Grading Routes Pre-Ascent=NO!

soft cruxwrote:

You're talking in circles trying to rationalize this. 

Anyone can have their opinion but some opinions are worth more than others (i.e. mine, of course) ... others can just do the work of filtering out misinformed ratings ... it doesn't change things anyway .. the burden of proof is on everyone else to show that my low quality contributions are really a problem... I never enter something different from the consensus anyway ...

The bottom line is that the opinion of a person that sent has value to the community, the opinion of someone that did not send is useless or worse. Why bother doing data entry work when the data is garbage? Everybody is better off when we show a little humility and accept that we aren't qualified to rate something we haven't experienced in the proper style.

No, I’m not. 

The initial post was, “if you didn’t send it, you don’t know how hard it is”. My response to that is, plenty of people who didn’t send the route still have the ability to accurately judge the route grade, if they have enough experience on this particular rock type/style/grade. By “accurately” I mean, with the same accuracy as people who DID send the route, because the ratings are intrinsically not very precise.

My second point was that it doesn’t matter if everyone, experienced/inexperienced, sending/not sending would enter their opinion, because the final result is a median. I’m confident that if you were to do an analysis of the MP database, and separate the grade ratings of people who have sent the route from people who have not sent the route, the grades would be very close. And that’s all that matters for the route grades on MP.

But yes, obviously, to me personally some people’s opinions matter more than others. I’ll take an opinion of a long-time climbing partner whose climbing style I know over the opinion of a stranger. I’ll take an opinion of someone who’s been climbing for 30 years over the opinion of someone who’s been outside 3 times. Experience/skills being equal, I might take an opinion of a shorter girl over an opinion of a taller guy.  None of that matters for the route consensus grading, because it is a consensus grade.  

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Thats literally exactly what I said.

Perhaps it was what you meant to convey, but it's not what you said. Either way, it doesn't matter, at all. You have a bone to pick for some reason. A little elitism going on? 

Yea Lena, would also be incredible if we could adjust the data sets retroactively so that height and ape index were accounted for. Maybe even sex as well, although maybe not.

Of course we all have pluses and minuses we bring to the table, strength to weight, reach, etc etc but to your point, if you are discussing tactics with someone, and comparing difficulties of one climb to another, someone with your reach and heights opinion would be more helpful. 

Frank Steinwrote:

 A 6a will be harder than a 7a, but nobody really gives a shit. 

If nobody "gave a shit", there would be no grades, right?

Cole Darbywrote:

Yea Lena, would also be incredible if we could adjust the data sets retroactively so that height and ape index were accounted for. Maybe even sex as well, although maybe not.

Of course we all have pluses and minuses we bring to the table, strength to weight, reach, etc etc but to your point, if you are discussing tactics with someone, and comparing difficulties of one climb to another, someone with your reach and heights opinion would be more helpful. 

I don’t think you would get much out of adjusting MP grades for height/ape index. Sure, it matters on some routes. But I think people who are outliers in some way or another, whether it’s someone super short, or someone heavier-than-average, have learned to adjust the grading for these things, and don’t necessarily enter the “true-feel” of the route.

It’s not just a number. As these threads show, there are a lot of strong emotions and ego attached. If your friend bolted a route, and you know he would see your star ratings, you might be more generous with the stars. If you think you’ll be called out for grade inflation, or called scaredy-cat for calling some sport route PF13, you might not do it.

Ideally, the route grades and stars should be anonymous by default. I think you would get more “true” grade that way.  But…

I like the bar graphs of the route grades on Redriverclimbing.com much better than the MP’s consensus grading with individual calls visible. And while the end result might be the same consensus grade, the bar graphs on redriverclimbing invariably show a much wider range of opinions than the route grading on MP. The difference is, in part, due to anonymous calls vs not. 

I haven't read every response yet, but there's no way this thread could be 5.10c. More like 5.9+

But seriously, I support OP Jagger and his quest to stem the contagion of o'erweening pansy-tude belched by gymbies from every orifice.

Lena chitawrote:

The initial post was, “if you didn’t send it, you don’t know how hard it is”. My response to that is, plenty of people who didn’t send the route still have the ability to accurately judge the route grade, if they have enough experience on this particular rock type/style/grade. By “accurately” I mean, with the same accuracy as people who DID send the route, because the ratings are intrinsically not very precise.

This is well reasoned and I agree.  

Much of this thread is based around this weird strawman argument that we either need a firm rule that you must send to rate a climb, or we have to accept all grade suggestions no matter how unqualified. This is silly, and a false dichotomy. In reality there are numerous elements that impact your ability to give an informed rating suggestion for a route. These include how much time you've spent on a route, depth of experience on that style and at that crag, how well calibrated you are to that grade, etc. Whether you've sent yet is just one of these elements, but it is not the only one.

Lets look at an example. You have a new 12+ ish enduro sport climb, and are trying to decide whether to rate it 12c or 12d. On a given day at the crag three people try it:

A. Visiting comp kid crusher onsights the route as a warmup.

B. Longtime local climber who has redpointed many of the other local routes in this grade range gives this route 4 attempts to work it out and last go of the day gets a 1-hang, but hasn't sent yet.

C. Gym bro flails on it, hanging on every bolt. Later is heard saying it can't be that hard since he did most of the moves.

Many people in the thread have been essentially arguing that Person C isn't qualified to rate the route. And I agree with this. But comparing Person A to Person B - who is more qualified? I'd argue that Person B probably is better informed to suggest a rating, despite not having actually sent yet. It is hard to accurately suggest a rating for a route far below your level (Person A) or far above your level (Person C). But someone who climbs right around that level, and is well calibrated to the local area, will be pretty clued in to the nuances of 12c vs 12d in this style and area. This depth of relevant experience is a lot more important than whether you've actually sent yet.

All this said, having sent the route is important additional information. Person B may revise his opinion based on how much longer it takes to send. Sometimes I'll try a route and initially think it isn't too hard, but then realize that last section is way harder on redpoint than I anticipated. Or the opposite will happen - a route will seen impossible at first, but then it clicks and you do it next go. So the send definitely informs the grade. But it is silly to say you are totally unqualified to suggest a grade before sending. Just be reasonable about whether you are sufficiently informed to grade a given route.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

@David Deville - There's always been a perfectly rational way to grade routes... it's whatever you think the route is after you've completed the climb successfully. That was established at the very beginning of climbing, and it has only been recently people seem to have forgotten that not everyone needs their voice to be heard after they try something and fail. I think too many climbers have been through too many equality meetings at the office. If you haven't sent, youre not equal, so keep your uninformed opinion to yourself.

You are free to hold this opinion, but if you feel this strongly about route grades, then you should probably just get off MP. Do you really think the hordes will stop grading routes they haven't sent because it makes Matty J upset? 

This whole discussion makes me want to go grade a bunch of Red River classics even though I haven't been there in like 12 years. And there's nothing you can do to stop me!!!

Lena chitawrote:

No, I’m not.
The initial post was, “if you didn’t send it, you don’t know how hard it is”.   

Yes. And that is a very reasonable and practical approach that ensures that calculated route grades maintain a level of quality.

Anything less means lower quality information for the community.

Of course there could be the occasional exception. One's guess my be right sometimes... more likely one's ego might make them believe that their uninformed opinion is more accurate than another's direct experience.

It's a simple, common-sense guideline, like no adding bolts or no chipping. Because even though it may seem there are reasonable arguments for occasional exceptions to those rules, the climbing community has figured out that accommodating the exceptions is never worth it. So just don't do it.

Even though you have managed to find a following in this thread, do you really want to be the champion for this cause?

JCMwrote:

This is well reasoned and I agree.  

Much of this thread is based around this weird strawman argument that we either need a firm rule that you must send to rate a climb, or we have to accept all grade suggestions no matter how unqualified. This is silly, and a false dichotomy. In reality there are numerous elements that impact your ability to give an informed rating suggestion for a route. These include how much time you've spent on a route, depth of experience on that style and at that crag, how well calibrated you are to that grade, etc. Whether you've sent yet is just one of these elements, but it is not the only one.

Lets look at an example. You have a new 12+ ish enduro sport climb, and are trying to decide whether to rate it 12c or 12d. On a given day at the crag three people try it:

A. Visiting comp kid crusher onsights the route as a warmup.

B. Longtime local climber who has redpointed many of the other local routes in this grade range gives this route 4 attempts to work it out and last go of the day gets a 1-hang, but hasn't sent yet.

C. Gym bro flails on it, hanging on every bolt. Later is heard saying it can't be that hard since he did most of the moves.

Many people in the thread have been essentially arguing that Person C isn't qualified to rate the route. And I agree with this. But comparing Person A to Person B - who is more qualified? I'd argue that Person B probably is better informed to suggest a rating, despite not having actually sent yet. It is hard to accurately suggest a rating for a route far below your level (Person A) or far above your level (Person C). But someone who climbs right around that level, and is well calibrated to the local area, will be pretty clued in to the nuances of 12c vs 12d in this style and area. This depth of relevant experience is a lot more important than whether you've actually sent yet.

All this said, having sent the route is important additional information. Person B may revise his opinion based on how much longer it takes to send. Sometimes I'll try a route and initially think it isn't too hard, but then realize that last section is way harder on redpoint than I anticipated. Or the opposite will happen - a route will seen impossible at first, but then it clicks and you do it next go. So the send definitely informs the grade. But it is silly to say you are totally unqualified to suggest a grade before sending. Just be reasonable about whether you are sufficiently informed to grade a given route.

In other words, person B should just wait until they send it.

Why are people making this so complicated?

Is this thread even related to something that happened on this site, or is the OP dragging arguments from https://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/?type=route&id=40122 over to this site?

soft cruxwrote:

Why are people making this so complicated?

Because the world is too nuanced for the simple rules you want to create. Embracing nuance and exceptions is worth it.

person B giving a grade before they send, despite their "local experience" is pure ego

chris bwrote:

person B giving a grade before they send, despite their "local experience" is pure ego

Or maybe just helping build consensus? Or maybe the FA asked them for grade input and they provided a thoughtful opinion? It must be tough for you, going through the world thinking the worst of people's motivations all the time. 

I guess it also matters if we are talking about a definitive "vote" on a grade on MP, of if that person is informally discussing their thoughts with other climbers. I agree, actually, that you should probably wait to give a definitive "vote" until you have fully experienced the route, through to the send. But is is reasonable to, in informal discussion, offer a preliminary guess before you have the maximum possible data. You can reasonably say (whether in person or on a MP page) that "I haven't sent it yet, but from trying the route and talking to other people at the crag there is a thought it might be grade x rather than grade y". And honestly, it is rare that people have much more than this informal suggestion to offer, even after sending a route. We haven't really clarified exactly which version we are talking about here.

Speaking from personal experience, there are many routes I have sent but don't feel qualified to grade. Maybe I onsighted the route and wasn't that invested in it, am not that familiar with the context of that local area, and don't really know or care whether it is 11b or 11c. Yet by the rules presented here I am "allowed" to grade it.  

In contrast, there are some routes I have put a fair bit of time into working, know the route in detail, have talked to a bunch of people about, got quite close to sending, but never quite managed to send before ending the trip or moving away from the region. On those routes I've put in a lot of thought and have a reasonable contribution to make to a grade consensus (which might be valuable input if it is a newer route that only a few people have done). Yet according to these rules I wouldn't be "allowed" to have any input. This seems silly. 

There are a lot of factors that determine whether someone is "qualified" to contribute to a grade discussion, and having sent it is just one. Elevating this factor to be the only one that matters, and making a hard-and-fast rule about it, is overly simplistic and eliminates valuable input that may be useful for establishing consensus.

OK, more extreme example. Person D does all of the hard part of the route, then rips a hold off on the finishing 5.9 slab and falls. Decides the route is a chosspile and never gets on it again, but grades the route on MP. Anybody want to get on their case for giving a grade without sending?

JCMwrote:

Because the world is too nuanced for the simple rules you want to create. Embracing nuance and exceptions is worth it.

Climbing, particularly the specifics of individual routes, has always been governed by simple rules. It has to be because there are no governing bodies, committees, elected officials, etc. And we want it that way.

I already gave two well-established parallels that should be well-known to anyone in this discussion: Don't retrobolt and don't chip.

These are hard-fast rules and no argument, no matter how passionate, articulate, or popular will change the rule. It doesn't matter if an experienced and likable climber posts ten pages on MP explaining why it's occasionally ok to retrobolt, and those posts get lots of likes, and lots of others chime in and agree... it's still not ok to retrobolt. That's how the "rules" in climbing work.

We  know that retroboling, when it happens, is always driven by ego... someone thinks that they know better than the person that's actually earned the privilege of bolting the route. This issue is no different.

A V wrote:

Okay - honestly, after going through quite a few routes on MP - I was unable to find many examples of people not sending the route but assigning a grade to it on MP anyway. Found a few, but it seems to be in the extreme minority

yup, just like retrobolting. It's not very common. Let's try to keep it that way.

I personally enjoy all the extra data and context I can get, which is why I’d be a fan of more tags and filters, but also you have to take it all with a grain of salt.

This thread on fire right now lol 

Frank Steinwrote:

In all seriousness, I think that Americans are too hung up on grades. In most other places, unless it is too egregiously off, a route remains the grade that that the FA assigned. If it is stout, one just shrugs and moves on. If soft, you take the grade (and move on).  A good example of this are some of the historical routes around Arco. The routes that are less than 6c are so polished that they are nearly unclimbable, and are often harder that the 7a/7b routes, but nobody bothers to upgrade these or to downgrade the allegedly harder ones. And there you have it. A 6a will be harder than a 7a, but nobody really gives a shit. 

This.

Maybe Americans have some sort of insecurity about their climbing ability and have to pump it up any chance they get ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I totally agree with JCM and I am/was the only person or second person who has even ticked, sent and graded many climbs in general and I climb many new climbs. I am 6’4’’ +4 I quite literally can change the grade to whatever I want and mountain project changes the grade often to agree with me since I either add the route or I’m the second vote. In a situation like mine does it make sense for people who hangdogged the route give it a grade rather than one person give it a grade?

Also holds break and stuff changes so someone submitting a new grade for the climb the could send prebreak.

T Legowrote:

Perhaps it was what you meant to convey, but it's not what you said. Either way, it doesn't matter, at all. You have a bone to pick for some reason. A little elitism going on? 

Please enlighten me then. What did I say?

Yes, elitism for sure. If you are a 5.4 climber, you should wait until you send 5.5 before you expect to know what 5.5 feels like, and you should send the route in question to know if it is actually 5.5 or not. When you send, then by all means, downgrade it to 5.4 if you wish, and welcome to the club of elite climbing!

Speaking of elitism, it's awesome watching the guilty parties rationalize their grading contributions. They are superior to everyone that came before them.