what the heck is a moderate anyway?

So I see the term moderate tossed about all the time related to climbing. I've always thought moderate meant in the middle, yet see people use this term to describe 5.7 and under. I was of the impression those would be considered beginner or easy level climbs.
What's the deal?

There's "5-easy," or "5-fun," then there's moderates and 5-hard. Very subjective. Apply your own definition.

Moderate, middle-of-the-road, average, medium. I take that to mean the level at which the average, middle-of-the-pack climber can climb. My empirical observations would put that somewhere around 10+ to 11- sport and 5.9 trad. I agree that the word gets thrown around way too much to describe easy climbing...but I guess it's all relative.

My opinion is 5.10 is the last moderate grade
My theory is that just about any one can climb 5.10 if they wanted to. Harder than that requires some amount of training.

When I say I want to do some moderate climbing, it can be interpreted to mean one of the below:

1) I have a hangover
2) I want to climb but I'm feeling a little lazy so I want it to be easy
3) I'm climbing with someone new and I don't trust them enough to push myself
4) I haven't been climbing as much as I'd like lately and I'm not in the mood to get on something 'at my level' and be reminded that I'm not currently 'at my level'

I use it to define something I can climb. If you pay for me I can travel to any routes in question, if I can climb it without hiking up it then I will give it a moderate stamp.

PM me if this sounds like something you want to try out.

re-posted because I deleted it by accident - It's subjective, but I use it to describe a route that most climbers will be able to cruise along without too much trouble, so basically 5.7s to non sandbag 5.9s. Anything below would be "easy", though of course 5.7-9 will be easy for some. It moves some what depending on who the end user of the information is. The style, trad vs sport is also going to shift it a little.

^I like that concept of chasing the quality grade. So many people miss out on great routes with cool movement, positioning and rock because they fixate too much on the grade.

M Sprague wrote:So many people miss out on great routes with cool movement, positioning and rock because they fixate too much on the grade.

+1000

some do not have a good day climbing unless they are "crushing".

The only pertinent definition:

mod·er·ate - that level at which your buddy openly struggles and where you, able to stealthily mask your own difficulties, can therefore sneeringly apply the derogatory term. Often used in conjunction with the terms "cruiser" or "warmup". Moderate in this context will correlate to one letter grade below your onsight level.

For me, a moderate is a climb that I can do easily but is still fun. I do it because you enjoy the movement, exposure, etc. It tends to be a step up from an easy, which for the most part, I won't bother doing. When guidebooks use the term 'moderate' they mostly mean somewhere in the 5.7-5.9 or range. Anything below that is in the 'easy' range, and something directly above that would go into the 'intermediate' range.

Lots of interesting perspectives, so then how would you all break the grades down into categories?

Edit: @Old Custer: definitely seen your definition in action more than a few times.

Coeus wrote:So I see the term moderate tossed about all the time related to climbing. I've always thought moderate meant in the middle, yet see people use this term to describe 5.7 and under. I was of the impression those would be considered beginner or easy level climbs. What's the deal?

Trad 'moderates' maybe are still in that 5.5 to 5.8 range. But seems many sport climbers call anything 5.11 or easier a 'moderate' these days.,, as if 5.10 is the lowest level of climbing that there should be allowed. Go figure.

If there are 15 grades of technical climbing (5.0-5.14 ish) I apply the math technique.

5.0-5.4 = Easy
5.5-5.9 = Moderate
5.10-5.14 = Hard

Adjust slightly according to your abilities but this fits me pretty well, especially on trad.

Derek W wrote:If there are 15 grades of technical climbing (5.0-5.14 ish) I apply the math technique. 5.0-5.4 = Easy 5.5-5.9 = Moderate 5.10-5.14 = Hard Adjust slightly according to your abilities but this fits me pretty well, especially on trad.

This is an excellent example of how simple division can lead you to conclusions that are completely wrong.

Derek W wrote:If there are 15 grades of technical climbing (5.0-5.14 ish) I apply the math technique. 5.0-5.4 = Easy 5.5-5.9 = Moderate 5.10-5.14 = Hard Adjust slightly according to your abilities but this fits me pretty well, especially on trad.

If you count letter grades from 5.10-5.14 there are 16 grades in there, how do you factor that in. Besides a lot of people can climb 5.10 in their first year, but never make it to 5.14.

camhead wrote: This is an excellent example of how simple division can lead you to conclusions that are completely wrong.

How am I completely wrong when it works for me? I don't care if it works for you.

Coeus wrote: If you count letter grades from 5.10-5.14 there are 16 grades in there, how do you factor that in. Besides a lot of people can climb 5.10 in their first year, but never make it to 5.14.

They are subgrades, that's how I account for it. And 5.14 is harder than 5.10 in case you can't count. So that's pretty easy to say that people may climb an easier grade and may never reach a harder grade. Just like some people can climb 5.7 and may never be able to climb 5.10.

Derek W wrote: And 5.14 is harder than 5.10 in case you can't count. So that's pretty easy to say that people may climb an easier grade and may never reach a harder grade. Just like some people can climb 5.7 and may never be able to climb 5.10.

my point is more that you put them in the same category, yet one can be achieved easily (10) and the other (14) not so much. (disclaimer: numbers added to prove I understand counting)

There are only two grades.

Coeus wrote: my point is more that you put them in the same category, yet one can be achieved easily (10) and the other (14) not so much. (disclaimer: numbers added to prove I understand counting)

Sorry to come across like such an ass. 10s and 14s are in the same category because both are hard for ME. Hard means I have to work at it with variable success (= may or may not be able too at all). Moderate means it isn't "easy" but I am usually successful (= no falls or at least confident I'll reach the top).
I guess, the bottom line is there is no real accepted definition and you have to find out what is your moderate and realize other people may not (won't) agree with you.

I've seen it used to describe 5.7-5.9, being not specifically easy, but not truly hard routes for the average climber of maybe a year or two.

But of course, if you'd like to call 5.10-5.11 moderate and derisively snort at people who struggle with it, that's your call.

Sorry to come across like such an ass. 10s and 14s are in the same category because both are hard for ME. Hard means I have to work at it with variable success (= may or may not be able too at all). Moderate means it isn't "easy" but I am usually successful (= no falls or at least confident I'll reach the top).

I guess, the bottom line is there is no real accepted definition and you have to find out what is your moderate and realize other people may not (won't) agree with you.