Sandbagging does not make you tough

xx

Yeah i think it’s the last part it’s pretty funny 

I'd like to hear the referenced podcasts where climbers are saying that sandbagging makes you tough.  

No, but sandbagging is fun. It also makes one’s rivals feel bad, and that is fun also. 

Are certain craigs really sandbagging?  Or are the area developers (or you the climber) rating based on your respective personal history???  Example, Vantage or Leavenworth 5.9 is a 5.10-5.11 in most indoor gyms.   Does that make it sandbagged?!
edit: I would argue that gym ratings tend to be very soft.   Suppose that’s another thread...

Vantage is soft af. Gyms are a joke.

Don’t mean to hate on vantage, the climbing is awesome. But 5.11 there compared to 5.11 at Indian creek or j tree is way more chill. 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

I hear it a lot that sandbagging some how makes you tough. 

I have literally never heard anyone say this.

The key is to only give sandbag grades to routes below your limit, while accurately grading routes AT your limit, to give the illusion of a greater gap in ability between you and the climber you are sandbagging.

Sandbagging started years ago when the hardest grade was 5.9.  5.10 and above didn’t exist.  They didn’t think 5.10 was possible.

And...  no climbers are really tough until they’ve climbed Modern Times 5.8 at the Gunks.    ;)

No it doesn't make you tough but it does often make for hilarious stories.

Nic Gravley wrote:

Vantage is soft af. Gyms are a joke.

Don’t mean to hate on vantage, the climbing is awesome. But 5.11 there compared to 5.11 at Indian creek or j tree is way more chill. 

I would generally agree vantage is soft but people forget the same guy put up Indextasy  and king of the ruins. 

ubu wrote:

I have literally never heard anyone say this.

I will differ to the links above. Cedar wright wrote an article that pretty much said grade inflation is because climbers are getting softer. I don't think your toughness is based on whether you call something a 5.6 or a 5.10. I would also say someone who goes around downgrading every route what point are they proving. Like if you think 80% of routes are soft what is your actual benchmark. People cite the bachar yerrian its the fact its dangerous is what makes it tough, it doesn't matter that people call it 11c now.

If grades are irrelevant to toughness which I think they are everyone should agree that if you climb in index or vantage your just as hardcore and gritty.

Pete S wrote:

Are certain craigs really sandbagging?  Or are the area developers (or you the climber) rating based on your respective personal history???  Example, Vantage or Leavenworth 5.9 is a 5.10-5.11 in most indoor gyms.   Does that make it sandbagged?!
edit: I would argue that gym ratings tend to be very soft.   Suppose that’s another thread...

You are correct. Gym grades are soft. They're hardly even grades. Having someone struggle to do a V0 isn't a great business model.

Outdoor grades being harder than gym grades is not sandbagging. It's comparing apples and oranges. 

Depends on how many sandbags you fill per hour per day per year.

Nobody cares

I do, I want to know how many sandbags other people are filling. 

My goal when giving something an initial grade is to not be downgraded OR upgraded. Accurate grades are much tougher to pinpoint than just sandbagging everything. If you sandbag, it just means you're lazy af, or like the op stated, have a tough time counting to 15!

Maybe the social engineers here at MP can solve the sandbagging thing once and for all? Surely the rating algorithm can be tweaked to de-sand the sandbagged routes and puff some air back into the deflated egos? That's like two lines of code.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

I think this concept is entirely born out of insecurity, people want to tell themselves they are somehow better than another group of climbers so they apply the label of tough to give themselves a sense of superiority. Sandbagging does not prove toughness at all, if anything it proves that people have fragile egos. 

This same observation could be applied to complaining about sandbagging.  People want to tell themselves that they are somehow better than they actually are, so they apply a negative label to climbs that are graded within their perceived skill level but that they cannot complete.  "As a '5.12 climber,' anything that I cannot climb must be harder than 5.12 or is mis-graded."  

Todd Berlier wrote:

you have climbing "rivals?"....

No, but I do have enemies. Please understand, this IS climbing! And, climbing IS serious business. And, serious business IS serious business!

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Maybe the social engineers here at MP can solve the sandbagging thing once and for all? Surely the rating algorithm can be tweaked to de-sand the sandbagged routes and puff some air back into the deflated egos? That's like two lines of code.

MP already uses consenus grades. If people upgrade something and enough people feel like it was correct in the first place they can always just rate it like 10 grades lower to bring it back down to where it was before.

Bryan wrote:

MP already uses consenus grades. If people upgrade something and enough people feel like it was correct in the first place they can always just rate it like 10 grades lower to bring it back down to where it was before.

Wait...that’s sandbagging the sandbag.  If everyone games the system, it negates consensus grading.