How low grade-wise does the appetite for sport climbing go?

Connor Dobsonwrote:

That's super rad! I'm sure it's cool to see people enjoying your routes :) 

Yes, climbers of all grades have always enjoyed my routes. It's even more rewarding to know beginners who would have otherwise been turned off from the sport taking up sport climbing because of my routes :)

I'd say, as others have, the appetite goes right down to super-easy; definitely 5.3, likely right down almost to 5.0.  Beginner and ultra-beginner climbs tend to be popular.  Now... that doesn't mean a 5.0 climb at a crag where the next hardest climb is 5.10 is going to get any traffic.  But if there are climbs already ranging down below 5.8, don't stop at some arbitrary "too easy" limit.  

I just got back from a trip to the Calanques, and there were a couple of bolted 2b climbs (about 5.1) that showed clear signs of lots of traffic, and the nearby 3s (about 5.4) were showing definite polish.

As to "can't tell the difference between a 5.0 and 5.4" -- yeah, not surprising.  So, try it in your hiking boots or running shoes.  Try it in those shoes, and with gloves on.  Maybe add a pack.  No, seriously -- if you are trying to figure out for grading purposes the relative difficulties of easy climbs, handicap yourself.  It will help point out the difference between easy and easier.

There is an appetite for all the lower grades if they are fun, safe, near other climbing, or a long multi-pitch. 

There's certainly local demand for 5.9 and easier sport on our local basalt. However, the is rock rarely renders quality face climbs below 5.10. The higher-quality rock tends to be steeper and less featured. In general ,the easier sport routes are laid-in and ledgy enough that one wouldn't want to fall on them, or else so subject to weathering that rockfall is a perennial concern.

 I'm currently working on an area which I hope will render some fun, safe moderates and divert some traffic from the 5.10 warmups elsewhere. Alas, many lines that look like 9's from the ground, once cleaned, end up being 10s or 11s. I'm now understanding the temptation to drill, reinforce holds, or even go full-Euro and bolt some plastic to the rock. I won't.

I'm sure there are plenty of places where the developers ignored good easy lines, but at some crags, such lines don't exist. My hat is off to OP and others who are putting up humble but worthy lines! Tal, I'd totally climb that route in the photo. What a lovely setting!

Logan Petersonwrote:

There's certainly local demand for 5.9 and easier sport on our local basalt. However, the is rock rarely renders quality face climbs below 5.10. The higher-quality rock tends to be steeper and less featured. In general ,the easier sport routes are laid-in and ledgy enough that one wouldn't want to fall on them, or else so subject to weathering that rockfall is a perennial concern.

 I'm currently working on an area which I hope will render some fun, safe moderates and divert some traffic from the 5.10 warmups elsewhere. Alas, many lines that look like 9's from the ground, once cleaned, end up being 10s or 11s. I'm now understanding the temptation to drill, reinforce holds, or even go full-Euro and bolt some plastic to the rock. I won't.

I'm sure there are plenty of places where the developers ignored good easy lines, but at some crags, such lines don't exist. My hat is off to OP and others who are putting up humble but worthy lines! Tal, I'd totally climb that route in the photo. What a lovely setting!

No offense, but this kind of misconception is exactly why I believe most climbers operating at the 5.12 level shouldn't be bolting anything below 5.10. What might seem like an unremarkable or low-quality face climb to someone used to harder grades can be a genuine gem for a true 5.7 climber.

The reality is, many strong climbers lack the perspective to identify and develop easier routes. They don’t spend time climbing at those grades, so they often overlook good moderate lines entirely—or if they do bolt them, the protection is spaced in a way that only feels comfortable to someone at their skill level.

I do appreciate and fully agree with your decision not to manufacture holds or bolt on plastic - that kind of integrity is important. But the fact that you even considered it reinforces the main issue: that the easier line likely does exist, but it simply doesn’t register as worthwhile through the lens of a 5.12 climber.

You’re right that some crags don’t naturally offer good easy lines. But more often, they’re passed over or dismissed. And yes, these climbs can be ledgy and not ideal for taking lead falls—but that’s true of many beloved 5.10+ routes as well. These kinds of moderates might not be the best intro to lead climbing, but they often shine as top-rope options and are still valuable additions to a crag.

Julian Jwrote:

No offense, but this kind of misconception is exactly why I believe most climbers operating at the 5.12 level shouldn't be bolting anything below 5.10. What might seem like an unremarkable or low-quality face climb to someone used to harder grades can be a genuine gem for a true 5.7 climber.

Haha! I barely operate at a 5.12 level, but thanks! Given that I'm the weakest person in my neighborhood with a drill, by your logic, nobody out here has any business bolting anything below 5.10. That generally suits me. In general, I'd rather the person bolting has taken a lot of lead falls and encountered a lot of choss, regardless of how hard they climb. Related to your point though, I don't think most 5.13 climbers have any business grading routes at or below 5.10.

Perhaps I should qualify what I meant by "low quality". I'm not saying I think the movement sucks. I'm saying that a lead fall would be dangerous and/or that the route would periodically shed big blocks. Were we not concerned with such factors, there'd surely be a lot more 5.7s out this way, and a lot more injuries.

The reality is, many strong climbers lack the perspective to identify and develop easier routes. They don’t spend time climbing at those grades, so they often overlook good moderate lines entirely—or if they do bolt them, the protection is spaced in a way that only feels comfortable to someone at their skill level.

I do appreciate and fully agree with your decision not to manufacture holds or bolt on plastic - that kind of integrity is important. But the fact that you even considered it reinforces the main issue: that the easier line likely does exist, but it simply doesn’t register as worthwhile through the lens of a 5.12 climber.

I'm not sure you understood me on that point. I'm saying it looks like a 9, and by the time I knock off all of the choss that might injure a belayer, there are far fewer holds. In this environment, on basalt, physical weathering dominates. Cliffs periodically shed columns, leaving dead-vertical to slightly-overhung faces. There are no tufas or dissolution pockets. 

You’re right that some crags don’t naturally offer good easy lines.

Yes. This. If I somehow came across as making a statement about rock elsewhere on earth, I was mistaken. I'm not trying to discourage the development of easy sport elsewhere. Rather, I'm presenting a single case study of a guy who has tried and as of yet failed to meet the demand for such routes in a particular area.

 But more often, they’re passed over or dismissed. And yes, these climbs can be ledgy and not ideal for taking lead falls—but that’s true of many beloved 5.10+ routes as well. These kinds of moderates might not be the best intro to lead climbing, but they often shine as top-rope options and are still valuable additions to a crag.

I've climbed in places where it's easy and relatively safe to access anchors from above. That's not the case here.

5.4 enjoyer here! You want to bolt a 5.3? Who you gonna call? 

Lol me I guess, I just got scared shitless FA-ing a new PG rated 5.9 2 pitch route. (In my defense my health was garbage last year so I'm more like 5.7 or 5.8 leader at present and the crux is wildly insecure) 

I will offer my services of assessing the quality of your new very easy route in exchange for more bolts. Or some good local craft beer (so long as it isn't an IPA). Or if you're an excellent hugger than a couple top tier hugs would probably suffice. 

Julian, I will push back a bit on your response to Logan - I think a lot of your concerns and feedback are rooted in your experiences around the limestone endemic to your area - as Logan said, it's much less likely to find quality low-grade climbs on more granitic rock types for 2 reasons. One, the ledge issue that Logan mentioned, but also two - "obvious" lines are just less common at the lower grades. In general, lower-grade climbs, especially on non-limestone rock, are going to be on lower-angle walls. These lower angle walls will likely be equally featured (or rather, lack of features) across them due to how much more weathering they'll see from water, etc, over time. This means there are fewer of the "striking" lines that tend to form the best lines. Think of the notable, bolt-protected exceptions to this. They'll generally either be aretes, dike features, etc. Those just aren't super common, unfortunately. And the line's aesthetic quality plays a big part in the overall perceived star rating of a route.

Generally, a climber's ability shouldn't play a significant role in their ability as a developer - obviously it would preclude you from some things. I shouldn't be developing routes I can't at least do all of the moves in isolation/hang the positions on for the most part. But good developers have ways of making sure they're doing a good job, regardless of the grade - giving themselves handicaps at lower grades, etc. The fact of the matter is, there are just a lot of bad and/or lucky developers out there, AND expectations and "the rules of the game" have changed over time, and we're still climbing on routes established under those old rules. Just the nature of the beast, unfortunately.

Related to your point though, I don't think most 5.13 climbers have any business grading routes at or below 5.10.

This may be true with the "most" qualifier, but it is not always true. It is definitely possible for a 5.13 climber to get a good understanding of grading easier routes - if they climb at those grades often and climb with climbers at that level. A climbing guide is an example of this. Even if that guide can climb very hard, they should also develop a good sense of what their clients will or will not struggle on.

Overall, you get a good grade calibration for the grades you climb often. Most 5.13 climbers don't spend that much time on 5.7, so their calibration is poor. But if you do spend time on those grades, you figure it out.

Personal anecdote: I used to climb a lot with my girlfriend. We'd often do weekend trips where we'd spend the mornings on her routes (5.6-5.8) and the evenings on my routes (5.12-5.13). I got pretty well calibrated to 5.6 vs 5.7 vs 5.8, and could usually guess which routes she'd find doable and which would be a struggle. The weird thing is I basically never got on 5.9-5.10 during this time. So I could tell the difference between 5.6 from 5.7, and 12c vs 12d, but couldn't really tell 10b vs 10c. Again, you get calibrated to what you climb on regularly.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of easy bolted routes, basically as easy as the local rock provides "real" climbs. I agree with Tal and Logan that some areas and rock types may not produce good routes at easy grades.

I also disagree that strong climbers can't put up good easy routes (for them). A local developer who just sent his first 5.14c put up some amazing 5.11s in the flatirons on top of many other climbs for example. 

Connor Dobsonwrote:

I also disagree that strong climbers can't put up good easy routes. A local developer who just sent his first 5.14c put up some amazing 5.11s in the flatirons on top of many other climbs for example. 

5.11 is not easy. 

Marc801 Cwrote:

5.11 is not easy. 

Relative to 14c it is, that was my point. If you have the experience, you can understand what makes a good climb at almost any grade. 

Marc801 Cwrote:

5.11 is not easy. 

THIS!

Marc801 Cwrote:

5.11 is not easy. 

Albert Mummery had the snark right in the 19th century. Hard climbs go through three stages:

1. Physically impossible
2. A cutting edge climb, one of the hardest test-pieces in the area
3. An easy day for a lady

Sorry, 5.11 is, in fact, now an easy day for a lady.

Sam Mwrote:

Albert Mummery had the snark right in the 19th century. Hard climbs go through three stages:

1. Physically impossible
2. A cutting edge climb, one of the hardest test-pieces in the area
3. An easy day for a lady

Sorry, 5.11 is, in fact, now an easy day for a lady.

You're technically right, but not for the reason you think you are. After Lynn Hill, Beth Rodden, Janja Garnbret, Brooke Raboutou, and countless others, "an easy day for a lady" is no longer the most useful metric of difficulty for the rest of us mortals (perhaps this measure is best left in the 19th century). For many climbers, 5.11 is a personal achievement that takes a decent amount of work and commitment to reach. Just because these climbs are easy for some very skilled climbers does not make them easy climbs. Skiing black diamonds is easy for me, but I still wouldn't call black diamonds "easy" runs. This thread was about the absolute lower limits of sport climbing grades, the very easiest of the easy. 5.11 is not in that category or anywhere close to it.

Collin Hwrote:

You're technically right, but not for the reason you think you are. After Lynn Hill, Beth Rodden, Janja Garnbret, Brooke Raboutou, and countless others, "an easy day for a lady" is no longer the most useful metric of difficulty for the rest of us mortals (perhaps this measure is best left in the 19th century). For many climbers, 5.11 is a personal achievement that takes a decent amount of work and commitment to reach. Just because these climbs are easy for some very skilled climbers does not make them easy climbs. Skiing black diamonds is easy for me, but I still wouldn't call black diamonds "easy" runs. This thread was about the absolute lower limits of sport climbing grades, the very easiest of the easy. 5.11 is not in that category or anywhere close to it.

Reading comprehension is in short supply clearly. 

I was merely saying that it's totally possible and reasonable for someone to bolt good climbs that are very easy for them. 

A 5.11 is very easy for a 5.14 climber. I didn't say 5.11 in itself was easy in absolute terms. Any climber can bolt high quality moderates if they put effort into it.

I was merely rebutting this statement : "The reality is, many strong climbers lack the perspective to identify and develop easier routes. They don’t spend time climbing at those grades, so they often overlook good moderate lines entirely—or if they do bolt them, the protection is spaced in a way that only feels comfortable to someone at their skill level."

I think it actually has nothing to do with skill level and more ego that creates run-out scary "easy for them" routes. A 5.14 climber will not fall on 5.11a so could space the bolts if they wanted to.

I would actually even go so far as to say the relationship stated is actually the inverse. Developing good lines takes experiences of having done a lot of climbing and being able to understand what climbs well, how the rope will run, the difference between good and bad rock. I would expect that someone with that level of experience typically will end up climbing harder than moderates grades. There are exceptions, Ricky is awesome and no shade at you my dude, and people get old or injured or whatever.

I was merely disagreeing with a statement yet no one seemed to think critically about what I am saying and instead is getting butthurt about something I never said. Classic MP lol.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

I would actually even go so far as to say the relationship stated is actually the inverse. Developing good lines takes experiences of having done a lot of climbing and being able to understand what climbs well, how the rope will run, the difference between good and bad rock. I would expect that someone with that level of experience typically will end up climbing harder than moderates grades. There are exceptions, Ricky is awesome and no shade at you my dude, and people get old or injured or whatever.

Lol well thank you.  I'm definitely an exception in how hard I climb for a developer but I don't think I'm an exception in the experience area, which I think validates your point. With the exception of some months off climbing most years due to health issues, I climb outside 2-4x a week most of the year, and have done so for probably 5 years or so now, and I was a gym climber and avid weekend warrior for several years before that. So I have climbed just an absolute shit ton of 5.6-.5.9. And since moving to Angel's Camp it's mostly topos you get from friends or obscure websites or from a super obscure book you got photos of from a friend of a friend, so I'm quite good at climbing just absolutely filthy routes, which it turns out is one of the biggest requirements of being a developer here in the foothills =p 

Sam Mwrote:

Sorry, 5.11 is, in fact, now an easy day for a lady.

Sorry, no.

5.11 has gotten easier as footwear has gotten better but that is not really changing at that grade since 90's footwear tech. Many women climb 5.11 simply because there are many women climbers.

As the numbers increase, the number of outliers from the mean increase so 5.11 ability simply seems more common due to the huge numbers of climbers. But if you looked at the Bell Curve it's shifted inconsequentially to the right, albeit with much greater total numbers participating and 5.11 is still a rare ability among all climbers.

A shifting bell curve doesn't make 5.11 an easy day for anyone other than the very, very fit (regardless of sex ID). Anything else is just a misunderstanding of human physiology. We aren't getting stronger there are just more strong climbers, and the outliers naturally stretch farther out. Hermann Buhl was famous for doing one finger pull ups and front levers in the 1940's (he did the first ascent of Nanga Parbat ~8000M in 1953 solo and without oxygen too). Alex Megos et al aren't stronger than Wolfgang Gullich or Dave Altman/John Gill for that matter etc. etc...Humans have been capable of these feats of strength since we came down from the trees. What has changed is the sense of what is possible, but only in the tiniest sense, mostly due to better footwear, plentiful bolts, cams and bouldering pads making extreme free climbs easier and far safer.

Virtually all 5.14 is vastly safer than 4th Class if you take a lead fall. So climbing isn't even remotely as risky as it used to be (on average) as well when it was all 4th class with hemp ropes let alone Goldline with pins or even kernmantle ropes with hexes. We haven't advanced risk one iota despite "Free Solo" etc. regardless of its psychological leap. Virtually all rock climbs of the 19th century were put up "free solo" (or worse, your partner could pull you off and sometimes did). Plenty of test pieces put up then that 99% of us wouldn't free solo today. Hell, I was reminded recently of Royal Robbins doing the FFA of Open Book at Tahquitz. Virtually free solo/4th Class at the time given the gear available, yet the hardest route in the USA at the time. We didn't see Necessary Evil free soloed on the FA...sorry, Chris. That's almost what Robbins did with some caveats.

Anyways, that is my old fatboi rationalization as to why 5.11 is still hard and I'm a badass for running it out on 5.7 <<< It's more dangerous than 5.14... :)

Tbf Connor, I wasn’t replying to your post, but the one after it that was worded more strongly in absolute terms. I actually agree that a strong climber with lots of developing experience who is thoughtful about bolting 5.easy is at least as likely to do a good job as a brand new developer with little climbing skill or experience. I did find it funny to use 5.11 as an example of an easy climb even in relative terms, but I get what you were trying to say. No strong feelings about it, just not the example I would have used, Btw I generally enjoy reading your takes in the forums and often agree with them.

I wasn’t even trying to lay into the other dude too hard, just prodding at what I perceived to be a bit of ego in so confidently deriding 5.11 with outdated gender connotations. I intended it to be gentle pushback directed at the comment, not a harsh callout directed at the person.

Christian Rock wrote:

See ya, AI bot