the delicate rock climber ego?

Why is it that so many descriptions of good climbs that are rated, say, below 5.10, are often qualified with some variation of the term "good for the grade"? It seems to me that some climbers are hesitant to be enthusiastic about easy or moderate climbs. Are they afraid that people might think that because you like a 5.4 that you're less of a climber? Less of a person? I've never seen a description for a hard climb that said "good for the grade".

Peter Croft's favorite climb is 5.9 and he didn't say "It is good for the grade."

I know what you are saying though, I see that a lot.

Point taken.

However, I usually just accept the value judgement of "good for the grade" as an enthusiastic endorsement of a route worth doing.

If it is "good for the grade" it just means it is a good climb at that level of difficulty. No reason to read more into it than that.

Harder climbs are better.

Subjectively, I think it's often more rewarding to climb something that challenges you personally. Succeeding on something difficult is a great feelings.

Objectively, I think harder climbs are usually steeper, cleaner, and more aesthetic. Often climbs in the easy-moderate grades are ledgey, wandering, and less than vertical. I think soaring, steep, thin cracks, corners, and aretes are the most beautiful rock climbing features, and they're often not easy to climb.

-Scott

+ 1 for the OP.

"Good climb" conveys everything necessary. "Good for the grade" seems qualified or backhanded, like "smart for a kid," "strong for a girl," or "quick for a heavy guy."

EDIT: Everything said about easier or harder climbs is a fair generalization. That's why "good climb," used judiciously, gets the job done. Say it when it applies. Don't when it doesn't.

Calirado wrote:+ 1 for the OP. "Good climb" conveys everything necessary. "Good for the grade" seems qualified or backhanded, like "smart for a kid," "strong for a girl," or "quick for a heavy guy."

I agree. The qualification "for the grade" suggests that the speaker has perspective far beyond the grade and that he is looking down on it from his lofty perch. In my opinion, good climbs are good climbs, no matter what the grade.

it's all ego based...when I climbed hard I thought harder climbs were better...now that I climb easier routes I say oh it doesn't matter.

Maybe I'm the only one here with that ego problem?

PS in some areas of the country i think that the route qualitie goes up with the grade because the rock is shit unless it's steep and all the choss has fallen off! But, for the most part a good climb is a good climb. unless I start cranking again...in which case a good climb is only just about at my onsight/redpoint level!

I've done some 5.10 climbs where there was only a move or two that were 5.10 moves, the majority of the route was 5.7; or even 4th/easy 5th class. I've done some 5.8 routes that were much tougher, sustained 5.8 all the way - those were "good for the grade" routes IMO. Some routes of a same grade are much more fun than others. And yes, probably some ego involved in "good for thae grade" stuff.

Scott Bennett wrote:Harder climbs are better. Subjectively, I think it's often more rewarding to climb something that challenges you personally. Succeeding on something difficult is a great feelings. Objectively, I think harder climbs are usually steeper, cleaner, and more ascetic. Often climbs in the easy-moderate grades are ledgey, wandering, and less than vertical. I think soaring, steep, thin cracks, corners, and aretes are the most beautiful rock climbing features, and they're often not easy to climb. -Scott

The Eye in J-tree is a 5.0 with 5 stars. I've climbed it and have to say it was fun and worth the stars.

Scott Bennett wrote:Harder climbs are better. Subjectively, I think it's often more rewarding to climb something that challenges you personally. Succeeding on something difficult is a great feelings. Objectively, I think harder climbs are usually steeper, cleaner, and more ascetic. Often climbs in the easy-moderate grades are ledgey, wandering, and less than vertical. I think soaring, steep, thin cracks, corners, and aretes are the most beautiful rock climbing features, and they're often not easy to climb. -Scott

+1

I believe this is true. I have been guilty of using this super-elitist phrase, because generally moderate routes don's stack up to the harder lines. Royal Arches, in Yosemite is nowhere near as clean, direct, aesthetic, or has the quality of movement as say Astroman or the Nose, but it may be the best long 5.4 in the valley. If compared directly to all climbs of any grade it should not be listed among the best climbs in the Valley. It would be less elitist just to say that Royal Arches is a pile, and you should climb Astroman instead. Is that helpful?

Either we can say it's one of the best 5.4s in Yosemite (aka "good for the grade"), or it's not one of the best routes (regardless of the grade) in Yosemite. I think the former is more helpful to everyone.

The interesting thing about this particular forum is that all of the responses fall into one of two categories:

1) Respond to the original question as it was intended, as a critical analysis of the psycho/social proclivity of climbers to classify their statements is such a way that they "disclose" their climbing ability in a covert fashion. (Minority of responses)

2) Respond to the question, like all the climbing magazines and 90% of all inter-climber dialogue, in terms of climbing and only climbing. (Majority of responses)

What this forum does a good job of highlighting is how difficult it is for the climbing community (I suppose it should be noted that this is only referring to the American climbing community, as I am not familiar with international trends) to talk about climbing outside of the frame of being a climber. So often it is assumed that just being a climber makes one an expert in all discussions concerning climbing.

I believe that what "Atilla" was attempting to do was to ask fellow climbers to step away from their ability for a moment and introspect on the actual process of talking about climbing. In order to do this in a focused way that could actually procure some interesting results, the subject of the common phrase "good for the grade" was selected--and as this forum shows, it was an excellent choice.

What makes climbing generally (and mountain project specifically) so interesting is that we can have this discussion and have everyone from new climbers to Mike Anderson himself chip into the discussion. I would hope that this interpretation of Atilla's question is not taken as an attack or an accusation, but as a challenge to each of us to respond to post such as these with a moment of introspection. Ultimately, the courage to disclose what we find to the larger climbing community might just help us all to better understand this lifestyle that plays such an important role in our lives.

COEveryman wrote:The interesting thing about this particular forum is that all of the responses fall into one of two categories: 1) Respond to the original question as it was intended, as a critical analysis of the psycho/social proclivity of climbers to classify their statements is such a way that they "disclose" their climbing ability in a covert fashion. (Minority of responses) 2) Respond to the question, like all the climbing magazines and 90% of all inter-climber dialogue, in terms of climbing and only climbing. (Majority of responses) What this forum does a good job of highlighting is how difficult it is for the climbing community (I suppose it should be noted that this is only referring to the American climbing community, as I am not familiar with international trends) to talk about climbing outside of the frame of being a climber. So often it is assumed that just being a climber makes one an expert in all discussions concerning climbing. I believe that what "Atilla" was attempting to do was to ask fellow climbers to step away from their ability for a moment and introspect on the actual process of talking about climbing. In order to do this in a focused way that could actually procure some interesting results, the subject of the common phrase "good for the grade" was selected--and as this forum shows, it was an excellent choice. What makes climbing generally (and mountain project specifically) so interesting is that we can have this discussion and have everyone from new climbers to Mike Anderson himself chip into the discussion. I would hope that this interpretation of Atilla's question is not taken as an attack or an accusation, but as a challenge to each of us to respond to post such as these with a moment of introspection. Ultimately, the courage to disclose what we find to the larger climbing community might just help us all to better understand this lifestyle that plays such an important role in our lives.

This post is pretty good, for the grade.

attila wrote:Why is it that so many descriptions of good climbs that are rated, say, below 5.10, are often qualified with some variation of the term "good for the grade"? It seems to me that some climbers are hesitant to be enthusiastic about easy or moderate climbs. Are they afraid that people might think that because you like a 5.4 that you're less of a climber? Less of a person? I've never seen a description for a hard climb that said "good for the grade".

I guess if I were to have read that I would presume that someone is saying it's a 5.8 that 5.12 climbers would enjoy anyway, or something like that. But I don't spend too much time worrying about if someone I don't even know wrote about a climb on the net. Life is too short to fret about if someone else looks down on a climb for it's grade.

Seems to be that worrying about someone else's values of grade is even more trival than worrying about how I see the grades. Regardless, I'd take it as an endorsement.

Tony B wrote:...I would presume that someone is saying it's a 5.8 that 5.12 climbers would enjoy anyway,...

Exactly. When I use that phrase, I mean: "even a jaded, elitist rock-snob like me will enjoy this route"

I've interpreted "good for the grade" sometimes as meaning representative of the grade, and hence, a good climb to do if looking for that grade. But I have also gotten the vibe that the OP mentioned.

caughtinside wrote: No, I just put that on here so all the Boulder guys would take my posts seriously. For serious.

What about the Eldo Prancers? You should probably change that to Eldo Springs or Sibleyville.

this thread is good for the grade, but if it was on rc.com, everyone would ignore it as the teetering piece of overgraded choss that it is.

Suck it, tossers!

rc.what?

camhead wrote:this thread is good for the grade, but if it was on rc.com, everyone would ignore it as the teetering piece of overgraded choss that it is. Suck it, tossers!

Way to send it dude!

johnL wrote: Is it my ego that offends you, or yours?

well put.