[squeek]

Source

Sometimes we think a route is 8c+, but because everybody else says its 9a, and it is 9a compared to most of the other 9a's out there, yet not compared to a select few other hard routes.

I would say that if a route is 9a compared to most other 9as, most other people say it's 9a, but there are a select few other hard routes that are 8c+, then the argument for upgrading the few select 8c+s to be inline makes more sense than downgrading all the existing 9as.  Obviously I have no idea about grades this hard, but it makes sense at any level to me.  If I got on a V4 that was as hard as all the other V5s I'd done then I wouldn't think downgrading the V5s.

To get consistent grades do you not have to consider putting the proposed grade up as well as down, if the FA has undergraded it?

[north_country_boy]

True. Don't compress the scale!

[Andy F]

  It's daft to keep pushing grades down, expansion is the way forward (unless it's the Sheffield finish to Raindogs, which is 7c+  )

[Ru]

To upgrade routes to bring them into line with many international standards though you may have to upgrade a lot of routes that would rewrite history.

Here's some potential suggestions (I've not done all of these routes btw)

Hubble 8c+/9a, maybe 9a - maybe world's first 9a
Liquid Amber 8c+ - world's first 8c+?
Zoolook 8a+?
Main Overhang 8a

and so on. I'm sure there's many more abroad.

[Duma]

think DG's point was re historical routes - lots of newer hard routes being easier than older ones, plus things not getting downgraded - ie bang de sain (sp?)

still quite brave to suggest the AD downgrade though, but it's a valid point about the XI grade.

disclaimer, I know shite about this level...