Serial downgrading

Has the world gone soft and you are the last hard person?  I am wondering about this phenomenon: 80+ people grade a route. 78 or so say it is N grade and a couple people say it is N minus a number grade. Then you look and it is the same people always, and this is their thing. Why? Are you so strong that 12 is 11 to you? Do you seethe at the softening of the world and yearn for the hardcore days of yore?  Did you just have a better day than everyone else all of the time?

maybe it is ego?

DISCLAIMER: we all have had a great day once or twice or just got on a route that suits us. I’m not talking about random, expected distribution. I’m talking about those who do this on nearly all of the routes all of the time. 

Different people have different ideas of what grades should be. What is 5.9 for example? The range of difficulty that straight 5.9 has (no 5.9+) is staggering. I know people that mostly sport climb that are used to the new, soft, cuddly 5.9, and think that's what 5.9 should be. 

Others, meanwhile, think of routes like Open Book and Central Pillar of Frenzy. You can even see this difference in the valley itself-- it's comical that Central Pillar and Superslide are given the same grade for example, but they're both 5.9 because people have different ideas of what 5.9 is. Is there a solution to this problem? Because I don't see it. 

There is a solution. Step up to what 5.9 actually is, and stop dragging it down to your level.

Edit: That wasn’t aimed specifically at you, Ricky. But maybe 90% of climbers don’t have a sense for what 5.9 really is.

apogeewrote:

There is a solution. Step up to what 5.9 actually is, and stop dragging it down to your level.

Oh ok, it's just 90% of climbers who are wrong. Changing all their minds should be pretty easy! 

Edit: That wasn’t aimed specifically at you, Ricky. But maybe 90% of climbers don’t have a sense for what 5.9 really is.

I didn't take it that way, no worries. I think we're running into a similar problem as definitions in linguistics. Linguistic prescriptvism is the attempt to solidify definitions and tell everyone who uses words differently that they're wrong, and you might as well whip the ocean for all the good it will do-- it's a path that leads only to madness. Similar to having to embrace linguistic descriptvism to maintain one's sanity, I think one might have to embrace a 5.9 that can be four or more different difficulties depending on context may be the only sustainable solution.   

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Oh ok, it's just 90% of climbers who are wrong. Changing all their minds should be pretty easy! 

To be fair, it's not really their minds involved, but rather their feelings and egos

PWZwrote:

To be fair, it's not really their minds involved, but rather their feelings and egos

Based off of many conversations about such things with such people I have to disagree. They see that the vast majority of routes are graded the same meanwhile historic trad areas are sandbagged. That's not a feelings and egos thing, the grades have changed for the vast majority of climbs that the vast majority of climbers do. They see y'all as being stuck in the past. I think trying to decide what the "correct" difficulty of 5.9 or any other grade is is an inherently pointless endeavor so I'm not going to try it, as nice as it would be if we could all agree on what in the hell 5.9 is.

It would be nice if there were a set of benchmark climbs that modern climbers could agree upon. Then, if a climb is obviously harder, it gets a harder grade, and if it is obviously easier, it gets an easier grade. It’s still totally subjective and arbitrary, but at least it would provide a consistent reference point. And yes, I know this was how the system originally worked with climbs in Tahquitz: Open book was supposed to be the definition of 5.9. I can’t remember who it was, but one of the big climbers in the 70s (maybe Bridwell?) made a list of benchmark climbs of varying styles (crack, slab, face) through 5.10 and maybe 5.11. If the scale has drifted and needs updating let’s choose new benchmarks, but I do like the idea of there being benchmarks in some way. 

Grades are always going to be variable to some extent, but I’ve definitely noticed that they can be more variable in some places than others, and they are less useful in the places where they are least consistent. Descriptivism ceases to be useful when the descriptions lose meaning, so perhaps a little prescriptivism is in order. We need something like a climbing version of the Nicene Council to firmly establish which grades are “right” through adoption of universal benchmarks and suppress the heretical grades!

j mowrote:

Has the world gone soft and you are the last hard person?  I am wondering about this phenomenon: 80+ people grade a route. 78 or so say it is N grade and a couple people say it is N minus a number grade. Then you look and it is the same people always, and this is their thing. Why? Are you so strong that 12 is 11 to you? Do you seethe at the softening of the world and yearn for the hardcore days of yore?  Did you just have a better day than everyone else all of the time?

maybe it is ego?

DISCLAIMER: we all have had a great day once or twice or just got on a route that suits us. I’m not talking about random, expected distribution. I’m talking about those who do this on nearly all of the routes all of the time. 

I think it's totally different rocks, communities, cultures, DECADES, all mixed together, and then end product you see is 5.9. Go from a New 5.9 in the Red with super new bolt ethics and compare that to some super scary three bolt 100 footer in Joshua Tree and they aren't even comparable. Id say I don't really mind when the grade is too soft, but I do get annoyed when it's way too hard for the grade. I think the biggest tell is usually WHEN it was bolted more than anything. Grades just get softer by the decade as ethics change. I don't think there's a problem with that it's just how it is. I know some of the crusty climbers on MP def think everything thats not THEIR 5.9 is a 4th class scramble, but yeah that's my two cents

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Based off of many conversations about such things with such people I have to disagree. They see that the vast majority of routes are graded the same meanwhile historic trad areas are sandbagged. That's not a feelings and egos thing, the grades have changed for the vast majority of climbs that the vast majority of climbers do. They see y'all as being stuck in the past. I think trying to decide what the "correct" difficulty of 5.9 or any other grade is is an inherently pointless endeavor so I'm not going to try it, as nice as it would be if we could all agree on what in the hell 5.9 is.

You just said it

I just kind of take things as they are, do my research if going to a new area, and start with the easy grades to feel things out at the new crag. If going to the Gunks for the first time, I might start at 5.3 (I’m old) whereas if I go to a modern sport area I might start on the 5.9s. I try to learn about the history of the area and the first ascensionists… climbing a new Boulder Canyon sport climb rated 5.7 is not the same as climbing a 5.7 Layton Kor trad route from the 1960s. This might be asking a lot, but personally I think climbers just need to do their homework and learn some history. I’m not sure there really is a solution to the grading problem.
As an aside, BITD, I could feel the difference in a route rated, say, 5.2 or 5.3 versus other routes rated 5.4, 5.5, etc. and I don’t think it was entirely because I was a newbie. Back then, moving in to 5.7 was getting in to the serious climbing realm and 5.9 was for the elite (especially obvious at Granite Mountain near Prescott). I recently went back to the Carefree Rockpile East Wall north of Phoenix and was able to repeat a route we called 5.3 or 5.4 BITD (“Renunciation”, for any old Phx climbers out there). They had left the three ancient bolts with the rusted Leeper hangers on it for historical purposes but had added a string of maybe six modern bolts (and a sport anchor just below what used to be a humiliating beached whale move). Today, given my more recent experience with sport routes, I’d give it a modern sport rating of 5.7 or even 5.8.
So, it’s all kind of a mess… do your own research, as they say, and start with super easy grades when going anywhere new (ESPECIALLY if you are a newbie coming from the gym!). My two centims.

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Based off of many conversations about such things with such people I have to disagree. They see that the vast majority of routes are graded the same meanwhile historic trad areas are sandbagged. That's not a feelings and egos thing, the grades have changed for the vast majority of climbs that the vast majority of climbers do. They see y'all as being stuck in the past. I think trying to decide what the "correct" difficulty of 5.9 or any other grade is is an inherently pointless endeavor so I'm not going to try it, as nice as it would be if we could all agree on what in the hell 5.9 is.

Kinda glad to have the power of the printing press as to at least two areas ;)

I try to take into account lots and lots of opinions. But eventually routes get a grade.

While learning to climb I did some serial downgrading because I put each grade on a pedestal. When I repeated easy climbs I've learned on it was easy to downgrade them because they were no longer difficult to me. At the time I felt 5.8/9 cracks were supposed to make one work real hard for them. But after years of experience and learning technique I no longer had to try so hard. 

These days I try to not suggest a new grade for a route unless it's super sandbagged or soft. Most of the time I feel grades are off because I'm much taller than average, but feel comments work better than a full grade suggestion for that matter.

I think most people care about 5.9 because it's the last grade without letters. So in the interest of making things as convoluted as possible, I propose we base difficulty not on holds or moves, but on how you say "nine." For example, 5.Nien is for a brutally sandbagged 5.9, pronounced with German severity and the crushing weight of historical guilt. 5.Nueve is spicy, technical, and only climbable in full sun with a mandatory sunburn. 5.Nine is straight-up middle-of-the-roada warmup at the gym but a full-on epic at your local crag. 5.Naoi would be soft Irish hillside slabs where the hardest move is figuring out which bog you're supposed to top out on.

Let’s drop Yosemite Decimal and just go with IPA grades for all 5.brooklyn99s.

Well, I've been climbing for a while. Pretty much all of the original 5.9 s that I led are now called 5.10. I get accused of sandbagging all the time. I used to really struggle climbing 5.9 now I consider myself to be a solid 5.9 climber even though I'm considerably weaker than I used to be. Grades have definitely changed and become softer.

I found that once I could consistently climb 5.10, it was a lot easier to judge what a 5.9 really was.  Climbing at my limit doesn't really allow me to be objective.  In Yosemite, at least in my day, there WERE benchmarks, after a fashion: Moby Dick Left was 5.9; Sacherer Crack was .10a; Quicksilver was slab 5.9; Chingando was OW .10a, etc

With minor variations for style and preference, you reached a point where all 5.9s felt essentially the same.  It was a difficulty of move, and the 5.9 moves felt the same whether on slab, wide, or face.  But it took climbing a lot of routes to get there.

Now I'm super-old, but I can agree with They Died Laughing at Cathedral Ledge being 5.9--it's what the moves are, even if it makes me puff a little.

All that to say that there is an objectiveness to ratings, which can be detected more easily as experience is gained.

They died laughing was much easier 30 years ago. It's so polished now.

I'm pretty sure I have already posted this somewhere before, but what's wrong with a little repetition!!!

A number of years ago a friend and I revisited a good but fairly obscure crag that we hadn't been to in quite a few years. The only information we had was a rough hand-drawn topo that one of us had obtained at some point. We found ourselves struggling on routes listed at grades that we felt we should have been comfortable on and cursed the sandbaggers who had graded them. Once I got home, I dug through my old journals and discovered that those 'damn sandbaggers' were us!!!!!

Sometimes you just roll up to the horrible rest before the crux and absolutely nail the beta, and it makes it seem really easy because the crux is hanging out placing gear and trying to read the beta. 

Or sometimes (Pervertical Sanctuary) is just straight up wrong because it's closer to YDS 5.10B than 11a. That is a hill I will die on.  

june mwrote:

They died laughing was much easier 30 years ago. It's so polished now.

That's one factor adding confusion to the discussion on grades. A lot of classic "benchmark" routes have become more difficult as time passes so if we just keep the same list, grades will become progressively less accurate. Not sure what the fix would even be for that.

I don't see how it is confusing at all if they are downgrading all grades, with consistency. They clearly view grades differently than everyone else. What I don't get is the "ego" argument of people downgrading. You do realize when someone downgrades a route, they are implying the route is actually easier than the consensus grade. Therefore the individual downgrading is taking a lesser grade, and inferior. The real ones with an ego problem are the ones upgrading routes!

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I don't see how it is confusing at all if they are downgrading all grades, with consistency. They clearly view grades differently than everyone else. What I don't get is the "ego" argument of people downgrading. You do realize when someone downgrades a route, they are implying the route is actually easier than the consensus grade. Therefore the individual downgrading is taking a lesser grade, and inferior. The real ones with an ego problem are the ones upgrading routes!

Thank you for addressing the issue. Not grades generally, which is not the topic. I disagree though, because what is relevant is not what grade anyone is “taking” (pure ego!). What is relevant is how freaking hard did you think this climb was?  If you go around crag to crag, new school old school, trad, sport, slab, vert and overhanging saying everything feels easier to you than it does to almost all other humans, at a certain point you are telling us more about yourself than the climbs!  Just my working theory.