It’s a topic many of us enjoy talking about, and no one ever seems to have an answer. It seems to me that there is no solution, and perhaps thats why we all love to talk about it so much. I think grades, at best, are a great tool to track your personal progress, decide what to climb on in a new area, and a general topic of climbing conversation. At worst they are used to put people down, fluff one’s own fragile ego, and a point of manic obsession. Most of the discussions I have been involved in revolve around trying to pinpoint an exact number. Obviously, it is impossible to tack on a specific value to something that is so subjective. Conditions, body type, personal strengths and weaknesses, style, hold polish, beta, whether or not you are wearing Five Tens etc, can all factor in. Generally I find it easiest to compare problems (Nuthin but Sunshine was harder for me than Slashface, which was harder than Dark Waters) as opposed to having to apply a specific grade. All of this speculation and opinion would die out with the campfire, however websites like www.8a.nu change things when they force climbers to choose one grade or the other. More often than not this seems to lead to uprating. When there is no incentive to take a lower grade it’s not surprising that so many climbers take high grades.
Having traveled to many areas of the country I am surprised to find grades are fairly consistant. There is a range however and often times newer areas have the most overgraded problems. From my experiance, generally, New England has the “softest” grades followed by Hueco Tanks. Colorado seems to be somewhere in the middle, depending on who you talk to. Yosemite, Little Cottonwood and Fontainebleau have the most stout grades. There is alot of talk about how stiff things are in the South, but I find grades there to be fairly normal, albeit conditions dependant. Traveling certainly affects one’s opinions as well. If I live in the Colorado and travel to a new area, for example, I, and many other climbers will often seek out the things they can do quickly to ensure a successful trip. However, I think it’s important to recognize that we generally do this, and so when we have quick success on things that fit us very well, it should come as no surprise. Often this success is used as a tool to make the area one is traveling to seem softer than ones home area. On a longer trip, however, things seem to even out. I once spent 2 months in Hueco Tanks and climbed 13 or 14 v9s. The first few that I did were on the easier end of the spectrum, and I did them quickly or flashed them (PFOS, Frogger, Paleozioc, This is Your Brain on Drugs). At this point most climbers would go home with the opinion that Hueco was soft. However, once I got through those, there were several that were much harder (Try Harder, Brittany in a Blender, French Tickler) including some I didn’t do. When I think about grades in Hueco, all of the V9s come into play and just like anywhere, there are easy ones and challenging ones. The average of all of these problems ends up being about how hard I feel V9 should be and it seems to make sense. I think it is necessary to have a range of difficulty within each grade.
Hueco is an interesting place because it is one of the few places that has problems that are considered standards. Full Service is the classic example at V10. It is interesting that John Sherman (who invented the V-system) chose this problem, which is an extremely unique example to be a standard. (I believe his Hueco Guide Book has the full list of standards for each grade, including several problems he never climbed.)
As I recall, here are the standards for the upper grades that Sherman gives.
V10
Full Service (aka Serves you Right), Hueco Tanks
Left Martini, Hueco Tanks
V11
Full Monty, Hueco Tanks (before it broke)
AHR, Flagstaff Mountain (which had only been climbed once at the time)
V12
Shaken not Stirred, Hueco Tanks
Slapshot, Flatirons (which had only been climbed once and has since broken)
V13
Crown of Aragorn, Hueco Tanks (which had only been climbed once)
I haven’t climbed Shaken not Stirred (aka R. Martini) or L. Martini. Slapshot has broken, was glued, has changed significantly and is probably not climbable.
In terms of a line, moves, and history, Full Service is second to none and has received plenty of attention. It’s popularity has left it slick and polished and it would be hard to argue that it is in a similar condition now than when it was first climbed. It would be nearly impossible to quantify how much harder this has made the problem.
Another issue that arises in terms of grades, and one that is often influenced by 8A, in my opinion, is that first ascents are almost always downrated. It seems that new beta is always found, the first ascentionist wants it to be harder than it is, and more attention to the new problem leads to more brushing (not chipping) and holds become more friendly to grab. Before 8A existed, the first ascentionist would simply make a suggestion, and I think that still goes on, but for many that suggestion now becomes set in stone because it exists in a printed forum for all to see.
I think a better system than the one that currently exists on 8A would be that if you climb a problem, you would have a chance to register the problem at the very specific grade you felt it was for you. For example, I would register Dark Waters as V12.5 as I find it to be right in the middle of V12. Everyone else registers what they think, all of the opinions are averaged and you are assigned a grade based on the consensus. If you climb a problem, then one of the privileges you are afforded is the chance to submit your opinion to the consensus. Each person’s opinion is equal.
Anyways, I just wanted to bring up some points, find out what other people think, and open a discussion on the matter. Although many climbers claim to not care, it’s quite obvious that most climbers are at least interested, if not obsessed, with the topic of grades. Thoughts?
