Should old school grades be regraded to modern grades?

No

No. But we will concede to participation pins.

David Gibbswrote:

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.

I agree, but I would also argue they have a better idea of what’s a 5.7 or 5.8 as opposed to asking someone who’s limit is 5.9 the difference between 5.12a and 5.12b, let alone 5.14c and 5.14d. It’s all relative, but if I need a random route of a random grade to be assigned a grade I would tend to view the 5.14d climbers opinion in higher regard than the 5.9 climber’s. With that said, it would be crazy for a 5.9 climber to try and grade a 5.13 route just as it would be for a 5.14 climber to grade a 5.8

why would the community get rid of 9 climbing grades because of grade inflation?  Just bring the overgraded 5.10's and 5.11's down to match their real grades and not their ego-grades.  There are a lot more 5.10 sport climbs that could easily be 5.8 and 5.12 sport climbs that are frankly, much easier than many 5.11's.  Seems like the obvious thing to do isn't to squish everything up, but to spread them out. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

.With that said, it would be crazy ... for a 5.14 climber to grade a 5.8

I see this idea a lot, that a 5.hard climber can't understand or accurately grade the difficulty of 5.easy climbs, since it is just too easy for them. I disagree with this, based on personal experience. I have found you get pretty well calibrated to the grade scale for whatever terrain you spend time on. So a guide who spends a lot of time guiding clients on easy ground will get pretty well calibrated to the difference between 5.6 and 5.7, even if on their own time they climb 5.hard. 

But if you don't spend time on routes of that grade, or aren't paying them much attention, then you won't be calibrated to the scale in that range. Your typical 5.14 sport climber is hardly ever climbing 5.6 routes, so they lose their calibration there.

Personal anecdote: I've at several times been in the position that I'm climbing entirely on mid 5.11 to 5.13 range (my personal climbing), and also in the 5.6-5.8 range (setting up climbs for my girlfriend). When this happens I can tell 5.6 from 5.7 just as well as I can tell 12b from 12c. But I might go an entire year without touching a 5.10, and when I do get in 5.10 I have no idea what is 10a vs 10c. Since I'm not calibrated in that part of the range.

This calibration is also entirely local - dependent on rock type, climbing style, and local grading custom. You might be totally in tune with the grades at Smith, but then you go to the Gunks and nothing makes sense. Or vice versa. 

Here’s an idea…a rather genius one if I may add. Why not return to the roots of the original YDS but make it a sliding scale? This would also make the scale arithmetically logical. 

Under this system 5.9+ would equal the hardest grade climbed, and then go down from there. Hence, 5.9+ would equate to current 5.15d. The hallowed grade of 5.9 would be the only one to get a “+” designator. Anything less than 5.14a would be 5.0. Elegant, no?

Now, I understand the simpering masses may protest that this regime may be a bit elitist, and to capitulate to the protestations of those mewling, snot-nosed weaklings, we can add a “+” to each number grade. Under such a milk toast and diluted scale, 5.0+ would equate to current 5.11a, and current 5.10d and under would be 5.0. Really, at that point, is it even climbing?

@the shmuck - a proud trad dad here.  I take offense to your cocky humble brag 5.11 comments, blatantly dissing my 5.8 trad leads.  Piss off sir.  

I offer my sincerest apologies for insulting technical hikers.  I, of course, am worthy of contempt. 

I like the schmuck's suggestion - let's just fold route grades into something like Gill's B system. Anything at your limit is 5.9+, and as soon as you do it more than once it becomes Gunks 5.6. Anything easier is just 4th class ledge shuffling.

it seems like here on MP we've already created a work-around grading system that should work fine for the newer or moderate trad leader, which I believe is the situation the OP was adressing. After various ticks and opinions on a route's MP page, there grows a consensus grade which may stray from the FA's assigned grade, as well as an archive of comments a leader can use to base their decisions of whether or not a route is appropriate to their abilities and motivations. This MP consensus doesn't change the guidebook rating, it just adds some real-time feedback from the masses.

Several routes at my local crags have a different MP consensus grade than what shows in the original guidebooks. I'm fine with having both tools available.

JCMwrote:

I see this idea a lot, that a 5.hard climber can't understand or accurately grade the difficulty of 5.easy climbs, since it is just too easy for them. I disagree with this, based on personal experience. I have found you get pretty well calibrated to the grade scale for whatever terrain you spend time on. 

But if you don't spend time on routes of that grade, or aren't paying them much attention, then you won't be calibrated to the scale in that range. Your typical 5.14 sport climber is hardly ever climbing 5.6 routes, so they lose their calibration there.

These two statements contradict each other, no? I agree with what your saying about spending time on climbs makes you a much better judge, but in reality a 5.14 climber may never climb a single route under 5.10 for multiple seasons, if not longer.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

These two statements contradict each other, no? I agree with what your saying about spending time on climbs makes you a much better judge, but in reality a 5.14 climber may never climb a single route under 5.10 for multiple seasons, if not longer.

I guess there's the difference between "is it common" vs "is it possible" for a 5.hard climber to be familiar with 5.easy grades. Even if it isn't common, it is definitely possible.

A lot of people say something like "there's no way a 5.13 climber can tell the difference between 5.6 and 5.7, since those two are so easy to them that the difference is imperceptible". I'm saying that this is not true. Many 5.13 climbers may not have the recent experience on easy routes to be well calibrated at those grades.  But if they choose to spend some time on 5.6 (and many do), they'll get calibrated to the grade pretty fast. Maybe they are a guide, or like easy soloing.

Interestingly, the inverse doesn't work. A climber who maxed out at 5.easy simply cannot be a judge of 5.hard grades. Since you have to be able to climb the route, at least make reasonable tries on the sections, to understand its difficulty.

Teton Tomwrote:

iwork-around grading system that should work fine for the newer or moderate trad leader, which I believe is the situation the OP was adressing. 

I still think that it’s a somewhat fallacious and counterintuitive argument.  Why is getting sandbagged on a “regular” (meaning not run-out) trad route inherently dangerous?  Why is it any more dangerous than getting sandbagged on a sport route?  Because the leader might fall?  So what?  What happens when the leader falls on a sport route?  If the implication is that “well injury is more likely if gear rips” or something like that, then the problem ISN’T that the leader got sandbagged.  People fall all the time and don’t get injured.  The problem is that the leader could not find or place well enough gear that would hold a fall.  If that isn’t the case, then getting sandbagged on a trad route is nbd.  The first time it happened to me was on The Burn at Seneca.  It felt like a 10 the first time I got on it and I wasn’t a 5.10 climber- but I fell and my gear held.  So the sandbag essentially was inconsequential.  

And how far should we extrapolate this focus on safety?  Should we put warnings on every route?  Must be at ___ level to attempt this route?  In addition, let’s consider the opposite.  Thought experiment:   Let’s say a route is graded 5.8 but is really 5.6.  If someone can’t place gear and that faux 5.8 has a bunch of protrusions and blocky, giant holds, isn’t a SOFT route inherently MORE dangerous because there are more protrusions to be injured by in the event that gear rips?  

So if you take the exact same person that places shit gear and they get on a soft route, over-confident and they fall and rip gear, the consequence is presumably worse.  

Now, let’s try the counter factual- me.  I’ll never blow the roof off anything with regard to climbing skill, and I’ve been sandbagged either by telling myself something *should* be a piece of cake, or by (for lack of a better term) “old school” grading.  What I do have going for me is I can pick out solid gear almost anywhere, on any route I can hang onto.  Anyone that can’t do that shouldn’t be leading trad routes of any grade, anywhere.  

The entire premise that the OP’s claim- the claim of ‘sandbagging = extra danger’ assumes, is illogical for all the aforementioned reasons.  And we certainly don’t need to rearrange an imperfect but workable system to make up for people that want to lead trad routes but can’t place bomber gear.  It’s not like new trad leaders have to solve a quadratic equation to get a good nut in a constriction or get a cam into solid rock in a ~parallel placement.  It’s just not that hard.  Sorry, but it isn’t.  Propping up this kind of backward logic and not even questioning it is a mistake.

Jake Joneswrote:

I still think that it’s a somewhat fallacious and counterintuitive argument... Propping up this kind of backward logic and not even questioning it is a mistake.

Yo Jake, all I was saying that the collective "we" at MP (which would include you, me, and the OP) have created a tool that does not change any grading system, but often creates a parallel consensus grade that may or may not be of assistance to a leader taking on an unknown route, trad or sport, that may or may not be sandbagged. Use it as you choose, or not at all. I'm not arguing that we should or shouldn't be interfering with how someone engages risk or danger...

Teton Tomwrote:

Yo Jake, all I was saying that the collective "we" at MP (which would include you, me, and the OP) have created a tool that does not change any grading system, but often creates a parallel consensus grade that may or may not be of assistance to a leader taking on an unknown route, trad or sport, that may or may not be sandbagged. Use it as you choose, or not at all. I'm not arguing that we should or shouldn't be interfering with how someone engages risk or danger...

Sorry man- I know that was sort of a rant, not really meant to be directed at you- I just quoted you to make the point.  Sorry for that, I should have been more clear.  And yeah- I get what you’re saying about consensus grading.  

Grades should be an accurate representation of the climb. This may change due to breakage, polish, new beta, and so on. If a modern climb were put up, and called a 5.9 when in reality it was actually solid 5.10, there would be little issue with people upgrading the climb to something the majority of climbers deem appropriate. As climbing has evolved and grown, there is a good benchmark for what is a true 5.9, 5.10, 5.14. Being in the ballpark is fine, because grades are subjective. Having a 5.9 that is actually a stout 5.10 is objectively not correct. 

I think it's great to add information to a guidebook, such as X climb was originally graded a 5.7 in 1972 and has since been upgraded to 5.10a. 

Accurate grades do not diminish the experience of climbing a route, it simply diminishes the age old tradition of sandbagging other climbers. 

One of the most fun experiences that I have had climbing was going to Shuteye Ridge before there was a guidebook and just climbing the routes that looked fun. Didn't know if we were getting on a 5.9 or 5.12 sometimes, but the suspense was fun. I'm now at a time in my life where I could seek those experiences by going climbing without consulting a guidebook or mountainproject for information other than how to get to a cliff, but in reality I like to have a fun day climbing where I can push myself and have an idea of how hard I am pushing myself. 

Rob Dwrote:

why would the community get rid of 9 climbing grades because of grade inflation?  Just bring the overgraded 5.10's and 5.11's down to match their real grades and not their ego-grades.  There are a lot more 5.10 sport climbs that could easily be 5.8 and 5.12 sport climbs that are frankly, much easier than many 5.11's.  Seems like the obvious thing to do isn't to squish everything up, but to spread them out. 

Dude let me know where all these 5.12s that are soft AF. I'm trying to boost my 8a score. 

But actually though if they are on the west coast I'll add them to my to-do list.

Bb Cc wrote:

It’s a New Day. 

And I’m feeling good.

Long Ranger wrote:

OK now make this work for days in a year. 

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

Only a problem in our base-10 number system. By the simple expedient of adopting a base-sqrt(365.24) number system there will be 100 days in a year.

Kevin Nevillewrote:

Long Ranger wrote:

Only a problem in our base-10 number system. By the simple expedient of adopting a base-sqrt(365.24) number system there will be 100 days in a year.

Well no: there's still "365" or whatever days, it's just that you write that amount of days as, "100". And then yeah: adopt that base 365 system ('cause you can't have a base of decimal, right?) to hours, minutes, seconds and we're all screwed. And how do you write big numbers with a base of 365? Like are you going to use emojis after you run out numbers and letters and everything else ASCII?