Aid grades definitions

WHAM . wrote:

Yes, it's always a matter of time in any aid grade convo before this satirical bit is brought up

A perfect example of even someone who has a lot of experience in aid climbing either having critical misunderstandings of what the grade means or purposefully misrepresenting what the grades represent for the sake of the bit. 

Kevin DeWeese wrote:

Yes, it's always a matter of time in any aid grade convo before this satirical bit is brought up

A perfect example of even someone who has a lot of experience in aid climbing either having critical misunderstandings of what the grade means or purposefully misrepresenting what the grades represent for the sake of the bit. 

What exactly is the misrepresentation here, is it the basic premise that higher grade = higher danger? Because I have heard people say that totally seriously.

i would think that, in general, higher grade will "generally" increase the danger. "in general" a 100 foot fall is more likely to cause injury than a 5 foot fall.  even if it is just due to falling in a weird position and not hitting anything, but just tweaking something. there is just a lot more that can go wrong.  (i am being very general here though - i have been on "C1" that was not great gear with bad fall potential).

but yeah, aid ratings are pretty odd. i can't remember the route, something in the fishers, that gets A1, but the gear list has stuff like 25 toucans, etc. yikes.

When was the last time anyone took a hundred footer?

Comprehending the difference between causation and correlation is something I've found to be lacking in most bigwall climbers 

Mark Hudon wrote:

When was the last time anyone took a hundred footer?

And if someone did lately, it would still be A3+  unless they got hurt by some features. It is a sliding scale, correct?