Soft grades at Squamish: Why?

[E-rock]

I wanted to bring this up for discussion and see what others thought about the situation in Squamish. Perhaps Kevin McLane is deserving of some letters from the climbing community.

 

After climbing a lot at Squamish this summer I felt like I was improving. I climb for the numbers. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'm not a naturally gifted climber, and I measure my progress by the grades that I send. This summer I felt like I was making a breakthrough, consistently sending one letter grade harder than I had in the past, and on-sighting a couple of times two-letter grades higher.

 

Then after a return to Index and trip to Smith to climb in the gorge I got the smack down. Grades in Squamish are REALLY weak, two letter grades weak.

 

Examples: Seasoned in the sun (10b) is closer to 5.9.

Exasperator is closer to 10a (maybe 10b)

Diedre is 5.6 (NOT 5.8)

Many 5.8's are really 5.7

All of those great cracks on the Starr Wall are softer than the guidebook says:

i.e. Slap and tickle (though tenuous) has big enough feet at the crux to be 5.9 (book says 10b)

Paul's crack is easily 5.9 (not 10a)

High Mt Woody is easily 5.8 (not 5.9)

The 10b pitch on Birds of Prey is PERFECT Hands (and short). It would probably be 5.9 in the valley.

The 5.8 pitches on birds of prey are so low-angle they wouldn't even be 5.8 if there WASN'T a finger crack there.

 

Furthermore, at many climbing areas 10a is a common grade in the 10's whereas 10b is relatively uncommon in comparison because the grade (10b) represents a significant increase in difficulty over 10a. At Squamish 10b's are everywhere you look.

 

Does it serve any real purpose to the climbing community to inflate grades in a guide book? I've heard that McLane inflated grades between each successive version of his guidebook (or maybe inflated the grades of an older author).

 

Maybe people have already called McLane on his grade-softening, but perhaps he needs it again before his next book comes out.

 

Maybe most people don't give a shit, because they don't take numbers seriously (I know a lot of people who don't). But when you are really trying to push your onsight level, consistent, accurate grading is important.

 

People talk about Index, or the Gunks being sandbagged. But aren't they really just the standard? Why should we expect 5.10 to be easy? It's not.

[peas]

You can also add Gerizim on the Starr Wall. Rated 5.8, but I'd be hard pressed to point out even a 5.7 move on it.

[AmberBuxom]

E-rock said:

But when you are really trying to push your onsight level, consistent, accurate grading is important.

if grades are consistent within a climbing area then what is the problem? remember that you refer to a 'guide'. not to a touchstone.

[bobinc]

In part it has to do with the time in which the bulk of the routes were put up and the standard at that time. zB many Index (and Smith) routes were put up in the 60s/70s by climbers either training for or returning from Yosemite; the whole notion of 5.10 didn't gain much currency until the late 60s so many climbs that were perhaps that hard (by today's general consensus) had been graded only 5.8 or 5.9 (since 5.9 was for quite awhile the hardest thing anyone had climbed).

 

Red Rocks and Squamish were both developed somewhat later and the transfer of consistent grading didn't happen as it had at Index or Smith. That's at least part of the reason why you can get on a Red Rocks 5.10 and feel as though it isn't challenging you nearly as much as a Yosemite 5.10.

 

 

[fern]

I figure the best you can wish for in any guidebook is

that all the included climbs be internally consistently

graded. All the .9s are a little harder than all the .8s

and a little easier than all the .10a's. If that is the

case then you only need to get in one or two pitches at a

new areas to figure out the exchange rate. From the sounds

of your rant E-rock, it seems like McLane has succeeded in

the consistency side of things, just his benchmark doesn't

match other areas like Index and Yos. So can't you just make

the exchange calculation yourself?

 

McLane has some 'unique' ideas about rating climbs anyways,

ref the old non-starter 'Squamish Grading System' and his most

recent idea ot subdivide 5.10 into only a,b,c rather than

a,b,c,d.

 

Incidental trivia, the hardest free pitch in the 1968 guide

was a 5.9 variation on Slab Alley that now gets called 5.10d.

[Winter]

Hold on a second lest we just go on assuming that Smith is in the "stiff" category with Yos and Index. Come on. Maybe the Gorge is stiff (as stated above) but the rest of the tuff is pretty soft at the moderate grades.

[Alpinfox]

 

A previous discussion of the sandbag phenomenon

 

To quote Erik:

"Yose and Index are on par, the rest is just practice"

[Peter_Puget]

The last pitch of Sunblessed seemed stiff for the rating. The three tiered grading system has been used in several locations. For example the Wilts guide to Suicide.

[bobinc]

You're right, Winter. There is a lot of inconsistency at areas; I was talking about the general feeling of a place, the experience and prestige of first ascentionists, and the bizarre local customs (for example, how a 5.6 at Joshua Tree doesn't mention the first 15 feet of unprotected bouldering, etc).

 

Smith is a tough to generalize on, too, since there were a limited number of routes that had been climbed before the late 70s and they had a bimodal distribution of Class 4/easy Class 5 scrambles done by mtnrs and very hard routes (many mostly aid) done on the bigger walls.

[erik]

Alpinfox said:

 

A previous discussion of the sandbag phenomenon

 

To quote Erik:

"Yose and Index are on par, the rest is just practice"

 

i would like to build on that statement. tieton are also reasonable in their grading of routes. have not done many of the new routes at the tieton so i cannot say, but i have a feeling that they will be on par with the rest of the area!

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

I think Tieton has been rated well in the past. Some of the routes are hard to rate. For example the sport routes at Lava Point.

[jkrueger]

Soft grades exist to make one feel like a climbing god. Conversely, the smackdown exists to humble those with inflated egos. It is a tenuous balance.

 

Ratings are subjective, and as such can only be considered as suggestions of perceived difficulty -- your own mileage may vary depending on personal style, technique, strengths, weaknesses, and experience.

 

 

[Sphinx]

Erock, never go to Flagstone, you'd hate it. I hear you on the grading problem. To those who say that Smith is on the soft side, go lead BBQ the Pope (heh, ironic), Gumby, Karate Crack, and modify your statements accordingly. I always feel that Index is pretty accurate. 5.10 is supposed to be hard.

[erik]

Sphinx said:

Karate Crack

 

5.9 MAYBE 5.9+

 

 

[E-rock]

I disagree with the notion that internal consistency at an area is enough (ESPECIALLY when a certain guidebook author is ACTIVELY inflating grades). The point of the Yosemite decimal system is that 5.10a,b,c or d at one area is supposed to feel the same as those same grades somewhere else.

 

After climbing with a professional route-setter this weekend, I was keen on his desire to keep the grading accurate with the etablished yosemite decimal system standard, not just what certain people in his neck of the world think that standard is.

[jkrueger]

E-rock said:

The point of the Yosemite decimal system is that 5.10a,b,c or d at one area is supposed to feel the same as those same grades somewhere else.

That's all well and good in theory, but 5.10a Smith nubbins is nothing like 5.10a friction slab is nothing like 5.10a columnar basalt is nothing like 5.10a granite crack.

[erik]

jason

 

the technique might not be the exact. but the ability should be about the same for the grade.

if you are claiming yourself as a graded climber, you should be able to comfortably send anything in that grade, no matter the stone or technique required.

 

 

[minx]

jkrueger said:

Soft grades exist to make one feel like a climbing god. Conversely, the smackdown exists to humble those with inflated egos. It is a tenuous balance.

 

Ratings are subjective, and as such can only be considered as suggestions of perceived difficulty -- your own mileage may vary depending on personal style, technique, strengths, weaknesses, and experience.

 

 

this past w/e a couple of gentlemen were climbing several of the same routes as we were. they had just finished one that was the same grade that i was climbing. they told my belayer they thought the other one was much easier. late we climbed that route and we both found it to be harder. often your perspective of a grade is the result of your individual style.

 

that said, some places just seem harder for the same grade than others. lots of routes at squamish seem a tad soft to me

[Winter]

Sphinx said:

Erock, never go to Flagstone, you'd hate it. I hear you on the grading problem. To those who say that Smith is on the soft side, go lead BBQ the Pope (heh, ironic), Gumby, Karate Crack, and modify your statements accordingly. I always feel that Index is pretty accurate. 5.10 is supposed to be hard.

 

Yeah, yeah, pick out the three fairly graded climbs on the front side and call it good.

[Jason_Martin]

Every climbing area including Yosemite and Index has a few routes that feel easier than they should or harder than they should. It's simply part of the nature of the sport.

 

I find it difficult to give McClean a hard time on his grades. He has done a tremendous amount of work to put together guidebooks which have provided me with a great deal of enjoyment. Everybody bags on guidebook authors, when without them many people wouldn't even know there was anything there.

 

That said, it is simply impossible to have every climb in every area consistent with Yosemite. Grades are subjective and if McClean feels that something is a 5.8 which you feel is a 5.6, that's too bad. There simply is nothing you can do about it.

 

The only way to make climbs consistent across the entire country would be to have a small group of Yosemite regulars go and climb every route and then grade them accordingly. Of course this is completely unrealistic. So as a result, it is best to take grades for what they really are: opinions. Some people have different opinions than others and so as a result some first ascentionists or guidebook authors give routes grades that you may not agree with. My question is, so what?

 

If someone scrubbed a route clean and did the appropriate work to make the route climbable, should you shoot them down because you don't agree with the grade? If a guidebook author has spent years working on something that you've enjoyed using, should you attack him because he has a different idea of grading?

 

Of course not.

 

Take grades with a grain of salt and you'll have more fun.

 

Jason

[erik]

jason i dont see anyone attacking mcclane. i see them questioning his grading. he seems to inflate the grades with each new edition of his book. that is the question.

 

and because someone puts up a route does not make it theirs....if it is onl public land then it belongs to all us citizens. a route developer should consider this when installing permanent hardware. the hardware no longer belongs to them, as i see putting up a route shows intent to share.

 

 

[Distel32]

squamish boulders are the stiffest grades out there

[Peter_Puget]

Jason_Martin said:

If someone scrubbed a route clean and did the appropriate work to make the route climbable, should you shoot them down because you don't agree with the grade? If a guidebook author has spent years working on something that you've enjoyed using, should you attack him because he has a different idea of grading?

 

Of course not.

 

 

I do not think that you can equate a constructive criticism with either “shooting down” or “attacking.”

In the cc.com world I’ll admit they are pretty much the same but in the real world feedback is often appreciated and sought out. A person making an FA might have difficulty appraising the difficulty of a route. A guidebook author may by too familiar with the routes.

 

PP

[Jason_Martin]

erik said:

jason i dont see anyone attacking mcclane. i see them questioning his grading. he seems to inflate the grades with each new edition of his book. that is the question.

 

and because someone puts up a route does not make it theirs....if it is onl public land then it belongs to all us citizens. a route developer should consider this when installing permanent hardware. the hardware no longer belongs to them, as i see putting up a route shows intent to share.

 

 

I think some people hold a little grudge about the grades. That's why I defended the author.

 

On your second point, I couldn't agree more. There is an intent to share. I guess my point is that some first ascentionists get flak about their grades after they have provided something of value to the community.

 

Jason

[erik]

but why would offering a differing opinion be considered flak? i could see if the author was way off base on either end of the spectrum, but as it seems we all agree that grading is a consensus how what that arise if outsiders did not attempt to voice their opinion?

 

and i think a person who puts up a route and is looking for only positive feedback and thinks that is all they deserve is an idealistic and self serving thought.