Subjective nature of climbing grades

doligo wrote: Haha, you never cracked a beer at the crag and climbed a pitch or two? I don't know about 2 drinks though. I definitely find Seth's drink criteria true to skiing, when I used to ski/ride with lots of friends at resorts, we'd always hit the park after lunch beer (and I'm a total wuss when it comes to jumps).

Got to go for high points too. When you hit the bong or joint than you top out the boulder problem before you exhale.

Pete Spri wrote:It's better to look at a climb from the ground and be motivated to do the climb based on aesthetics and being excited about it than looking up a route I a guide book and picking based on grade.

climbing friend,

do not do listening to this nonsense. advance gradings on the climbing rocks, such as 5.13 and above, are the only way you would be proving your worth as human being, impressing friends and onlookers. Climbing for any other reasonings is quite pointless, yessss myahhh hyahyahyahyahyahyhmmmmmmmmmmmyaaaaahhhhhhhh.

doligo wrote: Haha, you never cracked a beer at the crag and climbed a pitch or two? I don't know about 2 drinks though. I definitely find Seth's drink criteria true to skiing, when I used to ski/ride with lots of friends at resorts, we'd always hit the park after lunch beer (and I'm a total wuss when it comes to jumps).

Ive taken pulls before going on lead before. That wasn't the issue.. haha it was the fact that someone would even consider something like that after 5 or 6 stiff ones.. Cause thats for when your chilling in the ledge at the end of the day!

Seth Jones wrote: Of course. MP is no place for tomfoolery.

Seth I would stay away from the booze when you try to place a cam in quartzite. It would be bad any human error on such slippy rock. ;)

My hardest outdoor climb to date was 11b. This was after quite a few tall boys. I onsighted the route because I had no voice in my head to tell me to be nervous or otherwise. Since then I've only been able to reappoint 11a haha.

J Marsella wrote:I hear it's harder when you're not cranked up on meth.

Climbing friend. For sure..... Lol

Getting back to the OP's original question. . . .

For most climbs there will never be consensus on "an exact number/grade." Between different body types, strength levels, and conditions it is impossible for any given climber to have the same experience as all other climbers.

What is easy for you, may be hard of me and vice versa. With that in mind I offer the following personal ratings guide:

5.mellow. easy approach and climbing with belay ledges big enough for a party of 3-4 to enjoy some snacks (maybe pizza and beers).

5.easy. Yeah, I can climb that—any day, any time. Admittedly, I’ve probably climbed this route way too many times.

5.moderate. Good times. Kept my attention, but never felt desperate.

5.hard. Yeah, I can get up that—usually. Just don’t expect good form or consistency—and maybe not today.

5.wow. I know people that have climbed that route. I might even know some beta. Doesn’t mean I’ve ever climbed it or that I ever will.

Chase Bowman wrote: Seth I would stay away from the booze when you try to place a cam in quartzite. It would be bad any human error on such slippy rock. ;)

I'd say at least 60% of the FAs at Devil's Lake were alcohol inspired, or some other DLFA approved substance.

Sorry to be the lone dissenter here but I don't actually think there is much variation in grades. I also find that amazing since the grades are coming from so many people all over the place with vastly different styles.

The fact that I can go from Indian Creek, RRG, Yosemite, Tensleep, then Gunks and be pretty much climbing withing 2 letter grades in all those places is nothing short of a miracle. I'd get more variation shopping for a good price on red potatoes and lentils.

We're still never more than a full number off when comparing the most sandbagged grades in the country vs. the softest. I think the system is working.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:Sorry to be the lone dissenter here but I don't actually think there is much variation in grades. I also find that amazing since the grades are coming from so many people all over the place with vastly different styles. The fact that I can go from Indian Creek, RRG, Yosemite, Tensleep, then Gunks and be pretty much climbing withing 2 letter grades in all those places is nothing short of a miracle.

+1
I think the issue is much more the type of climbing in a given area. For example, the Gunks are often considered sandbagged and hard for the grade - but often visitors aren't used to powerful overhang/ceiling/roof boulder problem cruxes. A Yosemite hardman once insisted Shockley's Ceiling was at least 10c and not the rated 5.6 - he had used overhanging hand jams to get past the ceiling instead of the buckets and layback move.

On the flip side, Yosemite rattly finger/hand jams and offwidths regularly spit out first time Gunks visitors.

Maple Canyon here in Utah confuses everyone with the plethora of holds the first time they climb there.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: The fact that I can go from Indian Creek, RRG, Yosemite, Tensleep, then Gunks and be pretty much climbing withing 2 letter grades in all those places is nothing short of a miracle.

Most of us tend to know where we are, it's relaying our perception so that another climber will be able to gauge accordingly.

My going out on a limb idea, remove the opinionated/subjective nature and actually grade a climb according to empirical data?
I'm not saying go measure every climb, but I'm willing to bet that every climb has a measurable characteristic, size of holds, hold spacing, friction of the rock, et-cetera.

Part of the reason I started this is because I overheard someone say that climbing might be introduced to the Olympics, and the first thought that popped in my head was how do you grade something that doesn't have an exact definition?
These subjective perceptions are the reason I chose a career in engineering, where there is no opinion, only facts. When I want my dose of humanities, I go climbing.

Daniel H. Bryant wrote: My going out on a limb idea, remove the opinionated/subjective nature and actually grade a climb according to empirical data?

Unrealistic, and impractical - IMO.

Daniel H. Bryant wrote: Part of the reason I started this is because I overheard someone say that climbing might be introduced to the Olympics, and the first thought that popped in my head was how do you grade something that doesn't have an exact definition?

This is how: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climb…

It's way to hot to climb,

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:Sorry to be the lone dissenter here but I don't actually think there is much variation in grades. I also find that amazing since the grades are coming from so many people all over the place with vastly different styles. The fact that I can go from Indian Creek, RRG, Yosemite, Tensleep, then Gunks and be pretty much climbing withing 2 letter grades in all those places is nothing short of a miracle. I'd get more variation shopping for a good price on red potatoes and lentils. We're still never more than a full number off when comparing the most sandbagged grades in the country vs. the softest. I think the system is working.

You're not the only one, don't feel alone.

Climbing grades are meant to be general guide lines. At the very best they are formed from a consensus that was filtered through regional whims & foibles.

It is a given that before the Internet, climbing was less regimented, scrutinized or debated, we had to
write letters to the magazines. Bringing up debate, would spark resentment, consensus was harder
to come by.
From the Big to small climbing areas it wasn't as much sandbagged as uninformed.
There were well known climbers or groups, 'Clubs' or gangs of very good climbers who's idea of - hard - differed from what was weekend warrior hard, before climbing gyms.

Older climbs might be out of the narrow guide lines but mostly, now ( with the exception of some southern stone!;-0) the grades have become very comparable. & less subjective.

Wall of text , removed. . .

Daniel, I guess I get where you're coming from since you're an engineer. The trouble is though, that your proposal wouldn't actually accomplish anything.

We can measure an exact height. We can measure the holds. We can measure the hold spacing and what direction the holds are facing. We can measure the overhang of the route. This can be all be done.

It doesn't establish a rating.

I suppose we could laser map every route in existence then plug that data into a program which determines grade based on height, weight, and gender (assuming typical arm and leg length for each different height). I bet in the years it would take to develop such a system, that it would still be more flawed than the opinion of a couple dudes who probably need a shower.

Sometimes it's best to embrace your humanity.

Marc801 wrote: +1 I think the issue is much more the type of climbing in a given area. For example, the Gunks are often considered sandbagged and hard for the grade - but often visitors aren't used to powerful overhang/ceiling/roof boulder problem cruxes. A Yosemite hardman once insisted Shockley's Ceiling was at least 10c and not the rated 5.6 - he had used overhanging hand jams to get past the ceiling instead of the buckets and layback move. On the flip side, Yosemite rattly finger/hand jams and offwidths regularly spit out first time Gunks visitors. Maple Canyon here in Utah confuses everyone with the plethora of holds the first time they climb there.

I was trying to say that too at the same time!

As to the question of a way to get to an Olympic event??
This is an old issue for there to be any parity for a balanced Olympic climbing comp. one needs to consider: Age, Weight, height, reach., sex ? . . .
Then there is rest and some of the chemical interactions
for sustained increase in strength during un tested periods, the doping issue.
The comp ? It may happen ?

Brian L. wrote: This is how: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climb…

The problem is that the person with the greatest 'ape factor' will have some advantage....which brings us back to classes again, climbers for the Olympics would have to be classified. There needs to be more discrimination than just age group.

There are climbers out there that have prosthetics who are way better climbers than me, but does that now mean they would only qualify for the 'special olympics' cause they are short a limb?

Back to the point, if you can lift 100lbs, you can lift 100lbs regardless of your body shape, size, condition.

Get away from the idea of the climber and focus on the climb. Remove the opinion.

The Tour de France is going on right now. Bicycle racing has been in the Olympics since bikes have existed. It's all rather refined.

As far as bikes go, aerodynamics, geometry, and even weight are all regulated. This makes sense, since it's supposed to be about the riders.

What you're talking about is actually missing the point. You're talking about regulating the body or at least classifying the body for competition. There is no reason for this. Let it be about one human vs. another human or vs. some steep route, at their best and we'll see how it all turns out.

A long armed division? Seriously?

In the process of working up to that elite level, the ideal body types who have the ideal training and ideal motivation emerge. This is what an elite athlete is. There is no reason further categorize that.

You mention prosthetics. Remember (before he was a convicted killer) that Oscar Pistorius made it to the Olympics on his own merits to compete against full legged rivals. Same with climbing or anything else, if you can qualify, you can compete.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: What you're talking about is actually missing the point. You're talking about regulating the body or at least classifying the body for competition. There is no reason for this. Let it be about one human vs. another human or vs. some steep route, at their best and we'll see how it all turns out.

Ok, so the point may be shifting around some, my bad. These are all ideas, nothing more.
So how do you grade a route without opinion? A true unbiased grade?

Daniel H. Bryant wrote: Ok, so the point maybe shifting around some, my bad. These are all ideas, nothing more. So how do you grade a route without opinion? A true unbiased grade?

You don't.

That's actually OK. That's my whole point.

I'm saying that considering the current level of consistency we already have that the opinions must not be hurting the process.