Grading Routes Pre-Ascent=NO!

Astrid Reywrote:

Hey I know you! You're that guy that wears his climbing shoes in the bathroom at the gym and then climbs the kiddie routes!

how much do you like salt on a scale of 1 to 10?

JCMwrote:

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). 

That sounds correct. But the trouble is most folks in group C think they're in group B. And there are more people in group C than in group B. So the net effect of everyone ignoring the "rule" and grading without sending is that grades get less accurate. I don't buy the nonsense that a send makes you a better person and this goodness qualifies you to offer a grade. But sending is a less subjective measure to weed out group C.

Sure, inaccurate consensus grades aren't the end of the world. But if a "rule" is mostly effective in keeping folks from making grades less accurate (someone said it was like 1 in 10 on MP), why do we want to get rid of it? By the title I thought this was just going to be an admittedly-less-than-friendly reminder of a functional status quo. What problem is fixed by getting rid of that "rule?"

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. 

There's an upside to this. The hard-for-the grade classics and test pieces are often free to climb (especially if they are 5.11d) whereas soft and crappy 5.12a climbs have conga lines of people waiting and flailing who are interested in a grade tick rather than improving their climbing ability per se. 

There's also a weird obsession with climbing 5.12a (7a+ in french grades). 7a (5.11d) isn't really considered that special an achievement. 8a (5.13b) is, but most people who climb those grades understand the importance of a solid pyramid and choose lines that are asthetic.

Flailing on a climb that's obviously above your ability is poor form and embarrassing, and by extension so is voicing unqualified opinions about it. But apparently some demographics don't share this opinion or are lacking self-awareness.

Matt Robinsonwrote:

Look at the posts above, the person who caused this kerfuffle rated a route they hadn't sent clean a little harder than the first ascentionist thought it was.  They chose this grade based on their personal experiences on several other routes of about the same grade after having done all the moves.There's a big difference between that and only making it half way up a route and getting shut down.

Edit to add: this is the route in question, the person who upgraded the route had sent their first 13 about a month prior, and man do the comments make this thing sound like a massive turd https://www.mountainproject.com/route/stats/121099933/good-wood-solid-spank

I know reading comprehension is low these days, so ill sum up my point again for you. This guy did not do the moves, and he did not send. This has nothing to do with him though, or this route, it's simply a glaring example of people grading a route where they clearly have no clue what the actual grade is, because they didnt even climb the route. He didn't even make it 4 moves in before getting shut down, much less half way. Keep making things up so you can really drive your point home.

And if we really want to get into the weeds, I'd love to know how adding a speculatory grade to a closed project, that no one is getting on but the person posting it, could affect the climbing community?

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

I know reading comprehension is low these days, so ill sum up my point again for you. This guy did not do the moves, and he did not send. This has nothing to do with him though, or this route, it's simply a glaring example of people grading a route where they clearly have no clue what the actual grade is, because they didnt even climb the route. He didn't even make it 4 moves in before getting shut down, much less half way. Keep making things up so you can really drive your point home.

And if we really want to get into the weeds, I'd love to know how adding a speculatory grade to a closed project, that no one is getting on but the person posting it, could affect the climbing community?

How do you know he wasn't able to do all the moves he found with his beta? Why are you so convinced it was a different sequence than you used? Were you there watching and this is just a personal vendetta you decided to take online? Did you set a trail cam to make sure another one of your piles didn't get chopped?   Based on his comments he pulled all the moves on the route one way or another and made it to the top of the progressively crappier route, and suggested the imprecise grade of 12- to go with his non-clean ascent. He was honest about the style he did it in and justified his rating based on recent experience on other routes of a similar grade in a similar area.

As to your second point I don't think there is anything wrong with a speculatory grade being added to a project open or closed. I think it proves the point that people can give a relatively accurate grade to a climb they don't send clean having done all the moves.  I will conceded that I don't think new world first grades should be dangled before a climb is sent, but an 11c/12- isn't exactly pushing and boundaries at the crag let alone the general area.  My question to you was what is the difference between this and what Alan Rader did? Both involve going up a route in its entirety, doing all free moves while sitting on the rope x amount of times, and proposing a grade.  Why are you following your own rules from the start of the thread?

"If you haven't sent, don't grade the route, you have no business telling people what you "think" the grade is if you cant even climb it. Capisce?"

Why does this even matter that much to you? You say it's about the community but then give only one example in which you have a clear bias as the FA.  If it's about the community why threaten to start bolt wars when the community doesn't agree with you?  Once a route goes in and the tag is pulled it belongs to the community to grade, judge, praise, and ridicule as they see fit. If you are bolting for the community you should welcome any feedback you get and learn from it. If you are bolting for yourself that's cool too as long as it isn't interfering with other established lines, but don't expect others to have the same passion for each of your routes that you do.

TlDR most of this, cause it's alot. But surely no self-respecting climber will grade climbs they haven't sent? Obviously different to talking about how the grade feels while you're trying it etc... 

Isn't that one of the absolute pillars of our arbitrary rules? 

Raz Bobwrote:

Isn't that one of the absolute pillars of our arbitrary rules? 

Something is very wrong in the RRG.

Imagine looking so intently for things to be upset about that you get upset when someone UPGRADES your route. What a time to be alive.

If you guys are gonna take this so seriously can you please look at every climb you have ever rated and make sure no holds have broken, because if a hold breaks you have not sent the new version therefore should not have rated it. Thanks!

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Imagine looking so intently for things to be upset about that you get upset when someone UPGRADES your route. What a time to be alive.

Wanna bet this isn't actually about the grade but about the other rating?

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

If you guys are gonna take this so seriously can you please look at every climb you have ever rated and make sure no holds have broken, because if a hold breaks you have not sent the new version therefore should not have rated it. Thanks!

If that ever happens I'll just let the gym staff know. 

JohnWesely Weselywrote:

Lol.

Tradibanwrote:

Whoa now! You absolutely can not star a route unless you've sent. It's the same arbitrary idea as a grade opinion. If you don't think so, how's it different?

Ironic, IIRC we got in a bit of an argument about this very idea over Left Ski track many years ago, and I remember you having a different opinion.  Long time ago and memories are flawed though, so I won't dig my heels in.  Glad to see we're on the same page either way now.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

@Gymbies 

If you haven't sent, don't grade the route, you have no business telling people what you "think" the grade is if you cant even climb it. Capisce?

@The Schmuck-There's only one rule, per this thread.

Well geez, the routesetters at my gym clearly didn't get your memo.

It's super fun to take a guess at a grade! I'm usually close inside, often wildly off outside. That's still a large part of the appeal though, just looking at something, sans info, and...seeing how it goes.

On MP, for the outdoor routes? I just grade with the consensus, maybe adding a comment if something is reachy, getting polished at the start, stupidly bolted, something broke off, whatever.  To tick the things, you have to fill in the form. Yes, I tick stuff I may not have finished, horror of horrors, and say so in my note on it. That let's me know if it's worth a try in the future...or not. Often, it's really who I climbed with that matters, or something else noteworthy. 

Imo, if anyone cares that much, maybe you need to find more time to get out? 

Best, H.

almostradwrote:

Ironic, IIRC we got in a bit of an argument about this very idea over Left Ski track many years ago, and I remember you having a different opinion.  Long time ago and memories are flawed though, so I won't dig my heels in.  Glad to see we're on the same page either way now.

I was probably trolling you   

Based on all the counter arguments, it sounds like we need a separate grade for onsight, and redpoint. This way, when you get shut down on the onsight, and don't have enough time to figure out the crux, you can O'Grade the route one or two number grades above the redpoint grade, because it's tricky.

Good Wood Solid Spank, R11b [O12d (unless you're really good at onsighting, then O11b)]

Here is a route I just climbed, what should be done? https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106038110/shes-deadly