Thanks.

Best of luck in your climbing and keep us up to date here.

See ya later brotha!

-campusman

and while i think consensus would be cool, now that i think about it, it would even be cooler to appoint a grading czar: 1) it seems to be ’super-hip’ in the federal gov at the moment, and 2) someone would get to be the grading czar.

i vote for sock hands. heez a jd. they know about the law. laws do stuff. czars do stuff. grades are stuff. stuff>stuff>stuff. don’t agree? it’s all in plato.

read.

just look at who does a specific climb.

a system like 8A can be used to roughly identify the “climbing level” of those registering all their ascents.

looking at the “average level” of the repeaters of a boulder problem or route is one idea.
the idea is : if V10 “A” has an “average repeater” who has done a few V9’s and never a V10, it should be easier than another V10 “B” that gets a lot of V11 climbers on.

the possible unwanted effect is that this kind of grade will incorporate some elements that go beyond the pure climbing difficulty. It is not what we usually think as “grade”.
Example : a dangerous highball with bad landing and very precarious moves will discourage people not having a fair margin on the grade, and so it would appear harder than things requiring the same climbing effort with less danger.
Or : a popular problem that gets a lot of teamed assaults will appear easier that something that gets less attention and motivation (etc)