Grades.
Important to some and meaningless to others, climbing grades have long been a great source of debate to pass the time in between sessions. Recent years have seen an explosion of climbing related websites and blogs on the internet which has taken this debate to a new level. It’s easier than ever for people to share their opinions on the grades of climbs…especially ones they have no hope of ever doing (or even trying).
While I enjoy posting news of the latest and greatest hard send by the likes of Sharma and Graham, I usually reserve my opinions on what I think about the grade of any of their climbs for private conversations. Why? Because I have no clue what I’m talking about. For the most part neither does anyone else, unless of course they are climbing at that elite level.
I bring this topic up because I was reading an interesting interview done by SA Mountain Sports with Bernd Zangerl that was re-posted, ironically, on 8a.nu the other day. Discussing his 2nd ascent of Dave Graham’s Chironico, CH testpiece From Dirt Grows The Flowers (V15), Zangerl offers some useful insight when asked for his thoughts on the grade of the problem:
There have been many discussions about grading since the ‘new standard’ was put up in 2005. It seems that it’s the most important thing now in bouldering. Even people who are far from climbing that level of difficulty want to talk about it. They propose grades and think that everything can be measured by a logical or mathematical system. I think only someone who is actually climbing at this level has an idea how sensitive this topic is.
[snip]
Just because the standards rise, we don’t necessarily have to downgrade. It takes time for a grade to settle and each climber has personal strengths and weaknesses. How much a problem suits your personal style is really important in bouldering. Most climbers forget this. Personally, I feel that some other boulder problems felt harder than From the Dirt.
So what are arm-chair climbers to do? Part of what makes reading about high-end climbs interesting is attempting to understand the difficulty that goes into the given grade of the climb. So internet debates about grades are unlikely to end. I don’t want it to come across that I’m against having these debates either because I’m not. I just think it’s important to keep things in perspective.
Fortunately, with the onslaught of sometimes uninformed opinions comes an increasing number of more informed opinions from elite climbers through personal or pro blogs as well as interviews like the one SA Mountain Sports did with Bernd Zangerl.
As with most things in life, time may be the only answer to the grading question as Dave Graham states in this old blog entry (emphasis mine):
In all cases, it’ll be all good, it’s just going be a bunch of forever-unanswered questions. What is 9a+? Realization, La Rambla, Im Reich des Shogun, maybe Coup de Grace? And is 9a Action Directe, Estado Critico, A Muerte, Kinematix? in each catagory, one asks, are these all the same grade? What’s 9a with Bain de Saing involved? Good Lord. Only the people doing these routes know, and we are all pretty lazy, and some not the most driven to know these answers. Time will prove a lot.
Ughh, climbing grades beat me down. I’ve been working with a few other climbers for the past year developing an area and we are always arguing over the grades. We never really come to a consensus. It’s usually the younger guys caving to whatever grade the old school trad dad wants to give the route, even if he wasn’t the FA. We have affectionately nick named him Uncle Sand Bag 🙂
loading...
Good post Narc. I think one thing that is interesting about all of this is that this is even an issue. Imagine Michael Jordan or Labron James saying to Keith Olberman or Marv Albert “You don’t know what it’s like out there, dunking from the foul line, 30,000 people screaming at you, how dare you question what I say or do” The reality is, I think, that if athletes want to be professional, they are going to have to respond to observant questions, regardless of how hard the inquisitor climbs. I think that is a cop-out on his part. Certainly we don’t know what it’s like to climb 9a+, but we can look at all the facts and formulate opinions or conclusions. Can you imagine the response this would get on Sportscenter? “Even people far from climbing that difficulty want to talk about it” Of course they do! I would encourage the best climbers to give their opinions about the difficulty of things, but to suggest that you are only allowed to talk problems up the grade you climb?
loading...
Good point. If an athlete in a major sport took a stance like you describe they would most definitely be excoriated (rightly or wrongly) by the media.
I guess it depends on how “professional” some climbers want to be. As DG points out not everyone is really driven to analyze the question of grades nor are they in a big hurry to satiate the public’s desire to know more about them.
loading...
I have two thoughts about grades:
1. For bouldering, grades really don’t make a whole lot of sense. Boulder problems are so short, so height/size dependent … Routes are long enough that you can usually come to some consolidation of a grade. Why? Because the height/size issues even out–there might be a part that’s harder for short people down low, but then, they get a better rest up high, or have an easier time with another section … and so on. I’ve found bouldering grades to be extremely muddled and I don’t think I could ever say for sure whether something is definitely V8 or if it’s V9 or even V5. I do know that when I climb with old-school climbers who still crank, they call stuff V5 that today’s climbers call V8.
2. The upper end of grades, with both routes and, I assume, boulder problems, are really, really squeezed together. It’s splitting hairs … especially in the 5.14b and 5.14c routes …
My two cents.
loading...
Andrew, is your first argument that grades are subjective? I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with that. In regards to your comment that the “old-school climbers…call stuff V5 that today’s climbers call V8”, your argument seems to be that there has not been progression, just inflation? Remember that the testpieces of yesterday are flashed as warm ups. “I almost flashed one of them” remarks Dave Graham in Dosage 4 in reference to Slashface, which at one time was the hardest boulder problem in the world. There has definitely been progression in terms of difficulty. The problem, so to speak, is quantifying that progression. Granted this is basically impossible, but it is there and it is interesting to discuss.
loading...
Agreed. This was a good post (not that any other one is not 😉 ). Kinda brought some things into perspective. Also, here’s a ‘sport’ where even the top level elites are generally lazy people. Climbing suites the lazy, you have forced ‘off-time’ and explosive ‘on-time’. This type of person is generally indecisive thus bringing us to the conundrum we are currently in.
Climbing is so personal, so obsessive, we work on ‘our’ route for weeks, months, years and all at a different level but experiencing much the same things. So I think it is easier to chime in and offer a perspective. Which is why people always do. Whether your working on your V2 or your V10 if its at your level its still frigging hard. So we all know what hard feels like…hehe, I said hard. Can’t help myself.
loading...
Of course all ratings are subjective, but I think Andrew has a point when it comes to bouldering. Most boulder problems are so short and revolve around (usually) one hard move that differences in size and climbing strengths can lead to widely varying opinions on grades making it hard to quantify the experience in general.
When I was in Hueco I found the grades there to be incredibly confusing and Hueco is where the V scale was first developed. In general we agreed as a group that we could be convinced of a grade 2 numbers in either direction from what the guidebook said for just about any of the problems we tried.
loading...
Yeah, I’m saying all grades are subjective … but they are especially subjective, and perhaps even counterproductive, when it comes to bouldering.
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 …
loading...
Another example of progression: consider the many, many days put into establishing problems such as the fly (this is more of a boulder problem than a route), nuthin but sunshine, ode to the modern man, the mandala, terre de sienne, and so on. Now consider that almost every one of these problems has been climbed in ten attempts or less.
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.
loading...
I basically agree with everything you both said. Grades are impossibly subjective, but I find it interesting that there are many “professional” climber who will tell you they don’t care, grades are irrelevant, climbing is a lifestyle, etc etc, but a not-so-close inspection of their 8a scorecards would say the opposite. With no incentive to downgrade, I don’t know how things couldn’t become inflated.
loading...
I find it humorous to read Jens at 8a saying that his site is helping stem the inflation of grades when it could easily be argued that the opposite is true.
loading...
Although guidebooks don’t help in some regards either. Take Fern Roof at Hueco for example. It may have been V10 at some point but it seems pretty clear that there are multiple sequences that make it much easier at this point. Yet you still see the majority of people still taking 10 points for it on their scorecards. Are they just going with the guidebook grade or is something else in play? In this case I would argue that 8a creates a culture where most people just take the guidebook grade since it’s higher without actually thinking honestly about what they did.
loading...
“Soooo cool. Definitely one of the best in the buttermilks. Super soft, but who am I to say.”
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.
loading...
If Jens wants to help with grade inflation, he would award more points to people who downgrade a route or problem …
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.
loading...
@AB – I think you’re wrong to assume that this person who said that Circus Trick only had two female ascents garnered his information from 8a. Silliness. Blowing the significance of 8a in our climbing communities out of proportion.
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.
loading...
@AB: In terms of not knowing the difference between V5 and V8 and so concluding the bouldering grades are nonsense is well.. nonsense.
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.
loading...
Nietsche: I think you’re right that I assumed the guy had gotten his info from 8a.nu. I don’t know where he got it.
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 …
loading...