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

Pnelson wrote: It also annoys me that the routes database on here actually averages out "suggested grades" for a route's actual, official grade.

MP doesn't actually average.

I don't see anything labeled "official grade" anywhere - even in a guidebook, you are getting someone's "suggested" grade. What MP gives you access to is a variety of opinions (for many - not all - routes), something a guidebook can't do.

For example, look at "Commitment" in Yosemite. Lots of people weighing in - it's popular. Most say "5.9", as in the vast majority. A few claim it is easier; no one claims it is harder. So if I'm researching this, I think: it's burly and has an intimidating crux, but once you pull into it you'll find it is what you expect. If you've done it repeatedly or it suits your climbing style, you might even find it a little simple.

Grades don’t matter as much as we tend to think they do, but at a certain point they have an impact. They are useful as measuring sticks that help us select which climbs to get on or let us gauge how well we’re climbing. And when they’re consistent within a given area and even—ideally—across different cliffs, they serve as a lingua franca: “If I can climb 5.10a at my home crag, then I should reasonably be able to try 5.10a’s at other cliffs.” Which is why shitty, lousy, ego-driven downrating does a disservice to the entire community. It’s one hell of an unpleasant surprise to visit a new crag and jump on a 5.10a hoping to experience a fun climb, only to find yourself fighting for survival on some 5.11 R/X the asshole locals have wired into submission and knowingly down- or underrated because Ha-ha, snicker-snicker, why not? There’s no way this thing is 5.11, right, Joey? 

​Why Downrating Sucks​​​

It used to be a point of excitement and pride to lead old sandbagged 5.9+ replete with casting off into the unknown in terms of difficulty. Having an adventure was part of the appeal.

Now getting sandbagged is such a bruise to fragile ego's that people want to bring ratings down to their personal pathetic standards.

mountainhick wrote: Now getting sandbagged is such a bruise to fragile ego's that people want to bring ratings down to their personal pathetic standards.

You old crusties used to be tough - I would shudder to think about climbing some trad route a few grades above my redpoint grade. Never mind the ego, but those broken ankles and cracked heads hurt way more.

amarius wrote:

You old crusties used to be tough - I would shudder to think about climbing some trad route a few grades above my redpoint grade. Never mind the ego, but those broken ankles and cracked heads hurt way more.

a grade isn't going to prevent you from getting injured. honest assessment and knowing when to back down will. if a fall isn't safe and the moves are hard for you... maybe stop climbing it if you don't want to risk injury?

unless all of you here are regularly seeking out R/X routes near your limit?

edit: I think sandbags keep you safer. It expands your idea of what you might encounter on a 5.9 so that next time your ego is checked before you even get on a route thinking it will be easy. More often than not "sandbags" (of the old-school "+" variety) involve awkward or particularly technique-intensive moves and don't feel too out of whack IF you have the experience, technique, and are used to the style of the local area.

The original grades of the old school climbs shouldn't be upgraded to match the soft ego driven grades of today.  The modern climbs should be downgraded to match the grades of the old climbs. (Yeah, good luck with that.)

Brian wrote: The modern climbs should be downgraded to match the grades of the old climbs. (Yeah, good luck with that.)

Then we are all only climbing 5.9.

amarius wrote:

You old crusties used to be tough - I would shudder to think about climbing some trad route a few grades above my redpoint grade. Never mind the ego, but those broken ankles and cracked heads hurt way more.

If you are letting a published grade supplant your own judgement (or are unable to make a good judgement) then you've got no business being on the climb and probably deserve what you get. Spoken by soneone who has more than once backed off a climb that was graded well below what you I should have been able to onsight. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I got over it. The climb is what it is.

I think you have to really watch grade inflation, which implies that you leave original ratings.  I think the point of a grade is to help people intelligently select a climb.  Hard to place or limited gear? Maybe back down a bit from red point difficulty.  Rain clouds threatening?  I'd like to know if I will be moving fast on struggling on cruxes.  Bolts?  I want to push my limits but not spend months projecting something that I was never going to get anyway.  If we keep inflating grades, which I don't think there is much argument that we haven't, then this issue only gets worse.

I agree with the comment someone else made that before you start making all these claims that a route is sandbagged, you ought to have climbed some of the classics at areas like Yosemite, Gunks, Eldo, J-tree, Vedauwoo, etc.  Without that I struggle a bit to see how you can distinguish between a route being sand bagged and the routes you are comparing it to being soft.

I like leaving the "old school" grades because they act as a reminder of what the grade should be.  They act as measuring stick to be able to judge other climbs on.  

I agree, in certain cases a climb truly is sand bagged.  However, with all our modern access to training knowledge, climbing gyms, and better nutrition shouldn't an old route feel much easier than a newer route?  No its the opposite which I think implies rampant grade inflation.  

Mike Slavens wrote: I think you have to really watch grade inflation, which implies that you leave original ratings.  I think the point of a grade is to help people intelligently select a climb.  Hard to place or limited gear? Maybe back down a bit from red point difficulty.  Rain clouds threatening?  I'd like to know if I will be moving fast on struggling on cruxes.  Bolts?  I want to push my limits but not spend months projecting something that I was never going to get anyway.  If we keep inflating grades, which I don't think there is much argument that we haven't, then this issue only gets worse.

I agree with the comment someone else made that before you start making all these claims that a route is sandbagged, you ought to have climbed some of the classics at areas like Yosemite, Gunks, Eldo, J-tree, Vedauwoo, etc.  Without that I struggle a bit to see how you can distinguish between a route being sand bagged and the routes you are comparing it to being soft.

I like leaving the "old school" grades because they act as a reminder of what the grade should be.  They act as measuring stick to be able to judge other climbs on.  

I agree, in certain cases a climb truly is sand bagged.  However, with all our modern access to training knowledge, climbing gyms, and better nutrition shouldn't an old route feel much easier than a newer route?  No its the opposite which I think implies rampant grade inflation.  

What you are neglecting is the fact that many of the older routes were graded the way they were because there was an end to the grading scale at the time.  You had routes that were graded from 5.1 to 5.9 with the origin of the YDS, but since 5.9 was the top of the scale, as time went on you ended up getting harder and harder routes being graded 5.9.  That actually led to rampant grade deflation (i.e. well this route is 5.9 because it is as hard as I can climb, so this easier route is 5.8 and this even easier route is 5.7 even though all three were harder than the original 5.9s).  This is actually what led to the sandbagged areas.  I've climbed some of the original 5.9 routes at taquitz where the YDS was actually invented, and guess what, they aren't actually very sandbagged and are pretty close to what I would expect 5.9 to feel like even after the rampant grade inflation that you claim to have happened.

My personal opinion is that we should go back and grade the sandbagged routes according to modern interpretation of the grading scale.  Why does it matter if grades have inflated or not, the purpose of a grade is to give you an idea on if you can climb the route or not, and if we leave the original grades in place, this purpose is negated.  I also think that the history is pretty cool, so the history should be preserved, but that can be done in a route description by simply stating "this route was originally graded 5.8 when it was put up back in 1973".  As climbing has become a much more mainstream and global sport it becomes much easier to standardize grading throughout the world, and personally, I think that is a good thing.  

Ken Noyce wrote:

a bunch of words

You can easily do that in the comments on here or suggest the page improvement. If you are looking for a national movement to alter climbing book author's minds, MP might not be the medium for such an feat. 

Ken Noyce pretty much hit the nail on the head. BUT, first you have to distinguish between an "old" climb's rating and a "sandbagged" rating.  At least I do. To me "sandbagged" is a (relatively modern) route that is intentionally graded lower,  whereas the ratings of many "old school" climbs are due to the historic fact that the rating system was closed end...(and, also suffered from lack of area-to-area interaction; thus much "regionilization"  Few who used the YDS had ever climbed in CA ).  

Having climbed through the late 1960's and early 1970's when the "closed system" was still in place, I saw many climbs downrated simply because harder climbs had been done and therefor, to maintain 5.9 ( or even 5.10) as the "max grade", climbs "below" were "pushed down".  In the East, the classic guidebook to see that is/was Dick William's 1972 "blue cover" Gunks guide. Later editions "corrected" many of these, although some still persisted into the 1980 (Maroon) edition. When the mid-1970's development of Acadia took hold, my understanding is that the developers wanted their climbs to be "harder" (grade for grade) than the Gunks; using the 1972 Gunks guide exacerbated the "problem".

One other thing:
Doug Hemken said "MP doesn't actually average".  That WAS true, but recent changes/upgrades to the software have incorporated more averaging of the "your grade" grades into the "headline" grade for the climb; which used to be pretty "unchangable".

Floyd Eggers wrote:

You can easily do that in the comments on here or suggest the page improvement. If you are looking for a national movement to alter climbing book author's minds, MP might not be the medium for such an feat. 

I'm not suggesting that we alter climbing book author's minds, I'm suggesting that we put accurate ratings on climbs here on MP.  That is exactly what the concensus rating feature of MP is for.

Robert Hall wrote: 
One other thing:
Doug Hemken said "MP doesn't actually average".  That WAS true, but recent changes/upgrades to the software have incorporated more averaging of the "your grade" grades into the "headline" grade for the climb; which used to be pretty "unchangable".

Yes, this was what I was referencing.  MP now factors the median (not the average, mean, or whatever) into a climb's headline grade.  So, I guess that this means MP is already updating routes from their original ratings into consensus anyway.  End of thread!

The solace in all of this is it really doesn't matter what you call it. While the whims and whines of people change, unless you change the rock itself, the climb remains the same.

When I started I firmly believed in the whole sandbagging idea. I get that it does happen from time to time. But after a while noticed that every climb I thought was sandbagged turned out to be a completely different animal than what I usually climbed. Every 5.9 at Shelf Road(soft?) shares the same traits: at vertical or maybe kicked back a bit for a few feet and plenty of big holds, usually huge pocket clusters or fat edges. Every 5.9 in Eldo(sandbagged?) is completely different. I've been on 5.8 fist cracks slanted just right for 100ft that offer no rests, or a single 5.9 move protected by a bomber #2 20ft below my feet, or half my body working a finger crack while the other half works the face and arete of a dihedral. Compared to the rest of the climbing there, the grades do seem on point.

Now I think its more about climb style and knowledge. Every rock type "reads" differently, even the same rock type 10 miles away. You have to climb enough of the area to know what to expect, for example in Boulder Canyon I know the top of every ledge is going to have a flat topped 6" sloper/mantle, probably with a flared horizontal crack in the back. As for style, if you spend all your time on thuggy overhanging 12s and only spend 3-4 days a year in Eldo, you're damn right Eldo is going to feet sandbagged. Crack and face/friction climbing are the exact opposite style. This was supposed to be an allegory for different areas, but I think it turned into a mild rant.

All that said, I haven't been been to Yoesmite or the Gunks yet. But, I have been truly humbled by more 5.9s than I have 5.12s.

I'm part of the newcomers to the climbing world, and I say leave the historical ratings ("sandbags") alone.  

I even take issue with using the term "sandbag" in this context as it implies the soft new sport grades are correct.  By definition,  it is the historical benchmarks themselves that are correct.

If climbing is about adventure, climb a historical 5.9+ on-sight and you might make a memory that lasts for years or decades.  On the contrary, hang-dogging a 5.12a into red point submission probably won't leave much of a mark, at least not with the test of time.

Happy travels.

bridge wrote: I'm part of the newcomers to the climbing world, and I say leave the historical ratings ("sandbags") alone.  

I even take issue with using the term "sandbag" in this context as it implies the soft new sport grades are correct.  By definition,  it is the historical benchmarks themselves that are correct.

If climbing is about adventure, climb a historical 5.9+ on-sight and you might make a memory that lasts for years or decades.  On the contrary, hang-dogging a 5.12a into red point submission probably won't leave much of a mark, at least not with the test of time.

Happy travels.

Yee ha! A new climber who "get's it"!

I never understood why people want to change "old school" ratings.  It's not like it's a big secret that certain areas are harder than others.  If you show up to Vedauwoo, the Gunks, J-Tree, Yosemite, Eldo, etc, get on a 5.9 that was put up in 1964, and think "holy shit this is super hard, and so far above my ability that I'm now in danger!!!", then you're kind of a dip-shit.  Chances are you knew the area was "old school", "classic", or "sandbagged", long before you even got out of the car.  So people pushing for "modernizing" grades are really just looking to massage their egos.

Instead of changing the grades on the routes, why not have a little more personal accountability to know where you are climbing, and what to expect.  If you're traveling through, or new to, an area, start well below your ability level and slowly work your way up.  If you're a local to a Classic area, then just know you'll probably fare better while traveling, and be thankful that you likely have really good climbing close to home.

I think a lot of people get too wrapped up in themselves when climbing, and attache too much of their self worth to success on a route, or to climbing a certain grade.  There's no shame in backing off a route, or having to aid through a crux.  At the end of the day, if no one got hurt, and you got all your gear back, it was a good day.

bridge wrote: I'm part of the newcomers to the climbing world, and I say leave the historical ratings ("sandbags") alone.  

I even take issue with using the term "sandbag" in this context as it implies the soft new sport grades are correct.  By definition,  it is the historical benchmarks themselves that are correct.

The 'historical ratings' are often the original suggestion for the rating of the climb, and they are often a suggestion made with no real basis of comparison.  Many of the old guys were just like people today, and lacked the time and resources to run out and compare/contrast a new line with a buch of established and concensus graded climbs.  As a result these people often chose a lower grade over a harder grade, and through community non-sequiter reasoning these suggestions have transmogrified into 'benchmarks'.  I think it is unwise to take these 'historical ratings' as anything other than poorly informed suggestions, even in the context of their paticular time in the world.  This is true especially in light of the fact that sticky rubber showed up sometime while all this was happening, as did cams, narrow-toed shoes, hightops which still have a sporty toe for edging/narrow cracks, myraid tiny nuts to protect any tiny seam, a greater proliferation of bolts, etc, and these things effect both the actual as well as the percieved difficutly of climbs.

Another contributing factor is that the philosophy of grading has changed over the years.  Until fairly recently people generally thought there was a unique grade which could be assigned to each and every climb, and the experienced climbers (the 'old guard') of any given time thought/think they knew/know that if there was not a large enough jump between grades the idea of a unique grade for every climb just does not work out.  At the same time, people who are actually going out and climbing regularly, and actively trying to improve, notice that these grades the 'old guard' has left them are still inaccurate in that one grade still bleeds into another (so there is no clear distinction between grades), and people still interpret the relative difficulty of climbs differently, leading to annoying grade debates and even more annoying (to the point of being socially punishable IMO) accusations of 'look at me' attitudes.  

Now, since the 'old guard' presumably designed their grading system specifically to avoid these things, the people who were going out and climbing regularly threw most of what these people said out the door and started out with a philosophically new grading system in which the jumps between grades were discernible for any individual as opposed to every individual.  i.e. any one person can tell the difference between 10a and 10b, but any given communtiy of climbers may be unable to reach a wide concensus about which particular climbs are 10a and which are 10b, and this is due to physical differences between people.  I argue this is what the a,b,c,d subdivisions within the YDS were for and why the French scale is the way it is, with +'s, -'s, and a,b,c subdivisions, even if the climbers who made these choices were not specifically thinking in terms of morphological differences between climbers.  

Fast forward to today and the debate has evolved to the point that many people now think the right way to approach grading is to assign some kind of finely gradiated individual grade which then gets averaged into something with far fewer nodes of distinction for the community grade. i.e. five people grade a climbing challenge as follows: 5.1, 4.5, 4.3, 5.2, 4.9, which averages to 4.8, which is then just graded as 4 in the community system.  In the case of a climb with recorded grades as follows: 5.1, 4.9, 5.5, and 4.1, 3.9, 4.5 would get 4/5 with a brief description of the physical situation which brings that about (i.e a long crux move or a tiny finger slot for the crux, or whatever else).