How do probems get their gradings?

So I went to Piano Ridge a Horsetooth Reservoir today and had blast!

But looking at he rating of some of the problems in the NCCC guide (2009) vs MP there are some difference. I'm curious as to how exactly problems get different ratings in different source material but keep the same name.

For example: 'Roof Crack' on 'Unknown Boulder' is rated V2 in the NCCC guide. MP has it rated at V-easy (submitted 2002) with a consensus at V0. Now it was an easy problem for me (I did it first time after watching someone else) so I don't disagree with the MP rating. But that's a big difference.

How accurate would you say MP is on the ratings? And is the "Consensus" a better guide than the "Rating"?

It's all opinion. Rating is what the author thought; consensus is what climbers think.

As for how ratings might change- aside from the subjective nature of grades, and how subjective opinion can change, climbs can change if (for example) a hold gets pulled off or polished, or a foot gets too rubber-slick.

Thanks Patrick. It makes sense, just not ideal but I've got no better ideas.

John, that makes a lot of sense too and had crossed my mind.

Somewhat off topic but, I think from climb to climb I may also have issues with gradings based on my body type. I'm 6'5" and around 195lbs (pretty lean for me though I could lose 10 more without being unhealthy). I've also noticed from what little I've done, that even severe overhangs with jugs are easier than face climbs. Which I guess shows me I need to work on that a little more and that my footwork is lacking. Probably as a result of the gym bouldering I've been doing.

John Marsella wrote:I think that once you get into more moderate / middling grades it smooths out a bit too. Folks grading v-easy to v-1 or 5.4-5.6 possibly haven't been climbing long enough to have a solid feel for nuance (except this is easy vs this is hard), or they are long time climbers who have forgotten the differences between grades in this range b/c "it's all easy." Of course there are lots of folks who get the grading right on.

Lol. The highly nuanced 5.4-5.6 range. Do tell, what exactly is the difference, in your experience?

Climbing grading is fundamentally problematic. It is a matter of opinion but absolutely depends on style, body type of the person climbing, and even conditions on that particular day. There isn't really a better way to grade climbs but you always have to take it with a grain of salt. What is also important to consider is that grades will sometimes change heavily depending on where you are. Some crags have super hard 5.10b's which will be another crag's 5.11a.
You said overhangs are easier right now that face climbs but that may be because you are stronger than you are technical.

Michael, you're correct. I am stronger than I am technical. Though overhanging problems are mostly what's available at my gym, and I know that technique has an effect on my progress with those problems as well as strength.

like others have said, highly opinionated, a lot of boulders i climb have never been climbed and if they have there is no info on them to be found so i base it off of graded problems i have been on in combination with some theory from the gym. My 2cents

For me, i think V0 means that any newb with no climbing experience who isn't completely out of shape should be able to send the problem with some coaching

V1 i think that 90% of those same newbs can't send it because they lack the confidence, minimal grip strength and or the ability to watch where they need to place their feet. The problem is cookie cutter, ladder type climb and most any one who has some climbing experience along with some instruction and encouragement should be able to send it after a few attempts or a revisit or two because they lack the stamina for repeated attempts.

V2 should start to have some moves that require more precise and special footing which may put the climber into different body positions and the holds should start to get a little less juggy. In short, technique should start to become necessary as well as a little endurance but majority of holds are still fairly meaty

V3, holds get a little less obvious, and possible combinations of holds that can be used to send the problem become fewer and in some sections a particular sequence needs to be followed for a send. More intermediate bouldering techniques need to be used to make some moves and your grip strength needs to be slightly more developed to hang onto a few intermediate holds.

V4 Much like v3 but to the next level, many holds now require decent grip and finger strength and some even require precise placement taking advantage of the finer imperfections or features of a particular hold. Sequence and weight bearing is even more paramount.

V5 again V4 to the next level, some tougher holds yet, that require precision and the route utilizes several different techniques. Probably only one really decent sequence a few tricks to make a move or two but the holds themselves are fairly obvious still despite requiring quite a bit of strength and skill to stick them.

V6 again v5 to the next level but you have pretty much one sequence that involves lots of rearranging of feet, and technique to make the moves as static as possible, holds are to fine to be sloppy with, several moves of the problem require precision and for the climber to memorize the specifics. Your strength needs to be up to the challenge and solving the main problem will not be overly obvious and requires some creativity. Difficult precision dynamic moves can be more readily found on problems of this grade.

After V6... it just gets crazier with difficulty of holds and linking hard moves back to back, any error of any kind means you will not send the problem This theme continues for the harder grades until it is ridiculous

What i may consider a solid V4 because of a long stretch move to a crumby hold another taller climber might consider V3 because they can reach it completely static with plenty of time to get their finger placement just right where as i have to lunge for it and have a fraction of a second to set my fingers perfectly and stick the hold before it has to support a large portion of my weight. It can go the other way as well, a tight close set of moves on an under hang might seem V4 to a long lanky climber but for a shorter guy like me it's easy peazy hitting toe and heel hooks with out feeling to bunched up.

In the end, it's about your personal grade, if you have been climbing enough you know where you stand and if someone says its V4 but it was harder than any V5's you have ever sent then give yourself a pat on the back and give it a V5+ in your book and consider it moving forward with your climbing.

Joe's opinion is the reason we are having inflation of grades nationwide. If you look at the bouldering conversion scale that is supposed to be used as the main standard, a V0 is equal to a 5.10+. I personally don't know any "newbs" that can climb a 5.10+ - and in most cases, a V0. V1? That should be equal to a crux on a 5.11-. V2 should be equal to 5.11 crux, V3 should be equal to 5.11+ crux and so on. But in the low grades for sure, people really tend to way over inflate grades. Now, V-grades don't take the endurance of routes into account as much, but the difficulty standard still exists.
And grading from your gym experience is the worst way to get a good grade. I have yet to find a gym that grades better than 2 V-grades inflated at best.

a v0 = a 5.10?

how is that even possible and how does it make sense. V0 is basically not even on the V scale meaning skill required & difficulty = 0 = non existent.

You can't really compare boulder problems to routes directly anyway, a route is graded on the sum of difficulty not just the crux. A 5.11 is not a easy route even for intermediate climbers, the crux might only be a V2 problem but the fact that it is 60 feet up and after several feet of no rest holds adds to the difficulty of the route.

Again it's very opinionated, this is what the scale you look at made by this club/group of people say as "their opinion" I can pull up another 10 scales comparing various grading scales that say something entirely different. Can you post a link or something to this boulder conversion scale that everyone is supposed to use?

By your standards the uber pro's claiming V12's and higher would be off the chart on the route scale, what would it be 5.20?

besides who cares about anything below V4 anyway?

You can't really expect expert level climbers to accurately grade easy problems, If a climber is flashing V5 or higher, or sending V6 or higher after little time then anything V4 and lower is gonna be joke to them especially V0 and V1 and their grade for a climb of that skill/difficulty could easy be off by a full grade or more. JMO

Your comments are hilarious man, please keep them coming

glad you think so.

comments just highlight the real problem, grading snobs. Who cares what other people are claiming or grading their back yard problems? If they are serious about climbing sooner or later they will make it to a well documented area and be put in their place or at least educated and if not then none of it matters anyway, c'est la vie

Also if their back yard problems are that great then sooner or later they will attract serious climbers who can give their 2 cents about said problems and again if not, then none of it matters to anyone who cares.

it all comes out in the wash

Joe L 82 wrote:V0 is basically not even on the V scale meaning skill required & difficulty = 0 = non existent.

This is hilariously misinformed. The V0 = 5.10 equivalency has been a rule of thumb for at least 10 years, probably way longer.

This should help...

spadout.com/wiki/index.php/…

This too...

climbingtechniques.org/unde…

I'm just highlighting the fact that it doesn't make sense and the flaws of the logic
If you create a scale should it not start at the lowest possible point?

It makes no sense to have your starting "baseline" point above baseline.

Again, for every club/org that says V0 = 5.10 I can find a dozen others that say different

Joe L 82 wrote:I'm just highlighting the fact that it doesn't make sense and the flaws of the logic If you create a scale should it not start at the lowest possible point?

If the moves are too easy it simply isn't considered bouldering, just as the easiest "climbing" wouldn't be considered 5th class. There are plenty of scales that doesn't start at "anybody can do it".

It's all A1 until you fall

In the early 90s we called "What's Left of Less" at Hueco a V0+, and that is NOT exactly an easy problem, as it would probably be in the solid .11 range if it was a crux on sport route. Likewise, I've seen Breshears' Crack at Morrison as either a classic V0+ or a V1-, and experienced (not mutant) climbers usually take a couple of goes before doing it clean. Now these two examples may be a bit sandbagged, but not crazy so. V0 equivalent to pure .10 or .10+ crux makes perfect sense in the historical context.

BigFeet wrote:This should help... spadout.com/wiki/index.php/… This too... climbingtechniques.org/unde…

I feel like my thoughts and theory on grades is very on par with what these write ups have to say except for when it comes to the V0 grade. But that is more of a personal problem with the scale it's self and how it's compared to YSD scale and that apparently you need to be an intermediate route climber before you can send the very easiest boulder problem....

makes perfect sense... right?

And since the V scale makes so much sense we now create new grades below V0 to include even more very very easy problems and designate them all VB, again because the original grading system makes so much sense.

I have always understood and been told that V0 starts in the 5.10 range and like others have said this has been the way for many years. I also have been able to follow the guidelines of V2/V3 in the 11 range with V5 clocking in around 12a. What I haven't been able to understand is how the link up of hard problems equates to much harder grades like a V9 boulder problem with a V11 crux clocks in at V13 or something like that... I guess is has to do with the human limit of holds we can grab and that link ups with maybe one or two extreme moves gets the V13 and on ratings, but this would never be if you linked 3 V0s together, that would just be sustained V0. There's always room for interpretation and improvement but when I start to see guide books with short 5.9 routes that people sometimes boulder and give V1 or V2 grades, come on people let's get real.

Joe L 82 wrote: I feel like my thoughts and theory on grades is very on par with what these write ups have to say except for when it comes to the V0 grade. But that is more of a personal problem with the scale it's self and how it's compared to YSD scale and that apparently you need to be an intermediate route climber before you can send the very easiest boulder problem.... makes perfect sense... right? And since the V scale makes so much sense we now create new grades below V0 to include even more very very easy problems and designate them all VB, again because the original grading system makes so much sense.

Your theory is so far off that if I hadn't visited your page and saw actual pictures of boulders that look super easy with your grades on them, I'd think you were trolling.
Exactly. A boulder problem isn't a boulder problem unless it's harder. VB was pretty much created by gyms so they could put up problems beginners could do. V0 has been a 5.10+ comparison since the scale was started. From experience bouldering at many locations, the scale I posted is very much accurate.
And yes it makes sense that you need to be an intermediate climber to climb graded boulders. Bouldering is basically doing the hard part of a route, and there isn't enough of a hard part on 5.9s/10- to warrant a bouldering grade for them. In the end, your opinion on how it should work doesn't really matter... It's a standard that's been around for quite a while, and you disagreeing with it doesn't change a thing.