[User deactivated.]

I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.

PS - I know this idea falls down when something has had no height average ascents.

I can see this might precipitate a rash of slash grade, but I disagree. Some problems are not only much harder for the very short they are also much easier for the very tall, so you can reliably add/lose a grade for every 2" extra reach you have/ haven't. For those a 7A-7C type grade would seem more appropriate. Otherwise you just get the very tall taking the grade with comments about how soft it is. Probably worse with routes tbh (Kaluza, On the Rocks etc), as folk assume the E grade isn't so affected.

Sounds ok to me as long as those shorties take a grade off every time full span wasn't needed due to their better power:weight 

[Bonjoy]

I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.

That's great, except that's not how rock climbs are graded. It might be how you grade your FAs, but beyond that we grade by consensus, and people give their view of how it felt for them, not for the mystical average person.

Says who? Grades rapidly become meaningless if this is the case.
Take a problem which is either a reach of a ledge if you are over 6 foot 4 inches or a jump to a mono if you are under this height. Put up and graded for the jump by a mid height climber at V-hard. Seven years later the only people who have repeated it are tall folk reaching off the ledge, all agree it is V-piss and vote accordingly. In your system the new and correct grade is V-piss instead of V-hard. This despite the fact it is V-hard for ~90% of climbers.
This is an extreme example but the principle applies to a lesser extent on many many problems.
I'd like to hear what your female friends have to say about the new grade consensus which emerges and downgrades pretty much all their hardest ascents.
Thankfully I think you're wrong and most people know you wreck grades if you grade vote in this way.

[abarro81]

I disagree with you on this one Bonjoy - I think most people do grade in that way, it's just that on most things, the consensus tends towards the "average" climber by the power of statistics.

Obviously v morpho things are a conundrum, and really it doesn't really matter if it's in the guide as "V15, but more like V11 for the tall" or "V11, but more like V15 for the short/average" but I think on the whole the VERY morpho stuff does tend to be graded in the latter style, although the somewhat morpho stuff gets less of that treatment and more big people taking the grade and running!

Why does this mean that things that females tend to do will get downgraded? Not sure I follow...

[Bonjoy]

Maybe you're both right. Quite depressing if true. Anything reachy will slide towards the wrong grade for most climbers. Grades on average become (even) more wrong the shorter you get, hence on average more wrong if you are female (shorter on average).

[abarro81]

Maybe you're both right. Quite depressing if true. Anything reachy will slide towards the wrong grade for most climbers. Grades on average become (even) more wrong the shorter you get, hence on average more wrong if you are female (shorter on average).

Grades become more wrong the further away from the average you get, whether that's tall/short, or exceptionally fat/thin fingers (especially at pocketed crags), or exceptionally well suited to thug (big build) or fingery (waif build) stuff...

I think with slightly easier for the tall (or slightly easier for the short) problems/routes, or routes where thin fingers help a lot but don't turn something "hard" into something "easy" people do adjust slightly towards it being "their style" or not... but I think for the hugely morpho problems it makes sense to grade for those who'll actually climb it, rather than the notionally average climber who won't ever actually go and do it because it would feel like 8B for them but a bunch of lanky 7C climbers would be saying it was 7C... if you look at stuff like Revolver at Anston I would say that fits the bill - I suspect the original 8A+ grade was designed to be this "average", but actually for everyone who's done it it feels like 7C+ and the midgets who'd vote 8B+ and average things out don't go and do it!). Less of an issue on routes as they usually even out more and are thereby less morpho, so I think it's fairly rare to get a route that's very disproportionately done by one size of climber to the exclusion of all others.

[Bonjoy]

I disagree with you on this one Bonjoy - I think most people do grade in that way, it's just that on most things, the consensus tends towards the "average" climber by the power of statistics.

Obviously v morpho things are a conundrum, and really it doesn't really matter if it's in the guide as "V15, but more like V11 for the tall" or "V11, but more like V15 for the short/average" but I think on the whole the VERY morpho stuff does tend to be graded in the latter style, although the somewhat morpho stuff gets less of that treatment and more big people taking the grade and running!

Why does this mean that things that females tend to do will get downgraded? Not sure I follow...

You don't do a lot of grit bouldering do you Alex. A high proportion of problems are extremely heightist and as a consequence get a heavily height skewed set of repeats. This gets ever more true at the upper end. In your system these become graded for the average ascensionist rather than the average climber. This is most unhelpful for a visiting climber who doesn't know from his guide that half the supposed 7Cs in his book are somewhere between 8A and impossible for him/her.
Re female ascents. Statistically male climbers will be above the mean height for all climbers and females below, therefore even if we grade for the average it will be fractionally harder for females to climb a given grade where reach is a factor (it often is). Pushing down the grade of reachy problems based on the opinions of the tall (who get the lions share of the ascent therefore votes) only exacerbates this. Yes, there will be a subset of problems which are easier for the shorter, but these are the exception, at least on the rocks we get round here.

[Bonjoy]

Grades become more wrong the further away from the average you get, whether that's tall/short, or exceptionally fat/thin fingers (especially at pocketed crags), or exceptionally well suited to thug (big build) or fingery (waif build) stuff...

Yes, but my average is more favourable to the short (and average) than yours, and I would say fairer as a result, not to mention more transparent and readable.

[abarro81]

You don't do a lot of grit bouldering do you Alex.

Ha, yeah, grades definitely work better on routes than boulders and maybe on lime vs grit too! Go to RRG or Margalef - basically everything there is easier if you are small (light) with small fingers... the kids do well there because the grades have been set by the average person climbing the route (previously an average full-grown male), then things often get downgraded after lots of small people go and do things, and the average ascensionist of the route becomes smaller and more suited to the route. So yes, I think that the grades are generally for the average of who's done it not the notional average.. it surprises me that this surprises you - it's kind of what I'd always expected.

I look forward to your utopia in which I know how hard a 5ft 9 guy that's 10kg lighter than me will find a route/problem, and in which a 5ft woman/kid will know how much harder the 20kg heavier 5'9 guy will find a route/problem.. but I can't see how it will ever happen. How on earth would they predict how much the ability to keep a foot low on move X is offset by the extra weight through the small crimp? It's hard enough grading for yourself, let alone having to adjust to the "average" (which is porbably a moving target based on changing demographics anyway). Basically I think most people grade things based on how hard they found it, compared to other things in a roughly similar style... no more, no less.

I think most boulderers are used to the fact that grades have a huge spread because problems are so specific (e.g. 7C for me is anything from a flash to failing to do the individual moves after multiple sessions) so I don't think your example of the travelling climber is surprising

[abarro81]

. This gets ever more true at the upper end.

I don't think this bears up to rough observation - I think my insta feed of hard grit problems is probably about average height (Billy, Alex, Jim, Nathan, Ned, Dave, Orrin etc)

[Bonjoy]

That statement was specific to grit and didn't imply there was nothing for smaller climbers. There are a lot af grit things you will never see Jim demonstrating on your feed.

Obviously folk vote in random idiosyncratic ways, and my utopia is a dream destined to stay mostly in my head, but grades will be better and more representative if there is an effort to grade to a standard model. And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents. Something that things like the UKC database could do better, given that they directly generate guide grades in many cases.

[abarro81]

And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents.

I guess that's the crux isn't it, but we've just shown that even among experienced climbers there's no real consensus on whether we should try to grade for a notional morphology or just grade as we feel and let statistics take care of averaging things out...

[Bonjoy]

Well quite.

[teestub]

Bonjoy, in your utopian grading scale, how would you deal with those gritty offerings from taller FAists that are essentially impossible for the average statured vitruvian man of grading?

Seems like the only thing that makes sense in these cases is just to specify they are morpho and give a grade based on those that can reach?

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy, in your utopian grading scale, how would you deal with those gritty offerings from taller FAists that are essentially impossible for the average statured vitruvian man of grading?

Seems like the only thing that makes sense in these cases is just to specify they are morpho and give a grade based on those that can reach?

For that I'd refer my learned colleague to the postscript of the reply I made at 12:19 today.
Essentially what you said, with added daggers.

[teestub]

Sorry missed that one!

A 🗡-🗡🗡🗡 scale to denote the level of morphoness?

[edshakey]

Sorry missed that one!

A 🗡-🗡🗡🗡 scale to denote the level of morphoness?

If you're really really lanky, but not the most lanky, you can give a morphoness level of🗡🗡/🗡🗡🗡.

[36chambers]

I quite like that the 7+8 guidebooks often give two grades for morpho climbs. Very helpful for quickly deciding what to avoid.

[Will Hunt]

What symbol will we add to recognise the disadvantage that taller climbers are at when climbing things that aren't morpho and were put up by shorter climbers? Must we list the FA's height along with their grade?

[Stu Littlefair]

We should use the world’s smallest violin for that

[36chambers]

The violin symbol is already widely in use, legend has it that it once appeared in the first batch of the original 7+8 guide, but it turns out it was only a typo.

[Fiend]

We should use the world’s smallest violin for that

....one so tiny that only a physicist like yourself will have the equipment to determine it's existence!!

[andy_e]

Surely a massive violin very very far away would suit Stu better?

[Fiend]

Maybe, although, like the post author it's all a bit academic, given how rarely it would warrant usage.

[Johnny Brown]

And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents.

I guess that's the crux isn't it, but we've just shown that even among experienced climbers there's no real consensus on whether we should try to grade for a notional morphology or just grade as we feel and let statistics take care of averaging things out...

Got to agree with Barrows entirely on this. Grading is subjective enough without trying to guess how it would feel for someone else.  Grading is currently based on opinions plus averaging. I can't recall many occasions where I've heard folk offer not theirs, but the assumed average guys grade.

Though I can see how it's easy for Bonjoy to cheerlead for his utopian vision with his perfectly average physique, but not so for us giant shinned beanpole/ broad shouldered but short legged outliers respectively. Maybe a Squid game for them eh?

[Bonjoy]

Like the proverbial stopped clock, at least my notional guide would be consistently right for someone, rather than unpredictably inconsistent for everyone. And yes JB, that someone would conveniently include me.

Here’s a though for all you defeatists. As a parent of a young climber I see more and more competent climbers starting at younger and younger ages. If some of these were to start developing new problems, would you still think it correct for them to grade for their height? In practice I’ve regraded the few things Spike has done for the average height rather than take his height skewed estimates.

I agree that it’s hard for climbers to guestigrade outside of their own physical parameters. Rather than try to fudge it, my solution is for people just not to vote on grades when they know they’re finding something easy because they are reaching past the difficulty (the dagger system thing covers FAs where a vote is required). There’s a functional difference between having an opinion on what grade something is for YOU and voting on a website where it directly contributes to the proposed grade that the climb is for others. Which is fine if the votes are from a representative sample of climbers but less so it it’s from the subset who find the climb the easiest, who are then being told by pundits on UKB that they should vote according to their own lived experience and shouldn’t take into consideration that the grade is supposed to be as right as possible for as many climbers as possible.

Obviously whichever way you cut it grades are inherently messy and inaccurate, I just think we should start out with a method which aims for consistency and accuracy. Grading involves a lot of guessing and that can include adding a bit or taking a bit off to account for your height (or listening to your tall/short mate).