I also admit that I am out of touch with the Colorado bouldering scene. If it is true that “stout” grades are being used, then I think that’s probably a good thing for many reasons.

One thing that I think people don’t understand, however, is just because they can climb one V10 that took them months to do, doesn’t mean that they can now automatically climb V10 … or that anything that only takes them a few tries, from this point on, is only V8.

Also, if the difference between 5.13d and 5.14a is “one dollar,” then I’ve found that the difference between V8 and V9 or V9 and V10 is about thirty cents. Especially at the upper end of both grade scales, you begin to split hairs … but especially so with bouldering … Hence, I put less stock in what a boulder problem’s grade is … though of course they are useful to some degree.

Ultimately, it’s probably a bad idea to rely on grades too much for anything …

In my expereince I can do routes like Fluff Boy (and anything in the Wasteland) very quickly, but do not stand a chance at the Project Wall or Arsenal. Would I then say that because one style at one grade is easy for me and another style at the same grade is hard that sport climbing grades are nonsense? Of course not.

I should go sport climbing more if I want to talk about sport climbing grades and I suppose the same is true of you and bouldering.

Likewise I think AB is out of touch with what has been happening in the Colorado Bouldering scene the past few years. There has been a large scale turn toward downgrading and being conservative with grades. While I agree that many boulder problems are body-dependent there really is the experience of when you’re climbing at your best of “feeling a grade,” and while its true that is subjective (whatever that means), I don’t think it is completely so. Often times its the truest genesis for a grade suggestion and the beginning of the conversation.

In terms of those young strong climbers coming out of gyms there is a learning curve when getting use to how natural rock moves. But I think its the responsibility of the established community not to belittle their suggestions, but to give reasons why things are considered the grade they are. Possibly the only interesting thing Jens has ever said points to the social dimension of bouldering grades: that which the onset of gym climbing technical climbs actually should be upgraded and considered harder. I completely agree with him. Grades like anything that gets “named” is always open to reinterpretation by the community (like the words truth, objectivity, mind, climbing, etc…).

@B3: Grades and professionalism seem to go hand in hand in what you are saying and I believe that you have a great point here. But do you think climbing (specifically boudlering), which has really two distinct branches (outside/inside) ever become professional in the sense that basketball or “sports” can? I can’t think of another sport that suffers from the nature/culture dichotomy the way that climbing does. Basketball is a complete contrivance with its made up rules and court restrictions etc… indoor bouldering is similar in this respect, unlike outdoor climbing where restrictions are placed on the climber. Even ski racing has produced tracks and runs. Surfing appears almost completely (natural), but has no artificial (cultural) parallel.

I think you can see that those sports that are cultural/artificial have largely become more professional than those sports who do not submit themselves in the same way. My only suggestion is that climbing follow the model of skateboarding which has blended its appropriation of environment (open course), with a contrived environment (half pipe). However, I have no idea what this might look like.

I sort of ranted about this awhile ago, here:
http://rockandice.com/inthemag.php?id=105&type=tnbeblast

Anyway, the real stand to take with 8a.nu, in my opinion, is not to take the lower grade, but to just not have a scorecard in the first place …

It’s sort of getting a little ridiculous. This guy at Joe’s told two girl friends of mine that Circus Tricks (V4) at Big Bend has only had two female ascents. Not that this is significant in any way … but These girls started laughing since they personally knew of at least four women who have done it … but they don’t have scorecards …

Anyway, as far as I can tell, there is only one reason–just one reason–to have an 8a.nu scorecard. And that’s to show other people what you’ve done. I’ve heard some people try to tell me, “It’s just to keep a log, and I like keeping a log of my climbs” … no, sorry. An Excel spreadsheet does the same thing …

With 8a, whether you upgrade a route, or downgrade it … it’s not about the route, or its difficulty, or anything else … it’s all about you and how you wish other people to perceive you.

Here is a classic comment from 8a that makes me want to say “YOU!!!! You are the one to say!!!, This is your chance, your one and only chance to let the world know!!!!” but I think again there is no incentive to take the lower grade and so no one does. It is just as you describe Brian. Oh how it saddens my heavy heart.

To further compound the grade argument- I feel that old school problems (face climbs, slabs, more technically oriented in their difficulties) tend to feel harder to today’s gym-raised climbers. We’re used to standing on larger footholds and using power to solve problems. Back in the day, i feel that climbers were more technically oriented. The opposite applies for roofs and thuggy styles of climbing- problems established outdoors, that were steep, likely felt “harder” or at least more foreign to climbers of 15 years ago, or more. Whereas anyone who regularly climbs in the gym feels much more at home on 45 degree+ overhangs.

Just an opinion.

In my interviews with Sharma, he revealed that, during his whole “I’m not going to grade anything” phase, he was really talking just about boulder problems. He said that he has come to realize that grades are useful in sport climbing, but he finds them silly in bouldering. I can’t help but agree–for the same reason that Narc mentions above: that you can find problems that are rated V7, but may be anywhere from V5 to V9 … Grades are supposed to be useful suggestions of what to expect from the difficulties of a route or problem … Because, in my experience, I’ve been so flummoxed by the V-scale, I don’t seek out problems of a certain grade, I just need to know whether they are hard, medium or easy, and also, how aesthetic they are … in other words, I think I’d personally prefer (and find to be equally as useful) the B1/2/3 scale.

My comment about new-school climbers grading things harder was not meant to be a slight, or suggest that there’s no progression, only inflation. But old school climbers were climbing when V8 and V9 was untouchable, and therefore, they are less likely to rate something that hard if they can do it. Today, with V7, V8, and V9′s plastering most of today’s gym walls, people are more likely to rate anything outdoors that is slightly hard V8, or whatever. There have been obvious advancements in bouldering difficulty, and one only needs to watch Daniel Woods climb to see that’s true, but I’ve noticed a strange corollary to pushing the V-scale up so rapidly, and that has been inflation in the middle range of bouldering grades (where mediocre gumbies like me reside) … Is this making any sense? I accept the possibility that I am way off base here …