Grade discrepency

[mathieu]

We just had a very interesting day of climbing and wonder if anything similar ever happened to others.

So yesterday after changing our plans 4 times me and Stacey finally were hiking to the base of a climb. We had an old version of a guidebook (Sport Climbs of the Canadian Rockies 1998) and it had a topo of our route. The pitches were as such (10b, 8, 4, 7, 5, 7, 6, 9, 2). As we climbed we noticed that the topo didn't make sense and that certain pitches (notably 2 and 3) were much harder than the grade given in the book. We even contemplated the fact that we were maybe on the wrong route. Well we started late and really didn't have any plans to actually finish the route so we bailed after the 6th pitch (we didn't realize we were so close). As I got home and checked another guidebook (Bow Valley Rock) which includes a topo of the climb. I was surprised to see the following grades for the first three pitches (10b, 9, 8, ). I was even more surprised when I looked at the newer version of SCCR (10c, 10a, 9). So essentially the third pitch for us went to a super hard 4 to a 9. Talk about descrepency in grades. The newer guidebook was 2002. So either the route was altered or the first guidebook had a topo that was missing a pitch or had a typo.

I usually don't pay attention to grades but this was really wacky. Anyone had a similar experience?

PS: I know that Jackie in the gunks feels much harder than 5.5

[martha]

PS: I know that Jackie in the gunks feels much harder than 5.5

oh you read my mind.

[Fred]

Biohazard used to be 5.10a

I think as others climb routes they sometimes get regraded. Perhaps the route had little feedback when the guidebook you bought was printed.

People are often scared to put hard grades on their routes.

[climberwannabe]

As Alex and I are really new to climbing we have not much clue on how to grade climbs... but when we were at welsford I had a feeling like some of the grades were wack... like we did a few "5.7" but they seemed harder than some of the 5.9/5.10 we've done in Nova Scotia. Wadd'ya think???

[martha]

welsford grades are somewhat stiffer than NS grades, but not by that much.

Depends what routes you did...give us a list...we'll let you know what we think!

[Fred]

Climberwannabe,

which routes in Welsford? I'm guessing 'Snakepeal'. It's graded 5.7 but if you read closely in the guidebook it's a 5.9 if you stick to the small crack near the top.

[mathieu]

Biohazard used to be 5.10a

I think as others climb routes they sometimes get regraded. Perhaps the route had little feedback when the guidebook you bought was printed.

People are often scared to put hard grades on their routes.

Biohazard sustained major modifications from Hummer if I recall. This 5.4 pitch was all slab type moves, no holds where missing but the holds were polished. Actually that is what I noticed, it had moves, on a 5.4 you usually don't have to do moves, you just climb but this pitch has some intricate balancy moves. I understand the subjective nature of grading and I expect a bit of discrepency on my opinion and the guidebooks grade. But anything more than one or two grade difference is really strange. Oh well at least we had confirmation once we got home that we don't suck. hehe

[granite_grrl]

Grades are only really consistant within an area, or even a time frame within an area. A climb may also feel harded when you're trying for an onsight because it was graded for a redpoint (or vise-versa). There are also the variations between rock types, how well protected the climb is and each person's personal strengths and weaknesses in climbing.

I think its funny that the grades for the route Mathieu have been revamped so many times. I found the grades for sport climbs out near Canmore to be a little soft (though I've also been told that the grades in Ontario are a little hard, so maybe it was the comparison thing). If the grades in fact have softened up over the years maybe the new grades are just a reflection of trying to keep the grading consistant withing the area.

Rebecca

[dcentral]

Could depend on when the guidebook was written vs when the climbs were put up.

There's an area up in Nanaimo that wasn't finished when the latest guide book went out so they guess at a lot of the grades and under guessed for a lot of them.

[climberwannabe]

So grades arent so much based on onisght? I didnt know this. If I had of done these routes a few more times they may have seemed a bit more like the actual grades in the book. Plus I have a terrible eye for seeing the true line of a climb, I always climb myself into a corner (checkmate!).

[The Mitt]

Grades are supposed to be by onsight, however there is no rule book. Not only do different regions grade differently here in NS different craigs rate harder or softer. Every area has its soft ones and hard ones Mr. Puff was rated 5.7. Sean C's book now puts it at 5.9, I would say that it is a stiff 9.

Mitt

[mitchleblanc]

Grades are supposed to be by onsight

What?? This makes no sense.

Grades are "how hard is the climb" and are not based on onsighting! How would you grade > 5.14b? 5.14d has certainly never been onsighted! All the "frontier" climbs (hardest for the time, ex. 5.11) weren't onsighted, they were worked.. and then given a grade that was "1 harder than the last one".

It's more like the opposite.. oftentimes routes will be given for example V8, and you'll be like "what, this is impossible! This is like V10!" and then someone will give you some tricky beta (use a double toe-hook!) and you'll be like 'oh, ok'.. thus, grading is based on knowing the beta and sequence. Onsighting is MUCH harder!

[Fred]

I'm not sure but I think in theory the YDS is based on onsight.

But I'd say it is based on several people onsighting and coming to a concensus. One person might find it 5.7 and another person might of felt it was 5.9. But it was both at their onsight level of abilities thus an onsight grade.

[granite_grrl]

There was only one area that I've been at that explicitly stated that the climbed were graded for redpoint, Spearfish Canyon, SD. Pocketed limestone....iso what pocket do you grab to make it a particular grade??

I think that most places grade a climb as if you're doing an onsight (route grades, not bouldering), but some places are much easier to see the sequence than others.

Personally I rather like the idea of grading for repointing. In an area where it can be harder to read the sequence it makes for a more consistant grade. Someone who onsights and uses all the wrong holds a 5.7 could feel like a 5.9. To someone who is lucky (or skilled enough, I think onsighting is a skill that you can develop) to grab all the best holds it feels like that 5.7.

[Fred]

Yes but that is why 5.9 feels like 5.7 once you've been climbing for years. Because you can read the rock and figure out seequences by looking at them. You also have technique which allows you to twist your body and make moves way easier than a less skilled climber.

I think YDS has always been onsight grading. But yes of course when the system progressed into the sport era then they had to redpoint routes etc.

[Shawn B]

Fred is correct in that grades are "supposed" to be graded appropriately for an onsight attempt. I suppose Mitch is also right in that grades have now reached a point that it is unlikely for someone to onsight the harder climbs so it can only be assumed that it is graded at a "worked" level. Matthieu, my guess for the route you speak of is it has been altered by rockfall and broken holds over the years. That wonderfully solid Rockies choss that should be climbed only in the winter when it is frozen in place. Although it is nice that if you don't like a particular hold, throw it away and use another. But going from a 4 to a 9? That's quite a stretch.

[Fred]

Now I'm really hesitant to go to the Rockies. I hear more and more people everyday describe it as climbing a vertical gravel pile.

[martha]

I think that mathieu's exact words were 'vertical kitty litter'

[mathieu]

Matthieu, my guess for the route you speak of is it has been altered by rockfall and broken holds over the years. That wonderfully solid Rockies choss that should be climbed only in the winter when it is frozen in place. Although it is nice that if you don't like a particular hold, throw it away and use another. But going from a 4 to a 9? That's quite a stretch.

The climb per se didn't really have any major scars and the limestone acutally looked as if being exposed for a long time (nice friction on little knobs). What we actually think happened is that the first assensionist just drew up a topo out of memory. Even the line drawn is way off and the bolt count is just plain wrong for most pitches (of course it could of been retrofited).

Vertical kitty litter mostly applies for alpine climbs, the sport climbs and longer trad routes are nice and really solid. Or maybe i'm just convincing myself.

[The Mitt]

Like I said earlier, there is no rule book. However I was always under the impression that a grade gets "made" by the first ascent and then "confirmed" by the second ascent. Then the comunity really gives it a consense. but the grade is for onsight. Mitch makes an excellent point, how do I grade a .14? Dunno don't think I will ever have to worry about how I would grade a 5.10 Doesn't really matter its so subjective anyway, all it tells me is if I have a chnace on completing it or not. I think bickering over a climb being a 5.14b or 5.14c is really pretty silly and mostly ego driven anyway. I find myself looking more at the severity than the grade now anyway.


Mitt

[mitchleblanc]

I think bickering over a climb being a 5.14b or 5.14c is really pretty silly and mostly ego driven anyway.

I'm not trying to pick on you BUT.. accurate grading is important in that it allows you to evaluate your climbing fairly accurately. It's not like there's any other way to gauge your progress (or to compare yourself to others, if that's your game) .. so although it might seem like bickering (and from a single point difference, it usually is) the grade 'scene' is important, I think. Of course, you are totally right, 90% of argument is people trying to sound stronger than they are, or downgrade others.. rarely is accuracy anyone's concern!

[The Mitt]

I see your point. I guess for me the grade is just a guide on how brown my shorts will be when I'm done

[PaulB]

Now I'm really hesitant to go to the Rockies. I hear more and more people everyday describe it as climbing a vertical gravel pile.

There are definitely some dodgy rock routes and vertical scree slogs in the Rockies, but there are also some really solid ones like Brewer's Buttress (5.6, 13 pitches) on Castle Mountain. Well worth doing if you're visiting Banff or Lake Louise. The sport climbing areas I've visited (Back of the Lake, Heart Creek, Cougar Canyon) are also of high quality.

Every Canadian climber (whether trad, sport, alpine or ice) should visit the Rockies at least once!