Differences in grades

You're all overthinking it.

More definitive evidence @ climber.org/data/decimal.html

Bobby Hanson wrote: Katie, did you get that from Jessica? She said almost the exact same thing to me once. Weird.

I don't think I've had a conversation with Jessica as long as that post was...so no.
I have a stack of about 15 climbing books I randomly pick up and read a chapter or two from once in awhile. I'm positive I picked it up in one of those. True you can't learn to climb from a book, but at 1am when you don't feel like sleeping they're good reads.

perhaps this best describes it?
(i think for an infinite time interval, we would expect a solution of unity, thus the application that if we could train forever, we'd climb the hardest possible!)

Erik W wrote: Just like 9+ is harder than 10a.

There are way too many 8+, 9-, 9+, 6+'s out there (at least where I currently live). When did the rating system for 5.10 and above start applying to the sub-5.10 routes? If a route is 5.8+, its a 5.9, if a route is 5.8-, its a 5.7 right?

Damn, does this mean I'm old now, judging the current rating system?

side note. the grade of a climb isn't always telling of how "hard" a climb is. it is more of a general idea. there are so many other factors involved. like style for example. went climbing with a guy who exclusively boulders around V4. He totally flailed on a 5.8 crack. i think the scale is pretty good but what is harder for your average intermediate climber. a 5.10a with a couple ten moves or a 9+ with ten crux level moves? the 9. Personally I start to say holy crap this is ridiculous when I try 10d/11a. I can see a huge difference from say 10b. but its easier to tell the difference closer to a climber's limit. to a 5.13 climber this gap wouldnt seem nearly as large as it does to me. i guess if i have a point it is that the grades are totally subjective...mostly i feel to that particular climber's limit.

Let's just go back to B1,B2,B3 and use it for sport and trad too.