[User deactivated.]

I don’t think there’s a single developer out there who’s never had something downgraded, it’s just part and parcel of development.

I've only had one thing downgraded so far* but that's because I had crap beta and Bradders convinced me it was harder than I originally thought it was  (triangulation).

*In reality it's probably because everything else I've developed is in a jungle or on private land 

[spidermonkey09]

8A+ or 8B should be your grade opinion for it then. Seriously. Is it not the hardest thing you've climbed? There's no other way to judge it.

Where to even start with this

[Bradders]

I don’t think there’s a single developer out there who’s never had something downgraded, it’s just part and parcel of development.

I've only had one thing downgraded so far* but that's because I had crap beta and Bradders convinced me it was harder than I originally thought it was  (triangulation).

I maintain that the way you did it / I was trying it is harder. Subsequent repeaters have used better, easier beta. Hence the downgrade.

[Fiend]

8A+ or 8B should be your grade opinion for it then. Seriously. Is it not the hardest thing you've climbed? There's no other way to judge it.

Where to even start with this

With jwi's request for a non-crazy person?? 

[andy moles]

It's a weird balance with estimating grades.

You try to account for your own perceived strengths/weaknesses and circumstantial factors in how hard something felt, and everyone else does the same, and theoretically a consensus emerges. But a consensus is just an aggregation of everyone's equally limited opinions. And in reality it's not even that - some people are far more committed than others to making their opinion stick.

As long as the consensus is fairly settled, no problem. But in cases where it's not, at what point should you cross over from 'I know this is 7B but to me it really feels like 7C' to 'in my opinion this is 7C'?

Most of the time you don't know really where your view lies in relation to a theoretical standard deviation of all opinions, so you might as well state it.

TL;DR grades are bullshit.

[Tony]

TL;DR grades are bullshit.

I’d say grades are more like manure: useful for something but, also, shit.

Basing a grade solely on number of sessions is phenomenally flawed. By definition, this ignores lots of other (relevant) information.

There is an extreme anchoring problem in grading, few will deviate wildly from the initial assessment.

There is a massive bias issue in grading (especially in the age of social media), in that upgrading (compared to downgrading) is both more ‘socially acceptable’ and “beneficial” for those with a sponsorship deal and/or a fragile ego.

[petejh]

This^.

Grades would be more accurate if it was somehow made impossible for you to know in advance the proposed grade of any boulder or route, until after you'd succeed on it and proposed your grade*. then and only then the current consensus is revealed from behind the scratch strip and you see how your view compares. Problem being grades are useful to know in advance as a guide for what to try, this is their downfall.


*Airbnb reviews work a bit like this..

[User deactivated.]

There is a massive bias issue in grading (especially in the age of social media), in that upgrading (compared to downgrading) is both more ‘socially acceptable’ and “beneficial” for those with a sponsorship deal and/or a fragile ego.

I think this is the wrong way around. Downgrading is way more common than upgrading.


I'd love for people to see if they think my grading method is actually flawed in practice. Here's a few problems I developed at various grades, knock yourselves out:

Africa Wall, Hawkcliffe (7A). Crimpy wall that took 10 mins to figure out the beta then went 2nd go from the bottom. Unrepeated.

Jenga, Windgate Nick (7A+). Spent the end of a session figuring out the beta. Did it in a few goes when I returned fresh.

Bladerunner, Hawkcliffe (7B). Arrived fresh specifically to try this and it took over an hour to figure out the beta, then took a few goes to climb it, but it felt as though I had to try quite hard. Unrepeated.

Chevinteen Years Later, Chevin (7B+). Around a dozen goes from the bottom after figuring out the beta the session before. Unrepeated.

Sibudu sit start, Hawkcliffe (7C). The stand took a session and then I spent a session working out the sit, was too tired to do it that session, but on the 3rd session I did it quite quickly. Unrepeated.

Crisis, Hawkcliffe (7C+). Figured out the beta fairly quickly then it took 3 sessions of proper goes to finish it. It appears others have improved the beta a little but I've not heard any disagreement on the grade.

I haven't done any FA's above this, but the 8A's I've repeated have taken between 3 and 7 sessions. The one 8A+ I've done took 8 sessions and it suited me perfectly. I recently did a problem that was originally 8A+/B in 3 sessions and downgraded it to 8A. Subsequent repeaters have agreed with my downgrade. This method seems to work for the crimpy, or steep, powerful boulders that I enjoy.

[Dexter]

I have done one singular FA but it felt really hard to grade for me for a few reasons. Firstly it was a big move which suits me so didn't feel that hard when I eventually did it. It's also a different finish to an existing route. The existing one is graded at 7C and my finish felt harder. But I thought the other was very soft for the grade. In the end I gave it 7C+ because it would feel like being a bit of a dick to call a harder finish to an existing 7C still 7C. But I also figured if it gets downgraded then fine.

[remus]

You try to account for your own perceived strengths/weaknesses and circumstantial factors in how hard something felt...

Personally I think this is the wrong way round. If everyone is second guessing how hard the thing is going to be for someone else then I think you end up tying yourself in knots. If, as Pete suggested, everyone just gave their opinion of how hard it felt to them on that given day then, in theory, a consensus should emerge around how hard something is under typical conditions.

Having said that I do think attaching caveats to suggestions is a practical thing to do. e.g. "felt piss for 7A but probably pretty morpho". This also has the advantage that everyone can maintain a proper air of British humility at all times by finding an excuse when you do mysteriously find yourself at the top of something hard. Just good connies today, had some amazing beta from Billy Big Balls over there, suits my height etc.

edit: I think the larger question is, what makes something harder than something else? It seems to me it is generally accepted that if something requires more time and effort to achieve then it is harder than something that takes less time and effort. That includes all the training, practice, climbing sessions etc. that have led up to that point. By that definition, if you've got 10 climbers all of the same ability, and they all do problem A in a session and problem B in 10 sessions, then chances are B is harder than A.

In practice there's a lot of room for individuals to have very different experiences on stuff of the same grade (c.f. me climbing anything above 7A on grit vs. lime), but if on average people take longer on B than A then I think most people would say B is harder than A.

[User deactivated.]

How hard something felt on the day is problematic too. A power endurance problem will always feel hard; a knacky one mover of the same grade will probably feel piss when it goes, even where morphology isn't much of a factor.

[webbo]

When I have been involved in doing new stuff I was usually with people who climb 5 or 6 grades harder. So on the stuff that they did that  I could get up I would grade it high enough to make me  feel I was having a reasonable to good day 😎.
My mates didn’t grade these things and quite a lot of time didn’t’ bother to record them.

[shurt]

Is the two chaps getting the nose done free count as significant these days? Billy Ridals Instagram is so feel good

[andy moles]

You try to account for your own perceived strengths/weaknesses and circumstantial factors in how hard something felt...

Personally I think this is the wrong way round.

Really? Why would you not factor known personal strengths and weaknesses? If I know that I struggle with high bendy steps off the floor (record failure on a boulder problem is 4+ for me for a move of this style), and I do a new problem featuring just such a move, which feels like my utter limit, and my partner steps up and pisses it, should I grade it in keeping with in a style that I'm good at, or grade it roughly how I think it is likely to feel for the average climber? To suggest the former seems totally daft.

Likewise, if I'm really tired, climbing like a sack of spuds, and have failed to repeat some normally straightforward problems, then do a new one, why would I not factor the obvious limitations of my performance that day into the proposed grade?

Obviously yes, everyone should give their opinion based on how it felt on the day - but not without exercising some reasonable imagination and self-awareness.

[remus]

I think it just adds in too much guesswork as I don't really have an idea what the "average climber" looks like. I guess it depends on the context though, if you're writing a guide making a guess at how hard it is for the average climber is practical, but if you're just logging it on UKC I think it's counter productive.

[andy moles]

I think it just adds in too much guesswork as I don't really have an idea what the "average climber" looks like. I guess it depends on the context though, if you're writing a guide making a guess at how hard it is for the average climber is practical, but if you're just logging it on UKC I think it's counter productive.

I always grade things as though I'm writing a guidebook Remus 

Obviously the 'average climber' is only a vague idea and doesn't exist, but the same is true of anything pertaining to grades. You just give your best estimate (and usually it's in the right ballpark).

[remus]

Getting horribly off topic here, but Lor Saborin has climbed Mason Earle's route Stranger than Fiction 5.14 in Utah. This is a bit of an undercover hardcore trad route imo, Tom's recently described it as a a steep, burly ~8b in to the upper section which is a similar difficulty to Cobra Crack.

[Bonjoy]

I think it just adds in too much guesswork as I don't really have an idea what the "average climber" looks like. I guess it depends on the context though, if you're writing a guide making a guess at how hard it is for the average climber is practical, but if you're just logging it on UKC I think it's counter productive.

This is problematic in a number of scenarios and will inevitably lead to grade anomalies, including grade divergence between platforms which allow grade voting only for things you've climbed (8a.nu) and ones where anyone can vote on anything (UKC).
For instance something like Rainbow Rocket would have downward grade drift based on only ascensionist votes and upward grade drift based on ascent and attempt votes, as the latter will massively outweight the former.
If your ideas is taken literally as you describe it then what grade should RR end up being? Most people who try it don't do it. Lets say that most people who try it are capable of the grade on average (for the sake of argument), by your system they must grade it as being beyond their capability, so lets say 8A+ or 8B.
You get the idea, it's a rigid measure that breaks down catastrophically under scrutiny and is massively vulnerable to factors like voting platform and whether a 7A climber is allowed to vote on a notionally 8A climb or not.

[jwi]

I am really bad at heel hooks, so instead of learning how to use them, my plan is to upgrade all routes and boulders requiring good use of heel hooks. Because I am the measure of man.

[remus]

I think it just adds in too much guesswork as I don't really have an idea what the "average climber" looks like. I guess it depends on the context though, if you're writing a guide making a guess at how hard it is for the average climber is practical, but if you're just logging it on UKC I think it's counter productive.

This is problematic in a number of scenarios and will inevitably lead to grade anomalies, including grade divergence between platforms which allow grade voting only for things you've climbed (8a.nu) and ones where anyone can vote on anything (UKC).
For instance something like Rainbow Rocket would have downward grade drift based on only ascensionist votes and upward grade drift based on ascent and attempt votes, as the latter will massively outweight the former.
If your ideas is taken literally as you describe it then what grade should RR end up being? Most people who try it don't do it. Lets say that most people who try it are capable of the grade on average (for the sake of argument), by your system they must grade it as being beyond their capability, so lets say 8A+ or 8B.
You get the idea, it's a rigid measure that breaks down catastrophically under scrutiny and is massively vulnerable to factors like voting platform and whether a 7A climber is allowed to vote on a notionally 8A climb or not.

Grading things like dynos is an issue with the grading system we're using, where you have to choose a single grade, rather than the methodology. Taking your RR example, the grade is very dependent on height, probably ranging from somewhere around 7B to impossible. Any system where you have to choose a single number is going to be wrong for most people.

If (the if is doing a lot of work here ) people tried/did things and said how hard it felt for them, then you'd build up a picture of how hard it actually felt for people.

Getting right off in to the weeds here, but I've had this idea for a system where things are graded by comparison rather than having a number. It'd look something like this:

• 1. Using your logbook, you get presented with two climbs in the same style (e.g. boulder problems, could be completed or just attempted) and a simple 'which felt harder for you?'
• 2. After millions of people have spent hundreds of hours each answering these comparisons, you smash all the data together and build a massive ordered list of climbs from easiest to hardest
• 3. Hey presto, grades are no longer relevant
• 4. For bonus points, collect info on height, proclivity for downgrading etc. so people can find all the best soft touches for them and milk the grade arbitrage

[User deactivated.]

Grading based on number of attempts/sessions relative to something in a similar style makes sense here. If you normally climb 8A but fail on <8A dynos, then it would be unwise to assume RR is >8A when you can't do it.

One of my current projects is a huge dyno off poor holds at a height you wouldn't want to fall from. There's no gear to protect it, but pads will help. Powerful legs, height, and an ability to execute committing moves with danger potential are also useful. I still haven't done the move on a toprope after half a dozen sessions. At this rate, I probably won't have to worry about the grade, but if I do manage to climb it, i'll be going with 8A or higher on the basis that the 7C dynos i've climbed have taken 1 and 2 sessions. This is the easier of my two projects, so not many moves are getting done currently

[User deactivated.]

8A+ or 8B should be your grade opinion for it then. Seriously. Is it not the hardest thing you've climbed? There's no other way to judge it.

Where to even start with this

Sorry, I missed this. Starting would be helpful.

I haven't really tried Ben's sit, but by all accounts it would clearly be given 8A if the first ascent had been done today. Slopey, compression based climbing on grit is certainly within Bradders' expertise! Since no one can say with certainty that a problem is grade X and definitely not grade X-1 or grade X+1, then 8A+ is not an unreasonable position for something he found harder than another slopey, compression based grit 8A+.

[36chambers]

• 1. Using your logbook, you get presented with two climbs in the same style (e.g. boulder problems, could be completed or just attempted) and a simple 'which felt harder for you?'

I'm surprised problem comparison isn't the default approach for everyone. Do something new, think of several problems of similar style and consider how it stacks up against them.

Another approach I've used is consider the top grade you think it might be, then remove a grade until you get to a grade that you would be outraged if someone suggested this, and go one above that. Easy

[36chambers]

8A+ or 8B should be your grade opinion for it then. Seriously. Is it not the hardest thing you've climbed? There's no other way to judge it.

Where to even start with this

Sorry, I missed this. Starting would be helpful.

I haven't really tried Ben's sit, but by all accounts it would clearly be given 8A if the first ascent had been done today. Slopey, compression based climbing on grit is certainly within Bradders' expertise! Since no one can say with certainty that a problem is grade X and definitely not grade X-1 or grade X+1, then 8A+ is not an unreasonable position for something he found harder than another slopey, compression based grit 8A+.

Apart from all the accounts of people doing it over the past 15(?) years and agreeing it's 7C+.

[User deactivated.]

8A+ or 8B should be your grade opinion for it then. Seriously. Is it not the hardest thing you've climbed? There's no other way to judge it.

Where to even start with this

Sorry, I missed this. Starting would be helpful.

I haven't really tried Ben's sit, but by all accounts it would clearly be given 8A if the first ascent had been done today. Slopey, compression based climbing on grit is certainly within Bradders' expertise! Since no one can say with certainty that a problem is grade X and definitely not grade X-1 or grade X+1, then 8A+ is not an unreasonable position for something he found harder than another slopey, compression based grit 8A+.

Apart from all the accounts of people doing it over the past 15(?) years and agreeing it's 7C+.

Everyone i've spoken to who's done it has said it should be 8A. However, I concede that going by my favourite method detailed so far:

Another approach I've used is consider the top grade you think it might be, then remove a grade until you get to a grade that you would be outraged if someone suggested this, and go one above that. Easy

Then 7C+ is probably correct.