Should old school grades be regraded to modern grades?

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.

Is your issue with sandbagged routes or “old school grades”. There are plenty of new routes being sandbagged as well. I don’t view that as an “old school route” problem.

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

I think increasing grades only has very little to do with safety. Part of safety is preparation and part of preparation is understanding route grades IMO. If I’m a 5.7 climber (a climber competent in most 5.7’s who can often lead 5.8) I probably shouldn’t be getting on a 5.8 R/X climb, especially if it’s notoriously sandbagged, for example.  

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?

If you’re asking for our opinions on the matter, I think it’s silly to regrade older routes as opppsed to adjusting newer routes/grading newer routes appropriately based on old routes.

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. 

I’m not sure I agree with this analogy. To me, it would be more like a new recipe calling for more or less of the same exact type of cookies. Your analogy seems like doing the same route, but using different beta. No change in grade.

If people cannot intellectually wrap their mind how either retro upgrading sandbagged routes or downgrading new school routes is the same thing, there is no helping you. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

If people cannot intellectually wrap their mind how either retro upgrading sandbagged routes or downgrading new school routes is the same thing, there is no helping you. 

The end result is the same, sure, but I think there is a a conceivable difference. For example, aren’t newer routes (and their subsequent grades) supposed to be based off of previous/already established routes? La Dura Dura was given 5.15c because it was harder than any previous routes, the hardest being 5.15b. Therefore, the issue would be with newer routes, not the older/original. If you ask me it doesn’t make much sense go back and change older routes because newer routes make them seem “sandbagged”…to me that seems much more logical to have newer routes be graded more appropriately, based on the ones that have been “established” for decades. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

The end result is the same, sure, but I think there is a a conceivable difference. For example, aren’t newer routes (and their subsequent grades) supposed to be based off of previous/already established routes? La Dura Dura was given 5.15c because it was harder than any previous routes, the hardest being 5.15b. Therefore, the issue would be with newer routes, not the older/original. If you ask me it doesn’t make much sense go back and change older routes because newer routes make them seem “sandbagged”…to me that seems much more logical to have newer routes be graded more appropriately, based on the ones that have been “established” for decades. 

Sure call La Dura Dura 15a and downgrade everything else. The one issue is that featherbagging and sandbagging are not evenly dispersed across climbing areas or grade ranges. Take JTree, lots of v0s I couldn't do but then I sent two v5s and a v6 in one day. Or index, where I have been totally shut down on a 5.11 then onsighted a neighbor. Or Woodson which is just total nonsense. It might be easier to start at 15c and work back rather than arguing if obscene phone call in pway and exum ridge are the same grade. 

Grades are arbitrary. Just something to laugh at or argue about. Climb and have fun. Getting sandbagged puts hair on your chest.

I enjoy how beginning climbers who have climbed at most a few dozen climbs and led maybe a dozen climbs can call something sandbagged.  They also seem to think that grading is a precise science.  

For me, grades are just a guideline to see if you should even bother trying a route.   I like the old grades and sandbagged 5.9+ but I also look at the individual ascents grades on mountain project.  If it feels like it is within a number grade, what I think is 5.9 could be rated 5.8 or 5.10, I won't complain.  

J T wrote:

My point is that if we have a base (old school routes and their attached grades) then doesn’t it make sense to work off of this base? It’s not so much the sandbagged/soft routes for me as it is with how the grades were determined.  My point is that newer routes should be based off of existing routes, therefore the issue would lay in new routes not older ones, that’s all. 

Thats fine, I just don't know if it is 100% better it could be done either way. It is an interesting mathematical dilemma. You have 10,000 people agree that x route is 5.6, 2000 agree that it is 5.6+, 2000 agree that it is 5.5. Now take dreamcatcher, which could have 50 people all agree it is 14d, which is more precise? 

I think we should make seconds a little longer. I've always wanted a street car that could do a quarter mile in the 9s. If we change the length of a second, I might be there.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Thats fine, I just don't know if it is 100% better it could be done either way. It is an interesting mathematical dilemma. You have 10,000 people agree that x route is 5.6, 2000 agree that it is 5.6+, 2000 agree that it is 5.5. Now take dreamcatcher, which could have 50 people all agree it is 14d, which is more precise? 

Isn't it more complicated, since some of those 6000 are basing their understanding of what a 5.x is off of that climb?

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?

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

I think the problem with your question is the implication that "modern grades" are more accurate or consistent than " old school grades". I do believe that we should try to be consistent at grading climbs across areas and difficulties and I think the MP consensus grade is a step in the right direction. It makes sense to upgrade sandbags and downgrade featherbags. Guidebook authors seem to do this as well; sometimes commenting that this climb was originally rated much easier. 

I would appreciate more use of the protection ratings - I notice that easy climbs don't generally get R ratings even if there is poor gear. I laugh when I see someone comment that a route is run-out but they don't give it a PG or R when they rate it.

There will always be routes that feel easy or hard for the grade to me, if it's a letter grade difference I ignore it but if it's a number grade I'll start whining/bragging.

On a related note, I am finally convinced that trad and sport routes should use different grading systems. But I don't how to classify routes with both bolts and gear in that scenario. Oh yeah, gym climbs should have their own system like the Spot.

Beginners should definitely jump on random trad routes if they know the grade and protection rating.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

Thats fine, I just don't know if it is 100% better it could be done either way. It is an interesting mathematical dilemma. You have 10,000 people agree that x route is 5.6, 2000 agree that it is 5.6+, 2000 agree that it is 5.5. 

Something that is subjective like climbing grades will never be 100% correct, but I do think some methods would be more accurate or universally accepted, thus be “better”.

In your example, that route would be consensus 5.6. It’s not a mathematical dilemma or complicated. It’s not even complicated if there are two grades that are agreed/disagreed upon as slash grades are thing.

Now take dreamcatcher, which could have 50 people all agree it is 14d, which is more precise? 

If im playing devil’s advocate I would argue that those ”50 people” that agree it is 14d likely have more experience with route grading than the vast majority of people agreeing it’s 5.6 or 5.6+ as those climbing Dreamcatcher have experienced the difference in difficulty across a much broader range of climbs (i.e. they have experience the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 as well as the difference between 5.13d and 5.14a and everything in between). In both scenarios an average is still an average whether its based on 50 data points or 14,000 data points.

You have a good point that the sample size of those grading high end routes is significantly smaller than a route on the lower end of difficulty. However, I would argue that the quality of grading those routes is much higher, in large part to collaboration and experience. Many of these high end projects are done with other top tier, experienced climbers…especially in bouldering…..whereas a 5.6, or even 5.10, are often done by individuals who may have never climbed outside before or only have very limited route climbing experience, let alone a vast grade range to compare to.

Both extremes would be based on consensus and previous/established grades…which is my original point and answer to the OP’s question. I don’t think we should upgrade/change grades of old routes just because modern day routes make them seem sandbagged. Instead, we should be grading routes based off of old, established ones 

jbak xwrote:

I think we should make seconds a little longer. I've always wanted a street car that could do a quarter mile in the 9s. If we change the length of a second, I might be there.

Fun story. My physics professor in college was attempting to convert all time to the metric system. 100 seconds =1 minute, 100 minutes = 1 hour, 100 hours = 1 day, so on and so forth. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Fun story. My physics professor in college was attempting to convert all time to the metric system. 100 seconds =1 minute, 100 minutes = 1 hour, 100 hours = 1 day, so on and so forth. 

OK now make this work for days in a year. 

I'll wait. I'm sure the solution will be super useful. 

Long Rangerwrote:

OK now make this work for days in a year. 

I'll wait. I'm sure the solution will be super useful. 

A lot of things are cool in theory. This wasn’t my hill to die on though. I was trying to get a C in the class and move on with my life lol 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

A lot of things are cool in theory. This wasn’t my hill to die on though. I was trying to get a C in the class and move on with my life lol 

Darn, I wanted to see how they shoehorned days/years and then breathe a sigh of relief when it comes to centuries. 

Long Rangerwrote:

Darn, I wanted to see how they shoehorned days/years and then breathe a sigh of relief when it comes to centuries. 

You mean kiloyears   

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

You mean kiloyears   

Scuse me, that would be hectoyears.

Uknown Unknownwrote:

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

How about the time-tested program of sound judgement, expect the unexpected and be prepared to safely/stylishly reverse course if necessary? Not much style in a whip or crutches. One's safety is their's alone. Much of the crash 'n burn we're seeing comes from ignoring the curve. The ego/numbers loop can be tough (unforgiving).

Disparate new/old grades, even within a general area, are to be savored. History and spice over homogeneity. I take as much pleasure in on-sighting an ego-boosting, stainless festooned, 12a crimpfest as much as I do getting walloped by an awkward, thin hands, 11c. Take that, ego! Success is making it back to the cooler! Be safe!

No! I somehow want complete certainty on something as complex as a rock face boiled down to a mere one-dimensional grade that works no matter where I am in the world, what the rock type is, or the style of climbing.

Is that so hard to ask!

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

If im playing devil’s advocate I would argue that those ”50 people” that agree it is 14d likely have more experience with route grading than the vast majority of people agreeing it’s 5.6 or 5.6+ as those climbing Dreamcatcher have experienced the difference in difficulty across a much broader range of climbs (i.e. they have experience the difference between 5.7 and 5.8 as well as the difference between 5.13d and 5.14a and everything in between). 

But don't ask those people who can climb Dreamcatcher to tell the difference between a 5.7 and a 5.8.  Both are so 5.easy to 5.trivial for them that the difference will be lost on them.  Someone who's limit is 5.9, while perhaps not always getting the call right, will have a better chance of differentiating between a 5.7 and 5.8 than a 5.14d climber will.