PSA: MP safety grades are pointless--evaluate danger for yourself

MP safety grades (and indeed, safety grades in a lot of guidebooks) are pointless.

I've come to peace with this--I'm not trying to change it. I'm just saying it clearly because beginners need to understand it, so they don't get on some G climb thinking that it will be safe. Inversely, if you see an R rating on a climb, make that evaluation for yourself before you decide to write it off as too risky.

I came to this realization after looking at how MP and every guidebook seems to treat MF in the Gunks. This is a 5.9/5.9+G climb with a 5.10aR direct variation, supposedly. The 5.10aR variation goes up and left through a thin bulge with a long runout, while the original 5.9/5.9+G variation traverses right (crux), up onto a small ledge, and then diagonals left through some fingery cracks and up a slab with thin gear. The thin slab isn't as hard as the crux, but it's not A LOT easier.

Early summer last year, I was climbing a nearby climb, and after pulling the crux on the original 5.9/5.9+G variation, an exhausted climber was unable to pull the final moves on the final slab and fell, bounced down the slab, stopping just above the small ledge and injuring her ankle (unclear at the scene whether it was sprained or broken). Year before that, similar situation: a guy slipped on the top slab and gashed his knee on the small ledge (luckily only a flesh wound).

This past weekend, an out of town climber gets on the direct 5.10aR variation and whips in the crux, repeatedly (I think 4 times) before he got it. The falls were huge, because there was no gear in that section, but they were into air. There was literally no chance of him hitting anything on his way down. He was falling on a bomber piton backed up by a bomber big cam in a horizontal.

If the original variation is G and the direct variation is R, why are people getting hurt falling on the original G variation and not on the direct R variation?

And it's not just MF. Runouts with clean falls are consistently rated PG13 or R, while routes with terrible falls are rated G. It's also not just the Gunks--I've seen this at Red Rocks, T-wall, Rumney... I can only speculate that people simply don't know how to evaluate a fall.

It's even worse for easy climbs. Beginner's Delight (5.4) is easily far more dangerous to the 5.4 climber than either variation of MF--if you fall at the crux, you're pendulum-ing far right into a blocky dihedral--there's a very good chance you die. MP calls this G. If you see a PG13 on a climb 5.7 or below, you know it's basically a solo. I can't imagine what it would take for a 5.6 to be called R if Solar Slab is G. I can only speculate that this is because nobody can empathize with new leaders enough to admit that a beginner climb can be dangerous (to beginners). After all, their shirtless abs won't be able to prop up their fragile ego if people think they got scared on an easy climb!

I've literally seen posts on MP where people say, "It's possible to have a G climb where falling at the crux would be a bad idea." To me, that's basically an admission that your safety grading system doesn't mean anything, but hey, if you want to assign random letters to climbs, that's your prerogative.

And before you say "it's subjective", it's not. An injured ankle is an objective fact. A gentle catch in the air is an objective fact. This isn't, like, just your opinion, bruh. There are some cases where it can be hard to evaluate safety, but most of the time it's just not.

And like I said, I'm not trying to change the way people grade danger. The number of misconceptions I've seen about this lead me to believe that people simply aren't capable of doing that, and I can't ask people to do what they aren't capable of doing. Go on, disagree--you're probably one of those people. ;)

Evaluate danger for yourself and stay safe out there.

EDIT: One exception to the easy climbs being G even if they're super dangerous: offwidths! Apparently all easy squeeze chimneys in the east are R, because if you can't be arsed to find a #6 cam to borrow, you can just pretend those don't exist and call everything they would protect R.

It's my understanding that the danger grade comes from availability of gear and doesn't evaluate terrain, hence dangerous beginner routes because you're hopping from ledge to ledge.  I could be wrong though.

Seriously Moderate Climberwrote:

It's my understanding that the danger grade comes from availability of gear and doesn't evaluate terrain, hence dangerous beginner routes because you're hopping from ledge to ledge.  I could be wrong though.

I'll point you to the Beginner's Delight or Solar Slab examples: there are much longer runouts on both those climbs than any R rated 5.10 I've seen. It's not availability of gear, it's egos and lack of empathy for beginners.

And even if it was availability of gear, why would anyone care? I don't care if there's no gear available if the fall would be caught by the rope on bomber gear through the whole runout. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the danger grade is pointless: this "danger grade" isn't actually grading danger if all it grades is availability of gear.

David Kwrote:

I'll point you to the Beginner's Delight or Solar Slab examples: there are much longer runouts on both those climbs than any R rated 5.10 I've seen. It's not availability of gear, it's egos and lack of empathy for beginners.

And even if it was availability of gear, why would anyone care? I don't care if there's no gear available if the fall would be caught by the rope on bomber gear through the whole runout. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the danger grade is pointless: this "danger grade" isn't actually grading danger if all it grades is availability of gear.

I think a factor as well for evaluating this is the difficulty of runout sections in comparison to the grade of the overall climb.  There are a number of 5.7-5.8 climbs in Red Rock that have sections of 5.4 runout slab on them, but that level of climbing is easy enough compared to the crux difficulty that it's not much of a big deal if you have a decent lead head.  However it is weird that a climb like Cat in the Hat doesn't get put as pg-13 or R when it has a "serious run-out" of 5.5 slab on the last pitch when the climb is only 5.6

Thoughtful post. The unspoken truth is that most routes 5-6 and under will have certain sections where a fall won't be clean. So sure, there's no reason to trust the safety rating of "G" on MP for an easy route. We've all been on "easy" climbs where there simply is no available gear to avoid a ground or ledge fall. Usually that's fine, as we are climbing way below our limit during those moments, and feel OK downclimbing/backing off if we get spooked. A lot of those routes are stone cold classics with hundred of ticks/opinions and not one comment will mention that, say, there is no gear from the 20-40 foot part of the climb and so there's decking potential while getting to the 40 foot mark. I don't know that MP can or should fix that issue. It truly should fall on climbers to recognize these risks while on the route. Bottom line: you shouldn't lead an easy route with the expectation and acceptance of a fall, any more than you would solo a route expecting and accepting that you might fall. It's not sexy to slowly progress through the grades, but it is safer and can be rewarding. Bottom line: you can't outsource your critical thinking to MP and its safety ratings, and this isn't MP's problem or fault. 

Bryan Kwrote:

I think a factor as well for evaluating this is the difficulty of runout sections in comparison to the grade of the overall climb.  There are a number of 5.7-5.8 climbs in Red Rock that have sections of 5.4 runout slab on them, but that level of climbing is easy enough compared to the crux difficulty that it's not much of a big deal if you have a decent lead head.  However it is weird that a climb like Cat in the Hat doesn't get put as pg-13 or R when it has a "serious run-out" of 5.5 slab on the last pitch when the climb is only 5.6

TBH I think the Cat in the Hat crux is not that bad, probably warrants a PG, but it's nowhere near as bad as the near-grade runouts on Solar Slab. There are 5.6 moves on Solar Slab where you'd be taking a 50ft+ factor >1 fall.

There's also something to be said for security versus difficulty--the run out moves on Solar Slab aren't hard, but they're insecure in places. In a no fall zone, I'd much rather pull a long strenuous 5.8 move from one solid jug to another than a 5.4 delicate slab smear step with no hands--the effort is certainly greater for the jug move but if I fail I can fall back to the jug--the same is not true for a slab smear step--if I lose balance there, it's anyones guess whether I can recover.

bryans wrote:

Thoughtful post. The unspoken truth is that most routes 5-6 and under will have certain sections where a fall won't be clean. So sure, there's no reason to trust the safety rating of "G" on MP for an easy route.

It's a shame because there are stellar easy climbs which DO protect well. In the Gunks, part of what makes High E, Shockley's Ceiling, or Madame G so exceptional is that all the near-grade moves on the crux pitches are very well protected.

Bottom line: you can't outsource your critical thinking to MP and its safety ratings, and this isn't MP's problem or fault.

I don't think I'd be so quick to forgive MP (as in, MP's users) for this. Ego-driven, willful commitment to a misleading system isn't a good look. It is every climber's problem because we end up having to rescue climbers who got a false sense of security from a safety rating. It is your fault if you give safety grades based on ego, ignorance, or carelessness.

It's just I don't feel like it's realistic to change that. The best we can do is encourage beginners to take responsibility for their own safety.

You’re too much in your head and don’t understand grading.

I appreciate that in many guides (though rarely on MP) the R section is graded.  I think about how many 5.10 and 5.11 routes in the gunks have proper no-fall zones throughout but it's on easy enough terrain that I've never felt in danger, but would be scared off if it said 5.10aR.  Glad to see those 5.10 (5.4R) in some notes 

Rob Dwrote:

I appreciate that in many guides (though rarely on MP) the R section is graded.  I think about how many 5.10 and 5.11 routes in the gunks have proper no-fall zones throughout but it's on easy enough terrain that I've never felt in danger, but would be scared off if it said 5.10aR.  Glad to see those 5.10 (5.4R) in some notes 

That's a good idea. It seems like there is an attitude that if a runout section is two number grades easier than the crux it is not worth mentioning, but inquiring minds want to know!

I did the regular direct route on the Third Flatiron recently for the first time in a long time and was surprised at how runout many sections are, this should definitely get an r rating as a heads up to the many out-of-town climbers who jump on this. We have the opportunity to adjust this as users by adding this info to our ratings of the climb and eventually it will show up on the page. My favorite change to MP is that the consensus grade is now shown on the page instead of the originally posted grade. Now we can finally level out those grades between the Gunks and Boulder Canyon and trad and sport routes ;-)

Kudos to you David K for bringing this up!

I might be wrong, but isn't a route essentially G by default unless enough climbers affirmatively click "safety rating" and change the rating from G to something else? If you're looking for a mechanical change within MP, maybe "safety" could/should be a mandatory field where you can't tick the route until you fill out that field? Of course, that would become garbage in/garbage out if people don't accurately/honestly rate safety, especially if they don't want to fill out the field in the first place (or they only followed, and didn't even think about the safety). Once again, bottom line: you can't outsource your own research to MP, nor can you blame MP if you find a route dangerous that MP didn't flag as dangerous. I don't think there's a solution here within MP. People who aren't phased by a 5-6 runout aren't going to label it "R" even if the OP might wish they would. And calling that decision not to affirmatively change the safety rating a decision of "ego" or "selfishness' overlooks that many people just don't fill out the safety rating field. As always, word of mouth from climbers you know is always the best way to ruin your onsight if you want to be sure a route is "safe" before you lead it. ;)

I would argue that  difficulty ratings are pointless and the only rating that really matters is is the protection rating. 

 Larry, precisely my point.  regardless of the grade if it's G rated i can plug in gear and bail if it ends up being too hard for me.  R rated or x  I might get into trouble before I realize it and have  no options to bail.  Sandbagging the difficulty rating is a dick move but whatever. Deliberately sandbagging the protection rating is essentially intentionally trying to hurt someone. 

As there are probably very few route developers projecting 5.6’s, I’d expect what you’re perceiving to be a problem is true. 

I tend to look at the protection rating as the frequency of good solid gear on the route.  Its up to me to make decisions about the terrain and deal with the consequences of a fall.

With a G rating, I expect to be able to get good gear frequently, so I dont have to commit as much to unknown terrain where there may be higher consequences... i can see and read the terrain and the consequences easily, and am usually committing to 10 feet or so of movement.  If it gets too spicy, the gear is close by or available to back off.  On a G route, you get to bite off smaller chunks at a time, with more obvious closeby consequences.

If its pg13 or R, you have to commit to longer periods between gear and have to be a better judge at assessing the risks associated with that distance... to being far above the gear and potentially in more hazardous terrain, without the ability to back off easily or place pro when you want.

Al Pinewrote:

You’re too much in your head and don’t understand grading.

You may or may not be making a good point, but no one can tell from the utter absence of context or explanation.

I can't stand seeing "5.12 R" and the "R" climbing is on 5.10 terrain or 5.10 "R" and the R climbing is on 5.8 or whatever. Would really like to see the guides and MP have a feature to "rate" the unprotected part of a route. If you grade something "pg 13" or "R" or heven forbid "X".... Then a drop down menu comes that makes you grade that portion of the climb. I am no computer whiz but that doesn't seem so hard to add....

I recall a few years back, someone was made fun of, pretty brutally, for assigning a bunch of routes PG13 ratings. I don’t remember who it was, or who made fun of them, other than it was quite a crowd... Some of the ridicule may even have been even justified...

But I definitely got the point of the conversation, which was NEVER to give anything a pg13, R, or X rating, unless you died on it. Then — maybe ok. And only maybe, at that. And never ever, under any circumstances, give anything other than G to a sport climb. Even if the bolter did a terrible job... nope, it has bolts, so G it is.

There is a lot of ego in climbing. 

Gumby boy kingwrote:

I can't stand seeing "5.12 R" and the "R" climbing is on 5.10 terrain or 5.10 "R" and the R climbing is on 5.8 or whatever. Would really like to see the guides and MP have a feature to "rate" the unprotected part of a route. If you grade something "pg 13" or "R" or heven forbid "X".... Then a drop down menu comes that makes you grade that portion of the climb. I am no computer whiz but that doesn't seem so hard to add....

Or maybe add an option for "a little spooky but not bad by any means" and "wierd (sic) clip, wouldn't want to fall."

You have an interesting reflection there, but seems to me you are wayyyyyyyyy over extending your conclusions from a rather specific area/climbs and somewhat anecdotale dataset.

I'm not sure I'd agree that safety ratings are objective. Yes, a broken leg is a broken. However is a broken leg on a specific climb indicative of anything? Maybe someone climbed/protected badly a relatively safe climb. Maybe just got unlucky. If the gear is there, just tricky to place/find, should it be considered R/X? There's not real way to systematically assess how safe falls on a climb. We can estimate - and estimations are somewhat subjectives.

If people are taking big falls when there is plenty of gear available, then either their belayer sucks or they're not placing the gear correctly. Or am I missing something?  

David Kwrote:

It's a shame because there are stellar easy climbs which DO protect well. In the Gunks, part of what makes High E, Shockley's Ceiling, or Madame G so exceptional is that all the near-grade moves on the crux pitches are very well protected.

That's a bit of an illusion; there was ledge fall on "The Ceiling" a few years ago: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/112008282/accident-on-shockleys-sunday-july-17th

Rope stretch, belayer movement, slack, etc are all very real factors that can turn "very well protected" into "back-breaker".

I imagine this sort of thing will happen more and more with the trend towards thinner single ropes and also more belayers coming from sport/gym experience (which favor soft catches and more slack).

I do not believe I have ever seen a route labeled "G".  Routes are often unlabeled which is not the same a "G".  There are few if any "G" routes if you mean a route is safe to fall on anywhere, an injury can be cause by the smallest of features.  

Unlabeled routes are of similar risk, R and X have much higher risk.  All have some risk.  Climbing, especially trad climbing is not safe.