Downrating good or bad?

No routes exist over 5.9+ and boulders are either a V0 or a V1.

All grades after 5.9 are downgrading, did you all fail math?

Wait, I've always considered downgrading the other way around, as do many others out here in the west. If you climb a soft route you downgrade it to a lower #. This is what the OP's article link was talking about as well. Is it considered the opposite on the east coast? If so then this whole thread has been useless.

A matter of perspective, I feel.

Did I send it? Man, totally needs a downgrade.
Did I flail? F'ing sandbagged.

Alexander Blum wrote:

So you are saying this move is V3/4 for a tall person, and V9 for a short person?

The move for a tall person was from a big sloper under cling around a roof to a good but sharp slot.  A short person could not press against the flat wall with their feet in compression with the sloper and reach past the roof edge back to the sharp slot.  Due to the angle change at the roof being an acute angle a jump/dyno was not an option.  This resulted in a completely different solution being required.  Thus the large disparity in the difficulty. Like I stated before this disparity is not the norm but it can and does happen.  It would be best to capture this disparity with honest grading opinions instead of me saying it is hard for short people but easy for tall and I don't want to look soft. Let's just bump it 1 letter. That is what I am saying is the issue.

I have never once heard of a FIVE v-grade disparity in difficulty,but I suppose it's possible. You are essentially saying this route is 11d for tall people and 13d for short folk, two entire number grades.

When in doubt, be humble. If I can only onsight 5.9 and I onsighted it then it's gotta be 5.9 or easier. 

Alexander Blum wrote: I have never once heard of a FIVE v-grade disparity in difficulty,but I suppose it's possible. You are essentially saying this route is 11d for tall people and 13d for short folk, two entire number grades.

Agreed.  It is a different route for different heights.  Also agreed the disparity is usually less that 2v numbers even on heavily height dependent problems, but not always.  Even when it is less pronounced, as in Lena Chita's example of the 5.8 being easier than the 5.11c it is still worth making others aware as this is still significant. I have had this issue ruin a few day trips for me.  I have at times looked for the steep areas that often only have 1 or 2 warm ups.  My wife is usually happy to just work the warm ups. However if the warm up is sandbagged or just too reachy she ends up with nothing to do. For her grading is often quite different than for me.  I have seen her do technical crimpy V6 and find it easy only to have a jug V2 shut her down due to the shouldery or reachy nature of the climb.  I think it is acceptable for her to grade the V2 as harder than she grades the V6 even though I found the grades to be fair.  She is hesitant to do so because she is not confident in her grading.  She feels pressure to grade based on how others preserve difficulty, this results in herself and others with her style or body type getting no voice in climbing grades.  

lech wrote:

 She feels pressure to grade based on how others preserve difficulty, this results in herself and others with her style or body type getting no voice in climbing grades.  

Exactly! I might add that perhaps she should practice the V2 and see if it becomes any easier, but then to grade them subjectively how she felt

if a V2 is only a V2 for talls...then it's not "just a V2" it's probably V 3-4 with talls finding it easier and shorties finding it hard 

As somebody who is 5'4 with a negative ape index, I can think of a few climbs that physically aren't possible for me, unless perhaps I were to develop the finger strength similar to that of Sharma or Ondra.

When it come's down to it, if you physically cannot reach from hold A to hold B, then the established grade goes out the window. You have to use an intermediate and, depending on the featuredness of the rock, your options might range from a jug to a sloper to a 0.1mm edge.

If a 0.1mm edge is the biggest intermediate between hold A and hold B then that could turn a V0 into a V16. The grade disparity depends on what the rock offers for intermediate holds.

tall people can pretty much pound sand when they complain about being tall is a disadvantage...   maybe one move in 100 hurts the tall person maybe even less. the rest of the time they just reach up there and grab the bucket that is 2 moves away for the rest of us. 

In the late 90s JP Finne sent Get Shorty in Rifle which repelled many of the world's best climbers. Finne claimed that his advantage was being 5'2".   Routes really should be graded for the optimal body type for the route. I'm short, and have been shut down by reach, but that does not mean that I should assign a higher grade. It just means that the particular route does not suit me. 

the schmuck wrote: In the late 90s JP Finne sent Get Shorty in Rifle which repelled many of the world's best climbers. Finne claimed that his advantage was being 5'2".   Routes really should be graded for the optimal body type for the route. I'm short, and have been shut down by reach, but that does not mean that I should assign a higher grade. It just means that the particular route does not suit me. 

why?

If anything, I would say the opposite. For a vast majority of climbing, being tall is the advantage, also having a massive ape index is basically always going to be better too...

so if a super tall ape +++ person is optimal and finds it easier, the grade should change even if 90% of other folks find it say a full grade higher?

the grade should imo be a demographically adjusted grade using range of bodies

In theory, considering MP is digital and archived...we could have our attributes entered online, and MP could measure whether the differences and see if they were significant

for shorter women, MP could display male and female average gradings

Tall and short etc

Jef Anstey wrote:

why?

If anything, I would say the opposite. For a vast majority of climbing, being tall is the advantage, also having a massive ape index is basically always going to be better too...

so if a super tall ape +++ person is optimal and finds it easier, the grade should change even if 90% of other folks find it say a full grade higher?

the grade should imo be a demographically adjusted grade using range of bodies

In theory, considering MP is digital and archived...we could have our attributes entered online, and MP could measure whether the differences and see if they were significant

for shorter women, MP could display male and female average gradings

Tall and short etc

Was the Ape Index ever shown to provide a benefit to climbers?

Jef Anstey wrote:

why?

If anything, I would say the opposite. For a vast majority of climbing, being tall is the advantage,

If that is, in fact, the case one would expect that the overwhelming majority of top climbers would be tall people.  Basketball types.  I don't actually think this is the case at the top end in the sport.  Sure, there's SOME tall climbers... but anybody in the 7' range?  And a clear majority?  I don't think so.

And, the square-cube law does give a key advantage to smaller climbers, perhaps enough to balance out the advantage of sometimes being able to reach that better hold that is farther away.

...and not just perfect body type/style for route, but also perfect beta.  That is what grades should be based on. 

Floyd Eggers wrote:

Was the Ape Index ever shown to provide a benefit to climbers?

most certainly. With a larger ape index, a climb can reap the benefits of having a longer reach without also incurring some of the small disadvantages of being short, mostly a different center of gravity and less body mass.

At the grades of mortals being tall provides a big advantage. However once you get into the very high grades and the realm of pro climbers, shorter climbers generally seem to be more common.

I suspect this is because, all else equal, shorter folks hit the performance plateau sooner where which specific training is needed to climb harder. Thus, shorter climber are likely to begin structured training sooner than their tall counterparts, and are already used to having to compensate for short reach with superior technique and strength.

Why are there so many average-to-tall height people in this thread trying to tell short people what they should be doing? I was going to post something but Lena Chita already said everything that needed to be said 2 or 3 pages ago.

eli poss wrote:At the grades of mortals being tall provides a big advantage. However once you get into the very high grades and the realm of pro climbers, shorter climbers generally seem to be more common.

I suspect this is because, all else equal, shorter folks hit the performance plateau sooner where which specific training is needed to climb harder. Thus, shorter climber are likely to begin structured training sooner than their tall counterparts, and are already used to having to compensate for short reach with superior technique and strength.

This seems dubious. Can you demonstrate that elite short climbers engage in comparatively more structured training? Personally, as a 5'2" climber, I suspect that the advantages that accrue to tall climbers are simply more obvious than those that accrue to shorter climbers.

It all depends I personally have a -4 ape index and am 5'10" so I have seen plenty of places where some of my friends who have +2-4 ape index can climb a route completely different than I can due to being unable to reach a move. I know a V6 problem that anonyed me because it had a traverse under the roof that I could not reach and would have had to dyno to touch it but because the move you were going to was a side pull you can't dyno it than which to a toe hook on the other side (or at least it would have made it much harder than V6 move for me). Other routes due to my small hands I could use others that my friends could not very easy to get past sections they could reach through. I have seen roofs that I could climb under easy but made it harder for them due to being too tall to undercling comfortably.

Don't forget Lynn Hill 5'2" was the first to climb The Nose so maybe The Nose is easier for a short person or maybe the fact she has small hands was helpful (which in most cases small hands are better unless you are on a slopper)