When will the "V" grades stop? F-bomb!

A year ago Daniel Woods put up a V16. Now he is in Hueco adding 4 moves to a V14 and people are saying it might be a V17. Will it ever stop????

Nope, probably not. It seems like every boulder problem the top boulderers send is automatically upgraded higher than their previous problem. Its an ongoing thing

I'm inclined to not give opinions on shit that I know nothing about. Go send 'the Game' and if you still want to downgrade it, do it. Then sack up and crush that hueco proj before woods, and say pshh that ain't hard suck on this wood Woods. But until then, I'd let the people that can actually pull onto those problems and do some of the moves speculate on the grades. I don't see a problem with progression, 'the Game' 'Lucid Dreaming' that Hueco Proj, they aren't hard to find they get tried a bunch n not too many people are sending em...

I think if someone wants to rate something harder than V14 they should have to repeat John Gaskins's test pieces.

Also... Have you ever climbed a Bachar V5 compared to a V5 that someone put up a few years ago? The Bachar problem (old school) is usually way harder. Since I don't climb very hard, that's the best evidence I can cite that might imply grading has gotten softer for whatever reason.

I was under the impression that bouldering ratings were strictly based on the hardest move. Somewhere along the line this has changed. While rating a boulder problem based off the hardest move isn't a true definition of that climb's difficulty, I still like that definition. It tacitly implies that stamina shouldn't ever be a factor!

Rob Gordon wrote:I think if someone wants to rate something harder than V14 they should have to repeat John Gaskins's test pieces. Also... Have you ever climbed a Bachar V5 compared to a V5 that someone put up a few years ago? The Bachar problem (old school) is usually way harder. Since I don't climb very hard, that's the best evidence I can cite that might imply grading has gotten softer for whatever reason. I was under the impression that bouldering ratings were strictly based on the hardest move. Somewhere along the line this has changed. While rating a boulder problem based off the hardest move isn't a true definition of that climb's difficulty, I still like that definition. It tacitly implies that stamina shouldn't ever be a factor!

Rob, are you talking about that damned Bachar Cracker in Camp 4? V5 my ass!

edit too add- camhead should be knucklehead, IMNSHO...v4 tthhhhppp!

I recall reading a few months ago (can't remember who said it, but it was a high level boulderer) that, thus far, there is no such thing as a MOVE harder than v13. In other words, most new school vee-crazy bouder problems factor in endurance. I wonder when someone will put up a one or two-move v16?

Oh, and Bachar Cracker is v4, not v5. :)

As long as it is overall harder to send than anything else it gets the next grade up. Hard bouldering always devolves into contrivances. Think of a really hard problem, then add in downclimbing it. Way harder than just traveling one way.

I was thinking the left Bachar boulder problem in Bishop, but yeah, Bachar cracker is really hard. Yet to send either. Bachar was the man.

Camhead: John Gaskins's hard boulder problems are short with a couple of moves that seem beyond the human limit. Look him up if you haven't. Incredible dedication: trying a move 1000 times to get it sort of thing. Not supposed to be very classic lines though. A lot of his stuff that was put up years ago that is rated fairly modestly still lacks second ascents.

Mike: I've been working the round trip on a V5 traverse and when I do it I'll still think of it as V5 because the moves are hardest on the way that I've already sent, however I'm also working a V3 roundtrip that turns the opening sit start into a V4ish downclimb, so I'd call that V4. Back to the V5 traverse... I think it would also be fine to call the one way V5 and the roundtrip 5.13a. That's just the way I think about things. If I ever climb V10+ (fairly big if) will my thinking change? I don't think so because this is how I understand the definition of the V grades and how they differ from YDS Grades.

Bachar Cracker is B1

Grades are meant too be a guide not a definitive goal like running a 100m with a stop watch.
With all the variations with body types and strengths it is pretty hard to quantify. Trying to bring up old sandbagged problems to justify downgrading current problems is laughable. Who cares if v16 has been reached yet. The old approach to grading boulders as: easy, medium or hard seems to be more realistic to a sport that is so malleable. The Japanese grading system is like this.
Still the best is Gills B system. Keeps you from losing site of wether or not you can actually climb the line instead of trying to rack up points.
"John Gill introduced, in the 1950s, a very early - if not the first - grading system specifically designed for bouldering and not restricted to a particular area.[1] The system, (B1, B2, B3), had two subjective levels of difficulty, and one objective level, and was predicated on prevailing and future standards attained in traditional rock climbing. The introduction of sport climbing some twenty years later and more intense competition weakened the philosophical underpinnings of the three-tiered structure, although climbers such as Jim Holloway adopted personal three-level systems similar to Gill's. Today, Gill's B-system is rarely used, abandoned in favor of open-ended scales of difficulty."

can anyone here climb at that level?

if not ... what are we biatching about then?

john strand wrote:Bachar Cracker is B1

hell yeah.

I tend to agree that linkups in bouldering shouldn't add much to the grade. Bouldering should be about climbing anything you want, but when it comes to the grade, it should speak to a few moves, like a crux section of a route, and shouldn't be a route in itself. That said, many of my hardest boulder sends are longish traverses or linkups, so I guess I'm a hypocrite.

Also, just because route A is harder than route B doesn't warrant it getting the next higher grade. There are "hard" 12a's and "easy" 12a's, that's just how it goes. There are qualitative ways to judge if you are ready for the next grade, such as the number or routes you've done at a certain grade, or onsight ability. If Super Dude were going to claim that his new route was 5.16a, then you would expect that he should be able to onsight in the realm of 14d-15b, and should have done a couple 15d's and loads of 15a's, b's and c's. If the resume isn't there, then it's fair to be skeptical. Howevever, until someone comes along to downrate it, all we can do is stand in awe of the accomplishment.

Proposing a new grade is a very bold move. Chances are good that someone else will find your route "easy", and you'll look like a fool, but there is a slim chance that you really have advanced the sport, and then you will be a legend. For many, it's (apparently) worth the risk, because when the big downgrade comes, they'll just say that grades don't matter and they only climb for themselves, blah, blah, blah.

My vote is for a two grade system.

Giving a climb two grades one for difficultly and the other endurance, ie V2 E4.

My guess is we haven't gone that route since comparing problems is not 'clear cut' like it is today, ha yea right; thank the sponsors?

Did the Brit's have it long ago?
--

caughtinside wrote:It just seems like a grade explosion because bouldering, despite it's history, is still in relative infancy. If you look at sport climbing, it has advanced what, 2 letters in 10 years? Maybe the same for trad?

This is my view as well.

15 years ago you'd never see people setting new V9 and V10 boulder problems in gyms every week. These days problems in that range get flashed regularly, and aren't considered particularly hard compared to what exists outside.

Bouldering has progressed rapidly over the last decade or so, and I think people are confusing that with "grade inflation".

Great topic. Thanks for starting this. Some thoughts:

1) Agree with others that all of us softies should send or shut-up. Thus, I should shut-up but please humor me and allow me to proceed...

2) Agree with others that we are in a bouldering renaissance period. With the popularization of climbing gyms and low equipment requirements to boulder outdoors, interest and skill level in the sport are ballooning before our eyes. So maybe the growth in V grades is justified??? However...

3) When viewed within the perspective of climbing grades in general, something doesn't seem right when we see V grades progress as fast as they have when it took 7 years for roped climbing to go from 5.15a to 5.15b. What happened to the proud climbing tradition of humility in assigning grading climbs?

The only way to settle this is for someone (not me!) to repeat and assess. That said, top boulders in the world seem more inclined to establish new problems rather than repeat established lines. Makes sense given all the amazing new areas being developed. More cynically, probably also keeps sponsors happier and egos from being bruised.

What about this: an open challenge to the world's strongest climbers - invite them to dedicate 6-12 months to attempt a select 10 of the toughest boulder problems in the world. What we need is something more systematic about repeating lines and grade confirmation. The only way to do that is to make their efforts fun / prestigious and sponsor compatible.

Those grades (V-hard) mean very little to the vast majority of the climbing population, so it really doesn't matter, at least statistically.

There is no set standard (such as is the case with the Richter scale) of differences between climbing route difficulties. Therefore, all grades are subjective to individual interpretation, capability, and experience.

Although, as noted earlier, it might matter alot to sponsors...

Step 1. Give boulder problem a never before seen grade of difficulty.
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit.

Because none of us climb this dificulty means nothing. We can still bitch about it.
People who climb at this grade can talk all they want- others can't.

Just because I grew up withB1.. B2 etc doesn't mean we can 't expand things.

The thought about " if you onsight 9a then you can..." is meaningless.

How hard do you think Bachar could haveDogged ? 15a ?......

Julian PB has onsighted 9a.. does that mean he should do 10A ???/

john strand wrote:Because none of us climb this dificulty means nothing. We can still bitch about it. People who climb at this grade can talk all they want- others can't. Just because I grew up withB1.. B2 etc doesn't mean we can 't expand things. The thought about " if you onsight 9a then you can..." is meaningless. How hard do you think Bachar could haveDogged ? 15a ?...... Julian PB has onsighted 9a.. does that mean he should do 10A ???/

Stay in school kids.

It's not "meaningless", and I question your word choice. Maybe "wrong", or "baseless" would be more accurate, but I don't get the meaning of saying it's "meaningless". It means, that people generally are able to redpoint 3-5 letter grades harder than their hardest onsight, assuming they put effort into both redpointing and onsighting, among other assumptions. This is not a new idea.

To my knowledge, Bachar didn't do a lot of "redpointing" by the modern standard, so we can't really answer your question, though working Midnight Lightning for years isn't far from the mark. Given that it's considered to be about V7-8, and knowing other things from his resume, he probably could have redpointed in the 13+/14- range had he been less myopic. But, then, the rule of thumb doesn't apply to him because he didn't put effort into redpointing.

Onsighting 9a would imply the POTENTIAL to redpoint 9c or so. Are you so surprised by that? 9c is not that far off, but the hardest thing about reaching that level is finding a route at that grade. That has always been the limit to progressing redpoint difficulty around the world. There is a very fine line between too hard and not hard enough. If blatant rock modification were more accepted, it would be easier because you could take a route like La Rambla and just keep whittling down the holds until you had a 9c, but that's not currently done. So imagine trying to find a route that is just barely harder, but not too much harder, then spending the 100 days or so necessary to redpoint a route of that caliber, all without knowing if it's even possible. Most climbers have trouble getting up the courage to commit themselves to a hard redpoint project that they know the grade of with certainty, that others have climbed, let alone a first ascent that might be impossible.

It's an open ended system, it's not supposed to stop.