The end of stiff grades?

[theriault]

I wrote this in an other tread, I think it deserve its own lol but ref the new route tread to get up to speed on this...

I realise and understand the need for consensus grades, but does this mean the end of our Sandbag history? Most of the North East of North America seem to have been following this trend of stiff grades and I think our pioneers where part of this.... It was something to be proud of...Are we gonna turn our back on this? This is just my opinion on it, just as important as all the bolting ethics in my books. I would like to hear other opinion's on this

[Dom]

I wrote this in an other tread, I think it deserve its own lol but ref the new route tread to get up to speed on this...

I realise and understand the need for consensus grades, but does this mean the end of our Sandbag history? Most of the North East of North America seem to have been following this trend of stiff grades and I think our pioneers where part of this.... It was something to be proud of...Are we gonna turn our back on this? This is just my opinion on it, just as important as all the bolting ethics in my books. I would like to hear other opinion's on this

If you think that Welsford or the Northeast has a history of sandbag, you need to travel more. It may be stiff compared to some areas out West but definitely not compared to Kentucky or places I've climbed in Europe (Spain, France, Italy, Greece).

[Dom]

This would be a great conversation around a fire

[theriault]

This would be a great conversation around a fire

Deal! I'll pay the first round of beer!

[*Chris*]

Grades should be transferable from one area to another. Hence the reason for a standardized system. A 5.9 in Welsford should have the same onsight difficulty as a 5.9 in Cathedral and a 5.9 in Yosemite. End of story. Right now I'd say we're pretty good.

Marty... if you want to sandbag that's fine. Just use the universal sandbag symbol = '+'. 5.8+, 5.9+, 5.10+, whatever... I know they'll all feel like 5.11.

Also.. for what it's worth... sandbagging grades to suggest a climb is moderate (i.e. <5.9) is poor form. Tagging a climb as such is basically a recipe for luring a beginner into trouble. Sandbagging in the higher grades is fine with me since anyone willing to throw themselves at a 5.10+ (really 5.12) is probably experienced enough to get themselves safely down when they get spanked. Sandbagging the grade and overstating the protection rating at the same time is grounds for a nut-punch.

So to summarize:
Grading a 5.12b as a 5.10+ = sneaky... but fun from time to time
Grading a 5.11b as a 5.8+ = douchy... and to be avoided
Grading a 5.11b PG as a 5.8+ G = nut-punch

[Terry_M]

I understand sandbagging to be partly a result of a climb being put up well before our time. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand why some 5.6s that were put up in the 60’s feel a lot harder than a 5.7 that was put up in the 21st century. One can also make a few assumptions on the "stiffness" of a climb when going for the onsight by looking at the year it was put up and who put it up.

In present times, I just don't see the need to grade a route 2 number grades lower than it actually deserves, for example. One number grade, maybe

Round 1 on Marty, Thursday at the Rogue!

[theriault]

Chris, I think you took this way out of proportion

Grades should be transferable from one area to another. Hence the reason for a standardized system. A 5.9 in Welsford should have the same onsight difficulty as a 5.9 in Cathedral and a 5.9 in Yosemite. End of story.

All these location are the same style of climbing and are known to be stiff, and personally I have never seen a 5.8+ that was really a 5.11b.

I started this tread to talk about our ethics in Welsford and not for a definition on sandbagging. Just to make sure we stay on path regarding grading

[Dom]

I understand sandbagging to be partly a result of a climb being put up well before our time. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand why some 5.6s that were put up in the 60’s feel a lot harder than a 5.7 that was put up in the 21st century. One can also make a few assumptions on the "stiffness" of a climb when going for the onsight by looking at the year it was put up and who put it up.

In present times, I just don't see the need to grade a route 2 number grades lower than it actually deserves, for example. One number grade, maybe

Round 1 on Marty, Thursday at the Rogue!

I think Terry nailed it! Seems rather out of character to have for example a 2012 5.8 that is much stiffer than a 70's 5.8. (I can think of two right now, my hint is 'nose')

Grades should be transferable from one area to another. Hence the reason for a standardized system. A 5.9 in Welsford should have the same onsight difficulty as a 5.9 in Cathedral and a 5.9 in Yosemite. End of story. Right now I'd say we're pretty good.

Chris, I think it's the ideal, but in reality this just won't happen. I think consistency in a given area is an achievable goal though (with flexibility for 'old schoolness')

Marty... if you want to sandbag that's fine. Just use the universal sandbag symbol = '+'. 5.8+, 5.9+, 5.10+, whatever... I know they'll all feel like 5.11.

+ is indeed the universal sandbag grade symbol. good call! Personally I hate it for grades under 5.10 but hey that's just me.

[*Chris*]

Chris, I think you took this way out of proportion

Ok...

All these location are the same style of climbing and are known to be stiff, and personally I have never seen a 5.8+ that was really a 5.11b.

No... probably not. But 5.10b advertised as 5.8+ yep.

I started this tread to talk about our ethics in Welsford and not for a definition on sandbagging. Just to make sure we stay on path regarding grading

Ok. To be honest I think sandbagging is a fun prank to pull on your friends from time to time with new routes. Cool. But after a consensus grade comes out the guidebooks or whatever the official register is should record the experience of the majority of climbers... not just the FA.

It shouldn't be too much to strive for to be at least regionally consistent. As far as I'm concerned NB is currently equivalent to all neighboring major crags (Precipice, Cathedral, Whitehorse, NS) for a given style.

As others said... + grades from before 1990 should be approached with respect. Nowadays it's not needed.

[theriault]

There you go, this is the direction I wanted this to go! haha I think we are mostly all thinking the same way, It just came out differently lol but I need to put more pressure on our consensus grades for new routes, some of us have been great at voicing there opinion concerning the grades, this is great, but we need more input for our community....
The MP system for consensus and star rating is great, would there be a way to implant this feature tou our New Route Log?

[Greg]

Chris, I think you took this way out of proportion

Grades should be transferable from one area to another. Hence the reason for a standardized system. A 5.9 in Welsford should have the same onsight difficulty as a 5.9 in Cathedral and a 5.9 in Yosemite. End of story.

All these location are the same style of climbing and are known to be stiff, and personally I have never seen a 5.8+ that was really a 5.11b.

I started this tread to talk about our ethics in Welsford and not for a definition on sandbagging. Just to make sure we stay on path regarding grading

Regardless of whether or not you are looking for a definition, sandbagging is tied to grading. It is certainly part of this thread. What is the point of knowingly sandbagging a route? It doesn't make sense and it defeats the purpose of grading a climb. It makes no sense to grade a route 5.8 when you know that it is actually 5.10. Sandbagging has nothing to do with ethics. Routes that seem to be sandbagged or stiff for the grade are typically from an earlier time before the advent of the first 5.10 at the cliff. Grading is subjective but becomes less so once a route has been climbed by a large number of people and a consensus is reached. If twenty people think that a route is 5.11 and one person thinks it is 5.8, who do you think is right?

[theriault]

here's a 3rd definition of Sandbag's for this Thread (thanks for pointing out my spelling mistakes lol)

[cory]

Marty, the YDS originated in Yosemite, so it can't really have a reputation for sandbagging, rather everywhere else must be soft.
But yes, comparing almost vertical granite (CL) to nearly vertical granite (NC) to sweeping graninte (YNP) is much easier done, than comparing almost vertical granite to steep juggy limestone to sandstone splitter cracks.

There are a few ways sandbags (legitimately?) came about: 1) 5.9 was considered the limit of free climbing, with the next grade being +0.1 = 6.0 (think back to grade 5 math; 5.10 < 5.2) So climb 'x' that today, on the expanded scale would be given 5.11 was given a 5.9 because it was climbed free, and the hardest free grade possible on the scale was 5.9 Subsequently, comparing a second new route, 'y' that was a bit easier than 'route x', therefore 'route y' was given a 5.8 Right idea, wrong reference point. Enter sticky rubber, off-season bouldering, reliable gear and climbers discover there is a huge gap between 5.9 and aid, so the scale is expanded, and subdivided, and left open ended. Many places and guidebooks have kept the old grade (rightly or wrongly) for historical purposes.

2) A hold broke or a tree fell down and the route is now much harder. Grade should have been changed, but the author missed it, or this change is newer than the guidebook.

3) It could have been the first 5.12 at an area, but no FAist wanted to claim having superior climbing skills compared to the others, so held back a grade.

Of these, I can only see point 1 being a slightly valid reason not to go with a consensus grade. Treat every new route grade as a ballpark and build a consensus. I've put up a bunch that I've initially graded soft because they were PG or had a bad landing and I didn't want someone to get in over their head, so I erred on the high side. After more traffic the grade came down a bit. Also, the opposite has happened, where I thought it was easy, but subsequent attempts by others were unsuccessful or just ugly.

PS

Grading a 5.12b as a 5.10+ = sneaky... but fun from time to time
Grading a 5.11b as a 5.8+ = douchy... and to be avoided
Grading a 5.11b PG as a 5.8+ G = nut-punch

Hilarious!

[F Côté]

This is a great conversation. Thanks Marty for starting it
In my opinion a slight sandbag can be fun (i.e. a 5.9 that feels more like a 10b) but it just gets dumb when the gap between the written grade and actual grade is wider. I am a fan of the + sandbag symbol. It at least gives you a heads up.
Also, I am definitely strongly opposed to messing up the G, PG system for protection. For the most part I found routes at CL were accurate but I have climbed a few that were rated G and did not feel G at all. If I want to push my limit on trad and choose a route rated G, I won't be very happy if it isn't.
I also feel like sometimes there's consensus on a route grade but it doesn't get changed. For example Quiet at the Attic. I have not met one person who has tried it and thought it was an 11a. It's definitely the hardest 11a I have ever tried!

[theriault]

I am definitely strongly opposed to messing up the G, PG system for protection

Messing around with this grade is definitely a NO-NO in my book! This could could lead to injuries!

[Dom]

Also, I am definitely strongly opposed to messing up the G, PG system for protection. For the most part I found routes at CL were accurate but I have climbed a few that were rated G and did not feel G at all. If I want to push my limit on trad and choose a route rated G, I won't be very happy if it isn't.

Agreed. Don't think that's what Marty meant by sandbag though. Anyways, Welsford has G routes that would be PG elsewhere. I'm sure not many would like to fall on Rock Opera's slab, yet it's G rated? I like the spice of it though..Same with Telefunken, G through the bolts but PG after.
Some trad areas I've climbed had PG routes that I thought to myself, holy sh*t this has good gear everywhere. WTF? hehe I usually don't complain when that happens hehe.

François, this reminds me that a few more tried Porcupine BBQ and they all feel it's harder than 11a, so 11b or 11c makes sense like you had told us the day it was put up. I can change it if you want.

[STeveA]

Marty, the YDS originated in Yosemite, so it can't really have a reputation for sandbagging, rather everywhere else must be soft.

The YDS actually started in Taquist. The 9 original routes are located there, and the climbers then migrated to Yosemite, taking the grading system with them.

[Dom]

The YDS actually started in Taquist. The 9 original routes are located there, and the climbers then migrated to Yosemite, taking the grading system with them.

Interesting. This is the first 5.9. Open book Someone should go climb it and fly directly home after and say if Weeping Whisker, Dynamic Duo, Waterfall layback, Ragged Edge, A warm and sultry evening, etc. are soft or stiff. My money is on soft

[theriault]

My money is on soft

+1

[Dom]

My money is on soft

+1

Hey Marty, weren't you arguing yesterday that Welsford is stiff?

[theriault]

yup, but probably not compared to that route! haha!

[Fred]

I've been known to sandbag a route or two in my day. I love it!! Learned that trick from my mentor, Zig.

[austinconrad]

I never really understood the point of grading a new route if you're going to purposely "sandbag" the grading. Really what's the point then? I personally ask more expereinced climbers for their suggestions on good "begginer routes". I would never try an onsight trad lead on even a 5.7G route in Welsford it just leaves too much room for unpleasent suprises (beleive it or not I don't seek those out). Nothing can replace getting solid advice from someone who has climbed the route and knows your skill and expereince. If you're starting out then Simply looking in the guidebook and choosing a route to try based on the grade and protection rating listed is asking for trouble if you ask me.

[theriault]

I never really understood the point of grading a new route if you're going to purposely "sandbag" the grading. Really what's the point then? .

Its to keep an element of adventure, a spice factor. Climbers used to be for hard men with big balls, if you didn't have a good head back then, then you simply didn't climb. Protection has come a long way since then making the sport way more safe,. Guide books are now showing us exactly where the routes starts, a description of it, protection, anchors and sometimes even some key beta.... where is the element of adventure in that?? So its just a simple way to keep some excitement in the sport! so think of them next time you get on a stiff 5.6!

I. If you're starting out then Simply looking in the guidebook and choosing a route to try based on the grade and protection rating listed is asking for trouble if you ask me.

Like we already mentioned above, protection grades is (should) always be accurate, I don't know anyone personably who would purposely change this grade for fun.... And a new age sandbagged route will more than likely be within one number grade if below 5.9 and probably within two maybe three letted grade if above 5.10 ( don't take my word on this doh). If you think getting on a 5.7 is maybe trouble, well get on some 5.6 till you are ready for 5.7 or man up and take the fall if its too hard (pick a G route haha)

[Dom]

Its to keep an element of adventure, a spice factor. Climbers used to be for hard men with big balls, if you didn't have a good head back then, then you simply didn't climb. Protection has come a long way since then making the sport way more safe,. Guide books are now showing us exactly where the routes starts, a description of it, protection, anchors and sometimes even some key beta.... where is the element of adventure in that?? So its just a simple way to keep some excitement in the sport! so think of them next time you get on a stiff 5.6!

Sandbagging is adventurous?? Hahaha you're pushing it there... If you want an adventure go climb routes at Eagle Rock or on the left end of Striated or just don't carry a guidebook.

[theriault]

Sandbagging is adventurous?? Hahaha you're pushing it there... .

I don't think I'm pushing anything, Its probably the #1 reason why Iclimb.... If we are not climbing for the adventure side of it, should we pave a road to every grag? bulid stairs for easy access to cliff tops for topropers? Haha! this is probably a full on diffrent topic! Let's keep it for another dull period on CEC!

[sam]

Regardless of whether or not you are looking for a definition, sandbagging is tied to grading. It is certainly part of this thread. What is the point of knowingly sandbagging a route? It doesn't make sense and it defeats the purpose of grading a climb. It makes no sense to grade a route 5.8 when you know that it is actually 5.10. Sandbagging has nothing to do with ethics. Routes that seem to be sandbagged or stiff for the grade are typically from an earlier time before the advent of the first 5.10 at the cliff. Grading is subjective but becomes less so once a route has been climbed by a large number of people and a consensus is reached. If twenty people think that a route is 5.11 and one person thinks it is 5.8, who do you think is right?

This sums up how I feel on the subject perfectly... routes should be the summation of a large pool of peoples opinion on a route... some sandbagging is fine (IE 1 grade difference, a 5.9 that feels more like a 5.10b), but for example calling something that feels like a 5.11a a "5.8+" is just pointless and confusing to less experienced climbers, especially if your reason for sandbagging it that heavily is "we have a history of heavy sandbagging". Well IMO it's history for a reason (before the 5.10+ climbs). They developed more grades specifically for the purpose of having more accurate grades for a climber to better judge what they should and shouldn't attempt at their current stage.

As a beginner who lead a "5.9+" that kicked my ass the other day, it frustrates me to know that realistically it was closer to the 5.10b-d range (which, had I known, I wouldn't have gotten on in the first place).

This is a poor example because I know what the "+" means (so I was foolish for thinking I could lead it with 5.9 leads currently being my threshold), but the point still stands... for the sake of preventing mistakes and injuries, why wouldn't you try and make grades as accurate as possible? (based on public consensus). Again this route was an example... I kinda expected it to kick my ass, but I shudder to think what would happen if I got on a "5.8+" that was closer to a 5.11. When I see 5.8, or 5.8+, I think I can flash it / redpoint it on lead. If that "5.8+" was more like a 5.11a, I might get seriously hurt because I fully expected to be able to lead it with no issues.

That potential injury, all because somebody deliberately, heavily sandbagged it because of the "history"?

I'm a beginner so obviously my opinion doesn't hold as much weight as many of you Welsford vets, but I did feel like I could offer my opinion from a newbies perspective.

[sam]

TLDR version of my post;

- Sandbagging within reason (a small spread in grade) is fine, though I think still unnecessary.

- Heavy sandbagging intentionally because of some "history" in the area is dangerous and pointless. They added more grades for a reason, and public consensus is and always will be more accurate than the FA as far as I'm concerned.

[theriault]

... routes should be the summation of a large pool of peoples opinion on a route... some sandbagging is fine (IE 1 grade difference, a 5.9 that feels more like a 5.10b), but for example calling something that feels like a 5.11a a "5.8+" is just pointless and confusing .

I don't think we have route that reflect this around here....

That potential injury, all because somebody deliberately, heavily sandbagged it because of the "history"?

Injury? If you lead at any level you should thrust your gear, "most" tries on G rated routes should not end up in injuries if a fall occurs... If its at your difficulty limit, I would recommend not picking a PG route unless your good with manky gear... and If its a well bolted sport route, whatever the grade on it is, it should be fine.....

[sam]

... routes should be the summation of a large pool of peoples opinion on a route... some sandbagging is fine (IE 1 grade difference, a 5.9 that feels more like a 5.10b), but for example calling something that feels like a 5.11a a "5.8+" is just pointless and confusing .

I don't think we have route that reflect this around here....

That potential injury, all because somebody deliberately, heavily sandbagged it because of the "history"?

Injury? If you lead at any level you should thrust your gear, "most" tries on G rated routes should not end up in injuries if a fall occurs... If its at your difficulty limit, I would recommend not picking a PG route unless your good with manky gear... and If its a well bolted sport route, whatever the grade on it is, it should be fine.....

Take the example of a 5.9-5.10a climber, who jumps on a "5.9+", which is more like a 5.10d/5.11a.

They might be able to struggle like crazy up to the 2nd bolt, and in the last few moves leading to the bolt, they fall because they enter 5.10d+ moves, and take a bad deck fall.

...all of which could have been avoided if the FA would have just gone with the consensus and called it 5.10d. The 5.9-5.10a climber wouldn't have gone on the route at all if it was listed as the most accurate, widely accepted rating... of 5.10d.

These are all just extreme circumstances, and considering a poorly bolted route (AKA a sudden spike in difficulty just before the 2nd bolt).

Considering we don't have many (if any?) poorly bolted routes around here, it's unlikely that it will ever happen... but why take the chance? The more accurate the grade the better for the majority of people involved IMO.