Should old school grades be regraded to modern grades?

Would like to hear your opinion on regrading old school grades. Have heard of multiple instance where beginner climbers are hopping on 5.lows and getting hella sandbagged, therefore increasing risk as a new leader (esp trad). I myself have also been sandbagged and am fully unaware if a route is sandbagged or not until I really hop on it. Of course there are ways of identifying such as observing the year of the FA etc etc.

What’s your take on regrading to increase safety and keep up with modern grades?

Should note that changing the grade in a book does not change the integrity of the climb as opposed to adding bolts. Are we more opposed to regrading old school routes vs regrading -\+1 grade on modern climbs?

Edit: In comparison, it feels like if you open up a cook book and some liquids are in grams, some are in mL, and some are in oz, all different type of measurements in the same exact recipe. 

How to create cookie (how the sandbag routes in guidebook looks):              How to create cookie (regraded):

1 egg                                                                                                                       1 egg

200 mL water                                                                                                        200mL water

6oz milk                                                                                                                  177mL milk

250 g heavy cream.                                                                                              250mL heavy cream

no

edit: but seriously, i believe that trying to manicure the climbing experience for beginners defeats much of the adventure of discovering climbing.  retroactively changing the history of the sport is a ludicrous solution to a non-problem. rather than lowering our grading standards to accommodate   the “modern beginner trad leader”, perhaps the climber should rise to the occasion and make judgement calls themselves. this way the sport of climbing self regulates. call me macabre but unless a “buddy” intentionally lies or sandbags you, its only your fault if you get on any route and have a bad time. but what do i know  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Sure! I’ve always wanted to be a solid, on sight, 5.11 climber. Seems like a great way to get there!    

Seriously, though, interesting question. I’ll take a seat and spectate as the opinions flow in. 

For the most part, I think it should be the other way around. 

Learn the history of the sport you are participating in. Understand when the FA was established,  even the Who established the route is key as well. Also understand the where you are climbing helps as well  

The when, the why, all of the W’s actually…Climbing can be more than just about you at this very moment sending or not sending (and/or just grade chasing). It is just one amazing part of this game and I personally would never change a route put up in 1979 at 5.9 to a modern “10.b” just because it’s 2022 now.

Your “safety” argument. This is climbing, not golf. If your over your head, bail.  Pretty easy. 

There is some precedent here.  Midnight Lightning was the original benchmark definition of V7, yet MP has it at V8 and I have even seen V9 in guidebooks.  Based on the evolution and use of the V grading system this feels right, as the grades have inflated since the origin of the system and Midnight Lightning is more consistent with other problems in the 8/9 range.  The purpose of grading is to give a sense of difficulty, recalibrating from time to time fits that goal.

No. I think the "+" on 5.7 thru 5.9 is a good enough indicator. 

A "beginner climber" should not be "hopping on" some random trad route.

This is probably super niche but a bunch of the untraveled, 0 or 1 star .12a's in the gunks are anywhere from v4 to v7 bouldering. I think some of them would be a little more popular if the grades were accurately reflected.

I’ve got a unique take on this topic…

FUCK NO AND FUCK OFF

David Gibbswrote:

A "beginner climber" should not be "hopping on" some random trad route.

This nails it.  Additionally- i would says there are a number of workarounds, suggested grades, etc that help folks avoid danger.

Kyle Edmondsonwrote:

There is some precedent here.  Midnight Lightning was the original benchmark definition of V7, yet MP has it at V8 and I have even seen V9 in guidebooks.  Based on the evolution and use of the V grading system this feels right, as the grades have inflated since the origin of the system and Midnight Lightning is more consistent with other problems in the 8/9 range.  The purpose of grading is to give a sense of difficulty, recalibrating from time to time fits that goal.

Grades also change over time from breakage/polish. Midnight lightning is basically glass on the first few holds now.

As for the topic, I don't care if it changes in the guidebook but I will try to be honest when people ask about a grade of when I tick it on a website. Sometimes it feels easier than the book, sometimes it feels harder. Just be honest about it if people ask

David Gibbswrote:

A "beginner climber" should not be "hopping on" some random trad route.

It's been a bit more than 20 years since my first lead, but my first lead was a trad lead. I probably had two dozen leads under my belt before I ever got on a sport climb.

And I encountered the same problem: "gosh, this 5.5 feels a lot harder than I expected!" Or "wow, my last piece was a long time ago, and these moves are starting to get harder than I'm comfortable with!"

But with the benefit of hindsight, I think it just came down to route finding. I wasn't a good enough climber at the time to recognize the 5.5 path vs the 5.8 path. I don't think we should be regrading the 5.0 just because some Gumby couldn't find the right path. Rather, as guidebook authors (as anyone who posts beta on mp ultimately is), we should be pointing out that finding the 5.0 sequence is difficult, and to go left or traverse low, or whatever is necessary to help folks who are still developing those skills.

Telling a 5.4 leader "of yeah, that route you just barely squeaked through is definitely a modern 5.8" will just get that 5.4 leader into trouble on an actual 5.8. I've yet to find a "sandbagged" 5.4 or something that was actually inconsistent with the area, but I've found plenty that had secret beta.

I think mitigating risk “on your own” is one element in climbing which is often forgotten and/or passed on as if it were the responsibility of others these days.

There is too much experience and knowledge gained in the realm of the “beta max” routes, and not enough gained from the “beta min” routes. 

I believe it was Bridwell who said;  

There is as fine a line between boldness and stupidity, as there is between prudence and cowardice. 

A routes grades sole purpose is to tell you how difficult it is. The only reason to not have it reflect accurately to today's standards is ego. Grades inflated because we went past 5.9 after keeping it a closed scale for years, not because today's climbers are pansies. 

I could care less about climbing history and first ascentionists 90% of the time. It's mostly a bunch of trustafarians who were fortunate enough to climb all the time. Good for them. Also, this has nothing to do with grading anyway. Why people attach sentimental value to what some person rated a route, when the grading scale was different, when it's very likely the exact same route nowadays beats me. 

A routes difficulty is what it is, regardless of what you call it. By calling it less than what it is, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't make you any cooler, stronger, or better. It makes you a douchebag with an ego problem. But go ahead, keep calling those 5.11a's a 5.9+. Everyone knows it not a 9+, but keep on smugly living in denial while honoring your more than fortunate idols. 

I understand certain areas have different grade ranges for routes that would be the same difficulty somewhere else. This is understandable and not what I'm talking about. 

Kyle Edmondsonwrote:

There is some precedent here.  Midnight Lightning was the original benchmark definition of V7, yet MP has it at V8 and I have even seen V9 in guidebooks.  Based on the evolution and use of the V grading system this feels right, as the grades have inflated since the origin of the system and Midnight Lightning is more consistent with other problems in the 8/9 range.  The purpose of grading is to give a sense of difficulty, recalibrating from time to time fits that goal.

This take feels kind of revisionist. I started climbing when the “V” scale was born, and I have never seen Midnight Lightning as V7. I remember Jerry Moffat doing it in the very early 90s, and it was considered a hard V8 then. 

Preserve historical grades (and grades of modern routes that are inline with historical grades in the same area), but otherwise retire 5.9 and below in favor of 5th-Easy and 5th-Moderate for modern routes.

Kyle Edmondsonwrote:

There is some precedent here.  Midnight Lightning was the original benchmark definition of V7, yet MP has it at V8 and I have even seen V9 in guidebooks.  Based on the evolution and use of the V grading system this feels right, as the grades have inflated since the origin of the system and Midnight Lightning is more consistent with other problems in the 8/9 range.  The purpose of grading is to give a sense of difficulty, recalibrating from time to time fits that goal.

Interesting. This is news to me. Midnight Lightning has always been the benchmark V8 to my knowledge. I think the original discussion is more pertinent to sport climbing grades as they were capped at 5.9 for a long whereas bouldering grades are quite a bit newer and never had a “cap” to my knowledge. 

Frank Steinwrote:

This take feels kind of revisionist. I started climbing when the “V” scale was born, and I have never seen Midnight Lightning as V7. I remember Jerry Moffat doing it in the very early 90s, and it was considered a hard V8 then. 

It has been a long time, and I no longer have the source, if I remember it was a pamphlet guide to camp 4 that listed benchmark climbs at each grade.  Midnight Lightning was the V7, Blue Suede Shoes was the V5, which is all that I recall.  This was in the mid 90s.  Additionally, polishing the starting holds on it would not increase the difficulty, nothing is hard until the first throw to the lightning bolt.  That hold won't polish as it is not a foot.  I could see the mantel getting worse with traffic, though to be fair most attempts don't get that far.

To the original argument, grades have changed, and they are worst at the easy ones, where new climbers are less likely to know the nuance.  I grew up climbing in Joshua Tree, so I know what 5.7 means out there, but a gym climber learning in a sport area is set up for confusion, which is some circumstances could add danger.  Reconciling (which could easily mean bringing down sport area grades) would clarify, and since we are just talking about numbers it does make sense to strive for consistency and therefore more value.  Practically that is impossible I know.  I would also note that higher up the scale the discrepancy is less, where it matters the least because anyone experienced enough to climb in those grades understands the difference between styles and areas.

Some would argue time, perspective, and open information access sites like MP are fueling grade inflation.  Durance used to be 5.6.  Now it’s rated 5.7+ On MP.   Even in my old guidebook - Devils Tower National Monument Climbing Handbook 1995 says, “ Historically this has been given a 5.6 rating difficulty but due to the sustained nature of the climb is rated 5.7.”