"Sandbagged" and relativety: Your standard?

This is supposed to be a fun, productive conversation, not a war zone please.

An article on Climbing magazines sites made me think. I hear ALL the time here in the East that the Gunks and Seneca are "sandbagged" (just to name a couple spots). People (locals alot) state it with such pride! I say the Gunks and Seneca are NOT sandbagged (relative). Heres why:

The Gunks and Seneca (again just examples) are not sandbagged because alot/most of their routes were established first. Wouldnt it be that the newer established routes are "soft" (maybe because the developers wanted to be climbing harder so they applied harder ratings to make themselves feel better/cooler?) and the STANDARD would be these first/early established routes?

Think: you HAVE to have a standard to compare (you cant compare route A to route A, you can compare route A to route B however). Whats your standard? wouldnt it make sense that the newer developed routes are "soft" (if these Eastern routes are sandbagged then that leaves only one direction to go)

So if you state that these Eastern routes are "sandbagged" I ask you why is your standard these newer routes and not the originals?

its all relative (which fascinates me because Ive climbed 5.7s that felt like a 5.10 and Ive climbed 5.10s that were equal to 5.7s (overall effort required to ascend)).

so whats your standard? a local crag? a major area? Thank you.

SPlatte & adventure climbing. Comparatively, the Gunks are pretty straight forward.

Jack Durrance apparently sandbagged all his routes...

The Stoned Master wrote:This is supposed to be a fun, productive conversation, not a war zone

That's no fun!

I have noticed that at the Obed in Tennessee. Many locals I talk to seem to claim routes are harder than they are listed as. All the overhanging cave shit feels like 5.23a to me anyway, but I definately noticed that trend when hearing about gunks, seneca, etc.

"Wouldnt it be that the newer established routes are "soft" (maybe because the developers wanted to be climbing harder so they applied harder ratings to make themselves feel better/cooler?) and the STANDARD would be these first/early established routes? "

--This makes the most sense to me, but I'm no developer.

The link for those interested:
climbing.com/news/semi-rad-…

The one-sentence answer is that old trad routes are pretty much consistent across the country, and sport climbs vary but generally range from a little to a lot easier.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but the Gunks, as a rule, didn't seem like a significant exception to me (ok Modern Times is harder than any flavor of 5.8).
To make this concrete, consider Boulder Canyon, which has lots of old trad and newer sport lines. It now has the reputation of being ultra light. I have to assume people who think that are only referring to newer sport lines--the old lines feel just like any other trad place, at least to me. That is, unless you're a very good climber, prepare for a good challenge on some sub 5.10 climbs.

This is how I understand it:

Many of the older routes were established when the YDS was a closed system. Meaning, 5.9 was about the limit of what they thought could be possible back then. As a result, routes were getting harder and harder, but no-one felt like they really had the authority to claim that it could be harder than 5.9.

As a result, "moderate" climbs of the era were graded based on a sliding scale between the easiest/hardest routes in the area.

So lets say its 1967, you have a confirmed 5.2 on the left, a super sick proj on the right that you call 5.9 (even if it might be closer to 5.11), and a new route that falls somewhere in the middle. So lets call it a 6 (even though its probably closer to being an 8).

By this logic, routes just got harder and harder until 5.10 and all his friends finally came into fashion.

IMHO, there is no standard. Every crag and region varies. I try not to get too worked up over the numbers game. I can climb bigger numbers some places, and 5.9 is hard at other crags. Whatever. If I am with cool people and smiling, then it is all good.

I agree that grades, and how hard they feel is due primarily due to skill set. Personally I find 5.11 slab to be very hard, 5.11 vert. to be doable, and 5.11 roof to be relatively easy. Days I climb in Eldorado require considerable more mental fortitude, than days spent in Boulder Canyon. I convinced a positive attitude has the most to do with success. Mornings in Eldo are considerably more focused due to route-finding, runouts, tricky gear etc. Sport days are alot like going to the beach, and therefore can catch you slacking in your focus..my 2-cents

"In the mountains there are only two grades--either you can do it or you can't"

--Rusty Baillie

I'd say relativity. When I first started to climb sport routes in the front range in the late 80's their grade felt similar to old established Eldorado grades with two exceptions, Rossiter routes and the routes in Clear Creek felt soft to me.

I got out of climbing totally for 7 years in the late 90' when I started out again I felt my limit was easier 5.10 in Eldorado on the other hand when I climbed the newer sport routes in Boulder Canyon or CCC anything in the 5.10 range felt easy by a half to a whole grade, 5.11's seemed hard only because I'd gained 20 lbs and my hand strength couldn't combat that fact. So I went to the older sport crags in Boulder Canyon and revisited older routes on Table Mountain and was immediately handed my ass learning that in pre 1998 climbing routes I'm a good solid 5.10- climber, post that period I climb a good half to full grade harder.

So what do I think. It seems the majority of the new climbers today climb sport and many of them learn in gyms. They climb soft routes in the gym, begin on soft sport routes outdoors and perpetuate the soft grading though concensus of the majority. Probably when they get on a trad route and now have to deal with the consequences of placing their own gear or lack of, the climbing feels a lot harder. Think of how much easier the 2nd pitch of Outer Space would feel with one good bolt halfway to the pin.

BTW of the "Classic Sandbags" listed in CLimbing for Eldorado I'd only agree with Rosy mainly due to it's endurance requirements. Some of my favorite Eldorado sandbags are (I'm short) West Buttress, Northcutt, C'est La Vie and Vertigo.

Lastly, thank god for grade inflation I can still hope to be a solid 5.12 climber someday. Of course someone will have to figure out how factor in an age and 5 lbs weight gain per year component into the grades for me.

you also need to remember that many people dont start off on wider cracks like the legends of christmas past

most newer climbers start in the gym, bouldering, or sport climbs

ive seen new people in squamish walk up 5.11 finger cracks and sport climbs, but get destroyed on 5.7 fist cracks ... simply because they almost never practice wider crack techniques ...

those old geezers had to be very good at climbin wide cracks simply because they had so little pro .... the mountain boots may have helped as well

as to "sandbagging" ... it doesnt matter really ... either you can do the climb or you cant ...

the grade IMO here is fairly irrelevant ... a few weeks ago i walked someone up their first "5.11" trad lead safely... that individual had never lead more than 5.9 trad previously and had climbed trad for less than a year

yet its listed in the guidebook as a "testpiece" ...

;)

Bill C. wrote:This is how I understand it: Many of the older routes were established when the YDS was a closed system. Meaning, 5.9 was about the limit of what they thought could be possible back then.

Technically, this logic only applies to the 5.9 difficulty. This is where that argument falls apart.

My developing philosophy: get over it, go outside, and have some fun!

The rating system we use was established just down the hill from me, so my standard is THE standard. Tahquitz/Suicide.

The Stoned Master wrote:The Gunks and Seneca (again just examples) are not sandbagged because a lot/most of their routes were established first. Wouldn't it be that the newer established routes are "soft" (maybe because the developers wanted to be climbing harder so they applied harder ratings to make themselves feel better/cooler?) and the STANDARD would be these first/early established routes?

Yup...that's right. Tahquitz/Suicide is the YDS standard and early east coast climbs largely conform to that standard. These early climbs are the authority and everything else after that, that seems easier by those standards, are soft. It is especially true of sport climbs and some particular areas. I've climbed routes in Red Rocks that are three grades soft.

Charlie S wrote: Technically, this logic only applies to the 5.9 difficulty. This is where that argument falls apart. My developing philosophy: get over it, go outside, and have some fun!

Does it really? If someone puts up a 5.11, but rates it 5.9, then someone who does a climb that "IS" (although there technically is no solid standard) 5.8, then they might rate is as 5.6/7 because it's so much easier than that 5.9 that's really a 5.11. It's a sh!t show really :)

Just look at David Breashears' (sp?) climb that he recounts in High Exposure. Originally, he onsighted it, placing a single wiggly nut, calling it 5.9+ because, well, it felt f*ing hard back then. It now carries a 5.11+ R if I remember correctly. In the end, it's all relative, and ego, bravado, hindsight, post-send goggles, ethics, and style all serve to muddle what would be some sort of golden standard.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Does it really? If someone puts up a 5.11, but rates it 5.9, then someone who does a climb that "IS" (although there technically is no solid standard) 5.8, then they might rate is as 5.6/7 because it's so much easier than that 5.9 that's really a 5.11. It's a sh!t show really :) Just look at David Breashears' (sp?) climb that he recounts in High Exposure. Originally, he onsighted it, placing a single wiggly nut, calling it 5.9+ because, well, it felt f*ing hard back then. It now carries a 5.11+ R if I remember correctly. In the end, it's all relative, and ego, bravado, hindsight, post-send goggles, ethics, and style all serve to muddle what would be some sort of golden standard.

Exactly

Rifle is the Gunks of sport

Rifles are the gunks of sport....

oh wait, sorry, wrong thread

"So lets say its 1967, you have a confirmed 5.2 on the left, a super sick proj on the right that you call 5.9 (even if it might be closer to 5.11), and a new route that falls somewhere in the middle. So lets call it a 6 (even though its probably closer to being an 8)."

This is a good hypothesis to apply to the Gunks, in my experience, irrespective of the efforts made by Dick Williams to re-climb everything as he updated his guides. By the way, I usually find comments on Gunks routes on MP and elsewhere to make the route in question appear to be harder technically and more run-out/harder to protect than I remember. So, are we reverse-sandbagging ourselves or just correcting -- from a modern climber's perspective -- the sandbagging perpetuated on us by our elders? As a relative elder myself, I think the grades at the Gunks are at least internally consistent.

alot of good points have been brought up so far. some I had never thought of.

relativety = keeps things from not getting too boring.

as always I learn alot from these threads (learning from others experience/stories is a preferred method of mine to learn, hence alot of questions) and I appreciate your thoughts and time.