Does knowing a route's beta lower the grade?

I've heard a couple people at my gym say "Well, once you know the beta, it's only [two or three grades easier]." Is this a thing? Does knowing the beta for a route drop the grade? Is there some way of defining a routefinding difficulty without calling it different grades? For context, this is usually talking about indoor routes on synthetic rock (not a set route with holds, it's one of those dumb Entreprise fake walls). But, I could see this also on real rock, where a route takes a while to figure out. What are your thoughts?

Makes it easier to climb clean (eliminates wasted energy trying wrong/less efficient moves). Does not lower the grade. If you need to do a 5.12 pull up on crimps, knowing you have to do that does not make it 5.10.

Not in the context of indoor routes IMHO. However, in some EU guides I've seen 'onsight' grades distinguished from 'redpoint' grades. 

A crag like Rifle has a reputation for being sandbagged, because it's graded for the 'redpoint'  and assumes you know the 4 hard to find semi-kneebars which makes on-siting much harder. 

The Red River Gorge on the other hand, in my experience, is a pure fitness party. Beta tends to be straightforward. If you have the guns for a route, you stand a good chance to onsite, if you don't - redpointing is still going to be difficult.

Matthew Stark wrote:

I've heard a couple people at my gym say "Well, once you know the beta, it's only [two or three grades easier]." Is this a thing? Does knowing the beta for a route drop the grade? Is there some way of defining a routefinding difficulty without calling it different grades? For context, this is usually talking about indoor routes on synthetic rock (not a set route with holds, it's one of those dumb Entreprise fake walls). But, I could see this also on real rock, where a route takes a while to figure out. What are your thoughts?

A route's grade doesn't change whether you know the beta or not.  But some routes are a lot easier to climb at the grade if you know the beta -- others it doesn't matter so much.  It depends on whether there are non-obvious (hard to guess/find without beta) holds/moves or not.

Colin Brochard wrote:

Not in the context of indoor routes IMHO. However, in some EU guides I've seen 'onsight' grades distinguished from 'redpoint' grades. 

A crag like Rifle has a reputation for being sandbagged, because it's graded for the 'redpoint'  and assumes you know the 4 hard to find semi-kneebars which makes on-siting much harder. 

The Red River Gorge on the other hand, in my experience, is a pure fitness party. Beta tends to be straightforward. If you have the guns for a route, you stand a good chance to onsite, if you don't - redpointing is still going to be difficult.

IMO can apply to any route, indoor or outside.

Couple examples, Indoor:
1) the setter might have intended a sequence that felt like V5. But the setter had a tunnel vision and didn't realize that there was a different way of doing the sequence. A few climbers quickly discovered that matching the undercling and skipping the sloper makes it more like a V3. IMO this is usually a sign of a not-very-good problem, and no setter wants to be that setter who didn't anticipate a much easier sequence. But it happens.
2) A setter had put in a sequence of moves that most indoor climbers of that grade do not commonly use. A bicycle, heel-toe cam, AND a rose move? WTF is a Rose move? This thing is impossible!!!! Sandbag!!!! Once the climber stopped fuming about the horrible sandbag, and watched the setter climb the route, he discovers that it actually isn't all that hard, once you get that heel-toe cam thing, and twist yourself weirdly into this thing called a rose move.

A better way to phrase the question: Does not knowing the beta raise the grade? No. You just suck at climbing until you figure out how to do it. And by you, I mean we.

Chris Hatzai wrote:

For all of the routes ive developed so far, the grading has been based off of having the perfect beta and getting the send. Not first hand impressions of what the grade feels like onsiting.

Guess it’s like pick your poison though.. I’ve heard several people disagree 

Yea, I think this is the way it generally is done in the states, and frankly what makes the most sense to me. The only drawback being, areas with hard to read sequences and weird beta (see Rifle) are going to feel stiff as balls to the visiting climber.

Like I said, I've heard the notion of 'onsight' grades, but there's no limit to how badly you could fuck a sequence up thereby making something infinitely harder. Seems like onsight grades would have to be more subjective, but perhaps this could be mitigated with a consensus approach to come up with a 'fair' onsight grade? I feel like this is how it's done for some vacation sprot climbing destinations (Kalymnos, Thailand etc.) and this also makes sense to me. Might by why some consider those areas soft too though...

I would say “no,” but not having the beta will definitely make a climb feel harder and areas with unusual/tricky beta often are often accused of being sandbagged (e.g: Devil’s Lake), even if the grades are spot on once you work out the beta.

The distinction between onsight and flash seems to indicate that, to some extent at least, the climbing world believes that having information makes getting up a route easier. In reality, it probably depends on many factors others have already mentioned; I don't know that 'having the beta' confers much advantage at Indian Creek, for instance. Anecdotally, my personal experience is similar to John's; ruthlessly wired routes absolutely feel easier than novel routes given the same grade.

Almost all grading systems are based on redpoint grades, which assumes you have perfect beta. The only exception I know of is British trad grades, which are supposed to be on sight grades.

Different areas will be graded for onsight or redpoints. It is common nowadays to grade for redpoints but it wasn't always so.

It´s all a bit vague really at least in Europe, the lower sport grades are generally going to be some sort of onsight up to around 6c or so and after that it´s asumed you are redpointing but it´s difficult to be accurate as it depends on how hard it is to read the route, how hard it is to hang around and work out the moves (onsighting) and so on. All the new routes I´ve done are graded with some element of beta since it´s hard to clean and bolt them without knowing where the holds are AND many of the routes are nowhere near my limit anyway which makes grading doubly difficult. 

When climbing something new at crags that grade implicitly or explicitly by redpoint-- Spearfish Canyon (which pockets to use), New River (how the hell does this go?)--  I assume that the routes will be hard to read or in some other way frustrating for the stated grade. Having the beta in advance can really change that; so it will feel easier. But the move difficulty remains the same. It is just that the beta makes me a better climber for that particular route. Some "circus trick" gym routes, with the setter sitting back in the shadows and laughing evilly at people flailing around on them, work the same way.

Mark O

Austin Donisan wrote:

Almost all grading systems are based on redpoint grades, which assumes you have perfect beta. The only exception I know of is British trad grades, which are supposed to be on sight grades.

Probably because most of the time if you fall, you die lol.

Matthew Stark wrote:

I've heard a couple people at my gym say "Well, once you know the beta, it's only [two or three grades easier]." Is this a thing? Does knowing the beta for a route drop the grade? Is there some way of defining a routefinding difficulty without calling it different grades? For context, this is usually talking about indoor routes on synthetic rock (not a set route with holds, it's one of those dumb Entreprise fake walls). But, I could see this also on real rock, where a route takes a while to figure out. What are your thoughts?

The grade doesn't change but your ability to climb it will. I was out with some friends onetime and we were all getting pissed at this one V2 route that we couldn't climb after climbing other V5 / V6 route easy. We ended up looking at a video online and realized we were climbing it to far to the right and there was a massive jug at the end on the left we were trying to climb the route without. So using the wrong beta we basically were making  it a V5+ problem because we were kinda skipping some jugs.

I don't think knowing the beta lowers the grade, I think more often NOT knowing the beta simply makes the route feel harder than the grade.

Austin Donisan wrote:

Almost all grading systems are based on redpoint grades, which assumes you have perfect beta. The only exception I know of is British trad grades, which are supposed to be on sight grades.

Aren't there British routes where the discovery of some hidden gear placement on "abseil" dropped the E grade? Perhaps even Britain has redpoint grades, at least at the upper level

I don't think being told the beta changes the grade much. having the moves dialed is a totaly different game though.   I get that hard sport climbs have a redpoint grade but feel that is an asinine way to grade multipitch and moderate single pitch. the kind of climbs you hit when traveling and just walk up to them blind and try to climb them should have an onsight grade. The opinion  of how easy it is from the dude who has done the rig hundreds of times is pretty much irrelevant to the tourist who just wants to get on something fun in their comfort zone.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I don't think being told the beta changes the grade much. having the moves dialed is a totaly different game though.   I get that hard sport climbs have a redpoint grade but feel that is an asinine way to grade multipitch and moderate single pitch. the kind of climbs you hit when traveling and just walk up to them blind and try to climb them should have an onsight grade. The opinion  of how easy it is from the dude who has done the rig hundreds of times is pretty much irrelevant to the tourist who just wants to get on something fun in their comfort zone.

Onsight grade isn't a good grading system because it could mean that 1 person finds it a 5.7 and another person who climbs it completely wrong finds it 5.11 because they did it completely different. I find alot of guide books give notes if the route has some kind of strange movement in it that makes an onsight harder than normal.

Victor K wrote:

A better way to phrase the question: Does not knowing the beta raise the grade? No. You just suck at climbing until you figure out how to do it. And by you, I mean we.

I'm with this.  There are plenty of climbs where the most obvious move is to go to a crappy hold, while if you skip that one and go for a less obvious move, you end up with a better hold.  Or maybe there is a pecific sequence, or you need flag your foot before you pull a move, or whatever...  For the folks that can sort out these moves on the fly, they get the on-sight.  if you know about the move and pull it, you get the flash.  If you have to climb it more than once to sort out the move, a redpoint for you.  That's why one type of clean climb is harder than the next.  But the grade should be based on how hard it is to finish the route as a redpoint/flash, not an on-sight.

No. Knowing beta might make a route easier to climb. But the grade is the grade.