So I see the term moderate tossed about all the time related to climbing. I've always thought moderate meant in the middle, yet see people use this term to describe 5.7 and under. I was of the impression those would be considered beginner or easy level climbs.
What's the deal?

There's "5-easy," or "5-fun," then there's moderates and 5-hard. Very subjective. Apply your own definition.

Moderate, middle-of-the-road, average, medium. I take that to mean the level at which the average, middle-of-the-pack climber can climb. My empirical observations would put that somewhere around 10+ to 11- sport and 5.9 trad. I agree that the word gets thrown around way too much to describe easy climbing...but I guess it's all relative.

My opinion is 5.10 is the last moderate grade
My theory is that just about any one can climb 5.10 if they wanted to. Harder than that requires some amount of training.

When I say I want to do some moderate climbing, it can be interpreted to mean one of the below:

1) I have a hangover
2) I want to climb but I'm feeling a little lazy so I want it to be easy
3) I'm climbing with someone new and I don't trust them enough to push myself
4) I haven't been climbing as much as I'd like lately and I'm not in the mood to get on something 'at my level' and be reminded that I'm not currently 'at my level'

When I first started climbing about 9 years ago, moderate ended at 5.9. Now moderate seems to end at 5.10d since the uppermost limit of climbing has moved upward in that time. Of course, like M. Sprague says, it's subjective. From what I've seen and read, the range of moderate seems to be determined by the magazines.

My upper onsight climbing ability is 10d/11a, so for me a moderate is no longer moderate when I'm climbing 10a or 10b and above. Of course, this thread brings up the fact that ratings themselves are subjective. I have a friend who has stopped chasing the number grades and now he likes to say he chases the quality grade.

I use it to define something I can climb. If you pay for me I can travel to any routes in question, if I can climb it without hiking up it then I will give it a moderate stamp.

PM me if this sounds like something you want to try out.

re-posted because I deleted it by accident - It's subjective, but I use it to describe a route that most climbers will be able to cruise along without too much trouble, so basically 5.7s to non sandbag 5.9s. Anything below would be "easy", though of course 5.7-9 will be easy for some. It moves some what depending on who the end user of the information is. The style, trad vs sport is also going to shift it a little.

^I like that concept of chasing the quality grade. So many people miss out on great routes with cool movement, positioning and rock because they fixate too much on the grade.

The only pertinent definition:

mod·er·ate - that level at which your buddy openly struggles and where you, able to stealthily mask your own difficulties, can therefore sneeringly apply the derogatory term. Often used in conjunction with the terms "cruiser" or "warmup". Moderate in this context will correlate to one letter grade below your onsight level.

For me, a moderate is a climb that I can do easily but is still fun. I do it because you enjoy the movement, exposure, etc. It tends to be a step up from an easy, which for the most part, I won't bother doing. When guidebooks use the term 'moderate' they mostly mean somewhere in the 5.7-5.9 or range. Anything below that is in the 'easy' range, and something directly above that would go into the 'intermediate' range.

Lots of interesting perspectives, so then how would you all break the grades down into categories?

Edit: @Old Custer: definitely seen your definition in action more than a few times.

If there are 15 grades of technical climbing (5.0-5.14 ish) I apply the math technique.

5.0-5.4 = Easy
5.5-5.9 = Moderate
5.10-5.14 = Hard

Adjust slightly according to your abilities but this fits me pretty well, especially on trad.

There are only two grades.

I've seen it used to describe 5.7-5.9, being not specifically easy, but not truly hard routes for the average climber of maybe a year or two.

But of course, if you'd like to call 5.10-5.11 moderate and derisively snort at people who struggle with it, that's your call.

Sorry to come across like such an ass. 10s and 14s are in the same category because both are hard for ME. Hard means I have to work at it with variable success (= may or may not be able too at all). Moderate means it isn't "easy" but I am usually successful (= no falls or at least confident I'll reach the top).

I guess, the bottom line is there is no real accepted definition and you have to find out what is your moderate and realize other people may not (won't) agree with you.

Like Coeus is saying, I do think that it can be relative.

And yet, there are some very solid defining lines, such as:


Personally, for me, I define it as:
5.0-5.8 achievable by anyone without training
5.9-5.10 advanced techniques, but no training required to send
5.11-5.12 requires training and at least 3 days a week of climbing
5.13-5.15 requires full time climbing and training, this is your 40+ hours a week job.

Obviously people can argue about where the lines are drawn, but simply looking at how much time is required in general by any given climber to climb these types of things is pretty straight forward. The thing that makes it difficult are the stand-out climbers that are graced with the natural ability to climb hard stuff easily :D

Should we add an exponential factor in there if you are leading? Or if its onsight? Or if its trad or sport? Seems its human nature to fall into the trap of wanting to neatly categorize everything (I'm often a victim to this trap). What I like about life is that so many things define compartmentalization (hey, that's a cool name for a climb). Climbing is one of these. There are just too many variables, such as what I ate for breakfast, how much sleep I got last night, my emotional state, the weather, am I trying to impress anyone, and so on and so on.

Anyway, I like listing 5.10 as "hard", helps my ego.

A 5.8 climber thinks of his climbing range as 'moderate'. A 5.12+ climber thinks of any 5.10 as 'moderate'. It's all in who is making the call and labeling the system by their own definition.