"Sandbagged" and relativety: Your standard?

All of the above.

-The old closed end YDS maxed at 5.9 and the resulting nasty 5.9 plusses did present problems, and there is still some holdover form that time.

-I started climbing in the NE in the 70's, mostly at Cathedral ledge NH. There were still 5.9+ routes than since have been regraded up to hard 5.10. That's what I learned to expect at the 5.9+ grade. Coming west in the early 80's I remember the Boulder area seeming relatively soft (at least the routes I got on at the time). Now people complain that some of these routes are sandbags. At the time, some of these routes were accepted as the grade standard (including the trad style as they were established with the corresponding added risk of sparse pro) Now some of these are considered sandbagged both in terms of difficulty and protection.

I definitely notice that climbers of my generation tend to complain more about ratings becoming softer than earlier days,and younger climbers tend to complain more about the opposite.

To me there is a noticeable trend to softer grades. Just like Tombo said in the front range area, clear creek and bocan sport routes are graded at a different standard than many of the old eldo, lumpy etc trad routes.

-Egos abound and there are those who rate routes both higher and lower than actual difficulty. There are those who bolster their egos by grading things higher that they should be to make them feel they have done something more than they have, and those that bolster their egos by grading things lower than they should be so subsequent ascentionists are belittled by their prowress. The latter are the classic sandbaggers by definition.

-Then so much depends on each individual's specific abilities in the context of each area's idosyncracies. For example, people always complain about Vedauwoo generally having sand bagged ratings, but there all you need is the requisite technique for the type of climbing and then ratings (for the most part) seem pretty much right on. There is a learning curve transitioning either way. If you grow up climbing on vedauwoo granite (or say Needles SD trad) and learn that grading and stylistic standard for that kind of climbing, you might then go to Wild iris or Ten sleep bolted overhanging limestone and be completely out of your element... and vice versa. Cut your teeth in a gym or clear creek, and vedauwoo will seem ridiculously hard.

-With advances in shoe technology, protection, even just better clothing for the outdoors, the level of adventure and challenge has also changed. There is also increased accessibility to harder grades of climbing through sport climbing and people develop different expectations. The downward slide in grading and upward trend in maximum difficulty reflects a form of progress, perceptual change, cultural change, perception of acceptable risk, and it seems general advancement in human ability relative to the challenge of climbing. There is more choice in what game you play. With the older trad style, difficult and sometimes non-existant pro from hard stances was just an accepted part of the game. Now, that is not even an issue if you choose to just climb sport, you don;t even have to know how to place pro to lead climb hard sport routes in certain settings. So sandbagged can mean different things in different contexts. Having to grub for difficult nut placements from a difficult stance can be an ultimate sandbag to a bolt clipping sporto.

I am not saying it is good or bad, just that things change. I like both ends of the spectrum, sometimes going for more "sandbagged" run out trad style and ethics, and other times clipping every 6 feet on soft sporty routes. Seems this "progress" just means more diversity in climbing, which is OK by me.

great question mike. I know when I was in the military the term was used when someone wasnt "pulling their own weight". Example: i was a camp mackall and I was alot shorter (and smaller) than alot of the other dudes and we were lifting logs over our head. I sandbagged everyone because I wasnt able to take my share of the load.

for climbing your definition makes sense to me.

Buffum dude, awesome analysis/conclusion.

Mike McKinnon wrote:The biggest question now one is answering is where did the term sandbagged come from?

Sandbag as a term (in the way we use it) existed long before it was applied to discussing climbing ratings. It was in use in that way at least as far back as 1860 (per Merriam-Webster etymology).

Heres why: The Gunks and Seneca (again just examples) are not sandbagged because alot/most of their routes were established first. Wouldnt it be that the newer established routes are "soft" (maybe because the developers wanted to be climbing harder so they applied harder ratings to make themselves feel better/cooler?) and the STANDARD would be these first/early established routes? Think: you HAVE to have a standard to compare (you cant compare route A to route A, you can compare route A to route B however). Whats your standard? wouldnt it make sense that the newer developed routes are "soft" (if these Eastern routes are sandbagged then that leaves only one direction to go) So if you state that these Eastern routes are "sandbagged" I ask you why is your standard these newer routes and not the originals? quote>

I don't have the time to read all of the responses here and someone probably already mentioned this but YES of course THERE IS A STANDARD! its called the Yosemite decimal system for a reason, Yosemite is THE standard!

Wayne Crill wrote:Heres why: The Gunks and Seneca (again just examples) are not sandbagged because alot/most of their routes were established first. Wouldnt it be that the newer established routes are "soft" (maybe because the developers wanted to be climbing harder so they applied harder ratings to make themselves feel better/cooler?) and the STANDARD would be these first/early established routes? Think: you HAVE to have a standard to compare (you cant compare route A to route A, you can compare route A to route B however). Whats your standard? wouldnt it make sense that the newer developed routes are "soft" (if these Eastern routes are sandbagged then that leaves only one direction to go) So if you state that these Eastern routes are "sandbagged" I ask you why is your standard these newer routes and not the originals? quote> I don't have the time to read all of the responses here and someone probably already mentioned this but YES of course THERE IS A STANDARD! its called the Yosemite decimal system for a reason, Yosemite is THE standard!

Except that the YDS was not established in Yosemite, it was created in Tahquitz.

I thought sandbagging was a term used to describe a weight (that slows you down) that you can take out when you want. You would throw a sandbag in your car to race, and take it out on some unsuspecting opponent.

As a Gunks climber, I was even laughing at how sandbagged Seneca was. I got on some 5.3 there and it's comical to call it a 5.3
I mean it wasn't hard, but when I think of 5.3 I just assume there will be no "advanced" moves like backsteps, mantle, etc. I think of 5.3 as a grade that my non climbing wife would be able to climb up. But no way could she have done the 5.3's at Seneca.

I find my local gym (NJRG) and Gunks to be pretty similar at the end of my limit. At the gym I can climb all 5.10's and most 5.11's, at the gunks I can toprope most 5.10's and hangdog a few 5.11's on toprope. I expect that from the variables of outside climbing vs color coded gym climbing. but in the 5.3 to 5.7 range where I lead climb, I find the grading to be WAY off the gym, and it's more apparent on the "classic" or older climbs. The generic 2nd pitch 5.5's all over the gunks feel about right, but there are a bunch of classic 5.3's-5.6's that feel way harder. I just think the older climbs got rated more stiff. And Gunks and Seneca being old climbing spots, that's just the way it is. I do like the MP has the "consensus" ratings so I don't get in over my head.

I never understood why people take so much pride in their area being sandbagged. Nobody ever brags their area is soft. Too me sandbagged means not accurate. Why would you brag about your area ratings not being accurate.

"Dude our area is so sandbagged nobody can figure anything out. We are so cool"

Go climbing in the Red and at least once a trip you'll hear someone say "In_____________(usually Eldo or Gunks) this would be a 5.8" Before they even get on the route. Next thing you know they borrow your stick clip, then an hour later you have to go up and get their draws for them.

The next statement out of their mouths usually goes something like this "obviously we do more technical climbing than this mindless jug haul stuff"

Whatever

So is there any area that isn't sandbagged, then?

Besides obviously Red Rocks.

I haven't climbed everywhere, but mostly California... Tahquitz, JTree, Yosemite, Needles... and Red Rocks and Squamish. I've heard each area is "sandbagged" but honestly I thought they were all the same, with the odd route that kicked my ass more then I expected.

The short answer (to the OP) is because "people" are doing the grading.

Obviously there are gray areas between regions and types of climbing (slab, crack, face, then rock type, etc) but mostly its due to natural evolution over time.

In general, earlier developed routes/regions will seem "sandbagged" compared to newer developed routes/regions because human nature is to keep giving the bump on the high side when in doubt (everyone's desire to climb harder than they actually do).

Same principle applies to traffic jams. Each guy down the line applies slightly more braking (grade inflation) than the first guy and after about 6 cars down, everyone is stopped (or cranking 5.12)

The difference between old school grades and new school grades is even more glaring if you factor in the shoes and equipment used to put up those old 5.8's. You wanna true rude awakening, climb it with the same equipment as the FA.

Otherwise, as many have pointed out, it really doesn't matter in the long run and it all fades together as you climb more and in more regions and more climbing styles.

Smith isn't sandbagged. Many of the routes there are what I use for benchmark 5.10s, 11s, and 12s.

Mark Pilate Said: The difference between old school grades and new school grades is even more glaring if you factor in the shoes and equipment used to put up those old 5.8's. You wanna true rude awakening, climb it with the same equipment as the FA.

excellent point, definitly supports relativety. I have envisioned/thought of climbing (for my "local" classic areas) Lower Skyline Direct to Skyline Traverse (first known established route in 1939) at Seneca with the original gear HOWEVER the few Ive asked to do it with me never are interested. Also the original route 5.5 at the Gunks.

I think even just climbing the routes with passive gear only, boots + rope wrapped around your waist (no harness) would be thrilling. Imagine climbing say...High Exposure (well known example) with only passive gear, no harness, boots BUT still a dynamic rope!

anyone ever done this?

Here's how I operate: I dont really care what goes down at other crags(especially the Gunks), I use the places I climb the most as a benchmark. When I travel, routes are either easier or harder than what Im used to. I assume everyone I meet is going to sandbag me. Also I assume every granite slab is going to feel 5.11, because they always feel that way to me.

So I just take whatever grade I can say out loud while keeping a straight face. I use the same approach for grading FAs. When it comes to adding things on 8a, I take the highest grade ever mentioned or suggested for the route, even if someone was mistaken and talking about the wrong route. Why? Because that's what makes me happy. I could care less about some unified grading scale.

I appreciate that you have your own way Ryan.

and we appreciate you oh Stoned Master.

Interesting that you are driving the MP forum discussions in the last week or so from Central PA.

i actually tend to take the lowest grade ... in squamish theres 2 main guidebooks, i take whatever grade is lower

and then if i find an old historical source ... i take that grade instead ...

;)

The Stoned Master wrote:I think even just climbing the routes with passive gear only, boots + rope wrapped around your waist (no harness) would be thrilling.

Was it even passive gear at the time? Imagine leading with nothing but Pitons.

The Stoned Master wrote:Mark Pilate Said: The difference between old school grades and new school grades is even more glaring if you factor in the shoes and equipment used to put up those old 5.8's. You wanna true rude awakening, climb it with the same equipment as the FA.

This goes both ways, though. If you're going to climb it with the shoes and equipment of the old times, you should also get to climb it on the rock of the old times. That is, still rough, sharp and frictiony -- not polished smooth. Before a "key hold broke off short" (or few), and so on.

Some climbs have actually just gotten harder -- but often haven't been regraded when they have. A crux hold breaking -- might cause a re-grading, because it is a single clear event. But the accumulation of polish over the years and decades -- doesn't tend to.