Is The Nose sandbagged?

Andrew Krajnik wrote:

That's really interesting... Have any of these exemplars changed over time? Have critical holds broken, or has the rock become significantly more polished? I'm curious if they've changed, or if they're essentially the same as they were when originally graded.

LOL CRITICAL HOLDS ON A 5.0!!!!!

rgold wrote:   At this point, grade inflation has rendered most of Wilts original grade exemplars sandbagged, as illustrated by the image below from the 1962 Tahquitz guide, annotated with current MP consensus grades.

Out of curiosity, how do you square this phenomenon with your contention that grading got more severe as the YDS moved from area to area? Wouldn't that make Tahquitz graded softly, being the first area to use the system? Under what circumstances does grade inflation happen v. sandbagging? 

I think it's also worth thinking about the ways in which the lower end of the difficulty spectrum has gotten compacted (if that's the right word?) since the original Wilts grading of Tahquitz. As technology and standards have increased, I wonder about the ways in which anything below 5.6 sort of feels equally easy to an experienced climber. MountainProject itself lumps all sub-5.6 climbs into one bar on people's profiles. Gyms oftentimes call anything below 5.6 (or even 5.7) as just "5.easy" or something like that. Some areas certainly have this problem more than others--I imagine the difference between 5.4 and 5.6 is substantial in the Gunks, which is a good thing--but it feels like the finer points of the difference between a 5.1 and a 5.3 seem to have been rendered forgotten or somewhat irrelevant to most climbers in most areas.

Sean Post wrote:

I think it's also worth thinking about the ways in which the lower end of the difficulty spectrum has gotten compacted (if that's the right word?) since the original Wilts grading of Tahquitz. As technology and standards have increased, I wonder about the ways in which anything below 5.6 sort of feels equally easy to an experienced climber.

I dunno. I've been climbing for over 45 years and I still think (and feel) there's a difference between 5.0 - 5.4. Yes, 5.0 - 5.1 is kinda hard to tell the diff, but certainly when you get to 2 grade jumps it's pretty obvious.
 

 MountainProject itself lumps all sub-5.6 climbs into one bar on people's profiles. Gyms oftentimes call anything below 5.6 (or even 5.7) as just "5.easy" or something like that. Some areas certainly have this problem more than others--I imagine the difference between 5.4 and 5.6 is substantial in the Gunks,...

You bet! And there's  a helluva diff between 5.2 and 5.4 in the Gunks. Maybe that's what colors my comment above.

Related question, what's a better first nose experience:  NIAD, french free w/ a high failure potential, or spending a few nights and trying to free as much as possible?

Sean Post wrote:

Out of curiosity, how do you square this phenomenon with your contention that grading got more severe as the YDS moved from area to area? Wouldn't that make Tahquitz graded softly, being the first area to use the system? Under what circumstances does grade inflation happen v. sandbagging? 

Well, that is a conundrum, eh?  I think the tendency to suppress grade levels probably happens primarily at the upper end of the scale.  At the lower end, I agree with some of your observations, which are that people don't have that much experience with easier routes and so really don't have a sense of how to grade them.  There isn't much anyone would want to do in Yosemite Valley below 5.7, for example.

Want to throw my 2 cents in...

Grades and grading systems for climbing routes will never feel totally right on because 1) climbers repeating routes have different strengths, weaknesses and are of different size - good slab climbers may cruise 5.11 slab and suck on a 5.8 OW or vica versa. Some with larger frames may benefit on some climbs but feel too bulky on others (example: cracks of indian creek - those with small fingers/hands may send something graded 5.12 and be destroyed by the typical blue collar 5.10).
2) We have days when we feel stronger and weaker. On some day a climb of a particular grade can feel harder than usual because we are not rested, didn't warm up properly or simply fucked up the beta.
3) It is a big generalization to sum up all Yosemite Valley routes. All of them were put up by different First Ascent parties who are from different eras, have own strengths and weaknesses, good/bad days and ego that leads to calling things easier than they were really. Or insecurity about own abilities too. And at times a few days after climbing something, you don't remember it being as bad as it might of been when you were on it. Most of these people weren't type A, climb the route, make a detailed topo, post a MP page type. Most of them were simply going climbing without much thought of other people repeating those routes. Some did do their best to document. I personally do a good amount of long first ascents and can tell you that it is a whole different ballgame to go up a route with set ratings and a topo vs climb something and produce a topo 4 month later when someone asks for one. If some pitch is a grade or two off, a lot of the times it is memory to blame. Personally, I am totally fine with changing the ratings for individual pitches with feedback from more than one individual. I think MP is a great tool to come up with general consensus for individual pitches.

The Nose grades feel more sandbagged because (some of them probably are) of the amount of extra shit you carry and different fitness required. Doing it in a day or in several requires different fitness and will lead to things feeling sandbagged. Multi day trip = extra shit on your rack, aiders, etc and hauling a pig. It is all tiring. In a day = moving faster than usual, jumaring as quick as possible, if you do not do this on the regular it will lead to you being tired. Hardest climb I sent free in a day was the Moonlight Buttress (I was destroyed after, but did send...but I never even tried to free the whole pancake flake..lol what is it a 10a?? 

Ask Lynn Hill. . . 

rgold wrote: Well, that is a conundrum, eh?  I think the tendency to suppress grade levels probably happens primarily at the upper end of the scale.  At the lower end, I agree with some of your observations, which are that people don't have that much experience with easier routes and so really don't have a sense of how to grade them.  There isn't much anyone would want to do in Yosemite Valley below 5.7, for example.

There’s like 10-20 climbs below 5.7 worth doing in the valley. Most people tend to solo them, but they are fun none the less. Equal to a lot of gunks stuff.  

Hobo Greg wrote:

Wasn't the Yosemite decimal system actually invented in Tahquitz?

This was already discussed in depth earlier in the thread

I have done the nose and a few other routes on the captain in addition to climbing at most of the other areas that the OP mentions.  I personally feel that valley ratings are pretty accurate but there are a few things that can make the valley feel kinda sandbagged.  First of all climbing in the valley is very technique driven so if you aren't used to it it will feel hard.  in addition valley climbing is often very sustained which adds to the difficulty.  The other thing about walls is that you have so much stuff.  My uncle was an old school trad climber (60's-70's) and he was always quick to point out how much harder it is both mentally and physically to climb pitches with a big rack, haul rope etc compared to a light rack at the crag.  As others have mentioned if you're planning to free a fair bit of the nose you should be able to cruise valley 5.10 of a variety of crack sizes in 20 min or less.  Most people who go up on the nose planning on freeing a lot of it end up spending a lot of time in aiders.  There's nothing wrong with that but most climber underestimate the effect that the exposure will have on their mental ability to free pitch after pitch of sustained physical crack climbing.  When we did the nose we spent 2 weeks getting fit on valley cracks before we went up and it made a huge difference.  

Sean Post wrote: I don't mean to be petulant here, but have you considered the absurdity of asking whether the grading of Yosemite is or isn't an accurate representation of the Yosemite Decimal System?

In Russian math society there is a common joke. We name it Arnold's theorem - any theorem named after a person does not belong to them. An obvious conclusion is that the Arnold's theorem does not belong to Arnold.

Hmmm… what am I talking about? Obviously, Yosemite Decimal System is not Yosemite.

rgold wrote:

The first 5.9 we know about seems to be Oliver Perry Smith's ascent of the Teufelsturm in 1906.  Routes at 5.10a appeared in 1910 in Germany and in 1914 and 1938 in the UK.  In the US, Fritz Weissner climbed 5.9 at Ragged Mountain in 1935 (well, Vector is graded 5.8+ at Ragged, but it is harder than the Open Book so I'm counting it as 5.9).  Herb Conn and Harold Goodro led 5.10b-c in 1945 and 1949, so even if we stuck with the US, which had a lot of catching up to do internationally, the Open Book was bursting through doors already long open. 

 Meanwhile, the Dolomites had a 5.11c in 1934.

Do you happen to know of any good writing about any of these climbs? I'd love to learn more about them.