Difference in Climbing Grades

Something I've been wondering about climbing grades: Is the difference between a 5.8 and 5.9 the same as the difference between a 5.10b and 5.10c or 5.10a and 5.11a? I've always thought the latter, and this may seem a bit knit-picky, but I'd appreciate any insight. 

The usual answer is that the incremental increase in difficulty between letter grades from 5.10a on up is equivalent to the difference in number grades below 5.10.  But then what about +/- on lower grades?  In reality there are so many variables and subjectivity involved in grading that it is going to be very in precise at best.

Sean Lutke wrote: Something I've been wondering about climbing grades: Is the difference between a 5.8 and 5.9 the same as the difference between a 5.10b and 5.10c or 5.10a and 5.11a? I've always thought the latter, and this may seem a bit knit-picky, but I'd appreciate any insight. 

If you ever find an objective way to quantify the difficulty of a grade, please, let everyone know. ;)

I think the jump in difficultly between 10a and 11a is a lot biger than the jump in difficultly between 5.9 and 5.10a. The step from 5.9 to 5.10a is about the same as a step from 5.10a to 5.10b.

But if you define "incremental difficultly" as the amount of effort it takes an average climber to go from one grade to the next, then the gap between grades gets BIGGER, not smaller, as the grades go higher.

Most people can move from 5.9 to 5.10a with little effort, and also from 10a to 10b. Most people walk though these early grades easily. In the 5,.11 range things slow down for an average climber, though some people still walk through them quickly. Things slow down, on average, in the 5.12 range, but again, a subset of people will breeze through... More slowdown in the 5.13s, etc... Until you get to the point where the move from 5.14d to 5.15a may require years of effort, and may never come. 

5.10b to 5.10c

Sean Lutke wrote: Something I've been wondering about climbing grades: Is the difference between a 5.8 and 5.9 the same as the difference between a 5.10b and 5.10c or 5.10a and 5.11a? I've always thought the latter, and this may seem a bit knit-picky, but I'd appreciate any insight. 

Simple answer- the change from.8 to .9 is supposed to be the same as a to b. This was laid down by Jim Birdwell back in the early 70’s.... people will argue this, as always, but’s that’s what Jim had in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is this. The change from one grade to another is supposed to be substantial, not just a tad. And one last thing. The grade is based on “the hardest move” not anything else. It doesn’t matter if you’re tired, scared etc. This is the YDS - originally devised at Taquitz (SP) in early mid fifty’s. Fixed by Jim in 74ish. 

I may have missed minor stuff- maybe the people with tons of experience climbing using many different systems will chime in. I’m a Californian I only know YDS. 
Hope it helps 

Guy Keesee wrote:

...The grade is based on “the hardest move” not anything else....

This falsehood has been beat to death, but might as well beat it some more.....  it may have been the case in the early 50's when nobody climbed anything steep or sustained, but in terms of modern routes makes zero sense.

Jim Birdwell? (Two posts up.) Got a chuckle out of that.

The hardest move system certainly does not apply in the north east.  we have tons of climbs that  have a single 10a move on them with 5.8 overall grade.   there are several 9s and 10's in N Conway area with single 11ish moves on them...  In Seneca the 5,6s have 10a moves..   the mindset seems to be its only one move the rest of the climb is easy. suck it up sunshine. 

slim wrote:

This falsehood has been beat to death, but might as well beat it some more.....  it may have been the case in the early 50's when nobody climbed anything steep or sustained, but in terms of modern routes makes zero sense.

Yeah, even in the early days fatigue and endurance had to factor into every route in which the crux was not within the first half-dozen moves. 

Sean Lutke wrote: Something I've been wondering about climbing grades: Is the difference between a 5.8 and 5.9 the same as the difference between a 5.10b and 5.10c or 5.10a and 5.11a? I've always thought the latter, and this may seem a bit knit-picky, but I'd appreciate any insight. 

Grades are a rough guide to make sure people choose the best climb for themselves. Don't over think it.

Some random observations

josh - fisticuffs, one 10b move maybe, at best, short, mostly cruiser, very hand size dependent, gets a 10b.
Illusion dweller - long and sustained route the whole way with maybe 2 great rests, somewhat hand size dependent, for sure a 10a move up top, maybe 10b, gets a 10a/b grade, to me and everyone I know feels miles harder than fisticuffs.
Dolphin - SUPER technique dependent, you know how to climb wide then sure it’s 5.7, otherwise 5.11+ lol

Yose - commitment. Lots of fun easy climbing, maybe in the 5.6 - 5.8 range. 3 pitches, has one tiny section of 5.9 at the main roof, gets a 5.9.
generally chimneys and wide are treated as safer climbing by the old masters, which throws off all the grading a bit for the new crowd.
Somehow ahab is 10b.
Somehow moby dick is the same difficulty as sacherer cracker.

Tahquitz - Randy Vogel schooled me on MP that jamcrack was 5.7 for 50 years. For me, when comparing it to all the other 5.8s at tahquitz it felt sandbagged until I repeated it a year later. Super technique dependent.
Whodunnit gets 5.9 for a few legit 5.9 moves on a mostly chill climb. Long gets 5.8 and is a bit more sustained or perhaps “blue collar/burly”.
Open Book the text book 5.9 has two brief sections of 5.9 only, a few moves, on a 3 pitch route. Text book 5.9 I’ve been told, many many times : )

Then there’s needles
they very purposely ignored steepness and how sustained something is when grading. 5.8s feel like 5.9+. 5.9+ feels like hard 10a, etc.

What do my ramblings and other posts get at?
I don’t have any idea. Study the history of the way things were rated when and why, check the FA info, know the grading style of the crag you’re at. Try to think of them as a loose guide only. There is no way to make complete order of it. Beware of old old 5.10s and the dreaded plus grades. Gear ratings are probably objectively more important to sus out than whether something is 5.7 or 5.8+. 

Tradiban wrote:

Grades are a rough guide to make sure people choose the best climb for themselves. Don't over think it.

Tradiban - I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the YDS seems far from a "rough guide". I find the grades on most popular/semi-popular routes to be very accurate, but have always been a bit unsure of how letter grades on harder climbs compare to number grades on single-digit 5th class routes. Lots of great insight on this thread from all you guys/gals who decided to contribute. Thanks!

I think the “hardest move” rule should apply on the floor but not the ceiling, if that makes any sense.  In other words, if a climb has mandatory 5.10 moves on it, it should be (at minimum) a 5.10, even if it’s only a few moves, but if a route is super sustained and/or pumpy I’m ok raising the grade beyond what the hardest moves are.  My thinking is that a grade should give you a rough indication about whether or not you have the strength and/or technical abilities to climb a route; doing so cleanly is not a guarantee, however.  If a 5.8 climber gets on a 5.7 route and has to pull 5.10 moves, even if just for a second, that seems like a broken system to me.

Guy Keesee wrote:

Simple answer- the change from.8 to .9 is supposed to be the same as a to b. This was laid down by Jim Birdwell back in the early 70’s.... people will argue this, as always, but’s that’s what Jim had in mind. Another thing to keep in mind is this. The change from one grade to another is supposed to be substantial, not just a tad. And one last thing. The grade is based on “the hardest move” not anything else. It doesn’t matter if you’re tired, scared etc. This is the YDS - originally devised at Taquitz (SP) in early mid fifty’s. Fixed by Jim in 74ish. 

I may have missed minor stuff- maybe the people with tons of experience climbing using many different systems will chime in. I’m a Californian I only know YDS. 
Hope it helps 

Interesting information, I guess I didn’t fully get in my head that the grade would be equivalently harder between number as letter grades.

Amazing experiences happen. Sometimes you feel a nut hair shiver as it braces against history and a bottle of fortified wine ignites a strict search for climbing’s bona fides. 

In reality, the YDS is not a scale with accuracy, say, like an atomic clock, but rather  a loose guideline based on someone's "feelings" about how difficult a climb is. Therefore, trying to apply scientific logic  to it on how it should apply to incremental difficulties is imprecise at best

My personal opinion based on how it feels to me is that climbing grades are on an exponential scale in regards to number grades 5.0-5.11 (don't have enough experience to comment on more difficult grades). So each number grade step up is maybe twice as big an increase in difficulty. So the gap from 5.8 to 5.9 is bigger than the gap from 5.4 to 5.5. And the gap from 5.10d to 5.11d is bigger than the gap from 5.10a to 5.11a. But the gap between 5.10a and 5.10b is definitely smaller than the gap between middling 5.9 and 5.10a. But I would argue that 5.9 covers a large range of difficulties (if you lump +/- grades in), nearly equivalent to the range bwteen 10a and 10d. Maybe this opinion is just because I'm weak :)

Because of exponential nature of the scale (in my head), I would say the difference between 5.8 and 5.9 to be similar to the difference between 10a and 10c.

Paul Zander wrote: My personal opinion based on how it feels to me is that climbing grades are on an exponential scale in regards to number grades 5.0-5.11 (don't have enough experience to comment on more difficult grades). So each number grade step up is maybe twice as big an increase in difficulty. So the gap from 5.8 to 5.9 is bigger than the gap from 5.4 to 5.5.

At least that's what we do when setting (and grading)  routes and boulder problems in gyms.

Sean Lutke wrote: Tradiban - I think I understand what you're trying to say, but the YDS seems far from a "rough guide". I find the grades on most popular/semi-popular routes to be very accurate, but have always been a bit unsure of how letter grades on harder climbs compare to number grades on single-digit 5th class routes. Lots of great insight on this thread from all you guys/gals who decided to contribute. Thanks!

No. That's just a perception you have. Grades are based on opinion and are unquantifiable. 

Plus there are many factors in that go into that opinion, personal factors and otherwise. Short people, tall people, strong people, weak people, whiney people, confident people, they will all have slightly different experiences that will affect their opinion of the grade.

If you do personally find a difference between number grades and letter grades it's because the number grades (5.0 to 5.9) were developed earlier than the letter grades and on a different sort of "scale". It's all in the history books.

Daniel Joder wrote: Jim Birdwell? (Two posts up.) Got a chuckle out of that.

You do know who he was? Don’t you  Daniel? 

Happy you get chuckles on MP. I normally get hysterical laughter when reading the stuff on here. 

Cole D wrote: Some random observations

josh - fisticuffs, one 10b move maybe, at best, short, mostly cruiser, very hand size dependent, gets a 10b.
Illusion dweller - long and sustained route the whole way with maybe 2 great rests, somewhat hand size dependent, for sure a 10a move up top, maybe 10b, gets a 10a/b grade, to me and everyone I know feels miles harder than fisticuffs.
Dolphin - SUPER technique dependent, you know how to climb wide then sure it’s 5.7, otherwise 5.11+ lol

Yose - commitment. Lots of fun easy climbing, maybe in the 5.6 - 5.8 range. 3 pitches, has one tiny section of 5.9 at the main roof, gets a 5.9.
generally chimneys and wide are treated as safer climbing by the old masters, which throws off all the grading a bit for the new crowd.
Somehow ahab is 10b.
Somehow moby dick is the same difficulty as sacherer cracker.

Tahquitz - Randy Vogel schooled me on MP that jamcrack was 5.7 for 50 years. For me, when comparing it to all the other 5.8s at tahquitz it felt sandbagged until I repeated it a year later. Super technique dependent.
Whodunnit gets 5.9 for a few legit 5.9 moves on a mostly chill climb. Long gets 5.8 and is a bit more sustained or perhaps “blue collar/burly”.
Open Book the text book 5.9 has two brief sections of 5.9 only, a few moves, on a 3 pitch route. Text book 5.9 I’ve been told, many many times : )

Are you high? Where do i even start with this? Dolphin 5.11+.... Good grief

master gumby wrote:

Are you high? Where do i even start with this? Dolphin 5.11+.... Good grief

Learn to read

or work on your attention span to read someone’s whole post if you’re going to reply to it
or be a better troll
or to have a civil discussion 
i stand by what i said, if someone doesn’t have wide technique dolphins grade will feel wildly inaccurate.
Good luck man