Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Most downgraded and upgraded routes.
|
I'm not getting into details of the climbs, but I know someone who did a guidebook update and downrated and uprated well established routes based on how they personally felt when they climbed them. I thought that was pretty bogus. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and if you're changing a rating you should get consensus. If you have really big hands and it makes hand jams easy that doesn't mean you should downrate a 5.10 to a 5.9. |
Nick Budkawrote: Modern times is 5.8 in all four gunks guidebooks that are at least somewhat up to date. The dangler has been 5.10 for a while, but both will feel easy to indoor climbers, and the dangler is probably the easiest 10 in the gunks by a good stretch. |
|
In 1966 Steve Roper called 'the cleft' in pinnacles 5.5, the modern bay area rock book calls it 5.9. I gotta go do it to decide for my self. |
|
"Look Out! Danger" on the Titan in the Fishers was claimed to be A6+ by the FA team. The second ascent gave it a generous rating of A3 |
The specifics would tell the story I'm sure. But I would trust the opinion of certain guidebook authors over random FA parties that may or may not be attuned to grading. I think its best not to get too wrapped around the axle about this vs that rating - the climb remains exactly the same. It's only the ego of competition that begs to differ, anyway. |
Robert Rowsamwrote: I am not the most knowledgeable when it comes to grading aid climbs but how is A6+ possible. I thought A5 potentially meant every placement on the whole pitch could only hold body weight? |
Shaun Johnsonwrote: A6, ludicrous as it is, means the belay will most likely rip. A6+ is just dick swinging nonsense. |
Marc801 Cwrote: Dick Swinging Nonsense would be a great route name. |
|
Archangel is a consensus 12b in the red, yet was given 11d in the latest guidebook because (allegedly) the author was salty that they were falling all over it and couldn’t send. |
Shaun Johnsonwrote: A6+ isn't really possible. In theory, an A6 would be an A5 with bodyweight anchors as well. Not sure how it could be more sketchy than that. This route would be equivalent to to calling your new sport route like a 5.19d X and then the second ascent downgrading it to 5.10 PG |
|
Can we all agree that consensus grades (i.e. average based on 8a or MP) are generally far more accurate gauges then a guidebook author and their friends (or dare I say, a FA's opinion)... |
Dan Booklesswrote: No - both in the case of routes with few ratings as well in for fringe number grade routes at popular areas (I.e. a popular route is more likely to get 12a than 11d - or rather, if a route with easy access is suggested very soft 12a it is more likely for folks to continue to suggest the very soft 12a grade than it is for them to suggest the downgrade to 11d) |
Dan Booklesswrote: No, in that most guidebook authors want an accurate grade and will seek consensus if needed. And don't you think they look at 8a and MP as well in forming that consensus? |
Marc801 Cwrote: I was thinking that it involved the belay being body weight only as well.. Man that is sketch. Hypothetically if the follower fell, they would just pull down the belayer from the top and zipper the whole pitch?!? |
Shaun Johnsonwrote: Pretty much. On the 'A6+' route mentioned above, there was supposedly a belay made entirely of hooks. |
Dan Booklesswrote: I feel that the difficulty as well as the quality consensuses on Mountain Project is for sure its best attribute. A guidebook is kind of the opinion of a single individual, who may have not even climbed the route, or sent it clean. |
Marc801 Cwrote: Nah, climb it again. Hella jugs, 3 pieces of gear protects it fine for the second after your feet leave the ground, modern times is way harder at 5.8+. For that matter so is Arrow. But on the topic of fun downgrades, Starry night 5.11c at the gallery. Originally 12a has seen suggestions as low as 11a. |
Nick Budkawrote: I may be in the minority here, but I didn’t think that modern times is that sandbagged - hard 5.8 felt fair. I haven’t done the dangler in a while, but it definitely was harder than arrow. That being said, Arrow has some weird beta, and modern times is really intimidating, exposed, and has a big reputation. It’s perhaps telling that there are very few climbs in the gunks that got upgraded after the 60s, and the expansion of the YDS. The dangler was one of those climbs. I remember reading somewhere that the FA was so strong, he couldn’t feel the difference between 5.8 and 5.10 - that’s where the 5.8 grade came from. |
|
By virtue of a wide margin of consensus grade voting for The Dangler being aligned against him, it would appear that Mountain Project users have collectively determined one Nick Budka to be a sand bagger. Better luck next time, Nick, the line between fighting grade creep and ego spraying is indeed thin and treacherous. Thank you, and good night. |
Cherokee Nuneswrote: I don't want to get into specifics and call the author out (an acquaintance) but it was the 3rd generation of the guidebook, you should have solid consensus to change a rating at that point. I agree with FA parties not being attuned to grading. Especially when a 5.12+ climber puts up a 5.9 climb it all feels easy to them. Chasing numbers isn't a great thing to focus on but good ratings are very helpful when choosing climbs. You only have so much time / endurance to climb and it's nice to find climbs that are challenging but doable. |
