Why is there a separate bouldering scale?

IIRC the V scale starts at 5.10d according to the original grading right?  Most V1 boulders are far easier then that.... Shouldn't they be graded more accurately as 5.8, 5.9, whatever?

Bouldering (practice climbing) grading sucks and is stupid. I'm just a weak trad climber though.

Jim Jam wrote: IIRC the V scale starts at 5.10d according to the original grading right?  Most V1 boulders are far easier then that.... Shouldn't they be graded more accurately as 5.8, 5.9, whatever?

Bouldering (practice climbing) grading sucks and is stupid. I'm just a weak trad climber though.

V0 originally translated to 5.10 (V0- is 5.10-, V0 is 5.10, V0+ is 5.10+). Anything easier than V0 should be called VB. Note that the original Hueco guidebook that had the V Scale did not have VB).

VB makes sense to me, because any reasonably fit person should be able to climb up to 5.9 a few feet off the ground without too much trouble. Perhaps because bouldering always seemed to be the domain of the ripped superdudes and superdudettes, V-Basic became a thing. It's basic, you should be able to cruise it, right?

Here's the original intro to the V-Scale from my copy of the 1995 edition of the Hueco Tanks guidebook.

The V rating system is an open-ended system for grading boulder problems. It originated at Hueco Tanks. The standard problems for each grade are here so nobody can complain that Hueco Tanks problems are over or under rated. It currently extends from V0- to V13.

As with all rating systems for climbing, the larger a number you tick, the bigger a stud you are and the more excuse you have for acting like an arrogant twit. Whether a problem is intimidating, scary, loose, or has a bad landing has has no effect on the V-grade —only the physical difficulty counts —that is, the technicality of the moves combined with the demands on one’s power and endurance. Therefor the rating would remain the same whether it was toproped or bouldered. Hence, a scary V2 may be more difficult for some to boulder than a safe V5. It may be tougher to do a V6 without beta than a V7 with the moves shown to you. The ratings are a consensus of opinions of expert boulderers in excellent shape, or when lacking a consensus, the opinion of the first ascensionist and/or author.

It's worth noting that the list of standard problems in that guide does not have a rating comparison chart. Rather, it compares a few select problems from other areas with the standards for the ratings at Hueco. I've personally done all of the problems (at Hueco and otherwise) listed for V0-, V0, and V0+. Among others, I've also done the listed standard for V4 (Blue Suede Shoes in Yosemite), which is now rated V5.

Jim Jam wrote:Bouldering (practice climbing) grading sucks and is stupid. I'm just a weak trad climber though.

Hot from exiting a time machine coming from 1956?

Long Ranger wrote:

Hot from exiting a time machine coming from 1956?

Bored and spraying BS!

Mike Deitchman wrote: John Sherman invented the V Scale, not to sell books, but because his publisher demanded a rating system for the problems in the guidebook. The V Scale grew from a joke rating system that Verm and his friends used to rate their FAs. It was the first rating system created to be open-ended, ....

What about the Australian scale?

Marc801 C wrote: What about the Australian scale?

We Yanks hadn’t heard of Australia until the 2000 Olympics.  
Edit: I probably should have said ‘The first American bouldering scale intended to be open-ended.”

I believe that REI/MP/whoever, needs to upgrade boulder'ers by giving them there own site, eg. Hiking Project, MTB Project, Trail Run Project, Powder Project, etc. Why not "Bold's Project"?  Would sure help in better organizing the various issues in the climbing world.

ViperScale . wrote: Top rope is the purest form of climbing. Rarely is there any mental fear of a fall while top roping.
Bouldering is probably second purest form. Alot more common to have some mental fear of falling on routes.
Sport next.
Trad after that.
Free soloing after that.

I dunno, I am frequently terrified while bouldering. That rarely (or never, depending on your definition of "sport") happens sport climbing.

Regarding someone's supposition that bouldering is graded on a V scale because it's climbed unroped... What about highballs that are rehearsed on TR? What about 5.easy that is more often soloed than roped up for?

Ryan Pfleger wrote:

I dunno, I am frequently terrified while bouldering. That rarely (or never, depending on your definition of "sport") happens sport climbing.

Regarding someone's supposition that bouldering is graded on a V scale because it's climbed unroped... What about highballs that are rehearsed on TR? What about 5.easy that is more often soloed than roped up for?

Verm’s Original introduction of the V-Scale specifically stated that a problem would have the same rating whether toproped or bouldered. 

Climbing ratings are a mess.  There are separate ratings for bouldering and route climbing, but no clear line where bouldering stops and routes begin.  There are some high-ball problems and some bouldering traverses that are longer than some (shorter) bolted sport routes.  The distinction really isn't in the route itself, but rather in how people most-often climb it: if people usually use a rope, then it's a "route" and if most do not, then it's a "boulder problem."

Then there are aid ratings (also a mess), and class ratings.  Add to this the fact that each region has its own route rating system (French, UIAA, English, Aussie, YDS, etc) and bouldering ratings (Gill, Verm, Font, etc).  My favorite is the Font vs French, often used by the same people, and they look very similar but they're different.  If someone says a route has a "7c move on it" who knows what that means.

Finally there's the problem that no rating system is perfect because subjectivity changes depending on the climber's height, finger size, relative weaknesses, etc.  And some areas tend to run stuff whereas others are soft.

All of this said, we somehow do a pretty good job capturing how hard something is with a number.  Remarkable when you think about it.  If you tell me a Yosemite finger crack is 5.11c, I pretty much know what to expect without even seeing it.  If you say a sport route at Smith is 12b, I can almost picture it even if I've never seen it before.

---

Overall, I think the V-scale is better than every other I mentioned above because there are no inflection points like "11d versus 12a" where the number changes.  People often want to rate their FA 12a instead of 11d because it sounds better, even if it's really 11d.  This doesn't happen with the V-scale (or the aussie scale).  

The problem right now with the V-scale is that boulderers are culturally averse to bumping up the scale so there's a lot of compression on the high end(*) and the linearity of the scale is falling apart.

(*) I don't climb at the high end of the V-scale, but this is what people tell me.

This topic brings to mind the somewhat facetious 1200 foot V5+ boulder problem: ​Live Free or Die! V5+​​​

Surprised no one has mentioned the UK trad grade system, which includes a difficulty grade for the hardest move—akin to a bouldering grade—and an overall grade which takes into account other factors including how sustained the route is, how well it protects, etc.

Having said that, in the UK we use the Font bouldering scale for boulders, not the trad technical grade. Maybe because most UK boulderers spent more time in font than they spent doing trad? And that comparison was the most useful?

Interestingly, there are two font bouldering grade systems—one for "straight-up" problems, and one for traverses. The latter is falling into obscurity, but shows that the Bleau boulderers recognized the difference in the nature of a power-based scale versus stamina.

"Why is there a separate bouldering scale?"—in a nutshell, because bouldering difficulty is a measure of power (or power endurance at the higher end of the scale, V9 and up), YDS is a measure of some witches brew of stamina, power and technique.

What happens when I climb an icy boulder with tools?  Is that a WI3V4M75.11?!?

Chad Hiatt wrote: What happens when I climb an icy boulder with tools?  Is that a WI3V4M75.11?!?

I think it's rated Foolish!

Marc801 C wrote:

I think it's rated Foolish!

Perhaps you're picking up on my sarcasm.  

Chad Hiatt wrote:

Perhaps you're picking up on my sarcasm.  

I'd hope so; you were laying it down pretty thick.

Jim Jam wrote:

Bored and spraying BS!

Bookmarked in case anyone asks me what MP is for.

But, to continue the argument, fewer boulders have ways up the backside that are class 4 or below compared to trad climbing, so doesn't that make trad the more senseless pursuit?

[Insert quote about climbers et al being "conquerors or the useless"]

ViperScale . wrote: Top rope is the purest form of climbing. Rarely is there any mental fear of a fall while top roping.
Bouldering is probably second purest form. Alot more common to have some mental fear of falling on routes.
Sport next.
Trad after that.
Free soloing after that.

This but exactly the opposite.

bridge wrote:

This but exactly the opposite.

This, except that done properly, bouldering is right up there with free soloing.

John RB wrote: I think boulder problems often have very tricky highly-technical beta (at least if they're near your limit) and feel like puzzles (ergo the word "problem").  

When I researched the history of rock climbing for my website I learned that the word "problem" was frequently used by the Brits in the Edwardian Age for any fairly short climb, not just for bouldering. I had assumed like John RB that it strictly referred to solving bouldering conundrums. Seems like it should.