Comments on: The Grade Debate

By: gian

gian — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:50:39 +0000

i really liked sidepull’s post.

just to give some real-world insight, i’ll tell a story…about a semi-sponsored Climber, two FA boulder problems he’s put up, and the grades he’s proposed.

The day i first met Climber, i witnessed him on FA#1
Short roof-arete-and-mantle problem in a sandstone area.
The mantle is what looks hard : desperate full hand featureless slopers on top of a vertical face, absolutely no feet, some rand smearing is possible for the fancier…in the end, just a matter of cranking, slapping hard in the middle of nowhere, and somehow make it up the thing as fast as possible…strong arms, belief and rage needed…
Climber proposes V11.
The line in itself might not be very inspiring, but the aleatory yet “raw” nature of the topout makes it a classic in its style, imho.

One year and some later, no repeats, despite abundance of strong climbers in the area (both visitors and locals). It’s not clear if anyone has actually tried it.

At this time i witness FA#2
We are a few steps away from FA#1.
This problem looks much nicer, even though it is a bit of an eliminate.
Climber has been working it on and off since before FA#1, but suspects that much better beta is possible for the tall.
He goes for a consciously inflated V13, saying openly that he expects a downgrade and he goes for a soft touch hoping that people will come and offer him some feedback.

In a matter of weeks, the two problems suddenly experience a lot of attention from very strong boulderers.
Both problems are tried.
FA#2 is suggested for V10 with much different beta.
FA#1 sees one repetition confirming the grade and several failing climbers suggesting V12 or even V13 could be appropriate. Some local legend openly congratulates with Climber.

By: Hoff

Hoff — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:30:04 +0000

After reading this post and Nalle’s, I wonder if the reason problems are getting downgraded is because of climbers reaching the limits of what the human body can do. As people climb harder and harder problems and the limits of the human body are approached, adding new grades to the spectrum would naturally get harder and harder to do. This makes me think that maybe we’re closing in on that threshold.
That’s my two cents on the subject.
Great post Jamie, keep up the good work!!

By: campusman

campusman — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:11:54 +0000

rock climbing, its all the humanity.

By: martin

martin — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:47:54 +0000

@ AB: PERFECT thats THE point, you can discuss GRADES forever in this style – there will be NO end.

if you want to know who’s the very best at the very moment – go to a competition – thats the ONLY way.

ever tried to go out bouldering with no topo, no video, no grades, no 8a.nu… MUCH more FUN than trying to solve a puzzle again and again, that just never will be properly solved…

By: leukaria

leukaria — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:30:13 +0000

hmmm, i have to agree with Frank. this is a silly debate. that being said, i understand that pushing the envelope (of standards) is what sells. given that climbers aspire to “make a living” out of the sport they love, pushing the grade is a necessary evil. nalle’s insightful and detailed analysis of this trend clearly demonstrates this reality. are all “professional” climbers egomaniacs, inflating the grade for self-aggrandizement? i have known a few in my day and can comfortably state that they aren’t all a-holes. so the predominant tendency that nalle meticulously identifies, to inflate rather than sandbag, is more than likely a product of external pressures on their performances.

in a past dialogue about the subject, however, i communicated that there are certain practical matters that outweigh these pointless debates. anybody is certainly free to try to climb anything they like, but having a grade to guide us in the selection of our choice of problems is obviously necessary. i would (and have been) very disappointed and shocked to discover myself ass-over-tea-kettle on terrifying problems with bad landings that i had anticipated being easier than it turned out to be. accordingly there may be some logic to the inflated grade. better to be safe than sorry. i suppose this is an inane point to an experienced climber, but i still think it a worthy one.

so i repeat my previous point. the grade is just a guide. it can never be more than that. unless a sufficient sample of short and tall, powerful and technical, male and female climbers have all successfully ticked said problem and confirmed the grade, it will continue to be nothing more than a tentative reference point.

so until a scientifically robust sample of climbers have achieved consensus, let’s all take a pill. the chalk stains left behind may outlast our FA’s, but the grade is never written in stone.

By: Crafty

Crafty — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:22:50 +0000

Jamie, I agree. But who isn’t attached to themselves climbing a certain number?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:33:45 +0000

I have no real opinions on the grade debate but I do want to give Daniel props on keeping the project name….. Desperanza what a classic name love it

By: Steve W

Steve W — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:23:10 +0000

Something to keep in mind with a problem like Jade is that it is a “one move wonder”. The stand is “only” V11. There is the probability of sending it much quicker than an 8 move V15.

I have to agree with Pat on the qualification for a “standard problem”. A standard can only definitively be called a standard by concensus. Can an unclimbed problem be accurately graded by those attempting it unsuccessfully? Usually a “suggested grade” is given. When climbed, a “proposed grade” is given. When repeated, a “consensus grade” is given. When repeated by n number of climbers, a “standard grade” can be established.

By: B3

B3 — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:38:00 +0000

@Crafty almost always those problems remain downgraded, and it’s only because someone was personally attached to themselves climbing a certain number, and took offense, that that was even an issue.

By: AB

AB — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:02:46 +0000

The idea that there should be “standards” in bouldering is where people are going wrong … in my opinion. Bouldering is non-standardized … it shouldn’t fit into a mold: not the grades, not the problems, not the participants. It’s a free-thinking, free-wheelin’ activity … in theory

Besides, aren’t grades in bouldering just sort of not serious? Show me one problem that is a “standard” for the grade, and I’ll find 10 different climbers who find it easier or harder than that grade based on their own strengths or weaknesses.

What is the REAL issue here?