At what point can we just update a retro-graded route?

I live in an area that had tons of FA's in the 50's and 60's .... there were basically 3-5 main guys getting up everything that someone can climb. A lot of respect goes to those guys that paved the way. But ... we still use their books and beta on these routes. I hop on a 1962 "5.6" that climbs SOOOO much harder than any other 5.6 anywhere else.

the community laughs it off and calls it a funny retro grade and knows that it would deserves a stiffer grade. Everything is sandbagged ... but why does that need to be the norm? My stats on leading a 5.6 on trad has an asterisk with a paragraph behind the history of the sandbagged grade. I'm not chasing grades per say, but going out west and back east its weird to compare and keep data.

do you push to fix it, or just let it be and continue to let the next generation coming up figure out what sandbagged 5.9 climb is really a retrograded 5.11+?

Just enjoy the rock and the history.  It's not a big deal.

I’ve found that has helped me learn a bit more history and in turn give more respect. When I hop on a new route I always check the fa name and year established. 

Climbing is fun, do that.

Listening to people debate grades makes me want to untie and jump. 

Future people will laugh at your 5.11 when they are proj'in a 5.27b+, and wonder why they don't chisel off holds to make it harder because the antiquated rating system of the 2000's was loose butthole. 

Gunks? When I was back east I loved sending new to town hotshots on Modern Times to warm up (5.8, wink wink)

If being humbled by an easy grade is hard, well... Yer gonna have a bad tine

1/10

A lot of snarky responses here. If grades don't matter, why do we bother grading climbs?

Grades are meant to give climbers a rough estimate of the level of difficulty they should encounter, and while styles differ between regions we should at least aim to be consistent within an area. This doesn't mean grades need to be the most important part of climbing, nor does it mean we need to inflate grades to match the most feather-bagged route at the crag.

My area guidebook author adjusts the grades of routes (upgrade and downgrade, old school and new) to increase consistency and reduce sandbaggery. If the question is "when can we just upgrade a retro-graded route", the answer is now. Offer grades that are accurate to your experience on MP, talk to your guidebook authors when you run into them at the crag. Short of that, write your own guidebook if you want to see it happen.

Floyd Eggers wrote: Future people will laugh at your 5.11 when they are proj'in a 5.27b+, and wonder why they don't chisel off holds to make it harder because the antiquated rating system of the 2000's was loose butthole. 

thank god that show is over with

Russ Walling wrote: #FightGradeInflation

But how is everyone going to brag on instagram when they can only onsight single digit climbs?

If you can’t send 5.11a in yosemite/gunks/wherever. Then maybe you aren’t a 5.11a Climber and you just need to admit your  home crag is soft? 
Routes should be graded to the standard YOSEMITE decimal system.
Personally I get pissed when I can onsight 5.10 on gear somewhere 

Find me a 5.9 that is actually 11+.

Russ Walling wrote: 
Oh... and Double Cross is still 5.7 no matter how many times Ondra hung on it

How do you hang on Double Cross?  There's no gear.

Russ Walling wrote: Grade inflation has made me a much better climber than way back when I could actually climb... all those boulder problems and whatnot that were real 10C are now like V6.  Fuck yeah!  In another 10 years I'll be a V9 guy without getting my fat ass off the couch.

Oh... and Double Cross is still 5.7 no matter how many times Ondra hung on it

One can go up 4 grades up in 35 years just by buying a new guide every now and then! And it doesn´t stop, I was elevated to onsighting FA 7b+ this year  

well I'm sure the broader community doesn't seem to be too bothered by this..
but I'm sympathetic to your POV, ska.

as a n00b.  my feeling is that sandbagged routes defeat the whole purpose of even Having a grade in the first place.

suppose I was driving into a new road in SE new york; all the sudden a cop comes striding out.
" whats going on officer, I was going 50 in a 55mph."

"oh, well that was the 50mpH in the 1980's.  Everyone has adjusted their speedometer for the new era.
BUT-unfortunately for you- we live by the OLD rules and you owe a $150 traffic ticket"

it would suck, right?  and worse for a n00b.  being on a route outside of one's ability could cost one his/her life.

I'm a chemist and I standardize ALL my numbers I don't arbitrarily inflate the numbers a few years later because I make more measurements.  why does the climbing community?
----
anyways, if you've climbed the Route- espacially routinely
why not just assign your own estimate of its difficulty-  why do you have to blindly follow the climbing community's assigned rating??

if You've climbed the route, then really the rating isn't such a big deal.

it just seems like a bigger deal for someone like me, a beginner, that Might be able to do a 5.8 But NOt at the Gunks (apparently)- where a 5.8 is not easy at all.

Grades usually aren't as sandbagged as you think, and you end up realizing you're just bad at climbing.

The thing is climbing at its purest is adventure. Yes we live in a world where everyone wants their hand held but there should be some things that are still out there that require some nerve. My hardest onsite ever was because I didn’t have a guidebook with me and felt inspired by the line. Having a grade for every step you take off of concrete is just robbing you of the experience of the unknown. Let’s all be grateful for the work developers and authors put in and not dilute the shit out of the outdoors.
If you need things to be that safe and accurate for you then do the rest of the world a favor and stay in the gym. 

Russ Walling wrote:

Three bolts braj... where you been?

Canada, apparently.

I guess it doesn't kill people any more.

jason oliphant wrote: 
...why not just assign your own estimate of its difficulty-  why do you have to blindly follow the climbing community's assigned rating??

Yup, I assign 'em as "yes, no, or maybe", then just go have my fun.

One of the essential elements of climbing is looking at the rock, figuring out what might be possible for *you*, and figuring out if *you* have enough margin of error to give it a try.  The variability in grades just tells you that capabilities and opinions vary.

We should respect history more, and grade routes based on their original grade, reputation, and community consensus.  About ten years ago, a reeeeeeally bad Gunks guidebook flat-out changed grades of a lot of classics, just to try to deal with sandbagging that everyone already knows about.  I think they wound up giving Modern Times a 5.10a/b or something like that.  It also annoys me that the routes database on here actually averages out "suggested grades" for a route's actual, official grade.

We also need to not be afraid to call out soft grades.  If an FA calls something a "new school" 12a, they usually mean that it's a super soft warmup at Maple Canyon or the RRG, and when called out on the fact that it's soft they'll try to say something about "factoring in endurance."  A few years ago, Proper Soul at the NRG (a route traditionally given 5.14a) got its first female ascent, and the climber herself reported it as 5.13c.  That's pretty cool.

Realistically, this isn't an issue that will be solved in any single place and adopted across the entire climbing community. There will always be places that are soft and places that are sandbagged, and places that are both. An awareness of this has caused me to climb more carefully and place less weight on grades when I'm traveling - probably a good thing.

Personally, I think the most useful way of addressing this is a single sentence in the route description, usually along the lines of "...originally graded 5.6+ by Bachar on his onsight thundersolo, most people agree that it's closer to 5.10b..."