UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: shark on August 20, 2022, 11:33:42 am
-
They are getting used extensively now but this comment made me wonder what are they exactly (or inexactly) ?
Nah, I think Seb just worked out where they stood relative to each other, then went for the option with most slashes...
His post does seem to imply that he think slash grades are actual grades, not just placeholders until consensus is established though, which is clearly balls.
So are they placeholders? (like that term) till consensus decides which grade it is, an actual grade? or a way of introducing some vagueness to the system that reflects that the boundary between one grade and the next is not measurable and distinct.
-
are they placeholders? til consensus decides which grade it is, an actual grade?
They should be. Any grade and star rating that an FA gives is always a placeholder because those things can only be meaningfully decided by consensus.
Far too much importance is placed on the FA guessing both correctly (and stick given to those who don’t) so I guess the proliferation of slash grades is a kind of bets-hedging reaction to that. It’s better than not grading your new route at all I suppose, but that’s only really a headpointing thing as far as I know.
-
Isn’t it context specific. In my mind it could mean one of several things.
1. It’s a FA or newish problem so they aren’t sure which grade band it sits in. Maybe they’re unsure if it suited them or not. Or maybe they’re not convinced they found the best beta.
2. It’s a problem that really does just sit on the boundary. Some people think it’s one grade, but hard. Some people the other, but soft. Cue long winded internet arguments.
3. It’s morpho. Easier if you are tall/short/handsome etc.
4. A combination of the above.
I always take Seb’s slash grades to just mean he’s unsure where it sits. Maybe just because grading is hard and he’s trying to cover his behind. :shrug:
-
More accuracy ;D :2thumbsup:
-
Ban 'em all
-
I think of them as placeholders, either because as an FA you aren't sure, or because a route previously of a certain grade has had some downgrade/upgrade suggestions recently so consensus is a bit unclear... But I think the Spanish and French maybe think of them more as a real grade, to the extent that I've seen comments on 8a that something is "hard 8c+/9a or easy 9a" which is surely just saying it's the very bottom of 9a? :shrug:
The difference with Europe may be that topos over there often don't have descriptions, so theres not room to just say Route X 8a Blah balh blah, may be 7c+.
-
Yeah get rid of them. Let's just call a soft 9a or hard 8c+ what it is, rather than fence-sitting. If it's so close that it's either on the boundary of 8c+/9a or low 9a, does it really matter which? Maybe I'm just shit at grading but I'm amazed that some people apparently have such finely tuned grade-o-meters.
I think I'm right in saying that the '+' started in the same way that slash is now used, and only in the last 30 years or so has been seen as a grade in its own right. If we just do the same with slash, then there yet another version will come along until we're really splitting hairs. Where does it end?
I realise this is not what shark asked - in terms of how they are used, I don't know, though hopefully as a placeholder rather than intending to remain slashed.
-
Yeah get rid of them. Let's just call a soft 9a or hard 8c+ what it is, rather than fence-sitting.
Quite. I wonder if their increased use has anything to do with sponsorship, media and the optics of having your routes downgraded when they’re marginal grades.
I think I'm right in saying that the '+' started in the same way that slash is now used, and only in the last 30 years or so has been seen as a grade in its own right.
Not sure about its origins, but it’s been considered a fully independent grade in its own right for 40+ years.
-
I think I'm right in saying that the '+' started in the same way that slash is now used, and only in the last 30 years or so has been seen as a grade in its own right.
Not sure about its origins, but it’s been considered a fully independent grade in its own right for 40+ years.
Yes fair enough, it may have been longer. My point was just that, at some point in the past, the '+' wasn't used as a grade, but instead was an indication of a hard 7b that wasn't quite hard enough to be 7c. Or perhaps it's just that it's only applied above a certain difficulty level and I've somehow got my wires crossed (e.g. you wouldn't get a 4a+). Would be interested to hear from those better informed.
-
For what it's worth, I've designed climbing-history.org so that climbs must always have a 'whole' grade (e.g. 7a, 7a+ etc.) but climbers can suggest slash grades for routes, which in my eyes just means you think it's hard 7a or soft 7a+ but you're not sure exactly which and it needs more opinions. I think people's ability to distinguish between grades is roughly in line with whole grades and Im skeptical there's much use in having a system with smaller increments.
I'd echo what's been said above about people getting stick for having their climbs down graded. Frankly I think it's an amazing effort if you can get within a couple of grades, especially on routes, where little beta/gear tweaks can add up to make a huge difference in the overall difficulty.
-
What does a slash grade signify?
Weakness of the mind. Pick the lower grade and transcend.
-
What does a slash grade signify?
Weakness of the mind. Pick the lower grade and transcend.
:punk:
-
Slash grades really annoy me.
Grades are guides,
With huge overlaps.
And all of a sudden af the top end people need slash grades because the existing grades don’t match their experience. If one thing is harder than something else, but easier than another for one (self obsessed?) climber that means it is a special grade?!
there is a thread on here where the most experienced climbers argue about how we are supposed to grade things, and there were huge differences of opinion.
Grade for how it feels to you, or grade how it would feel to a mythical “average climber”?
As long as the community has not answered those questions, it feels like saying “ my God is more precise than yours, every route has a precise and separate grade, like a barcode.”.
My hunch is that most experienced climbers will end up say “grades only exist in guidebook”
-
Scrap the letters I say, and wake me up when someone climbs a 9/10.
-
Sounds like you are a lumper Andy, whereas Seb is a splitter. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
-
More accuracy ;D :2thumbsup:
Like E0?
Did I recall a guide or supplement once having .1, .2 added to trad grades? Something in the Lakes? Glad that died an early death.
-
E0 is good for "really annoying" people, yes :) Actually the more I chat to people climbing around the HVS grade, the more it's still entirely sensible and justifiable as a function of how so much was packed into the HVS grade before people dared move on.
It was Duddon for the .1 .2 grades AFAIK.
-
Sounds like you are a lumper Andy, whereas Seb is a splitter. ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=193hOTS5xUI
-
I very much doubt that anyone can accurately guess a future consensus grade of a route within a quarter of a grade (i.e. 9b/b+ versus 9b or b+).
On the other hand I vaguely remember that some bloke once told me that if you ask respondents to guess the value of something with higher precision than they could reasonably be expected to know, the sample average of guesses convert faster to the population average than if you ask respondents to give less precise guesses. I.e. if people vote "easy 8a", "normal 8a", "hard 8a", "8a/+" etc rather than just "8a", "8a+" etc on a survey, the sample average (and median) convert faster to the population opinion.
Alas, I cannot find a reference for this right now. Someone?
-
When writing guidebooks etc downgrade all slashgrades to the lower suggestion and tell the people who complain to suck it up and give the higher suggestion if that’s what they mean.
I read Seb’s post as that he thinks they’re all 9b+, but that he don’t dare to actually suggest that he is that good at climbing rock
-
When Aidan was talking about an 8B/+ in Switzerland he was doing the sit start to he said the consensus was the stand "occupied the grey area between 8B and 8B+" and so that to me means it isn't being used as a placeholder for a more accurate grade but rather as a specific grading in of itself
-
Alas, I cannot find a reference for this right now. Someone?
The field is called "Wisdom of the crowd", amongst other names, but I've not found any reference to the increased precision factor you're referring too. There's some interesting stuff out there that you can find by looking up "wisdom...", hope that leads you in the right direction!
-
When Aidan was talking about an 8B/+ in Switzerland he was doing the sit start to he said the consensus was the stand "occupied the grey area between 8B and 8B+" and so that to me means it isn't being used as a placeholder for a more accurate grade but rather as a specific grading in of itself
I think this interpretation is what Duma called 'balls,' and I agree. It might be plausible that at the absolute top end of the grading spectrum this grey area exists until further repeats take place, but 8B and 8B+ are middle of the road for elite bouldering these days, people need to just give it one or the other and move on.
I find Bouin's relentless sandbagging quite tedious, just give them all 9b+!
-
I use slash grades alot, but mostly because I don't want to spend a load of time worrying about is something graded x or y when I could just focus on trying the next thing.
For me boulder grades rarely make that much sense, particularly with how much morphology can impact a short selection of moves. I actually think power endurance problems grades are the only ones which make real sense.
I also used to worry about what people what think if I was just to say X is worth a higher or lower grade than others etc, whereas now I don't so much by using a slash where there's that uncertainty. Using a slash is a way to suggest something might be worth a higher or lower grade without it causing offense to someone or leading to some senseless debate (people hate their projects being downgraded, and us Brits seem to hate/ridicule others suggesting a problem could be harder than we ourselves thought it was despite boulder grades being ridiculously subjective) makes sense to me.
P. S. I find it crazy how people can be so dead certain on grades, wish I could be so sure of myself on grades haha.
-
When Aidan was talking about an 8B/+ in Switzerland he was doing the sit start to he said the consensus was the stand "occupied the grey area between 8B and 8B+" and so that to me means it isn't being used as a placeholder for a more accurate grade but rather as a specific grading in of itself
I think this interpretation is what Duma called 'balls,' and I agree. It might be plausible that at the absolute top end of the grading spectrum this grey area exists until further repeats take place, but 8B and 8B+ are middle of the road for elite bouldering these days, people need to just give it one or the other and move on.
I find Bouin's relentless sandbagging quite tedious, just give them all 9b+!
It's just what he said. I have no particular view. I think probably grades are often very hazy things anyway, but I reckon at the top, where slivers of percentage points make a big difference, 8B/+ could be a grade in of itself in a way it probably isn't at 7B/+ and definitely isn't at 6B/+
-
Agree with the point that grades are particularly nonsensical in bouldering for reasons of morphology etc. I just don't think the way to fix it is by introducing more uncertainty into the spectrum. What next, the slash slash grade? eg. 8B/8B+ / 8B+ ? I definitely don't think they're necessary in route grades.
I suppose what I'm saying is I don't think 8B is sufficiently near the cutting edge to need that grey area.
-
I'm purely a boulderer and a bit of a wimp, and still in my apprenticeship, but my feeling is probably that the uncertainty is already there and either you attempt to grade in line with that, leading to increasingly fine granularity, or you try to make some hard grade boundaries and tell people to stick their neck out, so I suppose I'd agree with you
-
I actually think power endurance problems grades are the only ones which make real sense.
Haha I kinda struggle with the grade of PE problems sometimes because they can feel easier once you develop the requisite fitness for them, and they are also prone to downgrade by sport climbers going bouldering 😄
-
When Aidan was talking about an 8B/+ in Switzerland he was doing the sit start to he said the consensus was the stand "occupied the grey area between 8B and 8B+" and so that to me means it isn't being used as a placeholder for a more accurate grade but rather as a specific grading in of itself
I think this interpretation is what Duma called 'balls,' and I agree. It might be plausible that at the absolute top end of the grading spectrum this grey area exists until further repeats take place, but 8B and 8B+ are middle of the road for elite bouldering these days, people need to just give it one or the other and move on.
I find Bouin's relentless sandbagging quite tedious, just give them all 9b+!
I find it hard to grade some problems with much precision at all, but for others I feel that I can be quite precise to the point that a middle ground can exist, even on modest stuff. I'm not sure what it is that differentiates these problems in their gradeability(?).
Obviously someone will disagree with every one of these, but here's a few examples of problems that to me felt right in the middle (hopefully some you may be familiar with):
Olicana Arete: 7A/+
Crusis (to the break): 7A+/B
Brass Monkeys: 7B+/C (felt between grades to me even with span)
Underhand Extension: 7B+/C
-
That must be a wafer thin grey area.
-
I agree theres a case to be made with some of them, I just have an objection out of principle with trying to be that accurate. Ultimately its an alphanumeric grading system for bits of rock which is already imprecise and as you say people will disagree with some problems or routes being given a slash grade as much as they did with them being given a proper grade. I would be much more in favour of people just saying what they think it is rather than hedging. All it will do is widen the spectrum in an attempt to find certainty that is doomed to fail for all the reasons discussed above.
-
I find it hard to grade some problems with much precision at all, but for others I feel that I can be quite precise to the point that a middle ground can exist, even on modest stuff. I'm not sure what it is that differentiates these problems in their gradeability(?).
Obviously someone will disagree with every one of these, but here's a few examples of problems that to me felt right in the middle (hopefully some you may be familiar with):
Olicana Arete: 7A/+
Crusis (to the break): 7A+/B
Brass Monkeys: 7B+/C (felt between grades to me even with span)
Underhand Extension: 7B+/C
I reckon 36C is on the money here; if we're honest all of those are probably the lower of those two grades for the average person (and then trending higher the shorter you are).
I'm much more in favour of broadening the spectrum than refining it. So you'd say 7A / B rather than 7A+.
-
I'm much more in favour of broadening the spectrum than refining it. So you'd say 7A / B rather than 7A+.
Now we're talking!! (https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31546.msg645831.html)
(Otherwise I rather agree with Yetix)
-
Brass Monkeys: 7B+/C (felt between grades to me even with span)
At the risk of derailing, is this what others think for the grade of Brass Monkeys?
As someone who isn't particularly short but who cannot reach the span, and who is generally well suited to steep compression, I thought it felt like it would be very hard at 7C for someone who can't span it.
I only had one session so maybe I missed something/just needed to try harder? :shrug:
In the same session, I saw 3 taller gentlemen (all comfortably over 6ft) do Brass Monkeys quite quickly. I also saw them try plenty of other problems around 7Aish that day, and none of them were close to doing any of them.
-
Spanny compression problems are particularly hard to grade. Eg I can't even pull onto the Alliance which is allegedly 7A, if I ever get up it will be at least 7C I reckon! Giving it a slash grade of 7A/C might be stretching Bradders model slightly.
-
Haha yes, slightly stretching things there.
Although when I said this:
you'd say 7A / B rather than 7A+.
I should have said you'd say 7A / B rather than 7A, 7A+ or 7B. I.e. things are low 7s, mid 7s or high 7s. And Brass Monkeys would be a classic easier high 7.
-
Except "easier high 7" is exactly the same as 7C assuming you're on a scale of "low" "mid" and high" with easier/harder within each category... so you didn't get anywhere
-
I gave it* E4/5 because it wasn’t that long and it had a fixed wire but really it was an expression of guilt, a way of expressing all these mixed emotions [about the ethics of it].
Dave Cuthbertson, OTE 41
Slash grades: an indicator of mental state.
*Wild Country (now E6).
-
Except "easier high 7" is exactly the same as 7C assuming you're on a scale of "low" "mid" and high" with easier/harder within each category... so you didn't get anywhere
Ha well I did think of saying mid 7 but that would include 7B, whereas I would say easier high 7 could reasonably include 7B+.
-
I saw 3 taller gentlemen (all comfortably over 6ft) do Brass Monkeys quite quickly. I also saw them try plenty of other problems around 7Aish that day, and none of them were close to doing any of them.
Seems appropriate to dredge this up-
…Stoney's Minus Ten. I once met a 6ft++ lad there who was on his first visit. He told me he'd never climbed harder than 6A on rock and, inbetween smoking joints and wandering around in the dirt with his climbing shoes (and grey socks) on, was struggling on the easiest problems. Another bloke turned up and began trying Quent's Dyno. My man joined in, did it second try and proceeded to do the other dyno problems first or second go before picking up his pad and heading home, delighted at having improved by more than a number grade in about five minutes. Either I got hustled or those problems are easy for the tall.
The fewer moves are on a climb the harder it is to grade. When those moves are reach- or height-dependent (particularly in the extreme case of dyno problems where it’s literally one morpho move) you’re heading into territory where it just can’t logically have one grade that’s accurate for everyone. Personally I’d say the answer is just to accept that grades are a loose guide of averaged-out difficulty rather than heading into some sort of slash grade/ handicap calculator/ “taking a grade” madness.
-
At the risk of derailing, is this what others think for the grade of Brass Monkeys?
As someone who isn't particularly short but who cannot reach the span, and who is generally well suited to steep compression, I thought it felt like it would be very hard at 7C for someone who can't span it.
I only had one session so maybe I missed something/just needed to try harder? :shrug:
In the same session, I saw 3 taller gentlemen (all comfortably over 6ft) do Brass Monkeys quite quickly. I also saw them try plenty of other problems around 7Aish that day, and none of them were close to doing any of them.
My theory on Brass Monkeys is that if you're able to reach the good holds (i.e. get to the good LH sloper that everyone cuts on) from the heel/toe lock it's 7B/+ depending on how decent you are at compression and burl, and 7C+ or more if you can't - essentially if you can reach then the crux is that cut and trusting the heel- or toehook for the scary move to the jug, and if you can't reach then those moves getting to the LH are much harder than the lankster's 'crux' (which you'd probably piss if you could get to). As such I think it's not actually 7C for any real human being, and instead that's an averaging out of the lanky people pissing it and the shorties finding it desperate for the grade.
-
Brass Monkeys: 7B+/C (felt between grades to me even with span)
At the risk of derailing, is this what others think for the grade of Brass Monkeys?
As someone who isn't particularly short but who cannot reach the span, and who is generally well suited to steep compression, I thought it felt like it would be very hard at 7C for someone who can't span it.
I only had one session so maybe I missed something/just needed to try harder? :shrug:
In the same session, I saw 3 taller gentlemen (all comfortably over 6ft) do Brass Monkeys quite quickly. I also saw them try plenty of other problems around 7Aish that day, and none of them were close to doing any of them.
Brass Monkeys is easily closer to 7C+ if you can’t span to the slopers and have to use the crimp on the lip instead, maybe harder. I’ve got one friend who’s very tall and said it felt 7B to him, YMMV.
-
I find it hard to grade some problems with much precision at all, but for others I feel that I can be quite precise to the point that a middle ground can exist, even on modest stuff. I'm not sure what it is that differentiates these problems in their gradeability(?).
Obviously someone will disagree with every one of these, but here's a few examples of problems that to me felt right in the middle (hopefully some you may be familiar with):
Olicana Arete: 7A/+
Crusis (to the break): 7A+/B
Brass Monkeys: 7B+/C (felt between grades to me even with span)
Underhand Extension: 7B+/C
I reckon 36C is on the money here; if we're honest all of those are probably the lower of those two grades for the average person (and then trending higher the shorter you are).
I'm much more in favour of broadening the spectrum than refining it. So you'd say 7A / B rather than 7A+.
I was being honest about the grade they felt for me (not short), and I did say that not everyone would agree. This comes down to the difference between precision and accuracy (https://i0.wp.com/wp.stolaf.edu/it/files/2017/06/precsionvsaccuracy_crashcourse.png?resize=579%2C600&ssl=1).
Grades can (but not always) be precise for an individual whilst there is disagreement amongst a distribution of climbers. It would be incorrect for me to say Olicana Arete felt 7A or 7A+; it felt precisely 7A/+. Others might think 7A, 7A+ or even 6C/+. JWI's post indicating that higher precision could lead to quicker convergence is interesting.
There are some problems I couldn't offer much precision on. The boulder problem on Kleptomania felt somewhere between 7B to 7B+. Perhaps anti-styles (narrow pinches and clipping bolts) are harder to be precise with.
There's one important thing UKB has taught me on grades - if I want to know I've climbed grade X, I had better climb X+1 to be safe! ;D
-
Personally I’d say the answer is just to accept that grades are a loose guide of averaged-out difficulty rather than heading into some sort of slash grade/ handicap calculator/ “taking a grade” madness.
+1
There's one important thing UKB has taught me on grades - if I want to know I've climbed grade X, I had better climb X+1 to be safe! ;D
Actually, you probably need to do 3 different climbs at X+1, to know you've climbed grade X. In various styles, at different locations, and on different rock. In fact, better make that 5 different climbs, just to be safe :P
-
Personally I’d say the answer is just to accept that grades are a loose guide of averaged-out difficulty rather than heading into some sort of slash grade/ handicap calculator/ “taking a grade” madness.
+1
+2 I didn't realise anyone actually took in any other way than to a loose guide.
There's one important thing UKB has taught me on grades - if I want to know I've climbed grade X, I had better climb X+1 to be safe! ;D
Actually, you probably need to do 3 different climbs at X+1, to know you've climbed grade X. In various styles, at different locations, and on different rock. In fact, better make that 5 different climbs, just to be safe :P
This is always my rule of thumb. Can't say I can climb a grade until I've done at least 5. Keeps you honest. :-)
-
I'd say 5 is fair but they have to be on different rock types. I've done five 7A+s on lime but none on grit I wouldn't say I'm a 7A+ climber. 7A maybe.
-
I think Woods and Raboutou just lost a number grade unless they've been putting up some 8A grit slabs we don't know about!
-
Who call themselves a 7A-climber or an 8a-climber unironically?
I stumbled going to the kitchen this morning, so I call myself a 1+ walker.
-
Well I don't really it's just I sort of do consider what level am I at and where do I want to go etc, I think we all do that, or have at some point?
-
Who call themselves a 7A-climber or an 8a-climber unironically?
I stumbled going to the kitchen this morning, so I call myself a 1+ walker.
Uhh a lot of people?
-
I'm with jwi, I don't think I've heard anyone say that they're "an 8a climber", for example, for many years. Mostly people would say something more sensible and descriptive like "the hardest I've done is 8a" or "I've climbed a few 8as". Anecdotally I think I heard more about being "a grade x climber" in the early days of my climbing - I don't know whether that says something about the phrase falling out of use or about it being something that people tend to drop as they gain experience
Actually, you probably need to do 3 different climbs at X+1, to know you've climbed grade X. In various styles, at different locations, and on different rock. In fact, better make that 5 different climbs, just to be safe :P
Steve Mac used to tell me he felt you had to do 3 of a grade to really feel like you'd climbed that grade, so I feel like 3 of the [grade +1] should be safe enough
-
I'm with jwi, I don't think I've heard anyone say that they're "an 8a climber", for example, for many years. Mostly people would say something more sensible and descriptive like "the hardest I've done is 8a" or "I've climbed a few 8as". Anecdotally I think I heard more about being "a grade x climber" in the early days of my climbing - I don't know whether that says something about the phrase falling out of use or about it being something that people tend to drop as they gain experience
Actually, you probably need to do 3 different climbs at X+1, to know you've climbed grade X. In various styles, at different locations, and on different rock. In fact, better make that 5 different climbs, just to be safe :P
Steve Mac used to tell me he felt you had to do 3 of a grade to really feel like you'd climbed that grade, so I feel like 3 of the [grade +1] should be safe enough
Yes I guess calling ourselves “x climber” is reserved for us lowly punters, thanks Alex!
-
It did cross my mind that my post might seem jabby coming straight after yours... but that is what I feel like I've observed. But... my guess would be that usage drops off with time rather than with grade, so it's more that it's for relative newbies than punters ;)
-
It did cross my mind that you might take offense at my post... but that is what I seem to have observed. My guess would be that usage drops off with time rather than with grade, so it's more that it's for relative newbies than punters ;)
Hook, line and sinker :lol:
-
I only ever heard it used when referring to a third person. I am too self-aware / inconsistent to ever apply it to myself.
-
I think I stopped saying it at E1 or E2 which is probably when most people stop saying it? Can't think what the sport/bouldering equivalent level might be where one realises that there's a huge difference between what you can guarantee you'll get up, what you might get up fairly quickly, and what you might do after lots of effort.
Someone recently described me in the 3rd person as a "7c climber" and my brain simultaneously said "I've done harder than that, you cheeky git" and "That's very generous".
-
I’ve had people ask me what level I climb at before and my rule of thumb is “you’re an x climber when you’ve done 10 climbs at that grade” I think it’s ok to say you’re generally climbing at a specific grade when you’ve done 10+ lines at that grade :shrug:
-
...there's a huge difference between what you can guarantee you'll get up, what you might get up fairly quickly, and what you might do after lots of effort.
I imagine that's a spread of about 5 grades for most, unless they're really well rounded or haven't actually tried anything hard!
Guaranteed ascent in a session in any style? I'd probably only back myself for 7A+
-
I've done ten 7As and there are 7As I will probably never do so I dunno how accurate that is.
-
I've done ten 7As and there are 7As I will probably never do so I dunno how accurate that is.
That doesn’t mean you’re not a solid 7A climber? That’s why 10 is a good spread Vs 3 or 5. It’s likely that the ones you’ll never do are either massive sandbags or maybe something broke on them or they’re too morpho.
-
There's plenty of (correctly graded) 7A's I'll never do, and I've (just about) got up 8A. I wouldn't consider myself a particularly one dimensional climber either, and I'm close to average height.
Climbing is just very varied, and grades are unavoidably limited in capturing that
-
I've done ten 7As and there are 7As I will probably never do so I dunno how accurate that is.
That doesn’t mean you’re not a solid 7A climber? That’s why 10 is a good spread Vs 3 or 5. It’s likely that the ones you’ll never do are either massive sandbags or maybe something broke on them or they’re too morpho.
Tbh I'm more thinking of the ones that are really high that I just dont want to do, but yes you are right I guess
-
There's plenty of (correctly graded) 7A's I'll never do, and I've (just about) got up 8A. I wouldn't consider myself a particularly one dimensional climber either, and I'm close to average height.
Climbing is just very varied, and grades are unavoidably limited in capturing that
Word. There's a vid somewhere of Paul Robinson chatting about a V4 he couldn't do. Bogey problems are real.
-
I only ever heard it used when referring to a third person. I am too self-aware / inconsistent to ever apply it to myself.
Yes, this. I've heard it loads on American podcasts, so maybe it's just a bit of an Americanism.
I’ve had people ask me what level I climb at before
I've found it quite amusing when I've been asked this (or, "what grade do you climb? Strangely been asked quite a lot recently, no idea why), since it's such a nebulously changeable thing....how can anyone ever give an answer other than "it depends"! As a for instance, I've done over 70 7Cs (humblebrag) but have managed only 1 so far this year...am I a 7C climber?
Actually, you probably need to do 3 different climbs at X+1, to know you've climbed grade X. In various styles, at different locations, and on different rock. In fact, better make that 5 different climbs, just to be safe :P
Yeah 100%. I know you were saying this a bit tongue on cheek, but climbing well across multiple styles and rock types is far more respectable in my opinion than pushing it on just one.
-
Word. There's a vid somewhere of Paul Robinson chatting about a V4 he couldn't do. Bogey problems are real.
There's a vid online of a wad (Rustam?) failing on Font 5s and 6s repeatedly. I don't think he even flashed Marie Rose, which makes me better than him.