If you TR and/or dog your way up a route, your downgrade suggestion should be ignored

Brandon Rwrote:

What if you TR and/or dog your way up a route and UPgrade it? Asking for a friend. 

If you just dog up something once and think it's hard, that's a valid opinion but it doesn't carry much weight. Maybe you just missed something your first time on it. 

But if you've been projecting something and know it well, I think there are times it is fair to suggest a higher grade even if you haven't sent yet. 

Let's say there's a 13a route. Climber is a local to the area and is familiar with the 13a grade there, and can usually get them done in 4-6 tries. But on this "13a" it took them 4 tie-ins just to work out the crux sequence, and now a few sessions later they finally got the links together and feel like they can give proper RP efforts. This is more like the process and timeline they are used to on mid-5.13 in the area. Even though they haven't sent yet (actually, it is because they haven't sent yet), it's probably fair to suggest it feels harder than 13a to them.

This grade suggestion - from someone projecting it but hasn't sent yet - is probably actually a more useful grade suggestion than one from some super strong climber who onsighted it as their warmup. The value of a grade suggestion is based on how much relevant information they have (about the route, and other comparable routes) and how thoughtful the person is. Someone deep in the process of projecting the route will have more relevant information than some strong visitor who onsighted it. Seeing the route through to the send is important since it provides additional relevant information, but it's not the only important factor.

As to the OP - someone who TRs once then downgrades probably doesn't have a complete picture of the difficulty of the route, and probably isn't  very thoughtful about the limitations of their knowledge. That's why their opinion isn't really worth much. It isn't simply because they didn't send.

People downgrade anything I can get up cleanly. 

Heh 

Be real nice if mountain project let you filter ticks by red point, flash, onsite vs dogged. Would make ticks useful again...

I actually came to read this over because I was just talking to these two nut job trolls on IG who were saying I wasn’t shit because I was multi pitch trad leading at a 5.8 level in the gunks while they’re single pitch sport leading at a 5.10 level in Alabama. Made me scratch my head to say the least…

JCMwrote:

If you just dog up something once and think it's hard, that's a valid opinion but it doesn't carry much weight. Maybe you just missed something your first time on it. 

But if you've been projecting something and know it well, I think there are times it is fair to suggest a higher grade even if you haven't sent yet. 

Let's say there's a 13a route. Climber is a local to the area and is familiar with the 13a grade there, and can usually get them done in 4-6 tries. But on this "13a" it took them 4 tie-ins just to work out the crux sequence, and now a few sessions later they finally got the links together and feel like they can give proper RP efforts. This is more like the process and timeline they are used to on mid-5.13 in the area. Even though they haven't sent yet (actually, it is because they haven't sent yet), it's probably fair to suggest it feels harder than 13a to them.

This grade - from someone projecting it but hasn't sent yet, is probably actually a more useful grade suggestion than some super strong climber who onsighted it as their warmup. The value of a grade suggestion is based on how much relevant information they have (about the route, and other comparable routes) and how thoughtful the person is. Someone deep in the process of projecting the route will have more relevant information than some string visitor who onsighted it. Seeing the route through to the send is important since it provides additional relevant information, but it's not the only important factor.

As to the OP - someone who TRs once then downgrades probably doesn't have a complete picture of the difficulty of the route, and probably isn't  very thoughtful about the limitations of their knowledge. That's why their opinion isn't really worth much. It isn't simply because they didn't send.

Love everything here and most of this thread. 

I would just add that it is important in your example that they have climbed several hard climbs like it, I am hangdogging something at a local crag but because its at the absolute limit I can't suggest an upgrade/downgrade because I can't really compare it, especially at this craig. 

It also goes to show how much different regions have different gradings/styles/ the styles you are used to.  For example I am usually solid on big moves to good holds where as roof climbs I can (read usually) struggle on. People understanding the area and grading tend to be the best judges.

The other thing I think is interesting is how different styles of climbing can effect a grade, for example I can think of two climbs one at the RRG another at the NRG (can't think of the names feel free to comment them) that can either be TRed/led/ or "highish" balled.  Depending on how its bolted it can be a major energy sink to clip, especially if you are placing draws.  In particular this bolder at the RRG had to be rebolted in order to be effectively led. This can lead to differences in perceived difficulty, especially if you naturally feel more secure on top rope even if it isn't actually correct to feel that way.  Same if your trying to lead face climbs on gear.  Unless you NEED to use a key crack to place pro generally the moves will be all the same which should have the same rating, which is why being a 5.10 sport climber is very different from a 5.10 trad climber.  In my opinion a grade should be based primarily off the moves on the route. Which is why for trad they have the PG13, R X rating system.  In addition I think it is most important that ratings are consistent in the region, even if they are not between regions.  At the end of the day some crags regions are just going to be known as sandbagged.  

I also have fallen/hung and then still said it felt soft, but it needs to be relative to other things, and if your new to the area and are on a massive hang dog trip you prolly shouldn't be crap talking however and I think that is what OP is trying to say.    Sometimes you just fall and that is okay.  In addition I climb at a TR only crag (long story) and I wish I could distinguish between fell/hung sends and clean sends.  

In addition the mountain/anchor skills required for alpine/multi might not be reflected on grades but sure as hell matter in how good of a climber you are.  

My hardbody friends look to me for gear/ anchor advice where ask I'll ask them for route beta.  If your only anchor you know is 2 quickdraws (thats the case for more than a few people I know) you are a different climber than someone who can build bolt anchors and a very different climber than someone who can equalize gear implement, natural anchors etc. 

Thats my 2 cents but I think this is very interesting.  

^ Well said. Also, gotta love both the NRG and RRG

.
Nothing at all against TR and sport, as I do both of them as well. But that is why I find trad climbing to be most interesting, especially without beta. I don’t necessarily know that I have great pro all the way up, and that pro is always changing, as is the pro available to me. It’s not exactly the same every time. It might be a bomber number #3. It might be a thin wire on a crux move. I have to search for pro while climbing. Once I find it, I need to find the appropriate piece. It might be off line or not, so I may then have to extend it. High energy placements are a little more fun now aren’t they? And what if I’m using a single rack? Do I use my #1 here? Or by glancing at the route, do I think I’ll need it later? Which is why most times if I have no beta I have a double rack. But that also means double the weight. Or I’m on a long multi pitch, so I want a double rack anyway for building gear anchors (along with my long slings or cordy). For me, it’s like figuring out two puzzles instead of one. Both the climb, and how to protect it. On TR, I don’t have the second puzzle. So I can focus more on strength and technique. Sport is a great mix of both. Trad, I climb down a couple steps as I have more going on. Different things for different days in different places. There’s always something to climb. I don't care at all if I see someone dogging something on sport. Or falling on TR till they get it right. They’re climbing hard, will figure it out next time, send it, and be psyched. But would they have even tried it with no beta than the grade and you could only trad lead it?…..

I feel the biggest flaw in our rateing system is that most often its a redpoint grade and not an onsight grade. that's fine for half pitch clip ups but sucks on multi pitch stuff especially if its longer.  If the person who graded it is a local that has it dialed that is not going to help the visiting climber who walks up to the base of the climb and has minimal beta. 

At the end of the day, I’d rather have a range of opinions from a variety of people. And I’d rather it were an honest opinion, not a “people would think me a wuss if I say it was harder than the grade, so I shouldn’t say it, even if it felt harder”.

Let’s say someone ONLY ever toptopes. For whatever reason, I don’t care. Can they not discern that route A is harder than route B? Why wouldn’t it count? 

Or, let’s say that someone is injured. They are experienced enough to understand exactly how they would do a move. They had done plenty of routes at the grade, and plenty of moves of this kind. They just can’t do this particular move right now because (insert explanation). Is it not possible that they would still have a fairly accurate view of the difficulty, even though they hung on that one move? 

Lena. they may in fact be knowledgeable enough to make an accurate  guess at the grade despite not being able to climb it that day however, given the fact that down grading is often a dick move  it would be INMOP mandatory that they at least flashed it first.  If your going  to be a dick at least be a competent one ;) 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Lena. they may in fact be knowledgeable enough to make an accurate  guess at the grade despite not being able to climb it that day however, given the fact that down grading is often a dick move  it would be INMOP mandatory that they at least flashed it first.  If your going  to be a dick at least be a competent one ;) 

I disagree with this in a multitude of ways

- The concept of an individual providing "downgrade" is the wrong term. Each individual gets to make a grade suggestion, and some of those suggestions are weighted more than others based on the experience of that individual and their reasoning. But one person suggesting a lower grade is not a "downgrade". That doesn't happen until a community consensus forms. (Exception: guidebook authors have done ability to unilaterally downgrade, at least within their book).

- Offering a suggestion if a lower grade is not a dick move, provided it is does respectfully and with good reasoning. A grade suggestion is only as dickish/obnoxious as the person making the suggestion. Describe your experience, but don't be obnoxious about it, and it's all good.

- "Mandatory to have at least flashed it".  That's just silly, and kind of backwards. Someone trying a route at their redpoint limit will have a better understanding of the route and grade than someone who flashes it for their warmup and moves on. There's vast numbers of examples of people making reasonable suggestions for grade changes (up or down) after repointing a route.

---

The broader problem is we just talk about "downgrades" wrong. Grading a route is a collaborative effort to collect information that helps the community  establish the difficulty of a route. A single person providing an account of their experience that suggests a lower grade is just that - one person's account. It's useful information, but not on its own a downgrade. And definitely not a dick move.

A lot of this is people just reading too much drama into these things, as well as a somewhat sordid history of past generations of climbing that were a bit less mature about these things (i.e. the bad old days of early 90s sport climbing).

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

I feel the biggest flaw in our rateing system is that most often its a redpoint grade and not an onsight grade. that's fine for half pitch clip ups but sucks on multi pitch stuff especially if its longer.  If the person who graded it is a local that has it dialed that is not going to help the visiting climber who walks up to the base of the climb and has minimal beta. 

Totally agree, and kinda what I was getting at. I’ll fully admit there are climbs I will jump right on and start plugging away, and others of the same grade I’ll search for on YouTube for at least a general sense before I take a swing. Some things are a whole lot more sketchy than what you envision from the ground. 

My thoughts who can grade what: Most people are best calibrated to the grades they climb most and pay attention to grades on. To quantity of, that's usually from about 1 YDS number grade below their onsight level, up to their redpoint level. So a climber that consistently onsights 5.11, has a max onsight of 12a, and a max redpoint of 13a, can probably offer decent suggestions for grades in the 11a to 13a range. Maybe slightly above (up to 13b-ish), for routes clearly just a bit harder than what they've done. 

Go much easier, and the difficulties just kind of blend together; they might not be calibrated to 10a vs 10b. Much harder, and they just don't have the understanding of the difficulty of sending the route. Even if they manage to dog to the chains of a 14a and do some of the moves, they won't really understand what it takes to send it.

There are exceptions, of course. An injured climber with a deep background at a grade, but who can't climb it at the moment, still has that base understanding. Another exception is someone like a guide who is much stronger than the grade, but is still well calibrated to the lower grades because they climb them a lot with clients. 

I had the strange situation for a few years a while ago where I was super well calibrated to 5.12 and 5.13 grades (what I was mostly climbing at the time for my personal climbing) and 5.6-5.8 grades (which I spent a lot of time on with my girlfriend), but nothing in between. I could absolutely tell the difference between 5.7 and 5.8, since I was well calibrated to whether my girlfriend would struggle on it, but had no idea what was 10c vs 10d since I rarely climbed in the 5.10 range at that time. But then a few years later I was spending more time on 5.10s (for various reasons), and got way more calibrated to that grade.

The key factor is some humility about the limits of your understanding, both of a specific route and of that grade.  It is also always style/location specific. Just because you undersntad what "12b" feels like at Smith, doesn't mean you'll understand it at Rifle or the Red.

JCM if you have thoughtful mature people giving their best shot at an honest grade and it happens to be a downgrade thats obviously not a dick move.   In my experience  there are a fair number of snarky folks that like to pump themselves up by downgrading or maybe they just like pushing buttons. ...  how would it have looked if the Wide Boys had not climbed Pamelas route clean before they downgraded it from 5.13 to 10+ ? 

That is why if your going to deviate from the norm provide how you climbed it and a little bit of information why.  This is especially the case if its a newish route, you might have found some new beta.    

Ie very slack top rope no takes/weights, redpoint 3 days about 4 goes, lead on gear Onsight, or Hangdog my way up this normally 13as dont feel to bad the first time.  whatever it might be.  Also be prepared to accept the limitations of the way you experienced the route.

I do think people have a limit on whatever they can climb/rate effectively.  This is also doubly true for the type of style and location, pockets on sandstone is very different from horizontels at the gunks, to overhanging jugs at the red. 

To quantity of, that's usually from about 1 YDS number grade below their onsight level, up to their redpoint level - I think this is a good place to start the identification from.  

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

I feel the biggest flaw in our rateing system is that most often its a redpoint grade and not an onsight grade. that's fine for half pitch clip ups but sucks on multi pitch stuff especially if its longer.  If the person who graded it is a local that has it dialed that is not going to help the visiting climber who walks up to the base of the climb and has minimal beta. 

SPOT ON! I like the idea of a redpoint grade for sport routes and an onsite grade for multi pitch. 

Scott Doeringwrote:

I actually came to read this over because I was just talking to these two nut job trolls on IG who were saying I wasn’t shit because I was multi pitch trad leading at a 5.8 level in the gunks while they’re single pitch sport leading at a 5.10 level in Alabama. Made me scratch my head to say the least…

Why is there always a gunks climber spraying about how hard the gunks are whenever grades are discussed?

That 5.8 would be 5.4 at Seneca bruh.

Scott Doeringwrote:

It would be kinda cool if there was different grading for each climbing discipline, but I guess that would be a bit too complicated. 

I mean, we use separate systems for bouldering and it works out. Didn't they use to grade boulders in Joshua Tree with YDS grades?

It would have been interesting if North America had adopted French grades for sport climbing and kept the YDS for trad climbing. That's basically the situation in Britain.

French grades becoming the international standard for sport climbing, slowly but surely I think.

The issue is are they just different ways to express the same difficulty or are they trying to do different things.  Because if you are just trying to do conversions there is no point. A true new grading system would reflect the differences of each discipline to truly have value. Not sure I see the need tbh. 

Edit that is exactly what I am saying you need to incorporate all necessary factors. 

Bailey Nicholsonwrote:

The issue is are they just different ways to express the same difficulty or are they trying to do different things.  Because if you are just trying to do conversions there is no point. A true new grading system wwould reflect the differences of each discipline to truly have value. Not sure I see the need tbh. 

People dump shit on British trad grades buuuut...that's what they do. Incorporate the difficulty of protecting the route into the grade as well, not just the physical difficulty.

The actually weird bit is having an extra physical difficulty rating that looks exactly like French grade but isn't.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Why is there always a gunks climber spraying about how hard the gunks are whenever grades are discussed?

I'm not convinced that that's what's going on here; to me it simply suggests that both Scott and the IG trolls have realised that there is a difference in actual difficulty - 'challenge', if you will - between a sport route and a trad route that enjoy the same rating on a scale that only measures physical difficulty.

That 5.8 would be 5.4 at Seneca bruh.

That simply sounds like somebody spraying about how hard Seneca is. Which it may well be; but in this context that's irrelevant.