Ratings and how they should be determined...

This arises from a 25 minute phone conversation I had with Mr. Mix regarding local rating standards. This is meant to be a local discussion but I don't see why outsiders couldn't chime in.

How do you determine what rating you give a route or boulder problem? Shall it be based on how it would feel to on-sight the route? Is that view different from sport to trad? Do sport climbers and trad climbers view ratings and how to determine them differently? I climb both sport and trad but mostly trad and Mr Mix argues that I am approaching rating this sport climb with a trad climbing attitude.

The difference between myself and Mr. Mix is scientific. I like to choose ratings based on evenly distributing many factors such as what style suits me, how small the holds are, how my recent climbing history reflects how much effort I put into it, other people's rating, weather, etc.

Mr Mix relies on numbers and places a rating on a route by strictly comparing it to other climbs he has done. He claims this provides a clearer consensus. Am I getting that right Mike?

Specifically this came up regarding the route "Secret Agent Man" traditionally 5.13 but which I just sent and down graded slightly. Here's a link: mountainproject.com/v/secre…
I chose to down grade this based on may factors and for me, this was 12c. It took me ~9 goes to do but I think it only took that many because I was doing the final move wrong and the first time I switched my sequence I sent.

Fire away gentleman we can go lots of places with this one.

ask someone in Eldo or Rifle, CO. they would love to tell you.

I try to grade a route or boulder problem in accordance with how difficult the route felt for me. I make every attempt to disregard how hard others felt the climb was. For example, if I had climbed several V4 boulder problems in an area (grade determined from consensus on mountain project) and I climbed a route that felt of equivalent difficulty, I would grade that problem V4, even though the first ascentist's interpretation of the grade might be different. This sounds pretty straight forward. However, it has been my experience that many individuals are heavily influenced by the existing grade on a problem and don't want to deviate too far from it when posting a grade for consensus. In summary, my suggestion is that because of different body types, heights, strengths, etc., routes and problems will have a large variance in how difficult an individual will find them. The best way to determine an honest consensus is for an individual to grade each route without letting the influence of previous contributors’ influence their submission.

Here is a route I have yet to do that I would love some input on. What should I contribute to the consensus if I send?:

Uberschmidt. This climb is hard for me, really hard. I did Sepson Wall 12a/b in a couple brief sessions (its neighbor). I hate to admit it, but I have sessioned Uberschmidt at least 7 times. I have the beta, I can pull the crux low percentage hangdog style, but I still haven't sent. I would like to think that this climb is a bit finger width dependent and my fat fingers are a disadvantage on this beast, where as they might have been an advantage on Sepson. If I send Uberschmidt tomorrow and didn't know the grade previously, I would probably call it harder than 12b (I have done several other 12b climbs at the lake and nothing has been this difficult for me). Others have added 11c to the consensus on this climb. I already know that if I try to add honestly to the consensus I will be chastised on MP "there's no way this thing is 12c, you suck". However, if I felt that it was 11b I would show much less restraint in contributing (I know I'm guilty too). See the problem?

That V2 across from Pete's Pebble is another great example of this discrepancy in grading for me. I've been on it twice, last time with beta, still no send.

Mr. Mix

Grades mostly matter for a safety aspect. So, I would say the onsight grade is the one to report, as well as the whole safety rating.

Grand generalization time. Sport climbers are more likely to embrace the idea of throwing themselves at routes that are way above their current climbing level, so when they complete the climb, they take a random stab at a grade. Trad climbers are more likely to slowly progress through the grades, so they have a very good idea what a 5.8 is, or what a .9 is. I could see how trad routes would be graded stiffer because there is a more comprehensive understanding of the local rating system.

But then you get routes like Birch Tree Crack. 5.8 my ass.

Routes and problems will obviously vary given body types but generally I grade new climbs based on the hardest move present in the route + some consideration for the number of moves at that level in a row. Comparison to other routes is often helpful as well...

Sure, I'll take a bite on this can of worms. When rating a route, the first things to consider are: what's the hardest move; how sustained is the route/problem; are there many rests, how good are they and where are they; is the crux low or high; is it straight forward cranking or does it require thoughtful beta and technique (i.e., how hard is the puzzle)? Note that "small holds" don't necessarily denote hard moves, though they don't make a route easier.

After climbing 5.13 sport and 5.12 trad (I've climbed on 5.13 trad routes but haven't sent so far, unless you count Ruby's Cafe) for about four years, here are some things I've noticed in grades.

A crux will often determine the ballpark grade of the route.A crux might be a short, hard sequence or even one vicious move, or merely a sustained section. A 5.12a, for example, usually has some moves that distinguish it from 5.11, which is to say the moves aren't typically the kind you find on the lower grade. A 5.12a usually entails one crux of this nature that is encountered on a route that might otherwise be sustained 5.11. A 5.12b, in my experience usually has about two such cruxes separated by a rest. A 12c might have three, or maybe there are two solid 5.12 cruxes with barely a shake in between. Conversely, I have done the occasional 5.11 that starts with a gnarly move or two and then is 5.10 for the rest of the route, or vice versa.

Crack routes are a little more subtle, as the cruxes usually are more about endurance, but they seem to follow suit. A 5.12- in IC might involve a sustained 5.11 corner that pinches down for 10 feet. A 5.12+ in the Creek is simply solid 12 from bottom to top. Throw in an extra challenge, say, an off-fingers splitter at the top of the 12+ corner, and you have 13-.

Oh, and especially in the case of IC, placing gear is part of the difficulty rating; if you toprope a route and can sprint through liebacks without having to think about anything else, the route is definitely a full grade easier. That's why TR free ascents are considered illegitimate for claiming. On the other hand, if you're seconding a pitch and cleaning RPs and tricams along the way, you might have more of a case for claiming the grade -- but still not quite as much.

How pumped you are (how long you've been climbing without a rest) when you encounter a crux makes a difference in the grade. Music for the Dead is a 13b that starts with a V7 boulder problem and finishes with a long stretch of pumpy 5.11. If the main boulder problem were at the top, the route would probably be 13c.

Grading boulder problems are similar, except you're dealing with a handful of moves instead of a whole route. The crux(es) of a route can usually be identified as boulder problems, the nature of which, determines the "ballpark grade" of the overall route, as I said.

As a final note, never grade a route for how hard it is to onsight! The grade should be indicative of how hard the route is with good beta. Otherwise, we'll end up with a lot of 5.14 5.13's on our hands.

Whew. Holy shit. What a waste of time. I just hope this helps prevent future grade inflation.

D-Storm wrote: As a final note, never grade a route for how hard it is to onsight! The grade should be indicative of how hard the route is with good beta. Otherwise, we'll end up with a lot of 5.14 5.13's on our hands. Whew. Holy shit. What a waste of time. I just hope this helps prevent future grade inflation.

Since when did having beta become protocol for climbing routes and grading them?

Good points gentleman.

Chris I am honored to point out that Mike's "buddy" is the infamous MP point grabber known as "Remo" whom coincidentally can not send SAM despite many hard boulder problems to his name. This begs the question, what would Remo rate SAM? Also, Remo has stated many times that he prefers to rate things based on how they would feel on-sight.

My feeling is that trying to rate something based on an on-sight encompasses too much luck. If the climber just so happens to catch the crux hold correctly they might under-rate the problem, if they miss, they might over-rate. Only after a climber knows a climb to at least some degree can they provide an accurate picture of the grade.

Also, to comment on Uberschmitt , this is a one move wonder with a low percentage crux. I think it feels harder to Mike because he continually screws up the move. This is precisely why it's important to consider others ratings as well. Some are lucky and get the move fast, other are unlucky and have trouble. If 10 people call it a "duck" and one doesn't, it's probably still a "duck"!

caughtinside wrote:... I climb with a tall guy and he's always downrating stuff that has reachy style cruxes, but he gets bouted on other stuff.

Does your buddy then upgrade the stuff he gets bouted on and if not why?

Trad Ninja wrote: Also, Remo has stated many times that he prefers to rate things based on how they would feel on-sight. My feeling is that trying to rate something based on an on-sight encompasses too much luck.

Onsighting is a measure of your complete skill as a climber, not luck, including ability to suss out beta on the sharp end while having the endurance and strength to hang on etc... Basing grades on beta that is wired is a measure of the difficulty that is representative of muscle memory and the likes. Each has its place, but i prefer routes be graded with regards to the onsight.

In reality there isnt a significant difference if you climb at the given grade. Too many people are specialized in steep climbing, or crack climbing, or slab etc...key to climbing a grade is being able to do so on all terrain

Willa wrote: Since forever?

not at all true. I think that the YDS moved from an onsight grade to a redpoint grade as bolted sport climbs and hangdogging became commonplace. The onsight grade provides an estimate of difficulty so intrepid mountaineers don't fall off something way harder than they can do, whereas the redpoint grade provides an estimate of difficulty so dreaded newbs don't hog a climb that's way harder than they can do, even after dogging the moves for days.

Thank you, Willa and Trad Ninja, you pretty much said it all about the onsight grading problem. To grade a climb based on how hard you think it is to onsight adds so much subjectivity to something already vague that it would defeat any meaning of grades. A 5.10 can become 5.12 pretty quickly when you miss one jug sidepull around the arete or something. People who don't understand this, especially as Willa explained it, have a lot to learn.

rock_fencer wrote: Onsighting is a measure of your complete skill as a climber, not luck, including ability to suss out beta on the sharp end while having the endurance and strength to hang on etc... Basing grades on beta that is wired is a measure of the difficulty that is representative of muscle memory and the likes. Each has its place, but i prefer routes be graded with regards to the onsight.

I agree but only to an extent. Luck is a big factor and only one mistake can mean send or punt. I think when people fall on a climb graded at what they perceive is their ability they will tend to think it's harder than it actually is.

Willa wrote: Since forever? If you do a climb using piss poor beta then of course it would seem harder. The difficulty of a climb should be based on the path of least resistance... This has been a big issue in the bouldering scene as of late with many hard problems getting down-graded because of "better beta". I think this happens a lot with first ascents. You get tunnel vision and then someone comes along and hikes it using a sequence you totally missed. It really takes a lot of ascents (consensus) to dial in the beta and get a good grasp on the difficulty.

Consensus is always and has always been the way grades were established. These have tended to be based on onsights up until recent history. (no facts to back that up, just how it happens here in NC)

Edit to address differences in onsight grading between climbers. If your pushing so far above your limit then you have no clue what the grade is. If you climb regularly at the grade or just below then your in a position to assign a grade. It would be like me trying to tell you your v8 problem is a V14 because it was hard for me. On the other hand a V5-6 i'd be in a position to comfortably assign an accurate grade.

the issue of better beta is somewhat questionable, as its so dependent on the climber involved.

Maybe at the upper echelons of climbing beta is so specific that it makes a difference, but since i only scratch those on the occasions that i feel motivated i cant say i really notice different beta being a make or break on difficulty of a route 5.12+ and below.

D-Storm: A 5.10 can become 5.12 pretty quickly when you miss one jug sidepull around the arete or something. People who don't understand this, especially as Willa explained it, have a lot to learn.<--- i think this is a pretty strange thing to say in general

this is so much more enjoyable than work btw!

I agree this is more fun than work, Rock Fencer, which is why I'll take another moment for this conversation why I'm waiting for a work call to come in.

The 5.10 comment you refer to was a sub-statement to my argument about grading for onsight difficulty being too subjective. I'm saying people who don't understand why a route that is really hard to onsight isn't necessarily as difficult of a grade have a lot to learn. If you climb at Rifle or other places where there are so many features that it is very hard to decipher the best sequences, you'll know what I mean.

Most of the time at most places, yes, I think the onsight experience and the true grade align if you are climbing at or near the level.

Regarding Berl's comment about a grade keeping hang-doggers off dangerous routes, well, that's what "R" or "s" ratings are for.

Willa wrote: Doesn't that "on-sight grade" then become even more subjective than an already subjective "redpoint grade"? What if the on-sighter totally nails the beta and it seems easier than the grade given by the on-sighter who totally chuffs the beta and barely claws their way to the top? I have to agree with D-storm that on-sight grading raises the subjectivity level to a point where the grade would almost become useless for assessing difficulty.

aha- I'm also pretty sure that the era of the onsight grade also predates the concept of 'personal grades' by several decades. In my (likely outdated) worldview, a grade reflects aspects of the climb that are independent of who's climbing it. The idea of absolute grades is just too much for people to handle: 'how can it be possible for me to fall on a slabby 5.10 when I can sail up overhanging 5.12?'

but back to the onsight grade: i completely understand that "the grade" of a sport route reflects redpoint difficulty (in the parlance of our times)- I just don't think it was always that way.

edit: oh and the hangdogging newbs thing was a joke.

I've had sad days when Birch Tree felt hard 5.10, and glorious days when Birch Tree felt 5.7.

In principle, the rating should answer the question how hard was the hardest move, and all climbs should be rated on the same scale. It is seldom so easy, which just goes to show you what a poor system of measurement it is.

I still think of many of our Devils Lake routes in terms of their F ratings.

D-Storm wrote:I agree this is more fun than work, Rock Fencer, which is why I'll take another moment for this conversation why I'm waiting for a work call to come in. The 5.10 comment you refer to was a sub-statement to my argument about grading for onsight difficulty being too subjective. I'm saying people who don't understand why a route that is really hard to onsight isn't necessarily as difficult of a grade have a lot to learn. If you climb at Rifle or other places where there are so many features that it is very hard to decipher the best sequences, you'll know what I mean. Most of the time at most places, yes, I think the onsight experience and the true grade align if you are climbing at or near the level. Regarding Berl's comment about a grade keeping hang-doggers off dangerous routes, well, that's what "R" or "s" ratings are for.

I follow now, i really just didn't understand what you were trying to say. There are definitely cryptic climbs that have some wacky beta and Rifle is a great example of such a crag. We are in agreement and the world is safe from apocalyptic annihilation unless your Harold Camping.

Cheers
T

Doug Hemken wrote:I've had sad days when Birch Tree felt hard 5.10, and glorious days when Birch Tree felt 5.7. In principle, the rating should answer the question how hard was the hardest move, and all climbs should be rated on the same scale. That it is so seldom as easy as that just goes to show you what a poor system of measurement it is. I still think of many of our Devils Lake routes in terms of their F ratings.

But Doug there's so much more to the "difficulty" of a route than the single hardest move.

This has obviously split into two different topics here:

A. Should a rating be based on how hard the on-sight is?

B. Should a climber consider the ratings that others have given a climb in their own rating for that climb?

Trad Ninja wrote: But Doug there's so much more to the "difficulty" of a route than the single hardest move.

My horoscope says that today is a "7". What does that mean?

Trad Ninja wrote: This has obviously split into two different topics here: A. Should a rating be based on how hard the on-sight is? B. Should a climber consider the ratings that others have given a climb in their own rating for that climb?

And there is the inevitable clash between how we think ratings should be given and how they, in fact, are given. I think the latter is much more interesting than the former. And actually more to the point if you use ratings.

People who spend a lot of time doing on-sights tend to give their ratings that way. I don't think it matters so much why they do a lot of on-sights: for some people, the on-sight per se is important, for others, we just like to see a lot of different terrain. Either way, the rating you give is based on a limited number of goes.

We inevitably take into consideration the ratings other people give. Most of us take them into consideration before we even try a climb! And our ratings are often meant to influence the opinions of other people.

You travel to a new area and find the ratings are a bit sand-baggy for you. Is it because the rock type is unfamiliar to you, and you can't read it? Is it because you are not familiar with some technique that other climbers in that area use regularly? Were a lot of the climbs put up by some bad-ass climber who had all the other locals cowed? Is it because you spent too much time working and not enough time working out before you took your trip? Are you just having a bad day?

in talking about the stiff grades at the lake, i think doug has began to touch on a particular area of this conversation that i think has heretofore not been discussed.

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.

grading in this way results in more consistent grades, and knowing this enables climbers to easily and safely navigate the climbs of a particular area.

to not use this approach -- and it is most certainly often not used, even in areas like rifle -- is to invite controversy. people begin to bicker about which climbs are the "standard," or which are really "invalid" for the grade. more importantly, 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.