What's with all the sand bagging lately?

Gene S wrote: 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.

I hear this "safety" thing touted a lot and I don't buy it.

The situation is rare when sandbagging would make a difference.

If it's a sport route, I'll have to bail or tag up a stick clip. Life goes on.

If it's a trad route, I'll have to aid to the anchors or downaid or lose a little gear. Annoying but life goes on.

If it's a boulder problem, I can't pull off of the ground, exactly how I boulder anyway.

So the only scenario that really effects me is if it's R/X rated and it's not obvious at all that the hard part is unprotected. I am sure this is possible but it's rather unlikely.

I guess the only other major concern would be if I chose to free solo a route based on a sandbagged rating. Of course most sensible people find themselves downclimbing in that unlikely situation.

I'm not telling you that sandbagging is good. I dislike it because it's inaccurate and my ego is frail. To get on a moral high horse because of safety though, totally off the mark.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I hear this "safety" thing touted a lot and I don't buy it. The situation is rare when sandbagging would make a difference. If it's a sport route, I'll have to bail or tag up a stick clip. Life goes on. If it's a trad route, I'll have to aid to the anchors or downaid or lose a little gear. Annoying but life goes on. If it's a boulder problem, I can't pull off of the ground, exactly how I boulder anyway. So the only scenario that really effects me is if it's R/X rated and it's not obvious at all that the hard part is unprotected. I am sure this is possible but it's rather unlikely. I guess the only other major concern would be if I chose to free solo a route based on a sandbagged rating. Of course most sensible people find themselves downclimbing in that unlikely situation. I'm not telling you that sandbagging is good. I dislike it because it's inaccurate and my ego is frail. To get on a moral high horse because of safety though, totally off the mark.

Good post. I can relate to all of that. Their are a few sandbag 5.5 in my neck of the woods that have scared/scarred more than one uninformed soloist.

Well if this isn't cliche Millennial BS transcending into the world of Bouldering grades, I don't know what is.

I"m sure mom and dad will give you a gold star for trying.

:)

Just like bags of sand...

sandbaggin

germsauce wrote:... I"m sure mom and dad will give you a gold star for trying. :)

Isn't this a cliche? Certainly not very original.

Matt Wilson wrote: That's a non issue, trad climbers never climb above 5.6

hahaha that's good

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I hear this "safety" thing touted a lot and I don't buy it. The situation is rare when sandbagging would make a difference. If it's a sport route, I'll have to bail or tag up a stick clip. Life goes on. If it's a trad route, I'll have to aid to the anchors or downaid or lose a little gear. Annoying but life goes on. If it's a boulder problem, I can't pull off of the ground, exactly how I boulder anyway. So the only scenario that really effects me is if it's R/X rated and it's not obvious at all that the hard part is unprotected. I am sure this is possible but it's rather unlikely. I guess the only other major concern would be if I chose to free solo a route based on a sandbagged rating. Of course most sensible people find themselves downclimbing in that unlikely situation. I'm not telling you that sandbagging is good. I dislike it because it's inaccurate and my ego is frail. To get on a moral high horse because of safety though, totally off the mark.

Safety is totally off the mark? Whatever dude. Yes you can do all the things you mentioned, but a newer climber without all the skills you have could end up in a dangerous situation on sandbagged routes. I'm not getting on a moral high horse, in fact, I don't even like horses.

Gene S wrote: Safety is totally off the mark? Whatever dude. Yes you can do all the things you mentioned, but a newer climber without all the skills you have could end up in a dangerous situation on sandbagged routes.

A new climber probably isn't seeking out newly established trad routes to try their hand at, especially anywhere even close their physical limit. Unless you're making pro sound less marginal than it is, sandbagging routes is harmless.

Gene S wrote: Safety is totally off the mark? Whatever dude. Yes you can do all the things you mentioned, but a newer climber without all the skills you have could end up in a dangerous situation on sandbagged routes. I'm not getting on a moral high horse, in fact, I don't even like horses.

I'm not saying you are technically wrong. I just think the situation you have concern for rarely exists. It's basically a strawman argument. Creating an easily defensible position that isn't really reflected in reality. I don't even think you did it on purpose.

We were all beginners. We all have been sandbagged. Are there any reported accidents directly attributed to being sandbagged?

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.

I think its important to sandbag easier climbs. It gets new leaders to objectivity evaluate climbs with more scrutiny early in there climbing careers. For safety sake is important to evaluate grades the way they should evaluate their gear.

matt c. wrote: I think its important to sandbag easier climbs. It gets new leaders to objectivity evaluate climbs with more scrutiny early in there climbing careers. For safety sake is important to evaluate grades the way they should evaluate their gear.

5.7s can be like THAT? holy shit I guess I'm not the 5.8-onsighting hard-man I thought I was!

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I just think the situation you have concern for rarely exists.

+1

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I'm not saying you are technically wrong. I just think the situation you have concern for rarely exists. It's basically a strawman argument. Creating an easily defensible position that isn't really reflected in reality. I don't even think you did it on purpose. We were all beginners. We all have been sandbagged. Are there any reported accidents directly attributed to being sandbagged?

I agree that the situation rarely exists. Isn't that the fun part of MP? We ponder the minutia of climbing and have intense debates about things that will rarely, if ever, happen.

Jeremy in Inyokern wrote: Isn't this a cliche? Certainly not very original.

Touche! Sometimes cliche's are cliche for a reason i guess.

People give grades about anything today, about just fucking climb it and shut the fuck up, and do not give any grade,,, and keep it to your fucking self...is it fucking clear?

Something has to be done with all the sandstone breaking.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: If it's a boulder problem, I can't pull off of the ground, exactly how I boulder anyway.

Hahahaha!!!!

Me too!