grading a climb by the single hardest move

sorry to start the weekly climbing grade debate but i was hoping for some enlightenment. namely i was wondering what the rationale is for grading a route by its single hardest move only. for example, if you felt the single hardest move of the route was "a 5.11b move", you would grade the climb 5.11b without taking into consideration the rest of the climb--how sustained the rest of the route is, whether a rest before the crux offers any recovery, etc.

this question has been growing on me because it seems like the most reasonable way to grade a climb would be to grade its overall difficulty--not just a single move. yet probably 1/4 of the climbers i know insist on grading a climb by its single hardest move, regardless of anything else. one friend of mine hangdogged his way up a very sustained route on toprope that i called 5.10 (in his defense, he was out of shape and admitted it) then called the route 5.10- because he "thought no move was harder than 10-".

so, all you "single hardest move" advocates, what is your rationale for grading this way?

just to get this out of the way up front, i will role play one of 50 or so people who i know would want to post something like the following after reading my post:

"nah bro, the grade doesn't matter at all! just climb and have fun dude and don't worry about the grade. george bush murders babies, man! could you pass the bong, brah? one love!"

Jon, first of all, many people think it is bad form to grade routes that one is not at least "close" to freeing. It is my understanding and custom to grade routes and pitches by the "single hardest move." Many routes have an endurance factor which can, and is, often noted in the description.

Just my $.02

I have definitely been on routes where a majority of the climbing is say, 5.8, with one 5.11 move. Therefore, the grade is 5.11, based on the "single hardest move." Then there's the route that consists of four or five 5.12a moves in a row, resulting in an extremely sustained pitch. The single hardest move is still .12a, but the grade ends up being 5.12b. Hmmm...

Yeah, if the route is sustained it should be noted in the description but that shouldn't change its rating. I think upping the grade to match the sustained nature of a climb is the main cause of soft grades at a lot of steep sport craggs. I've climbed 5.11d's that didn't have a move harder than 5.8 in them. Sure it's really sustained 5.8 and you're kind of pumped by the end, but it's still only 5.8, maybe call it 5.8+.

One factor to consider is sustained is more subjective than technical difficulty. If one person is in great climbing shape, he/she may not find a route very pumpy or sustained. But, his/her buddy that is not in climbing shape may find it sustained. But, these two people are still likely to closely agree on the difficulty of the hardest move, as in your example.

On the other hand some routes, such as desert splitter cracks can reflect sustainedness and the grade gets bumbed up a bit for that reason. For example, a route that has one or two moves of tight hands but is otherwise good hands my be 10-. But, 60 feet of the same tight hands may be 10+ or 11-.

All in all I find the YDS to be a little inadequate. I have sent some routes harder than expected cause there is only one or two moves of the grade (nice ego boost) and I've been schooled on easier routes because I got pumped (humbling). I think the British system gives more info about a climb, although I don't really understand it.

Climb on!

This is an exercise attempting to introduce objectivity to something that is inherently subjective.

There are many reasons to grade a climb. For me, the most important is so I can decide whether I want to climb it. Let's say I'm sussing out something at Red Rock. I can see the first 100 feet, and it looks very easy; say huge varnished plates on either side of a crack that's hungry for gear. But if the guide says it's 5.8, I have an inkling that the final 50 or so feet that are out of sight from the ground might contain a surprise or two. The 5.8 grading -- based on the hardest moves -- will help me decide whether or not to get on it.

Other reasons for grading a climb or talking about it might be ego gratification or to slag on other climbers. YMMV.

It think it's important, when considering the grade, to know a little about the area, the rock, the grading ethos and the history. A climb rated 5.9 in 1978 (for example) has a high probability of spanking you, rather than one designated 5.9 in 2001. YMMV

If you regularly climb 5.12s on gear, you might have a hard time deciding if a move is 5.8 or 5.9. YMMV

And yes, now that you mention it, George Bush is a war criminal, not that that has anything to do with grading a climb.

ok, some people have mentioned they do grade based on the single hardest move only, but i still do not quite understand your reasoning. could you guys explain it in more detail?

could you also answer this question: if a route is harder to redpoint (or onsight, or flash, whatever the case may be) than the one-move wonder next to it because it is sustained and there are no rests, but has no single move harder than that one move on the other climb, do you think the two should receive the same grade even though the sustained climb overall is much harder?

also, regarding sustained climbs and "endurance factor":

sure endurance is a matter of conditioning, but it also attests to the technical ability of a climber to be able to do the moves more efficiently than his stronger, yet less-skilled partner. simply doing the moves is a completely different thing from doing the moves in the way that uses the least effort. i know plenty of older climbers who are able to climb much harder than us stronger yet less-experienced young'uns on routes that are "sustained", and "endurance" routes, and the reason is because they are much more skilled than we are and are able to do the moves using less energy.

so i think when speaking of "endurance" and "sustained" routes, the ability to do these climbs does not solely (or even mostly) rest on physical conditioning.

Good question. How do you grade by a single move? What if a hard move can be done easily one way, but then sets you up for a very hard next move? Wouldn't you then have to grade the sequence?

Even boulder problems are graded for overall difficulty, not single hardest move.

Bryan, I am sure you are being facetious, but it is a stretch to argue that a sustained 5.8 could ever be 5.11d, I doubt such an example exists. For those who would argue that the single hardest move is the best way to grade, consider this (yes, it is a limiting case).

You have two climbs. One climb has 5.6 climbing book ending one hard 5.12 move. The second climb has 75 feet of continuous climbing where EVERY move is as hard as the one move on the first climb. Is the second climb harder? Of course. You can argue about the best way to grade this discrepancy, but surely the two climbs are not of equal difficulty.

Bryan Gohn wrote:I've climbed 5.11d's that didn't have a move harder than 5.8 in them.

Name one.

J. Albers wrote:Bryan, I am sure you are being facetious, but it is a stretch to argue that a sustained 5.8 could ever be 5.11d, I doubt such an example exists. For those who would argue that the single hardest move is the best way to grade, consider this (yes, it is a limiting case). You have two climbs. One climb has 5.6 climbing book ending one hard 5.12 move. The second climb has 75 feet of continuous climbing where EVERY move is as hard as the one move on the first climb. Is the second climb harder? Of course. You can argue about the best way to grade this discrepancy, but surely the two climbs are not of equal difficulty.

Examples such as that are why it is important for the grade to take into consideration the bigger picture of the climb.

What if the first example was the 5th pitch of a climb where it was difficult to retreat? There are TONS of climbers out there who can't do a tricky V4 or V5 boulder problem that would be in serious trouble when they got to that one hard move. There are plenty of times when hang-dogging just won't get you past a difficult section, whereas an easier but more consistent route can probably be climbed by a larger percentage of people, even if it could technically receive the same grade.

imo, routes should be graded based on the hardest move(s) because that is the level of ability required to complete the route. if 5.10 is the absolute limit of your ability, it doesn't matter whether a 5.10 climb has only one 5.11 move or many...it's going to be beyond your ability.

BrianH wrote:YMMV.

What's that mean? YMMV?

Crag Dweller wrote:imo, routes should be graded based on the hardest move(s) because that is the level of ability required to complete the route. if 5.10 is the absolute limit of your ability, it doesn't matter whether a 5.10 climb has only one 5.11 move or many...it's going to be beyond your ability.

I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, but I think this is the best argument for the "hardest-move theory"

Killis Howard wrote:As an afterthought I'd like to add that getting in over your head and bailing can be a valid growth stimulus and is certainly more useful than looking at the internet on your lunch hour.

k. the next time i'm able to go climbing on my lunch hour i'll do that instead of posting on the internet. in the meantime i'm going to continue this discussion on a subject which i feel is worth discussing.

but yeah, as bob said, you're good at wordsmithery.

J. Albers wrote:...You have two climbs. One climb has 5.6 climbing book ending one hard 5.12 move. The second climb has 75 feet of continuous climbing where EVERY move is as hard as the one move on the first climb. Is the second climb harder? Of course. You can argue about the best way to grade this discrepancy, but surely the two climbs are not of equal difficulty.

I think you should pose that question to the person who can climb at the level of the second climb in your example but isn't a 5.12 climber. I'll bet that person would tell you the 5.12 is harder because s/he can't finish it.

Wehling wrote: What's that mean? YMMV?

Your Mileage May Vary.

I'm confused, it should be 5.6, 5.9+, or 5.too; I can't relate to anything else

The simple fact is that those who believe routes are graded based on the hardest move are out of touch with current events.

That may have been the way things were done at [--insert obscure crag--] back in [--insert date that begins with 19xx--], but that is not the way things are done now at any signficant crag in the country.