Should old school grades be regraded to modern grades?

John Texwrote:

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. 

In most cases, the original grade assigned to a route actually tells you how difficult the climb may be. However, I have definitely seen effect of overly optimistic climbing gym grades "spill over" to outdoor climbing and impact what is euphemistically now referred to as "today's standards."  Actually, grades above 5.9 got compressed (a, b, c & d) -- not inflated -- because when originally devised, 5.9's were the hardest routes established at Tahquitz Rock (where the YDS was first devised). 

It is apparent that you don't care about climbing history, because I can assure you that the first ascentionists (you pick the era) were not trust funders -- mostly just dirt baggers and regular weekenders with jobs.

I agree that a route's difficulty is what it is, but just because expectations of many newer climbers have changed, doesn't mean that the route suddenly became harder. Rather, it seems that "ego" is the prime motivator in (most, but not all) current grade inflation.

Ha! You trad dads are so predictable.

Unless you’re shit at placing gear or have made a habit out of having bad belayers or don’t know how to clip quickdraws, it shouldn’t matter.  Objective hazards like protrusions and ledges should be taken into account regardless of the stated difficulty grade.  This is a long-winded way of saying that a fall from a 5.9 and a fall from a 5.11 are the same damn thing.  You let go or slip, and the fall is arrested.  The grade has little to do with ”increasing safety”. The only exception I can think of *maybe* is R rated routes, and even then, I’m inclined to say NO.  I’ve heard this argument made again and again, predominantly by new climbers, many of whom don’t even know what an R rated route is.  It’s not the job of guidebook authors to keep you safe.  It’s not the job of route developers to keep you safe.  Stop asking to rewrite history and learn to be self sufficient and accept risk carefully and incrementally as your knowledge, skill and experience increase (also, no coincidence that this occurs incrementally).  And stop being so goddamned soft and whiny, expecting decades of history and tradition in an INHERENTLY BOLD AND DANGEROUS adventure sport to bend to your needs and deficiencies.

John Texwrote:

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 have to disagree. You make a lot of bold assumptions about FAs here too. I personally like routes with “old school grades” cuz it allows me to experience the route differently, and i often get back to the ground with newfound appreciation and humility of how our sport has developed.

It’s kind of ridiculous that you state “a routes difficulty is what it is…” because a route can feel different to everyone, surely you understand this. Sure, you can keep calling everyone egotistical douchebags if they dare rate a climb less than “what it is”. But this game goes both ways. If you have the right to call these people douches, then they have the right to call you a pansy. if someone tried to argue this to me at the crag i’d laugh in their face and express my sorrow for their disdain. I can’t believe people seriously have an issue with historical route grades and traditional sandbags. Climbing will never be a perfect system, nor should it be. It’s frustrating to see people like you and OP that are trying to push this type of agenda. Bug off and let us maintain our history. 

seems like someones got an ego problem…possibly some insecurities 

Not Hobo Greg wrote:You wanna eliminate nine grades and replace that with two grades? 

Yeah. Everything I can climb feels like 5.6. everything I can't might as well be 5.15.

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

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. 

When you refer to "sport climbing grades" do you actually mean "roped climbing grades"? So far as I'm aware the 5.9 cap - which I absolutely accept was a 'thing', in common with UIAA VI+, UK HVS, etc - disappeared a long time before sport climbing raised its head.

We should regrade all modern grades to match older grading.  #stopgradeinflation

Short Fall Seanwrote:

Ha! You trad dads are so predictable.

For the last 25 years I've been more of a sport weeny. But, nice try!

David Gibbswrote:

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

Horseshit

It’s not really used much in North America, but in some parts of the world, notably Australia, thecrag.com is the flagship online climbing guide. For popular routes, thecrag uses an algorithm to approximate the route’s accurate grade based on several variables: https://www.thecrag.com/en/article/graid

For example, the classic route Muldoon at Arapiles has an assigned grade of 13 (5.6), but it’s GrAId is 15-16 (5.8-5.9). I think this is an elegant solution, allowing a route to retain its historical grade but also informing gumbies about when they’re about to be sandbagged. Maybe time for MP to adopt something similar?

Ignatius Piwrote:

When you refer to "sport climbing grades" do you actually mean "roped climbing grades"? So far as I'm aware the 5.9 cap - which I absolutely accept was a 'thing', in common with UIAA VI+, UK HVS, etc - disappeared a long time before sport climbing raised its head.

Yeah, good catch. Poor choice of words on my part. What I guess I technically meant was free climbing I suppose. 

No. Grading is inherently subjective and will never be dialed down to a science, despite some people's (misguided) efforts. Having a jumble of old school, new school, sandbags, soft gym grades, etc forces us to accept this fact.

Rasputin NLNwrote:

Yeah. Everything I can climb feels like 5.6. everything I can't might as well be 5.15.

Glad I’m not the only one. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Yeah, good catch. Poor choice of words on my part. What I guess I technically meant was free climbing I suppose. 

Yes - that makes much more sense; many thanks for clarifying. This stuff can get quite complicated - but don't you just love it? Nobody else has a clue what we're all talking about!

Uknown Unknownwrote:

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?

“Sandbagged” is just a state of mind.

Soft.

David Jeffersonwrote:

It’s not really used much in North America, but in some parts of the world, notably Australia, thecrag.com is the flagship online climbing guide. For popular routes, thecrag uses an algorithm to approximate the route’s accurate grade based on several variables: https://www.thecrag.com/en/article/graid

For example, the classic route Muldoon at Arapiles has an assigned grade of 13 (5.6), but it’s GrAId is 15-16 (5.8-5.9). I think this is an elegant solution, allowing a route to retain its historical grade but also informing gumbies about when they’re about to be sandbagged. Maybe time for MP to adopt something similar?

Or its time as accepted MP as a dead horse and move over to the The Crag.

Cairn War Machinewrote:

Or its time as accepted MP as a dead horse and move over to the The Crag.

Funny, I came over here because the forum/discussion features on theCrag are terrible. They don't even have a meme thread.

The "grAId" experiment that they did with theCrag's database was awesome, and definitely produced some "I KNEW IT!!" moments for routes that were suspected to be soft or sandbagged.

It is not actually AI or machine learning, but tried to apply the Elo ranking system from chess competition to climbs. That is, given a climb and a climber, and their previous record against other climbers and climbs, what is the probability that a send attempt will succeed.

It worked really well when there is a big enough database of meticulously logged failed vs successful ticks. So it seems quite accurate for popular mid grade routes. For unpopular routes it completely breaks down. E.g. one of the hardest climbs in Australia is assessed at 21/22 ( about 5.11a) because like two pro climbers have ticked it and they only logged a single successful redpoint attempt.

Mt Project grades are based on an average from suggested grades when users tick the route. The more the route is climbed and given a suggested grade, the grade will change to reflect that average. The grade rarely changes. Even for the “sandbags”.
I’ve always wondered if it would be better to show the given grade, as well as an average “suggested” grade along side it. 

Start low at new areas and with new styles.  Work your way up.  Be a student of the sport and the place.  Stop whining.

That said, old AZ routes are hella sandbagged.  You've been warned.  Hah!