What's with all the sand bagging lately?

ben jammin wrote:I feel exactly the opposite. Grade inflation is getting out of hand.

+1

Aleks Zebastian wrote: Climbing friend, They do not do this because bouldering is the sport of the climbing rocks for those most badass, with strong, resilient heart of steel pumping cold icy viscous fluid through your veins, and iron grip of crushing fist, who would not be needing to go home and cry to mommy despite unrelenting punishment. It is part of the process to be having the soul crushing humiliation and ego starvation when you begin your bouldering career, when you desperately crave not learning but "success" from racking up huge combinations of v points to show your friends and prove you are a worthwhile human being, yet you cannot yet send your VO- project that is called "Warm Up." But perhaps you are right, I too believe that the only purpose most great of climbing is to feel most excellent to myself about the bold flash of higher and higher arbitrary numbers. Perhaps, climbing friend, we may subdivide the V scale so that we would be having the tenths of the grade on which to base our progressions, such as V1.0 V1.2, V1.3, and so on, giving us 150+ more grades to choose from. Think you this be idea most great? MYah?

So you prefer that a gym grade V4 = outdoor V1? (which it does at my gym)

I'm not advocating altering/dividing the V scale...just giving a lower end below V1 so gyms can stay true to the 'outdoor V scale' at the 'upper end' (V1 and up) while giving more variants for beginners who can't climb in the traditional V scale yet.

Think you this be idea most great? MYah?

M. G. wrote: So you prefer that a gym grade V4 = outdoor V1? (which it does at my gym) I'm not advocating altering/dividing the V scale...just giving a lower end below V1 so gyms can stay true to the 'outdoor V scale' at the 'upper end' (V1 and up) while giving more variants for beginners who can't climb in the traditional V scale yet. Think you this be idea most great? MYah?

Climbing friend,

This is idea is most acceptable.

Tronald Dump wrote:sandbagging is totally not a new thing. Has anyone been on one of Fred Beckey's 5.9+'a?

Fred wasn't sandbagging, 5.10 didn't exist when he was doing that.

A lot of talk about grade inflation, but the OP is complaining about sandbagging. For me, sometimes sandbagging occurs because I am doubtful of my own abilities, ie: "I climbed that, so it clearly cannot be a V5!"

Other times, the time spent projecting has allowed you to fully grasp the movement and positioning such that a climb feels like it has taken little physical effort, or you just end up in a really good mental state for the send. Climbing often fails due to relatively small muscles, so you might not actually feel very tired despite having done something that was very difficult for your tendons and forearms.

But to get back into the spirit of thread drift, I would say that the big problem in boulder grades is around the v4 range. There are more tiers of difficulty between v3 and v5 than the grades reflect. I think it gets back in line for pushing to v6 and v7, but v4 is really compressed in my experience.

Honestly, I've climbed all over the world (Font, Swizzy, Australia, NZ, all throughout North America) and the grades feel the same to me everywhere, whether it's an old school area or not. Some climbs feel hard for the grade and some climbs feel soft for the grade. But that has more to do with my strengths and weaknesses as a climber than inflation/sandbagging.

Keep in mind that the more you fall outside of the average range morphologically, the more likely it is that some climbs will feel super hard or super soft for the grade. Things like height, wingspan, finger size, hand size, etc. all play huge roles in how hard/easy something will feel for the grade. For instance, Ben Jammin (since we've met), your wingspan is subtantially greater than mine. So are we going to think a climb like 'Hell Belly' feels the same? How about 'Black Box Arete Left Side Sit Start'? I was so spanned on that reach I felt like I could barely move. :)

As for gym grades vs outdoor grades, in gyms climbs tend to be more power/strength endurance based with fewer defined cruxes whereas most climbs outside tend to have defined cruxes surrounded by easier climbing. As primarily an outdoor climber, I climb several grades harder outside than I do in the gym.

I can also agree that as a v9/10 climber, it's harder for me to tell the difference between grades in the v5 and under category. And as a guidebook author and area developer, that makes grading climbs in that range accurately a challenging endeavor for me. But I try to get it as accurate as I can because I know those differences matter when you're at that level because they mattered to me when I was at that level!

climbing friend,

You are missing the true point, of how great satisfaction you can get by hiding in the bushes by difficult climbing rock you have wired until someone they struggle on it, trying to project and scream and fall. You then emerge from seemingly out of nowhere, remove your shirt, and casually chuck a lap for most great satisfaction. Yes-Myah?

Sandbagging's been around a long time. I've been accused of it at times myself, although routes not boulder problems. I never wanted my routes downgraded.

But the bottom line is, it's as hard as it is, regardless of what anyone calls it.

Sandbagging is a good way to remember that the grades don't always matter, and that no matter how hard you climb there are routes that are going to make you feel like a huge pussy.
Something something "starve the ego, feed the soul".

Keep sandbagging!

But isn't sandbagging often also about feeding the ego, just in a different way? Sandbagging is often about making others feel worse (and yourself better) while inflation is often about making yourself feel better. They're both equally ego driven. The only difference is that for some reason our community views one as more acceptable than the other.

M. G. wrote: I just don't understand why they don't make more 'sub V1' grades to give the beginners a sense of their progress. VB- VB VB+ V0- V0 V0+ then a realistic V1 Beginning climbers aren't (all) idiots...they don't need to be coddled to.

Our gym uses "Gx" for anything under V0, where G9 would be the boulder equivalent of a 5.9, G8 is the boulder equivalent of a 5.8, etc

Christian Prellwitz wrote:But isn't sandbagging often also about feeding the ego, just in a different way?

I mean it is really about feeding your own ego by starving others, I think it is like being a vampire. Oh my god, they are real.

I also think that it is really nice to have heinously sandbagged routes though. They definitely keep you in check.

I like the sandbags. keeps you from gettin too cocky out there.

I guess it depends on how badly they're sandbagged. I always tried to rate fairly, if a little stiff. Wasn't about my ego, just didn't want people giving me shit about routes not being that hard and stroking my ego. But in the end, the community usually settles on something. But the seriousness of a route should always be honest and maybe err on the side of caution. I wouldn't want someone getting hurt on account of that.

My biggest issue with sandbagging is SAFETY. If, as an FA, you are going to post a route on mp.com or make it know through some other medium, I believe you must be honest. Especially on the lower end grades. For example: posting something as a classic 5.8 is going to draw newer climbers into wanting to do the route, but if the reality is that it is 5.9+ (approaching 5.10) Pg-13 or possibly R, you are putting others at risk. Be honest about the "spice" and be honest about the grade, not from your "lens" but the climbing community as a whole.

Wilson On The Drums wrote:My biggest issue with sandbagging is SAFETY. If, as an FA, you are going to post a route on mp.com or make it know through some other medium, I believe you must be honest. Especially on the lower end grades. For example: posting something as a classic 5.8 is going to draw newer climbers into wanting to do the route, but if the reality is that it is 5.9+ (approaching 5.10) Pg-13 or possibly R, you are putting others at risk. Be honest about the "spice" and be honest about the grade, not from your "lens" but the climbing community as a whole.

That's a non issue, trad climbers never climb above 5.6

There are two ways to rate a route. One is in comparison to other routes and the other is how it makes you feel. Both are extremely subjective and it's a wonder that route ratings are as accurate as they are.

I frequently fall into this trap. I periodically get weaker than that Zima you swear you've never tried. Other times I climb really well. If I'm putting up new routes during either of these phases, my ratings will be off. I also don't repeat a whole bunch of routes so I don't frequently re calibrate. Other times I just like to sandbag because I'm a bad person.

Matt Wilson wrote: Our gym uses "Gx" for anything under V0, where G9 would be the boulder equivalent of a 5.9, G8 is the boulder equivalent of a 5.8, etc

That's what I'm talking about.
Great idea.

Climbing grades are subjective. Any subjective measurement lends to personal biases, style preferences, ego, conditions, and local culture. Therefore, I presume sand bagging has always existed. Grade inflation has always existed. Though, it's hard to say something is sand-bagged or soft anyway, because the reference frame is about as real as pixie dust and unicorn farts. Best not to waste a lot of sleep over-analyzing the changing social dynamics in the climbing community or psycho-analyzing the current milieu in climbing gyms or the outdoor adventure world. We are all a bunch of psychos- simply put. If you send a V5 and you normally send V4 just be psyched. Was it "soft"? Maybe. Who cares. Have a hamburger . Relax. It's alllllll make believe.

Wilson On The Drums wrote:My biggest issue with sandbagging is SAFETY. If, as an FA, you are going to post a route on mp.com or make it know through some other medium, I believe you must be honest. Especially on the lower end grades. For example: posting something as a classic 5.8 is going to draw newer climbers into wanting to do the route, but if the reality is that it is 5.9+ (approaching 5.10) Pg-13 or possibly R, you are putting others at risk. Be honest about the "spice" and be honest about the grade, not from your "lens" but the climbing community as a whole.

This is the crux of the issue.

By the way, consensus ratings are pointless because nobody wants to be "the guy" who suggests a route is harder than the FA rating. Easier, of course, but harder no way. Too many egos for that.