yetix said:
Thanks for the insight Matt.
How would it have worked if an athlete upgraded or downgraded a hard repeat (such as burden) compared to if they made no comment to suggest a grade change? Genuinely curious on that personally.
Short answer: contracts are rarely that detailed to reflect on something like this. If the ascent made a load of news then it would make less of a difference regardless.
Some contracts I have seen have 1st Ascent bonuses, some have 'hard ascent' bonus (which grading changes over time as sport progresses) but all are pretty flexible in my experience if the ascent is notable amongst the community.
For example, Terranova, by rights should not be pretty notable on paper as it is a pretty ugly traverse at 8C but its mystique (largely thanks to Will's attempts granted) means that it would be a major ascent now if pulled off.
Downgrade clause: I have not seen a contract with that level of detail (yet), however, if you have a downgrade clause then again you would just open yourself up to perverse consequences again, most notably that Nico Pelerson would start rolling up to crags in a Bentley.
All this is one of those - 'it isn't perfect but it just about works' tools.
On a wider note, I think as the number of 8C+/ 9A boulders increases across the world and the number of ascents grow, there will be a time for a proper conversation on the appropriateness of grading at the top end. 8C+/9A are beginning to feel like blunt tools to describe the breadth of problems sitting at those grades at the moment.
However, gaining a consensus on that view seems difficult and we probably need to wait a couple of years when we have more good problems at that grade and more climbers with experience and the CV at that level to reflect on it properly.