When will the "V" grades stop? F-bomb!

nalle-hukkataival.blogspot.…

Well worth reading by one of the top V hard hitters...

"Grades are only a very small and quite unimportant part of climbing, but why do we even bother with the grades, if they really mean nothing?"

+1 billion

James Arnold wrote: "Grades are only a very small and quite unimportant part of climbing, but why do we even bother with the grades, if they really mean nothing?"

Clearly, because they don't "really mean nothing". Everyone talks about how grades don't matter, but they're talking about them. If they didn't matter, we wouldn't talk about it. Climbing stickers don't matter, and nobody talks about them, as they shouldn't. If grades didn't matter, we wouldn't be talking about them so much.

"Bouldering is dumb. It's like running 100 feet."

So by extension, the 40 yard dash (120 feet) is dumb. And the 100 meter dash (only 300 feet) must be almost as dumb. Let's cancel the Olympics.

Bouldering is awesome. Pushing grades is awesome, too, whether it is at a personal level or the highest level that people have climbed. It means that people are trying really hard and bettering themselves and the sport. Spraying about it is not as awesome.

"We mock what we don't understand."- Dan Ankroyd.

daniel c wrote:What about this: an open challenge to the world's strongest climbers - invite them to dedicate 6-12 months to attempt a select 10 of the toughest boulder problems in the world. What we need is something more systematic about repeating lines and grade confirmation. The only way to do that is to make their efforts fun / prestigious and sponsor compatible.

Not sure if someone was listening to me but it just happened! Carlo Traversi, amongst a community of other v14+ climbers, descended upon The Game recently. Traversi bagged the second ascent and suggested a rating of V15 (a downgrade from Woods' rating of V16).

As Traversi says, this is NOT a shot against Daniel Woods, rather an example of the climbing community coming together and offering a honest opinions. Congrats to all. This is great for bouldering.

climbingnarc.com/2011/03/ca…

This old fart that is begging the question (for reasons relating to the song where Paul Simon so succinctly put it, "Why am I so soft in the middle when my life is so hard?").....when are they going to start handicapping?

When we finally evolve to the point where each finger has lizard like suction cups, well then the V99 and above will be within our reach. But Sharma will probably fine a V100 the next day.

I don't quite get this one.

"Daniel Woods’ historic V16 The Game was repeated in early 2011 by Bobbi Bensman—who found a new kneebar in the roof—and the problem was subsequently downgraded to V10 by Jamie Emerson on his blog, b3bouldering.com. Motivated, Woods returned to Cobb Rock in September and found a rad, new sequence that avoided all the holds Bensman used on her ascent. The new line, The Game: Reloaded, was given the tentative rating of V17—but only if you use the same exact beta as the first ascentionist." - Rock & Ice ( rockandice.com/component/co…)

Daniel Woods is an amazing boulderer and all but it seems like he got punk'd on this one and he isn't willing to accept it. Someone came along and unlocked the problem using moves and a sequence that he either didn't see or chose not to use.

Establishing a problem/route and grading it based on the holds you used rather than what is available seems kinda lame. Elimination problems at the local bouldering spot is one thing. Standard-setting problems that receive national and international attention are something entirely different.

Crag Dweller wrote:I don't quite get this one. "Daniel Woods’ historic V16 The Game was repeated in early 2011 by Bobbi Bensman—who found a new kneebar in the roof—and the problem was subsequently downgraded to V10 by Jamie Emerson on his blog, b3bouldering.com. Motivated, Woods returned to Cobb Rock in September and found a rad, new sequence that avoided all the holds Bensman used on her ascent. The new line, The Game: Reloaded, was given the tentative rating of V17—but only if you use the same exact beta as the first ascentionist." - Rock & Ice ( rockandice.com/component/co…) Daniel Woods is an amazing boulderer and all but it seems like he got punk'd on this one and he isn't willing to accept it. Someone came along and unlocked the problem using moves and a sequence that he either didn't see or chose not to use. Establishing a problem/route and grading it based on the holds you used rather than what is available seems kinda lame. Elimination problems at the local bouldering spot is one thing. Standard-setting problems that receive national and international attention are something entirely different.

hahahaha you are the one who got punk'd sir.

Phil Lauffen wrote: hahahaha you are the one who got punk'd sir.

Oh, shite, I did!

dpmclimbing.com/climbing-vi…

Crag Dweller wrote:I don't quite get this one. "Daniel Woods’ historic V16 The Game was repeated in early 2011 by Bobbi Bensman—who found a new kneebar in the roof—and the problem was subsequently downgraded to V10 by Jamie Emerson on his blog, b3bouldering.com. Motivated, Woods returned to Cobb Rock in September and found a rad, new sequence that avoided all the holds Bensman used on her ascent. The new line, The Game: Reloaded, was given the tentative rating of V17—but only if you use the same exact beta as the first ascentionist." - Rock & Ice ( rockandice.com/component/co…) Daniel Woods is an amazing boulderer and all but it seems like he got punk'd on this one and he isn't willing to accept it. Someone came along and unlocked the problem using moves and a sequence that he either didn't see or chose not to use. Establishing a problem/route and grading it based on the holds you used rather than what is available seems kinda lame. Elimination problems at the local bouldering spot is one thing. Standard-setting problems that receive national and international attention are something entirely different.

Didn't Chris Sharma get a little carried away with grade inflation of boulder problems back when he was a youngin'? I'm not sure, I try not to pay attention to those types of things.

People get into climbing, particularly bouldering, for the wrong reasons these days. All the top boulderers seem like tools, flaunting their huge grades for their sponsorships and whatnot. Who cares if it was v16, I don't give a damn! Was the problem good? That's all I care about, the quality of a problem, not a number some egomaniac tacked onto it.

My favorite thing about bouldering, is bouldering. Performing acrobatic moves close to the ground requiring full concentration. My least favorite thing about bouldering is being asked the grade of something or being told to "come on," but this won't stop anytime soon I'm sure.

Helldorado wrote:People get into climbing, particularly bouldering, for the wrong reasons these days. All the top boulderers seem like tools, flaunting their huge grades for their sponsorships and whatnot. Who cares if it was v16, I don't give a damn! Was the problem good? That's all I care about, the quality of a problem, not a number some egomaniac tacked onto it. My favorite thing about bouldering, is bouldering. Performing acrobatic moves close to the ground requiring full concentration. My least favorite thing about bouldering is being asked the grade of something or being told to "come on," but this won't stop anytime soon I'm sure.

What are the right reasons to get into climbing? Arent the people telling you to "come on" just offering encouragement? A little positivity goes a long way on a challenging climb.

I see the whole grade system as a collective set of opinions that describes the relative difficulty of one problem compared to another. If you begin to forget these are JUST opinions, and that each person has their own strengths and styles, then you lose some part of the experience and get caught up in numbers.

The overgrading/downgrading in bouldering now doesn't seem that odd or different from sport climbing in the 90's to me.

Remember fred rouhling proposing 5.15b in 95? Or a proposed 5.15c (chilam balam) in the early 2000's? Similar to the proposed grades of Jade, the Game, Lucid Dreaming etc..... in the end time will tell, and the grades will be kept in check by the community, as they always are.

It just seems like a grade explosion because bouldering, despite it's history, is still in relative infancy. If you look at sport climbing, it has advanced what, 2 letters in 10 years? Maybe the same for trad? Bouldering at Fontainebleau goes back at least a century. Levels of difficulty advanced at a fairly steady pace-- what we could call v7 by the late 1950s, and so on. Even if you use Gill as the beginnings for US bouldering, that's still the 1950s, and v9 by 1959. Sport climbing doesn't begin until the 1980s. Sorry, no beer for you. Heh

Rob Gordon wrote:Have you ever climbed a Bachar V5 compared to a V5 that someone put up a few years ago? The Bachar problem (old school) is usually way harder. Since I don't climb very hard, that's the best evidence I can cite that might imply grading has gotten softer for whatever reason.

Different skill sets, as we can see in the angst over Bacharcracker. Watching folks do new guidebooks to areas I helped to develop back in the 1980s, you can see the way that gyms have changed skill sets and thus the relative difficulty of problems.

The slabs, cracks and mantels have either held their difficulty or actually been upgraded. But the big dynos and overhanging faces have all been down-graded. Just a reflection of what most folks learn to climb.

By and large, in California and Colorado, I'd say the bouldering gradings overall tend to be stiffer than they were ten years ago. In my local areas, stuff has been consistently downrated. At the crags meanwhile, the older routes are more frequently upgraded. WHich is why sportclimbing is good for the ego for aging boulderers.

Helldorado wrote:Who cares if it was v16, I don't give a damn! Was the problem good?

Why would I care about the quality of the problem?

JohnWesely wrote: Why would I care about the quality of the problem?

Even if you did, quality inflation is worse than grade inflation. "4 star" and "classic" are nearly meaningless in a lot of areas/guidebooks.

Peter Franzen wrote:Bouldering has progressed rapidly over the last decade or so, and I think people are confusing that with "grade inflation".

More hard problems lead to stronger, better climbers, technology advances (better rubber, better pads (although less an issue in bouldering)), all lead to changes in grading systems. In general, the historic trend is grade deflation. There are always spikes around a new grade, up and down, up and down till it settles out and starts over.

In essence, with enough time and ascents, ratings get somewhat smoothed out. But there are always going to be people for which one type of climbing is easier or harder than others and so grading will always be subjective. Get used to it. If you only use grades as rough indicators, you'll spend more time climbing and less time chasing and even caring about grades.

klk wrote: Different skill sets, as we can see in the angst over Bacharcracker. Watching folks do new guidebooks to areas I helped to develop back in the 1980s, you can see the way that gyms have changed skill sets and thus the relative difficulty of problems.

Take most any gymstrong climber in America, tape em' up and stick them in the back of the cave at the Bacharcracker. Let the laughs begin.