Grading Routes

All hard climbing is subjectively 5.9+ 

David Bruneauwrote:

Grades are subjective because people with different morphology may find certain moves more or less difficult. 

To say that morphology is the reason moves are harder or easier ignores the mental aspect of climbing among many other contributing factors. Thats disingenuous to the human condition.

Not because you can just arbitrarily decide to adopt an ancient method of grading that nobody uses anymore.

If you read the many many threads on the topic in the MP universe, and quick internet searches shows I am far from alone in this stance.

Mr Rogerswrote:

To say that morphology is the reason moves are harder or easier ignores the mental aspect of climbing among many other contributing factors. Thats disingenuous to the human condition.

If you read the many many threads on the topic in the MP universe, and quick internet searches shows I am far from alone in this stance.

Mental aspects of the route are usually incorporated via PG/R/X qualifiers.

Yes, you are far from alone in this stance because MP is full of old guys and anyone can write low quality internet content. Much like a language can change over time, the meaning of YDS grades has changed since the 60s to accommodate climbs that are harder than 5.9 and require long, sustained sections that are harder than the hardest single move. Many of the slabs climbed in the 60's don't really have an endurance component, so they are graded by the hardest single move. It's strange that you keep deferring to old guys on Mountainproject, their naive disciples, and mountaineering books that lump 5.11 and 5.15 in the same category, rather than the top climbers of today, who most would consider to be the leading authority on grading.

Mr Rogerswrote:

Not so much. Literally people are saying a climbing ratings should based not upon the hardest move but overall difficulty, so here I am outlining a scenario that fits this principle.

What do you mean by the 11a crux meaning it could be an 11a? It's an 11a in this theoretical scenario.

I very much understand that some people feel that way about grades. I do not, would rate it as 11a, would describe it as sustained in written or verbal beta, and that's okay. The community will settle on a grade either way.

No they are not, but they are ignoring the other side of the overall difficulty principle to fit their stance by doing so IMO.

Has it been mentioned grades are subjective yet?

It was said earlier, the route is graded no easier than the single hardest move and will take whatever grade is higher between the single hardest move and the difficulty of linking all of the moves in the pitch together. In the example you gave the multi pitch climb would be rated 11a.

The qualifiers get added in comments and by people talking about the route, if at all. For example, “the route is 11a but most of the climbing is cruiser except for a single move on the last pitch” vs. “this thing is super sustained and you have to work for every bit of the 11a grade, no gimme”.

David Bruneauwrote:

Mental aspects of the route are usually incorporated via PG/R/X qualifiers.

The mental ratings you speak of PG and PG13 are the only ones I know of that are really a 'mental' rating. R and X are basically letting you know that physically you'll probably have a really shitty time if you fell (R) and gonna probably die if you fall (X). This can for sure add a mental piece, but is a runout 5.6 always mentally tough, or does it always have a higher potential to hurt you in a fall?

Maybe I'm way off base with my understanding of PG/PG13(mental difficulty) R/X(best not to fall for, ya know, health reasons).
Happy to hear opinions on that front.

Yes, you are far from alone in this stance because MP is full of old guys and anyone can write low quality internet content. 

Ahh yes, thats it. It's those damn old guys.

It's strange that you keep deferring to old geezers on Mountainproject, their naive disciples, and mountaineering books that lump 5.11 and 5.15 in the same category, rather than the top climbers of today, who most would consider to be the leading authority on grading.

What old geezers did I defer to?

-----

lets go over the rating process:
- Grades are assigned by the person who FA's it. Right?
- Then the community consensus will either change the grade or confirm it.....
The initial grade is the FAs personal choice regardless of your or my opinion no?

My personal "ancient" views on the topic is an opinion. I last heard opinions were ones own? (some old guy told me that once, must not hold any water)
The only naive statement here is assuming your opinion is righter than any one else's on a topic like this.

Ive stated time and time again, it's how I grade a climb, that I FA. Its not really a discussion, the same if you were to rate a climb you FA'd....

To Bryan:

 In the example you gave the multi pitch climb would be rated 11a.

I agree.

The qualifiers get added in comments and by people talking about the route, if at all. For example, “the route is 11a but most of the climbing is cruiser except for a single move on the last pitch” vs. “this thing is super sustained and you have to work for every bit of the 11a grade, no gimme”.

The qualifiers addition is huge piece of beta. I put descriptions in the guides I make, or when telling someone the beta, I will mention that a pitch is sustained 5.x or if its a crux 5.x, I just choose to not up the grade when I FA a route as the movement I encounter is no harder than the grade assigned.

I personally like "10-, 10, 10+" or "12-, 12, 12+" because it's not so specific as letter grades and I think allows for the reality that reach, size, hand or finger size, etc. are factors on any route. Any time I bolted something that I felt was borderline 12 or 13, I opted for 11+ or 12+.

Mr. Rogers, you are essentially arguing with Bridwell, the guy who literally invented the modern YDS. 

Here’s my take: if a climb is cruiser to an11a move it’s 11a.

If you stack 20 11a moves on top of each other with no rests, the later 11a moves are going to be a lot harder because of fatigue, so it gets a harder grade.

Another scenario is 11a Boulder problem off the ground to a 5.9 finish. Still 11a.

11a Boulder problem off the ground, to sustained 5.10 climbing above. Probably still 11a

Grades are just opinions, don't fret.

Mr Rogerswrote:

lets go over the rating process:
- Grades are assigned by the person who FA's it. Right?
- Then the community consensus will either change the grade or confirm it.....
The initial grade is the FAs personal choice regardless of your or my opinion no?

Nope, not how it is done anymore.

An initial grade is suggested or proposed by the FA, then as others climb it, they either confirm the grade -- or suggest changes.

For example, Silence, where Adam Ondra has proposed a grade of 9C (not assigned).  Even wikipedia acknowledges this:
"Rating9c (5.15d) (proposed) " ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_(climb) )

David Gibbswrote:

Nope, not how it is done anymore.

An initial grade is suggested or proposed by the FA, then as others climb it, they either confirm the grade -- or suggest changes.

For example, Silence, where Adam Ondra has proposed a grade of 9C (not assigned).  Even wikipedia acknowledges this:
"Rating9c (5.15d) (proposed) " ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_(climb) )

My B Mr Gibbs... not the best choice of words. I dont assign the grade,I propose it.

Mr. Rogers - do you really mean you grade for how hard the hardest move would be without the pump factor, or you grade for how hard the hardest move feels when you're pumped, without accounting for the additional psychological effect of a route having multiple hard sections, even if they're separated by rests?  I agree routes which have multiple tough sections separated by good rests should be graded by the hardest individual section, rather than getting extra credit for the number of hard sections.  

But I don't see how you even can grade a move without considering the pump, unless you don't send.  Do you always take and then rest fully right before the crux, so you can fairly grade that move?  I know if I'm very pumped, I can't really tell how hard a move would be in isolation.

Kedron Silsbeewrote:

Mr. Rogers - do you really mean you grade for how hard the hardest move would be without the pump factor, or you grade for how hard the hardest move feels when you're pumped, without accounting for the additional psychological effect of a route having multiple hard sections, even if they're separated by rests?  I agree routes which have multiple tough sections separated by good rests should be graded by the hardest individual section, rather than getting extra credit for the number of hard sections.  

But I don't see how you even can grade a move without considering the pump, unless you don't send.  Do you always take and then rest fully right before the crux, so you can fairly grade that move?  I know if I'm very pumped, I can't really tell how hard a move would be in isolation.

So the way I see it is that the moves difficulty didn't change, my fitness/strength/mental game is what changes.
I have a certain amount of 5.x moves I can complete til I pump out at any given grade. At my current fitness level.
So maybe I feel pumped by the end of a sustained pitch, but the moves didn't get harder, I got tired. The outcome of that is to train more endurance, get stronger, or work on my mental game so I can do more 5.x moves in a row. So then it doesn't feel as hard when I try again.... So if I rate based upon overall difficulty it would be highly dependent on my fitness level at the time I propose a grade. Wouldnt it? I mean there is no formula for this many 5.x moves means one letter grade higher.
So why define a route based upon overall difficulty when fitness is so subjective? I mean one person pumped is another persons warmed up so it seems just as arbitrary when rating by the difficulty principle just as much as by the hardest move principle.

Ryan never climbs posted a little excerpt from something, that basically has two YDS ratings to cover the hardest move/overall difficulty. I think if there was a system adopted to confront this glaring missing data point in ratings is would be beneficial. Is that a reality? IDK. But it seems like a logical progression in gradings TBH.

Mr Rogerswrote:

So the way I see it is that the moves difficulty didn't change, my fitness/strength/mental game is what changes.
I have a certain amount of 5.x moves I can complete til I pump out at any given grade. At my current fitness level.
So maybe I feel pumped by the end of a sustained pitch, but the moves didn't get harder, I got tired. The outcome of that is to train more endurance, get stronger, or work on my mental game so I can do more 5.x moves in a row. So then it doesn't feel as hard when I try again.... So if I rate based upon overall difficulty it would be highly dependent on my fitness level at the time I propose a grade. Wouldnt it? I mean there is no formula for this many 5.x moves means one letter grade higher.
So why define a route based upon overall difficulty when fitness is so subjective? I mean one person pumped is another persons warmed up so it seems just as arbitrary when rating by the difficulty principle just as much as by the hardest move principle.

Ryan never climbs posted a little excerpt from something, that basically has two YDS ratings to cover the hardest move/overall difficulty. I think if there was a system adopted to confront this glaring missing data point in ratings is would be beneficial. Is that a reality? IDK. But it seems like a logical progression in gradings TBH.

Routes are graded as they compare to other routes, your fitness at the time of grading means nothing. You don't grade things harder just because you are weak and out of shape. I don't get on stuff hungover and with no sleep and call it 5.17e+, this is just a strawman.

It seems like there is no glaring missing data point, people have been doing fine with grading routes based on overall difficulty for over 50 years. If is sustained it's gonna have an easier crux move,duh.

Long Rangerwrote:

Depends on where that one move is. If a 5.7 starts with a 5.10 move down low, it's probably listed as a 5.7, with a lot of stars.

So umm.. all of jtree?

saign charlesteinwrote:

Here’s my take: if a climb is cruiser to an11a move it’s 11a.

If you stack 20 11a moves on top of each other with no rests, the later 11a moves are going to be a lot harder because of fatigue, so it gets a harder grade.

Another scenario is 11a Boulder problem off the ground to a 5.9 finish. Still 11a.

11a Boulder problem off the ground, to sustained 5.10 climbing above. Probably still 11a

Jtree is kind of it's own complex version of all this grading discussion but one example of your last line is O'Kelley's crack, although the comments haven't exactly reached a concensus the grade stands at 11a with a couple variations to the boulder problem start possible and then pretty much 5.10 climbing above.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105722353/okelleys-crack

K Gowrote:

Jtree is kind of it's own complex version of all this grading discussion but one example of your last line is O'Kelley's crack, although the comments haven't exactly reached a concensus the grade stands at 11a with a couple variations to the boulder problem start possible and then pretty much 5.10 climbing above.

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105722353/okelleys-crack

I've been on plenty of easy/moderate climbs that start off pretty thin - way above the guidebook grade. But there's little danger of cratering from a few feet up, so the grade doesn't need to be inflated. It's just a tricky start. 

Having any input on how 5.15 climbs are graded seems well above my paygrade tbh. I don't really know, nor do I really care I guess. I believe the 30 people alive who are climbing that hard are doing it right, and if not, it really doesn't matter to most of us.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

If is sustained it's gonna have an easier crux move,duh.

How would one know that it's sustained without an added description? The routes grade didn't tell you that its sustained.