Lucid Dreaming V16 FA

Posted on 05. Apr, 2010 by B3 in News

Last week, Paul Robinson made the first ascent of a long standing project in Bishop calling it Lucid Dreaming and grading it V16. This is the second V16 put up by an American this year, the other being Daniel Woods‘ The Game, in Boulder Canyon. This is a classic and difficult problem and it’s great to see it finally get climbed. I want to emphasize that much more than the grade of the problem, the classic and difficult nature of the boulder, and it’s central location in one of the best bouldering areas in the country make this a significant contribution.
However, the grading is an interesting topic in its own right. Paul justifies the V16 grade on his blog, which is to be expected. I find it interesting that he didn’t mention his unsuccessful attempts on Suspension of Disbelief V13 or V14 after many days on that climb or acknowledge that Jade V15 in RMNP may soon be downgraded. There is a trend lately that seems to suggest that if a climber puts in a certain number of days on something, then they are deserving of taking the highest grade, and I don’t think that is always the case. If Paul were to apply the same logic to Suspension he would call it V16 as well, when for Dave Graham it was only V13.
In my own climbing I spent probably 12 days on Trent’s Mom, the classic V10 in Joe’s Valley, after having climbed V12 in a day on several occasions. But that doesn’t mean it’s V11. I found the climb to be committing and the moves to be challenging. This represents the upper end of the V10 grade in my opinion and there should be a range of difficulties within a problem. At this point what are the hard V15s? or even V14s for that matter?

Malcolm Smith, the legendary British climber, remarked this after climbing one of his hardest problems

I see Monk life as a bottom end 8b+, only just scraping into the grade. It’s a bit harder than some things I’ve done like The Ace which get 8b. I think in Britain we have a harsher scale than in Europe and there’s loads of room in 8b+ for absolutely sick things which are harder than Monk Life. I can’t see any reason to give anything 8c. That grade is unbelievable and I struggle to believe anyone around can climb it. We’ve got to be sensible about these things.

This is far different from Paul’s approach.

“We need to progress the sport of bouldering and not get stuck in this v15 rut and never move forward.”

My interest is in mostly why there is this obvious split in thinking.
Have the top end climbers become so concerned with adding new numbers that difficulty is really irrelevant? Is the grading scale linear, or has it shrunk as a response to media pressure? In more objective sports, which measure progression with standard distances and times like swimming, or track and field, no one gets to arbitrarily move the sport forward. Because our measuring stick is more subjective, it would be nice to see a more conservative approach.

57 Responses to “Lucid Dreaming V16 FA”

joe

05. Apr, 2010

JE,

Paul said that the 2-move crux was more difficult than combining the separate 1-move cruxes of Jade and Teremer. If this is true, I don’t know how anyone can doubt it is deserving of V16. This is true for any grade (a problem with two V5 cruxes should easily be a V6, etc.).

Plus, as you mentioned, Lucid Dreaming is in the middle of one of the most popular bouldering areas in the country and has been tried and failed by tons of people, with Paul finally becoming the FA last week. Again, a sound reason for grading V16.

I think it is 100% reasonable, even logical, for FA’s to give a grade based on their perception of the problem’s difficulty. Again, as you mentioned, Jade V15 might get downgraded due to a flurry of ascents. Maybe the same will happen for Lucid Dreaming V16. Time will tell.

In general, though, I think that the best climbers in the world should be the ones making the calls. Which, put another way, is to say that it is frustrating reading posts like yours (and many other commentators online) second-guessing these amazing accomplishments by athletes who are lightyears ahead of 99% of us.

How does it make sense to say that the thousands upon thousands of boulder problems in the world have to fit within a 0-15 grading scale? Should DW have grade The Game V15+++++++?

And why is it, exactly, that we got nothing but super-excited posts from you when DW finished The Game and graded it V16, but now that Paul claims a V16 you get all serious, with calls for “a more conservative approach”?
John

05. Apr, 2010

The grading scale is likely logarithmic and not linear but that is a math issue I don’t really want or need to get into. As for the grading, why can’t Suspension of Disbelief be v14-v17 for Paul. This doesn’t mean on his 8a he takes more than the v13 following a send (if that grade is a consensus).

Grades are not isolated points on a graph. They, in theory, exist within a standard distribution. This means that if everyone were to give their true, unbiased opinion of the grade for a particular climb you would get some distribution X with a mean value Y and a standard deviation or error of the mean or whatever statistical error formula you choose to use Z. This can then be plotted, however you like but the most common method people would know would be a bell curve.

Basically what I’m saying is that your argument, regard the grading of this particular problem, is dumb, as usual, and fails to take into account the nature of a “grade.” These are not tangible objects but rather subjective opinions. They are never PRECISE as there is no way to pin down the true/indisputable grade. Grades can therefore only become ACCURATE through multiple, preferably unbiased, samplings (ie- repeats). When this number is small, as in only 1 ascent or due to the fact that the problem is extreme hard and the population capable of honestly estimating the grade is low, the grade give will be neither PRECISE nor ACCURATE. Worse yet, as future opinions on the grade are extremely biased on a myriad of factors, including those not directly related to the climb itself (such as personal dislike of the first ascentionist by later ascentionists or idiot bloggers), will result in skewing of the data.

In conclusion, your discussion of the grade is: 1)irrelevant, 2) uniformed, 3)useless and 4)pointless.

“Grades” mean nothing when the N value (sample size) is extremely small and worse yet biased. Thus Paul’s v16 grade is nothing but an irrelevant opinion and your opinion of Paul’s grade is an irrelevant opinion of an irrelevant opinion.
Pauly

05. Apr, 2010

I think there is a bit of reluctance of some to break past the V15 roof, sorta like when Rifle was being developed in the early nineties. Everyone was reluctant to grade things 5.14, only to have them downgraded to 5.13…so you have routes like Living in Fear graded 5.13d (obviously 5.14).
sock hands

05. Apr, 2010

in jared roth’s pro tips segment, trent’s mom was indeed listed as v11 upon the FA.
brian

05. Apr, 2010

*Plus, as you mentioned, Lucid Dreaming is in the middle of one of the most popular bouldering areas in the country and has been tried and failed by tons of people, with Paul finally becoming the FA last week. Again, a sound reason for grading V16*

The same could be said for the Mandala, and that grade has settled a number or two, no?
B3

05. Apr, 2010

@John I think if you reread my post most of my “argument” is in the form of simply asking questions. Paul’s irrelevant opinion has been hailed by most as a progression of the sport and I don’t know if that is true. I simply am trying to question things, but it seems like few others are interested in that. I have no background in statistics. How could someone possibly give an unbiased opinion about something they have devoted their entire life to? Paul’s opinion is totally biased, and I am simply countering that with my own biased opinion.
Is my discussion of the grade so pointless that you felt the need to respond with a page long comment?
B3

05. Apr, 2010

@joe I agree with most of what you say, I am simply asking questions. I don’t have the answers, I don’t pretend to have the answers.
I see a difference in Paul and Daniel’s climbing in that Daniel has consistently repeated all of the hardest climbs, and established his own V15s which are unrepeated by anyone.
Mostly my reason for this post is to say “Are we really to the point where someone is climbing 6 grades beyond V10?” Forget the numbers, are these climbs actually more difficult? The Mandala sit start has been downgraded to V13. Is Lucid Dreaming three grades harder? Has there been an obvious trend that nearly every single hard problem put up in the last 5 years has been downgraded? I imagine most of the European community finds this silly, as both Paul and Daniel have failed to climb the hardest problems in Europe, some of which were put up by the American Dave Graham.
I will continue to question the nature of our sport, and I am sorry if that makes people uncomfortable.
joe

05. Apr, 2010

“Daniel has consistently repeated all of the hardest climbs”

… except for Lucid Dreams, which he apparently found way too daunting?
joe

05. Apr, 2010

And Dave Graham failed on Jade (Green 45) for years…
sidepull

05. Apr, 2010

@John – I agree with the statistical nature of the argument, and, if 8a.nu were a better site, it would provide that sort of information. I disagree with your tone and your four point conclusion.

@Joe & B3 – I kind of agree with Joe here. I don’t know Daniel or Paul personally, so it’s possible that my opinion is diluted (or deluded) by medium (mostly movies and blogs), but I’ve always been struck by Daniel’s relative immaturity and inability to articulate something sensible. In contrast, Paul seems a bit (maybe even a lot) more humble and informed. So I’m more likely to believe Paul simply because of how their personalities translate (I think it’s similar to the fact that many people thought Sharma could do no wrong and Dave Graham was a bit whiny about 10 years ago). I’m a big fan of the blog, but it does seem to have a pro-Daniel Woods bias (doesn’t his dad already have a site for that?).

2 other points:

1) If we really buy your argument about Jade getting down graded (which seems likely), and about Paul and Daniel’s inability to unlock Dave Graham’s v15′s, then we shouldn’t put much stock in The Game or Lucid Dreaming (however, The Game looks like an ugly line whereas Lucid Dreaming at least looks inspiring).

2) Just because Paul can’t do a v13 doesn’t mean he can’t climb a v16. In fact, you make this very point. You’ve climbed v13 and yet you can’t do a v10. Bouldering, especially at the top end, tends to be pretty “specialized” (to quote Tommy Caldwell). Lucid obviously suits Paul’s strengths whereas The Game suits Daniel’s. I’m sure there is some esoteric, techy v5 somewhere in France that could shut them both down. That doesn’t mean we get to downgrade everything they’ve climbed.

In sum, great post, great questions. I’m pretty ambivalent. I disagree with Paul’s point that we need to start pulling out bigger numbers because it somehow “advances the sport” (how exactly does it do that?). But I’m more inclined to agree with him about his “experience” of the grade in the context of his own progression (which includes the important caveat that his experience is NOT the mean experience John was referencing above).

Cheers!
John

05. Apr, 2010

I think if you read my post you will notice that I say grading requires a large sample size. Until the size is large there is nothing but guessing as to what the grade will settle at. Paul is allowed to voice his opinion on the grade. This, at the moment can be report as the problems difficulty but as it is impossible to PRECISELY grade a problem and one opinion cannot be used to determine ACCURACY. This means it is nothing but speculation. The jest of the entire post was basically what Joe said. Why all the hoopla in response to Paul’s proposed grade of v16 but no concern for that of DW’s? Paul has excelled as much as DW in the bouldering world…. The have both done hundreds of problems v10+.

As for Paul’s bias… I wasn’t denying that his opinion of the grade is biased but more importantly later opinions of the grade by the 2nd, 3rd… Nth ascentionist are jaded by the grade that the FA proposed, most importantly, and also in addition becomes biased by a myriad of other factors including personal opinions of others, crags, grades, pervious experience (in climbing) and on and on and on.

You bitch and bitch about what grade CERTAIN people propose for problems and make little mention of the same problems that may be the case for other people. DW’s propose grade for the Game is no more likely to be what the grade will settle to more than Paul’s.

Get off your horse. Stop pushing your dislike of particular climbers/people in these nefarious ways. If you think Paul doesn’t have the experience/knowledge to grade problems harder than v3 just come out and state that explicitly.

FInally: “Has there been an obvious trend that nearly every single hard problem put up in the last 5 years has been downgraded?” anecdotal.

“Daniel have failed to climb the hardest problems in Europe”
except that I thought:
“Daniel has consistently repeated all of the hardest climbs”

Get off your horse. Stop contradicting yourself. Own up to your dislikes. Provide concrete, not anecdotal, evidence for your almost slanderous judgements
dom

05. Apr, 2010

Malcolm Smith is a legend. In the mid-90s after climbing Dreamtime (soft V14 in his opinion) he didn’t think V15 was possible, now we have V16! hmm…
joe

05. Apr, 2010

For the record, I don’t think what you’ve written here is in any way “slanderous,” as John suggests. But your website has recently become a popular forum for debate about grading in climbing, and I think you could be a more balanced/objective commentator/moderator than this post shows you to be.
B3

05. Apr, 2010

I think there is some misunderstanding here so I will try to clarify.
1. I think Paul is an extremely talented rock climber and I am not attacking him as a person. He knows me well enough to know that. I am questioning his grading theory. I didn’t question Daniel because right after Daniel came back from Europe it was apparent having climbed with him several days that he had really turned it up a notch. I
2. This is an amazing problem and I am thankful for Paul contribution to the sport. I wrote that earlier.
3. It seems that everyone is reading between the lines too much on this one, or at least reading my questions as facts. They remain as questions to which I do not have the answers, but stepping stones for conversation.
4. I did contradict my self and thank you for calling me out on that. Daniel and Paul have both failed on some of the hardest climbs and both climbed some of the harder climbs. Again, I am just asking questions in hopes to stimulate discussion.

Finally, my “anecdotal evidence” is simply a question! I don’t have the answer, and I never claimed to!!!
B3

05. Apr, 2010

Again, this problem is amazing and I have pushed previously for the younger climbers to go out and do First Ascents. Paul did that in this instance and it is awesome that he did so. I did just sift through all the fanfare so I was trying to dig at something a little deeper.
joe

05. Apr, 2010

I love your site Jamie and thank you for keeping all of us posted on this kind of stuff. Sorry to come at you so hard for this post. The only reason I responded is because I’m part of the camp that believes the vanguard climbers (PRob, DW, Dave Graham, Sharma, Nalle…) should be determining grades. When one of them completes a futuristic FA and the online community reacts by being ridiculously critical of the proposed grade, it just introduces a lot of negativity into the sport.

You say:

“Mostly my reason for this post is to say “Are we really to the point where someone is climbing 6 grades beyond V10?”

Several years ago you and others might have said of V15 problems:

“Mostly my reason for this post is to say “Are we really to the point where someone is climbing 5 grades beyond V10?”

I think we just sound like a bunch of nattering ninnies. You constantly hear people talk in videos about how the younger climbers today are flashing the most difficult problems put up a decade ago. It’s only natural that new grades develop. Of course, it is natural to question such development as well. I just think we should acknowledge that such questioning will in no way prevent the “progression,” as Paul puts it, of the sport through the development of wilder and wilder problems deserving of new grades.
toothbrush

05. Apr, 2010

Good point – nice topic. Really tough to judge the methods, especially when bringing up that the amount of days does not justify a grade – your absolutely right. But I think Paul did a good job justifying this one. The ridiculous dyno to the slopey pinch – even from the photos it just looks near impossible, but thats not a perfect means to know (3D bouldering footage anyone?). One can only speculate. But, I get a much better sense of this grade based on that picture than I do from DW’s V16 the game. Seems like The Game is well protected footage at this point.

But yet again, we have another V16 link up to an existing problem – yyaaa. Then we get into the essence of the bouldering grade which is the most difficult move possible yes? And I was under the impression that Paul was justifying it by that and hell from the pic that just looks no fun. None the less, it seems he’s ready for the speculation and looking forward to future assents.

I think we should just drop the V scale and go with the Font scale. Pluses, minuses and a’s and b’s help to give relativity to a zone rather than just saying, “oh, it should just be the next number”. But, wtf do I know – I’ll answer that with NOTHING! Just saying my piece…thanks for the opportunity B3.
Justin

05. Apr, 2010

First of all, congratulations Paul on your tremendous ascent. It is a beautiful piece of stone and an even more difficult one to climb.

Second, Jamie just brought up a topic that he and obviously a lot of others find interesting to discuss. The negativity people read into it is wholly their own.

Third, @ Joe, regarding “Paul said that the 2-move crux was more difficult than combining the separate 1-move cruxes of Jade and Teremer. If this is true, I don’t know how anyone can doubt it is deserving of V16. This is true for any grade (a problem with two V5 cruxes should easily be a V6, etc.).” To make your analogy more accurate consider that the individual 1-move cruxes of Terremer and Jade are V14(or 13 depending on who you ask) and v13 NOT v15 moves. So if v5 + v5 = v6 how does v14+ v14 = v16? (Just for clarification the second move of Paul’s new line has generally been considered hard v12 in the past.)

I don’t have the answers either, but I can ask more questions.
B3

05. Apr, 2010

@Justin thanks for your response. Time will tell, and again, perhaps because so much has already been written about it I focused less on his contribution, which is significant. This is a n amazing problem and probably one of the hardest that has been climbed on US soil. Congratulations for sure go to Paul!
B3

05. Apr, 2010

Also didn’t Shawn Diamond claim to have gotten really close on this line, falling after the crux move? Does anyone have any other information about that?
billybob

05. Apr, 2010

IM with duttle on this one. DWoods and Paul have still not sent the 3 real v15s in the country. Im talking about To many martinis, warpath, and witnness, especially post break. how could Lucid and the game be 16 if they havent done these climbs. I think most of the other 15s are FLUFFED, probably so the industry can feel better about the progression of the sport. Jade cant be 15 and terremer is so worn it’s not 15 anymore either, the broken hold on diaph is a huge jug now. im not trying to put those guys down, its no wonder litz , and fred are moving away from this rating fluffing.just my two cents
billybob

05. Apr, 2010

ohh i forgot about from the dirt grows flowers, thats probably real v15, those guys should go do that one to, then they can spray 16
mick

05. Apr, 2010

It seems increasingly common for people to jump a grade too quickly with new problems (most of us can only speculate if this is the case with Lucid). Just because Lucid is harder than Jade doesnt mean its necessarily v16. There is a huge range in many climbing grades (between areas and problems) so why would v15 be different?(especially if we consider jade is a possible v14) When suggesting that a climb is one of the most difficult on the planet surely it is better to grade conservatively, rather than “helping the sport to become more appealing”. Didnt Ty say he didnt feel v15 existed yet?-having climbed two. So how does that figure in the grading theory?
Paul B

06. Apr, 2010

To add another opinion to the mix….

I’m not sure if Big Malcolm’s comment can be taken at absolutely face value. He is Scottish after all, and climbers in the UK (and to a lesser extent here in Ireland) are expert sandbaggers. Seriously, I’ve seen 7c boulderers fail on “6b” problems.

Also, I’ve not heard mention of the existing 8c+ problems in the world anywhere in this debate? John Gaskins? Shadowplay? Il Pirata? Done years ago. It would be interesting to see how they measure up to the talents of Messrs Robinson and Woods. Having said that, they are by any account shit looking problems so unlikely to see any attention from globe trotting wads looking for the most beautiful lines.

Oh and massive congrats to Mr Robinson! Mega effort!
Noah

06. Apr, 2010

I had an interesting talk with Tony L. last year in Rocklands… I liked his thoughts on the matter. Basically, Tony believes that individual moves are maxing out at about V13 and that there are probably not moves much harder than this since they are limited by span/Ultimate Human Potential Strength (UHPS) and hold size (ie. there needs to be a hold.)

The bouldering grading systems have always been based on maximum difficulty. That being said, and unlike routes, there are definable hardest parts (cruxes) to short boulder problems. This is why V16 for “Wheel” makes so little sense.

I think that stringing a series of V13 moves (name a proble with a singular V13 move, as an exercise…) together would be harder than one V13 move (assuming Tony is correct in his assertion.) For V16 to be a reality, in this sense, you would need multiple rare V13 moves, multiple UHPS moves or a total genetic freak (a 7 foot tall super-hero) to complete something like V16. As Jamie and others have suggested, it makes sense that there should be a range in difficulty in a grade range… V10 by consensus should be further comparable in difficulty with other problems inside the range.

As for V16, I think we are going too fast here. …It just doesn’t make sense at all. At our limit things feel near impossible. I think Gill was on to something with the B3 grade, and not to polish Jamie’s knob, but he’s just hitting on the thoughts of many in the community.

I think that the majority of climbers think that V14 exists. Many might agree with V15, although so many of those have been downrated and ascended by high-level athletes that doubt remains as to its validity.

I think there is V14. I think the next grade is B3, until repeated, of course.

Beyond that, there is a realm of grading criteria that is mostly ignored but equally if not more important. Stars. What ever happened to quality?

I would rather do a 4 star V10 than a 1 star V13 any day of the week.

Paul and Daniel are undoubtedly two of our finest young athletes, and I do not question their thoughts on the difficulty of their climbs. …The motivation of assigning a hard grade has often times been used as a ploy to get others to come try your sick new line. I think when the dust settles, Nalle, Adam, Tony or some mutant 8 yr old Chick from New York will come repeat and suggest V14 for these climbs. I think the climbs are currently B3 (Badass hard and unrepeated.) If they stand the test of time, then maybe we will need a new grade (eg B4 = 10 years unrepeated or something.)

I spent time watching/filming/yelling at Matt Birch as he vied for the FA of Rastaman Sit this March in Bishop. He could do all the moves to the pinch statically. He had made the jump move this trip and in the past and it’s basically over after that move. He was very close to sending. I am pretty sure he would not have called it V16 (or V13 for that matter.) Since so few of us are capable of doing things this hard, we will need some honest efforts and opinions by the world’s best in order to get to the bottom of this debate.

Great and very necessary conversation. Thanks to all contributors.

Try Harder!

Noah K.

PS. …I just coined “UHPS” for fun, but I would like to officially suggest that it joins our collective climbing vernacular.
hayden

06. Apr, 2010

grading problems at the limit of you ability has always been something that I have struggled with personally and can understand the temptation of more time = harder. however, i think that when grading people should stray away from that logic. everyone has strengths and paul’s flash of nagual but inability to do suspension of disbelief is a perfect example of this. obviously the best way to avoid over (or under) grading is via consensus. the problem with consensus is that on one hand, i think people like paul and daniel should be out developing new climbs. on the other hand, if no one is repeating each others climbs then the grading scale becomes disjointed. i think one reason dave graham has always inspired me is because of his ability to balance development with repeating the established. jamie, you asked what could be considered hard v15. in regards to that, i would be curious how daniel, with his tension power, or paul, with his crimping ability, would fare on some of john gaskin’s unrepeated blocs in england
B3

06. Apr, 2010

@Noah Thanks for articulating what I could not! Great to see you this week! Good times.
devlin

06. Apr, 2010

this isn’t exactly the right place to ask this but

can someone explain to me why a flurry of ascents by top climbers suddenly means a problem needs to be downgraded? Once the knowledge is out there a problem becomes easier, once its been solved it becomes solvable, it shouldn’t diminish its grade though. . . the system is so subjective and so proud of being stout that it seems like we should be at v17 or v18 not v16 when you hear a v14 is soft for the grade while another is hard for the grade..
John

06. Apr, 2010

noah, I’m going to have to somewhat disagree with you. As I said above, and as in the case in essentially all human physical endeavors, the progression in the sport is likely a log curve, as opposed to linear. Yes, there is an upper limit to how hard a human can climb. There are a few problems though in making some of your claims. 1st- where are “we” currently on this curve? Next, as you reach the maximum the absolute difference between the previous grade and the next will decrease however the relative effort to make the progression will increase. That is to say, that while two sequential v6 moves may only make a problem v7, the case for two v13 moves may make the problem v15… this is hypothetical as 1) the “math” to describe a “absolute/real” grade for a problem is something only Fields Prize winners would likely be able to create and 2) I have no actual idea what v6+v6 (single moves) or v13+v13 (single moves) equals nor do I really care.

Next, Mr. B3 here essentially has implied to Paul lied. That he doesn’t believe that this problem is v16…. Thats all the “grade” at this point means. Thats all it means on this problem, on The Game, on Es Pontias (or however you spell that)… one opinion does not a consensus make…. The grade may at some point settle down to v13, or could even go up to v17… none of this is really relevant. 1) That does not change the fact that Paul thinks the line is v16 and 2) That the line may actually be v16 for Paul.

I feel this sort of discussion does little to help the sport, assuming we want to have difficulty ratings. Instead of people being able to honestly express their opinion of the difficult of a problem, whither it be long established or a FA. This leads to poor consensus. People become intimidated. Jamie her uses his forum to state his almighty opinion as if it were fact. “Rumble is V11, Lucid Dream couldn’t possibly be v16 and if you disagree with me you are just plan wrong!!!!” How are “we” wrong though? The only way to form the consensus. To get the average is to allow people to freely express what they think the grade is. Will this lead to grade inflation perhaps, but I suspect it will also lead to deflation… it will be alot like money, there is a cycle. Sometimes it is expanding. Sometimes it is contracting. Let the grades be fluid. One year that may mean the average has brought Lucid Dream down to v13, the next year there are a few more ascent, those people think its hard as fuck and rate it v16 and you get an average that brings it back up to v15. What is wrong with this? 8a scoring gets all messed up?
sock hands

06. Apr, 2010

gaskins’ name always comes up. jamie: please post a page of links to photos and videos of his problems, AND, hard lines established by other people that he has sent. this would add credibility for those who only hear his name in these debates. this could be a very interesting piece itself and represent all of those unsung, underground heroes we all know exist, but eiter become mainstream or quit climbing.

next, in the same post, please list all of the v14/v15 lines that daniel and paul have tried but have failed on. number of days would be helpful.

in fact, 8a shoudl not allow anyone to participate in the ranking system unless they log all of their days failing on established lines.

that would be worlds more interesting to me than the simple tick list.

this request is made with the utmost respect to daniel and paul, both of which i think highly of…. but if their struggles and lack of success on certain lines is raised as a rebuttal to their grading, i think it follows that substantiation is necessary for that rebuttle to hold any weight.

i know you’ve mentioned that daniel has struggled iwth story of two worlds. what else? what has paul struggled with in europe? has he been there as long/frequently as daniel and dave? should that matter?

i certainly wear my failures on my sleeve more than my successes… or at least i think i do…. so this is not requesting something that i would personally object to.
James

06. Apr, 2010

@B3 It seems you understand what a lot of Brits think about American grading at the moment. It’s fine to push numbers up, with little depth between grades, but other nations which have depth in their grading will cease to believe their grading and ultimately it will become a joke, much like Magic Wood. America is unfortunately heading that way and I think you see that…

Using your example of Malc it’s interesting to note the Monk Life took him 10 years on and off and he gave it 8b+, 10 years….Bear in mind Malc could climb 8b in a day, real 8b too and it shows how much depth there is. Should he have given that 8c+ because it took him that long? It would have been better for his profile to do so, but it doesn’t seem to be the nature of the guy.

Don’t even get me started about Gaskins and where the real hardest problems in the world are.
dachoppera

06. Apr, 2010

John is absolutely correct about this and every other boulder. A proposed grade is just a jumping point, an individual opinion. Subsequent ascentionists’ opinions will be used to determine the consensus grade. The mathematical nature of the system guarantees that as the sample size grows, a natural distribution will occur that will reveal the actual grade of the problem.It’s really pretty foolish and short-sighted to question the grading philosophy of certain individuals and certain problems. The best contribution you can make to the climbing community is through statistical evidence by climbing the problem and proposing a grade.
joe

06. Apr, 2010

Noah:

“UHPS” is a dumb notion, as each generation is stronger, faster, better than the one before it. Such an idea is, at best, a cop-out.

Gritstone (and other?) boulders in the UK use the adjectival grading system, which takes all factors of the climb into account, not simply the single most difficult move. So, saying, “The bouldering grading systems have always been based on maximum difficulty,” to imply maximum difficulty of a single move, is just incorrect. As we’re seeing with next-generation boulder problems (Lucid Dreaming, specifically), grading by single most difficult move is really quite insufficient, as the crux itself involves two separate moves.

According to your logic, a new boulder problem with 5 moves each equal to the hardest crux of the hardest V10 in the world would still just be ranked V10.

JE:

I think you should really reexamine your motivation in questioning these high grades in light of the fact that you’ve been caught hyping DW while writing this long, probing, dubious post following PRob’s recent FA. You say you have “questions” and not “answers,” that you’re “trying to dig at something a little deeper”… but that wasn’t the case at all when DW claimed V16. When that happened, you were basically claiming that the FUTURE OF CLIMBING HAS ARRIVED AND HIS NAME IS DANIEL WOODS.

See, my view is that we should be super stoked when climbers claim new grades. It gives the legitimate hope that new ground has been discovered. And that hope exists until lots of others repeat the climb, at which point the “futuristic” nature of the ascent gets averaged in with the past and becomes part of the present.
B3

06. Apr, 2010

@John Patrick Cassiday?- you are imposing tone on my post which is not there. I am not the only one to downrate Rumble, and for me that climb was low in the V11 grade with the new beta. No one should be intimidated by my opinion, as it is only one persons opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else’s. I never said because someone disagrees with me they are wrong! Never! I never implied that Paul lied about anything! I have let everyone here speak their minds, as I have always encouraged an open forum here, even when climbers have had vastly differing viewpoints than mine. I did write that I prefer a more conservative approach and I will stand by that. The important thing is that Paul climbed an amazing new line of high difficulty. The grade debate is interesting and I wanted to ask some tough questions about what it means for him to suggest V16. I don’t have the answers, I don’t pretend to know the answers, I just think it is interesting to discuss.
peter beal

06. Apr, 2010

FWIW, I wrote about this on my blog. I disagree with several of the premises in your post, especially the comparison with Suspension or Jade. However debates about the outer limits of climbing difficulty are a good place to think about where climbing is heading.
Rando

06. Apr, 2010

@John

I think a more appropriate curve to apply would be a logistic curve, which would imply an absolute maximum, as opposed to a log curve. It seems reasonable to assume that if you’re plotting absolute difficulty on the y-axis, there is an upper limit to human ability to defy gravity, and you say as much in your post. That way, their would in theory be an upper limit of difficulty, sort of like a B3 rating, and within that upper grade, climbers may require a long time to send a particular problem that is just “hard” for that upper grade.

Alternatively, the scale could change at the upper grades to give more “resolution”, but it really seems like it wouldn’t make sense and there would end up being a lot of noise in the data that really would reflect minor changes in the”actual” difficulty.
Rando

06. Apr, 2010

Also, I agree, only future ascentionists will be able to provide a useful opinion on the grade.

The fact that someone failed on climbs of an easier grade really doesn’t seem to mean much if their climbing CV is filled with climbs of higher grades. Just because a V14 climber (>5 V14′s) didn’t complete a V10 or two doesn’t mean that they don’t have the experience to grade a V14.
sock hands

06. Apr, 2010

so, who has tried and has failed at gaskins’ problems?

they don’t look very compelling, i agree, but perhaps it is time for someone to just bite the bullet and try?

has ty put any time into them?
riz

07. Apr, 2010

“The best contribution you can make to the climbing community is through statistical evidence by climbing the problem and proposing a grade.”
Herman

07. Apr, 2010

When I was fifteen years old I worked at Burger King. On my best day I filled fifty bags of fries in one hour. Maybe it was only forty-eight. Someone there said I used bad math. Anyway, I filled a lot of bags with fries that day. I may even still hold this record at the Burger King in Nashua, NH.
Pascal Heger

07. Apr, 2010

@toothbrush

The V-scale fails to properly define difficulty below V5 where the font scale does allow for a more precise measure in the lower grades. In the higher grades the V scale does follow the same linear increase in difficulty as the font scale.

Very unfortunate system for the majority of the US boulderers as they do not have an accurate system to measure their progress. I don’t believe the system is failing in the grades we are discussing here though.
James

07. Apr, 2010

Tyler Landman once said (maybe flippantly) the hardest problem he ever tried was an 8a+/b of John Gaskins on the Pill box wall in Wales, a problem John completed in a single session. Some very strong climbers had projected this problem for years and continue to project it. He also climbed the monk life in two sessions and other hard lines abroad.

Some of the Strongest Brit lads have made it their mission to repeat John’s hardest lines and they are guys that genuinely piss the hardest lines abroad…..One of them will eventually repeat a single line and confirm what we Brits have always known.

I should add two things. Firstly part of what makes john’s lines so hard is that they aren’t link ups or long lines but short and physically possibly the limit. To climb one of them a person will have to step beyond 8b moves and they were climbed years ago, think about that. In addition to that his route ‘voilent new breed’ in pure power terms is probably the hardest route climbed so far being an 8c boulder problem with a rope.

Secondly, over time john’s lines will probably become more famous until they get repeated and naturally people will want to know more about him and such. John is a family man of faith, humble and what you guys would call ‘spray free’?. He doesn’t plug his stuff, people like me and other Brits who want to climb his stuff do. 8a messed up badly with John once before and created a lot of bad feeling. Please don’t let something like that happen again.
mick

07. Apr, 2010

@sock hands. ty has tried one of gaskins problems as far as im aware- the pill box wall, rated 8a+/8b by jon, ty thought it harder than jade. Some of Johns early 8b are repeated but most often with different sequences. Using Gaskins problems as i guide to grading other top end problems is likely ill concieved as he developed most of his problems in isolation and hasnt done much travelling to try other testpieces.
Shadowplay is significantly harder than any other problem i have seen in switzerland, font, south africa or the uk. In the Lake District you will probably find the hardest moves in the world, but u will not find the best problems.

Well done Paul. Lucid Dreaming looks amazing…
FS

07. Apr, 2010

I really do not understand this aggressive tone from some against B3:s post. From my understanding he is simply asking questions about different ways of viewing grades and grading. One perspective is a more conservative one; that the grade V14 is fucking hard and has a really big range and that the next level from that is when our absolute strongest mutants, like Paul, DW, Graham, Nalle etc puts a LOT of effort into such a line before being able to complete it. Then you can start thinking about V15 and the mindbending strength and skills necessary to accomplish that. With this perspective V16 is really to early to begin to speculate about, cause V15 is simply not settled as a grade just jet.

The other perspective is a more liberal one saying V15 is a fully established grade and that a V15 problem is something that the strongest climbers in the world probably will send if they put a couple of days into it and that we have now come to a point where V15 fails to describe the absolute cutting edge problems.

So the discussion should really be about which perspective to apply shouldn’t it? Because if some climbers use one, and others use another then there certainly will be misunderstandings and suspiciousness amongst climbers.

Oh, and props to Paul for completing what probably is one of the absolute hardest problems in the world. Respect!
CJS

07. Apr, 2010

Somebody needs to sponsor a trip for DW, PR, DG, Sharma, Nalle, Litz, Ondra, Nicole, and half a dozen others to travel around the country (world?) to try and repeat the hardest boulders and routes. Then we’ll have some accurate data on which to base our ridiculous speculation!
ken

07. Apr, 2010

I think Mick makes an excellent point here, “In the Lake District you will probably find the hardest moves in the world, but u will not find the best problems.”

Should we be discussing only world class, cutting edge difficulty? What about the quality, longevity and allure of The Game and Lucid Dreaming? It is one thing to make noise announcing the latest hardest climb or problem. It is another to open a line that will go on to become a classic and that will represent the next phase of climbing in a comprehensive sense. The iconic problems such as Midnight Lightning, the Mandala and Dreamtime all did this.

As this site tried to quantify over a year ago with a “star” system (http://www.b3bouldering.com/2009/01/19/the-star-system), many factors contribute to a great problem: The setting, the approach, the movement, the landing, the rock quality, the social and historical context –these are the climb’s intangible essence.

If we look at the summary of downgraded problems here http://nalle-hukkataival.blogspot.com/2010/03/bouldering-grades-everything-is-average.html it seems likely both the Game and Lucid Dreaming will be lowered to 8C or beyond. Look at Memento: Put up by an equally gifted climber, proposed 8C+ with the same compelling argument, even served as an anchor to an entire climbing film of the same name, but now sits at a “mere” 8B+, hardly worth mentioning in current terms.

What I want to know is will the Game and Lucid Dreaming become repeated, downgraded and fade into obscurity, or will they endure and grow to embody the vision of the current generation’s strengths and philosophy? Unlikely anyone can predict that. Only time will tell.
sidepull

07. Apr, 2010

I find the premise that UK grades are somehow more precise, exact, reliable, accurate, etc., laughable. I have no doubt that Gaskins problems are hard or that Malcolm Smith was a monster, but the overall insular nature of the grading and the high degree of rock/climate dependence makes the grading dubious. Wasn’t it just last year that Jorgensen and crew made short work of the grit test pieces as “training” for routes/boulders in the US? (Recent quick ascents by non-brits: http://bjornpohl.blogspot.com/2010/04/news-from-empire-and-beyond.html). I realize routes aren’t boulders – apples and oranges – but a huge part of the issue is that the boulders simply can’t be climbed on for a huge part of the year, not that the standards are super swole (not to mention the fact that no one wants to put time in on an ugly line like Monk’s Life – or The Game for that matter – when they could be climbing something pretty like Lucid Dreaming).

Pascals’s point about non-linear grading and consistency in the European grade is pure gibberish.
whitey

07. Apr, 2010

Jamie,
You have successfully done what you have set out to do. That is to create an article of conversation. It appears that people are definitely talking and giving a multitude of perspectives.

Thanks for stepping up, continuing to ask pertinent questions, and to get a community in dialogue.
Hardclimbs

08. Apr, 2010

paul wrote on his blog “Please feel free to comment. I would love to hear what others have to say and if anyone has any questions ask away. ” and this to
http://p-d-robinson.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=50
talkin ’bout Rastaman 8C…wtf????
Dan C

08. Apr, 2010

Just a note. In Paul’s blog he mentions that has tried the Game and has been able to do it in two overlapping sections meaning that he is close and has some feel for how hard “V16″ is. The Game is also not in his style but he feels close. Doesn’t that help to justify his claim that when he has obsessed over a boulder that is in his style for days and found it equal to difficulty to another boulder of the V16 grade?

Regardless of the grade I agree with many who are giving props to PRob for an amazing new beautiful line that is harder than I’ll ever climb!