Should old school grades be regraded to modern grades?

Long Rangerwrote:

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?

I can give you my old professsor’s email if you’d like 

Uknown Unknownwrote:

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). 

It's not the "sandbag" grading that is causing trouble. It's the gym grading. Put correction where correction is due.

In most (?) gyms, climbs basically start at 5.10 and anything less is "only for the kids' birthday parties". This makes noobs believe that 5.10 is a beginner grade. No wonder "gym bros" run into trouble when they head outside.  

Patrikwrote:

It's not the "sandbag" grading that is causing trouble. It's the gym grading. Put correction where correction is due.

In most (?) gyms, climbs basically start at 5.10 and anything less is "only for the kids' birthday parties". This makes noobs believe that 5.10 is a beginner grade. No wonder "gym bros" run into trouble when they head outside.  

is 5.10 not a beginner grade?   ;)

B Swrote:

is 5.10 not a beginner grade?   ;)

Right? Didn’t we establish a couple pages ago that anything less than 5.10 should be considered 4th class?

B Swrote:

is 5.10 not a beginner grade?   ;)

Not when someone who cruises 5.10 in the gym has a full blown epic on a 5.6 outdoors. I know we’re joking here, but I have seen this happen a lot. I do believe the gym grades should be more accurate, but who’s fault is that, and how can you fix it? The overconfident and relatively inexperienced route setter, or the masses of even less experienced gym members giving their consensus? 

If I put up an FA and grade it 5.9, but people climb it and think it’s no harder than 5.6, do we get to keep it 5.6 or does the logic not follow the other direction. I don’t care either way, but it’s a nod toward ego stroking if the logic doesn’t go both ways. 

Every crag needs an assigned "consensus climb" for every grade. All other climbs in the area are judged by that one. 

Then, every climber must climb that specific route before grading anything else / cry sandbag at that crag. 

Eventually we should develop a national (and then intercontinental) agency to assign certain climbs "certified international consensus route." 

THEN regional crags can get + or - depending on how they stack up to those intercontinental consensus routes.

So you can keep your old school grades. But with a certain number+ after. So "Sandbagged old school 5.9+" Would be graded 5.9+(*C+4). i.e. its actually 5.10d in the intercontinental consensus.

This is the only way to appease trad dads, stop grade slippage, and prevent the gymbies from certain death. 

Easy Peasy. 

Cesar Cardenaswrote:

If I put up an FA and grade it 5.9, but people climb it and think it’s no harder than 5.6, do we get to keep it 5.6 or does the logic not follow the other direction. I care either way, but it’s a nod toward ego stroking if the logic doesn’t go both ways. 

You subtract the 5.6 from the 5.9 and grade it 5.3. Simple!

No to regrading, the existence of sandbags forces those pushing themselves to learn to read the routes and learn the nuances of guidebooks and areas and decide whether they should continue. Pain is a very effective technique for reinforcing knowledge gained and will either send them back to the gym or make real climbers out of them. 

The OP is more focused on consensus grading, not if any one route is sorely misgraded ( on purpose or otherwise). Consensus grading can and does change over time... BY CONSENSUS. Not by some dweeb on MP deciding that Yosemite 5.9 is really 10a in modern parlance.

Cesar Cardenaswrote:

If I put up an FA and grade it 5.9, but people climb it and think it’s no harder than 5.6, do we get to keep it 5.6 or does the logic not follow the other direction. I care either way, but it’s a nod toward ego stroking if the logic doesn’t go both ways. 

Calling everything “ego” is just an excuse for not understanding the totality of the subject. There are so many variables and contexts, that no definitive answer will ever circumvent the nuances.

Grades back in the day were as subjective and in accurate as they are today. When 9’s and 10’s were the hardest grades of the day, nobody wanted to be caught featherbagging a route, and more so, they probably didn’t even assume they climbed that hard. So naturally, you get some grade creep.

Techniques and equipment play a role too. Everyone assumes the equipment of today always makes routes easier. In general, yes. But that’s not always the case. Take offwidths and squeezes for example. Notoriously sandbagged, right? Ever climb one with a stiff soled boot? In certain sizes, it feels way easier.

So you can argue semantics all day. But you’re wasting your time because I guarantee you’ll never come to a consensus. But you have to keep in mind, the old grades set the precedent. If they were a little stiff, so be it. 

I wrestle with this a bit.

In defense of deflating gym grades...

• There are a few accident reports that specifically cite overconfidence built in the gym ( publications.americanalpine…)
  

In defense of inflating gym grades ... 

• Much of the risk that is introduced in the car ride from the gym->crag extends beyond grade (e.g. bolt spacing, placing gear, slab etc)
• In the intermediate grades, the inflation is not enormous ... e.g. in my personal experience it's 1 number grade
• Peanut buttering the scale across difficulty increments is effective in bringing ppl into the sport, give a sense of progression

I'm just having a hard time imagining a gym that is going to do 10'+ bolt spacing over a protruding ledge with a slabby section above that ledge, and calling it a 5.8 - for the sake of trying to reduce outdoor accidents (in lieu of indoor accidents!)  I suppose one option would be to add a/b/c/d letter grades below 5.10, or pushing for use of the +/- to add more granularity to the lower grades.

Dr Logic wrote:

Logic dictates that you'll get flamed on MP for calling a 5.6 a 5.9.

User name checks out.

Salamanizer Skiwrote:

Not when someone who cruises 5.10 in the gym has a full blown epic on a 5.6 outdoors. I know we’re joking here, but I have seen this happen a lot. I do believe the gym grades should be more accurate, but who’s fault is that, and how can you fix it? The overconfident and relatively inexperienced route setter, or the masses of even less experienced gym members giving their consensus? 

I see your point, but the biggest factor I see here is experience. Any experienced climber (at any level) can differentiate between their local gym grades and outdoor grades and climb accordingly. It’s not a grade/difficulty thing, in my opinion, it’s an experience thing. Those who have experience know if their gym’s grades are soft, hard, sporadic, etc. 

Are you willing to pay to replace all the metal rating plaques at the bottom of every route in America?

Every time I get "sandbagged" it's because I jumped on something that requires a different style of climbing or I overlooked beta that later became obvious.

Then again, I mostly climb at Tahquitz and J-Tree. Where a 5.7 would be a 5.10b many other places.

Know your area. Know your history. Open your eyes and look at the terrain ahead of you. Amazing what you can learn without obsessing about numbers. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Are you willing to pay to replace all the metal rating plaques at the bottom of every route in America?

I mean once every approach to these climbs gets paved it won’t be that hard. 

90% of the time I climb something and think "sandbag" I'll usually climb it again and agree with the grade. 

If you keep getting in over your head and feel its because the grade is misleading, I'd guess you probably don't have much experience and/or are terrible at planning. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I mean once every approach to these climbs gets paved it won’t be that hard. 

Good point, JT. They can just use paint and stencils on the paved approach road. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Then again, I mostly climb at Tahquitz and J-Tree. Where a 5.7 would be a 5.10b many other places.

That Jtree 5.7 is Seneca 5.4, just saying