Do the Steep Climbs need to be Down Graded?

[Andy]

www.8a.nu has an interesting thesis up on their website. In an effort to achieve more accurate grades (and spark controversy ) they have suggested that many steep climbs- esp. short ones w/ older fa's- are overrated a full grade. Their reasoning behind such a suggestion follows: "when the first short and steep climbs were set up there were few indoor gyms and dynos and lock-offs were not part of the normal repertoire. Today it's the opposite and indoor practising youngsters find Railey a paradise while they find vertical boulders in Fontainebleau to be brutal."
Is this the case in the Red as well? It seems like most people's "hardest ticks" are on the steep stuff, but then that's the predominant style available. I've heard grips around here about slabby stuff.
The only thing that's different around here as opposed to what they're discussing is the length of routes. Short is the exception. As a result endurance plays as big of a part in the difficulty. If anything, recent climbs seem to need the up-grading as opposed older one's needing down grading. Why? I'm not sure, but this may be due to some sort of reaction against sandbagging and a beginner friendly ethic (both very positive traits in a climbing destination). Whadda ya'll think?

[Danny]

This is what I think. It doesn't matter what grade you call it. Anyone's opinion that matters as to your achievement has already climbed it and knows how hard it is. Grades are for posers.

[gunslnga]

Grades are for posers.

I agree, when people start getting paid 10-15 million dollars a year to climb, then I'll start keeping track of the grades I climb, untill then, have fun!!!!!!

[Spragwa]

I think it's an interesting question though. Slabby routes scare the pants off me. I'm a redriver climber. Never climbed on anything besides southern sandstone. I really suck at bouldering. I'm positive that a 5.10-5.11 out west would kill me.

But having not climbed many other places, I don't think I have a basis for an opinion on this topic. I just think it'll be interesting to hear what others think.

[dhoyne]

That's the stupidest argument I've seen in a while. How can more training opportunities affect the difficulty of a climb?

[steep4me]

It is easy to dowgrade stuff after you get used to climbing it. If people who are not used to climbing steep routes get on them at the red, they fall all over the place, even though they can climb difficult cracks, faces, and slabs in another region. They could just as easily dowgrade steep slopey routes with sketchy feet at Rifle just because the locals have the climbs wired. The only people who want to downgrade routes are people who have big egos and want other climbers to feel weak.

[pigsteak]

if grades don't matter, then how would a down grade make you feel weak...you wouldn't care either way...

and if you don't care, then how in the world would you know that the down grader has a big ego? just curious how the "grades don't matter" crowd can so visciously and blanket statement the other side....

lol...so much for climbing for fun....

[rhunt]

I think the point is that climbers are getting stronger and more talented due the availability of climbing gyms, home walls, etc. There was a time when 5.10 was really freaking hard for all climbers expect the elite. 5.10 these days is considered easy or moderate by most. The climbs/routes have not change but the talent of climbers has, the grading system needs to change now in order to fit the new talent.

That's what I got from reading the article...

[JB]

I've always thought of grades, not as a measurement of accomplishment, but as a guide for you to check before starting a climb. Of course grades matter, and they MUST exist. I personally think it goes something like this:

"Wow, this climb looks cool... What is it?"
"It's a 5.11b called Yellow Brick Road... the guidebook says the crux is at the 3rd bolt."
"Cool. Looks thin there for sure. I've only climbed up to 10c slab before, so this might be hard for me, but I'd like to give it a try."

or

"Wow, this slab looks pretty cool... what is it?"
"Dude, you've never done Yellow Brick Road before? It's just an 11b."
"Cool. I onsighted Blankity Blank over at Oil Crack before they shut it down... let's give this one a run, looks worth the tick... good warmup... and looks fun... especially there at the 3rd bolt."

or

"Wow, this climb looks sick... where are the holds?"
"Ummm, the guidebook says it's called Yellow Brick Road, 5.11b yo."
"Whoa, no way... let's aid our way up the Shining and then go do the bolted first pitch of Whiteout... that'll be a killer day! 2 pitches! I'll teach you how to clean anchors."

I think that all 3 of these climbers will have a good time this day. The scneario 1 climber might fall at the crux, then work it out and go for the redpoint after top roping it. Scenario 2 climber will cruise the route, but like the crux move a lot. Scenario 3 climbers will not be frustrated by the overly difficult route.

To me, that is why grades exist... and why they are a necessary component of climbing. I personally think it's too bad that climbers measure their worth by a number... but to each his own. I say use numbers as a reference. Guidebooks and FAs try to give a rating for you to go by. If Yellow Brick Road feels easy or hard for you, don't change the rating... just write it down for future reference.

Quit bringing the corporate mentality to climbing... I climb to escape that crap. Climbing isn't about math... it's about poetry. It's a period... not a decimal point.

[pigsteak]

jb, you consider aid climbers REAL climbers?????

so rhunt, why not just keep the grades going up as climbers get stronger? no need to down grade to get there....just think, in 2 years we could have 5.21....