Sandbagged climbing areas

It can be difficult to get a straight answer from the internet, therefore I came here to get some answers. I get a sandbagged or soft area is very controversial so help me figure it out.

I'm mostly curious on the needles of Rushmore, Moab, Boulder, clear Creek canyon. Feel free to throw in aditional areas. 

What areas are stiff? What areas are soft?

Everything in Thunder Bay, Ontario - Sandbagged. 

Devils lake - stiff, gunks - stiff, seneca - stiff... obv style dependent but that is my 2 cents based on my experience climbing around the states 

I feel that some of the routes i've done in J-tree are pretty stiff. 

You might find this thread useful: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/112938893/grades

Didn't we...just do this?

Older, typically trad areas will feel "stiff."  Newer sport crags will feel soft.  This is also heavily dependent on rock type/climbing style and one's corresponding experience.  Your first trip to the Red will probably feel hard if you haven't done a lot of PE, for example.

Mark Straub wrote:

Based on my experiences and my personal climbing style, here's my assessment.  I'm going to base this on grading in Yosemite, since the YDS system was invented there, after all.  Many people will probably disagree strongly with my ratings, because in the end, climbing is very subjective.

Actually it was invented in Tahquitz.

Andrew Ryder wrote:

Most of Boulder and the front range felt a bit soft relative to Flagstaff, but I think Arizona tends toward sandbags across the board. Hard to tell cuz I grew up here. The bouldering in Moab felt pretty stiff to me, but i was only there for a day. 

Ted is right on that your specific experience will likely dictate how "hard" an area feels.

I would agree on the Arizona comment. Everyone says J Tree is pretty stiff but it felt spot on to me and I think that's cause I'm so used to climbing here. 

Another general rule is to look at the date of the FA.  If it's a trad climb, AND the FA was pre-1980, AND the area is still pretty "trad" (i.e. it hasn't been "sportized") then there's a good chance you'll find the grade a bit stiff. (e.g. Taquitz [try "the Gash" the original definition of 5.0 in the 10 climbs from 5.0 to 5.9] , Suicide, Adirondacks, Gunks)   If FA is after 1990 AND the area has a goodly number of sport climbs, then the climb MIGHT be "soft-ish".  Thus, for example, J-Tree and Red Rocks is a pretty good examples of this, having both a number of trad climbs and sport climbs. While there are certainly exceptions, the trad's at Red Rocks put in before 1980 are generally a bit stiffer than those put in after 1990; exceptions of course are where the FA-er's got "pressure" to up the grades, e.g. Dark Shadows, originally 5.7.   The 1980's was a transition zone. 

Then, of course, there's always the names of the First Ascentionist(s); ...often combined with the date can give another clue.  Todd Swain, whose early climbing was at the Gunks and the northeast, took that area's "grading" sort of "with him" on his FA's in Red Rocks and other places. 

These are reasons why, when going to a new area, it's good to "drop down a grade or two" until you find out "what's what" with the grading at this place. 

I think what it really comes down to is the grading scales don't work very well across areas, but they do a good job at comparing climbs within a given area.  I'd assume this is because those climbs are all a similar rock type and the people who grade them have typically climbed a lot of routes in that same area and, therefore, have a pretty good feel for where the route ranks relative to the routes around it.   

Robert Hall wrote:

Was the belayer asleep in that video? Looks like the bolt was barely below his feet when he fell.

Thx for all the help everyone. I know this has been in the forums before. 

Yeah, looks like the belayer had way too much slack out. But I agree with the comment about Porter's routes. He wasn't about grid bolting.

ViperScale wrote:

Was the belayer asleep in that video? Looks like the bolt was barely below his feet when he fell.

Something like that.  He even yelled "take," so god knows how much slack was out to begin with.  The route is only rated 10a and it's a classic, so it tends to attract lots of noobs who get in over their heads because it was bolted in the 90s.

Definitely echo the sentiment of watching for who did the FA and the year.  Anything with a name like Kor, Barber, Weissner to name a few are probably full on at that grade (and it seems you have to add a few more points if their name is IN the route name).  If you learned to climb in an area where guys like that were putting up routes decades ago, chances are lots of other areas feel soft and vice versa.

Ted Pinson wrote:

Something like that.  He even yelled "take," so god knows how much slack was out to begin with.  The route is only rated 10a and it's a classic, so it tends to attract lots of noobs who get in over their heads because it was bolted in the 90s.

It's also super popular and very polished.  I hopped on it with my 70lb son belaying me (with an Ohm) thinking "oh, this will be a fun romp".  It was not a fun little romp.   :)

More on point, the difficulty of an area has to do with how it climbs compared to what you're used to.  I think part of the reason the Red gets its reputaiton as soft is that there are so many routes that climb just like gym routes.  Anyone who climbs indoors is already a RRG sport climber whether they know it or not.

Lewis H wrote:

It can be difficult to get a straight answer from the internet, therefore I came here to get some answers. 

It's hard to get a straight answer from the Internet, yet you came to the Internet for an answer? I understand. 

"+" means sandbagged. "+" is for folks who know their "5.9" is 5.10a/b, but they lack the confidence to say so. The hardest 5.12a's around here are "5.11+"