, my first reaction wasn't to bash the grades because I couldn't send. Instead, I chose to harden the f*** up and come back for a rematch. You should try this.

It's just a different part of the world, mang. Sasha Digiulian says European climbers are on a higher level of strength than us Americans. Their 5.10 is harder than ours. Glad to see you're having fun with our way of life. You're having fun, right?

rDerrick wrote: Raised as a Colorado climber, I’ve always felt at home among the fair and true grades of Eldo and Clear Creek, from Shelf Road to Longs Peak. Whenever I venture outside of my rectangular borders, I feel tricked, swindled, and lied to.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that maybe Colorado grading is just soft?

Happiegrrrl wrote:Best thing is to go to a new place knowing that the climbing may not seem familiar to what you are used to, and that will affect how easy/hard it is for you. Don't get stuck in an "I can do 5.Whatever at home and damned if I am not going to get on that 5.SameWhatever even though it looks like a lot harder than my 5.Whatever tends to look like." Look at the route and if it seems like something you can climb, go for it, and if it seems like something you're going to have trouble on, be prepared to experience that, or find something else.

+1
Whenever I climb at either a new area or even on a new type of rock, I start at 5.6 or 5.7 and see how it goes, getting acclimated to the style, features, and movement of the rock and slowly progress back up to my limit.

rgold wrote:...guidebook would have a list of standard climbs for each grade, climbs that represent the spectrum of difficulties the area has to offer,...

The system in Japan is similar to this. Every area has a "0" test piece and all other climbs are related to that single test piece. In general the "0" is representative of the area style and character. It is useless preparing for out of town areas though.

rDerrick wrote: And while we are talking about the international scene, why can’t we find some common ground already? We should leave the exchange rates to currency, not climbing grades.

If the US's reluctance to adopt the metric system is any indication, I'm not overly hopeful for a timely solution.

rgold wrote:Grading suffers from regionalism (but much less so now then, say, thirty years ago---climbers travel a lot more now), regionalism breeds inferiority complexes, and the inferiority complexes produce undergrading. Another component is the blow-back from regional inabilities. The classic example is accomplished face-climber travels, has near-death experiences on offwidths (correctly) graded two grades below face-climber's local abilities. Face climber decides he/she isn't that good and starts downgrading (correctly) graded face climbs to match offwidth experience. Of course this plays into the inferiority complex effect if that is already present. It is surprising to me that, by and large, we have failed to establish local standards, not to mention national ones. I think that in a more rational world, every guidebook would have a list of standard climbs for each grade, climbs that represent the spectrum of difficulties the area has to offer, and which would serve as exemplars for other grades and new routes. This would be a first step towards a national grading system bases on standard climbs around the country. Speaking of which, there was a failed attempt at national standards in 1963, proposed by Leigh Ortenburger in Summit Magazine. A facsimile of the article is at supertopo.com/climbers-foru…. As you can see, there was an attempt to establish comparative standards across seven climbing areas that were prominent at the time. I think the NCCS failed for two reasons. One was because it tried to introduce its own free-climbing rating system rather than embracing the already well-established decimal system. It wasn't much of a change, beyond dropping the vestigial 5. prefix---in fact the NCCS grades from 7 up were the same as their decimal counterparts, and there was some perfectly sensible compression in the lower grades. The second reason is that climbers didn't travel nearly as much in the 60's, and so the desirability of a national calibration was nowhere near as strong as it would be now. In any case, Steve Roper put a nail in the NCCS coffin when he brought out a new Yosemite guidebook that stuck with the decimal system. What we really lost was the idea of national exemplars that would have helped to shape regional grading---the baby went out with the bath. The NCCS grades that were totally new rather than any kind of revision did survive. The I--VI "overall commitment" grades and the A1--A5 aid grades caught on immediately and have stood the test of time.

Thanks for teaching us something!

Everybody else, thanks for the life advice and urges to immediately quit the sport. This is satire, but I will keep your words in mind next time I want to yell "take!"

I have a blog. It's more stuff like this.
Go check it out.
www.pacmountaineering.com

I would say it is more Ridicule with a dash of Sarcasm than Satire, but enjoyable reading/ good writing in any case.

eli poss wrote: +1 Whenever I climb at either a new area or even on a new type of rock, I start at 5.6 or 5.7 and see how it goes, getting acclimated to the style, features, and movement of the rock and slowly progress back up to my limit.

I'd say *especially* on a new type of rock.

The first time I went on lead on basalt, when I was doing .11- on tuff was... not fun. What is this featureless hell? Where are the EDGES? That day ended after 3 routes with "Ugh, I'm going to finish this bloody '5.9' any way I can so I can get my draws back and go home." That it was slick basalt on a humid summer day... might have been somewhat of an aggravating factor :)

I am confused... they sell shoes right?

ViperScale wrote:I am confused...

Yeah me too...but so long as we all agree that climbing is merely a helpful tool to enjoy our ratings, rather than the other way around, all is good. Carry on!

Jon Zucco wrote: Have you ever thought of the possibility that maybe Colorado grading is just soft?

Totally, that mega classic 10+ Whimsical Dreams is soft like little fluffy kittens. Grossly overrated...

Awesome rant rDerrick, but I think you answered your own question with this little snippet:

"And nobody is even upset about this."

IE: nobody gives a feck. Now go eat some fried chicken & waffles and send your proj.

It's 5.9- at most.

Erik Keever wrote: I'd say *especially* on a new type of rock. The first time I went on lead on basalt, when I was doing .11- on tuff was... not fun. What is this featureless hell? Where are the EDGES? That day ended after 3 routes with "Ugh, I'm going to finish this bloody '5.9' any way I can so I can get my draws back and go home." That it was slick basalt on a humid summer day... might have been somewhat of an aggravating factor :)

This made me laugh! Basalt is all I've ever climbed, except for a couple hours on some limestone. I have a feeling I'm going to have a ton of fun if I'm ever able to get anywhere!

Tripp Collins wrote:Well, now the Whole Damned Rebel Army is coming down the road! This is a great post....us from the South are just gettin' even for all them Yankee Carpet Baggers - from 1865 to perpetuity (that's everybody outside of Virginia, NC, SC, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas - Texas,that's stretchin' thangs abit as Texas has always done their own thing - parts of Southern West Virginia and Kentucky - those Kentucky folks were a bit wishy washy back in the day and never got down with the War of Northern Aggression Fully Committed - so the ratings may actually be somewhere close to accurate!) Really though - You got a point Sachmo - I got rating whacked pretty good back in the day at Sentinel Rocks on Muscle Beach - that sand bag was Whispering Death the higher I climbed - I should have had my teeth replaced, I was grinding them so hard. PS - Real Grits are good - add some Smoked Gouda Cheese, 1/2 cup of Half/Half and even Quaker Grits come off not bad! Cheap Climber Food except for the Gouda...'bought the only thing I can eat now after the Seneca Adventure!

Gouda in grits? You are not from the south!

Well, living in Colorado expanded my tasteS....