I don’t understand bouldering grades

Why do some grades e.g. V4, V5, and V8 actually have 2 grades in them? V4 has 6B and 6B+, V5 has 6C and 6C+, and V8 has 7B and 7B+. So these grades are essentially twice as wide as the rest of the grades. Makes no sense to me, why not have a 1:1 or equal distribution?

For all I know it's because the conversion is just an approximation. Both scales evolved independently, and problems were graded using them, but as the same problems can be graded by different people 'fluent' in one or both of the two scales, this is probably the best we can do. Both scales should essentially be linear in themselves, but up to 7c+/v10 there are eighteen commonly used font grades and fourteen commonly used v grades (IIRC), so 1:1 conversion cannot work. It helps to view the translation as "-ish".

You’ve been a member here on the Proj for 3+ years, give it another 3 and you’ll get it. Patience Daniel son.

And read up on French scale vs. YDS vs. B scale etc 

More evidence that grades aren’t real. 

A V wrote:

I'll be honest I have no idea what the objective difference between a V4, V5 and a V6 is.

With a little more experience and bouldering mileage you will

A V wrote:

I'll be honest I have no idea what the objective difference between a V4, V5 and a V6 is. 

Me too! 

I also cannot tell the difference between all the grades that I've never done.

Anthony _ wrote:

Why do some grades e.g. V4, V5, and V8 actually have 2 grades in them? V4 has 6B and 6B+, V5 has 6C and 6C+, and V8 has 7B and 7B+. So these grades are essentially twice as wide as the rest of the grades. Makes no sense to me, why not have a 1:1 or equal distribution?

Because the V scale gets from V0 to V17 in 18 increments. The Font scale covers the same difficulty range (4 to 9a) in something like 22 increments (depending how you count very easy problems). So multiple Font grades have to span single V grades. The only question is which grades get smooshed together.

The Moonboard app does it the way you describe, however, and is unquestionably correct. Sorry. You still get 550 points for sending a 6b+, even if it's a sandbag.

 But other conversion charts match up the wider V-scale increments with the narrower Font increments in slightly different ways: link  (these are interesting but wrong)

As problems given a certain grade fall into a bell curve that overlaps with the adjacent grades, it's expected that easy 6c's will feel V4-ish and hard 6c+s feel V6ish. Such is life.

For a real trip, go climb at one of the Bouldering Project Gyms with the color system that spans three V grades, or up to 5 font grades!! (red is v0-v2; black is v4-v6 [6b-7a!!]). 

Another way to think about it is that grades are language we use to describe the experience of climbing (or attempting to climb) a problem. We use grades to attempt to describe something called "difficulty," which only one of infinite dimensions of the climbing experience and which itself can be subdivided in to infinite dimensions of movement (hold size, distance between holds, directionality, texture, angle, awkwardness, etc...). And like language, the translation of grades is not necessarily a code that can be easily or straightforwardly translated between rock types, cultures, or contexts.

Language itself, for example, is not easily translated. The dictionary is not just a code book for another language. Pain  is usually translated from French as "bread." But does that translation really capture the cultural associations and layered meanings that a Parisian brings to the concept of pain as compared to an American looking at a slice of Wonderbread?  Or the experience of a Hatian or a West African conception of bread as compared to an Irish person's? Yes, the translation works for mutual intelligibility at the grocery store or boulangerie, but so much is lost. And it's the search for connection and understanding across these linguistic and cultural divides--striving to actually understand someone on their own terms--that provides for so much of the richness of the human experience.

In English, you can look at either an eagle or a sparrow and refer to either of them as a "bird." But in Spanish, you can't. A little bird is a pájaro and a big bird is an ave. The language forces you to make a distinction. 

In the US, you climb a V5. But in France, it can't just be a V5. You have to choose whether it's a 6c or a 6c+. It's one or the other, not both. 

I don't think this is a burden: I think it's an opportunity to reflect on the contextual differences between different climbing cultures, different climbing histories, and what we even mean when we think about the concept of difficulty.

It was easier when it was just B1, B2 and B3. 

B3 was an unrepeated line and as soon as it got repeated it became B2 so there were essentially only two grades. Easy, no?

For me the grade is strongly correlated with how long I need to rest between serious send attempts, rather than the number of attempts it takes to send. For instance a V4 slab problem may involve very low percentage moves but you don't get tired while repeatedly trying it over a short period of time, while a burly V6 might be easier to flash but would require some good rests between goes.

Everything is a v4 until it lands on a Mellow video

A V wrote:

I'm curious, how are you aware of what boulders I have or have not done? 

I don't know which ones you have done, and I really hope that you do all the ones you aspire to !

A V wrote:

A Josh V4 is the same as most V6s in most places. 

In my experience the bouldering grades in J tree isn't stiffer than other places (and by other places I mean the northeast).

I think climbing grades should be, and usually are, determined by consensus. If you think a climb is soft, downgrade it. If you think it's stiff, upgrade it. The grade doesn't matter until it is at your limit, in the style that you want to climb well, and then it does matter.

There should be an elo-like system where all routes are compared to all other routes, and people can compare routes they have done to other routes in a head to head kind of style. kind of like "facemash" which preceded facebook, our any head to head ranking system. with a lot of inputs and comparisons of routes people have done. At least then you can avoid attaching an arbitrary number grade that is just not that precise, and instead actually get meaningful average comparison between routes.

Wali K wrote:

There should be an elo-like system where all routes are compared to all other routes, and people can compare routes they have done to other routes in a head to head kind of style. kind of like "facemash" which preceded facebook, our any head to head ranking system. with a lot of inputs and comparisons of routes people have done. At least then you can avoid attaching an arbitrary number grade that is just not that precise, and instead actually get meaningful average comparison between routes.

I think someone tried that on here a few months ago, and concluded that like a bunch of 12a's were actually 5.9. or vice versa. I suspect it was a problem with execution rather than concept though. I like the idea.

A V wrote:

I’m 9 years in, when do you suppose that will be?

A Josh V4 is the same as most V6s in most places. A V4 slab is usually much harder than a V5 roof, etc etc etc. My view is that grades don’t mean shit - they are just a wild ego driven stab at how hard somebody thinks it might be. Doesn’t normally translate perfectly to how hard it will be for you, specifically. I’ve sent many boulders that are considered hard for the grade for others that were easy for me. I’ve also flailed many times on boulders that others found to be easy for the grade when others didn’t. You end up leaving with the understanding that the V grade doesn’t really mean much (or you can be a dum dum and puff your chest out and claim that everything at this area is soft - and ignore that there were some that were unreasonably stiff - which is what quite a few dudes seem to do).

I’m sure this changes as you actually approach an elite level of climbing, but for us mortals it’s really hard  to say with certainty what a grade is or isn’t - it’s all a rough approximation - which may or may not be right for others - that based on personal experience, climbing style, and your proportions/biomechanics. 

With regards to differences in between Josh V4 and say Leavenworth V6 I think it makes sense if you consider the history of route development and the evolution of climbing skills. Many of the Josh sandbagged V4s were put up in the pre gym pre sport climbing era by climbers who probably developed their climbing skills almost entirely at JTree or other similar areas. As such it makes sense that those climbers were masters of JTree's very particular style and routes that may feel hard to an outsider might feel easier to them. Comparatively Leavenworth was developed much more recently and also features climbs which (in my opinion) cater more to the skill set of most current day climbers. Obviously grades are still subjective and yatta yatta, but I think its also important to realize that the average climber 40 years ago also just had different strengths and weaknesses than the average climber has today.

Heyzeus wrote:

It was easier when it was just B1, B2 and B3. 

B3 was an unrepeated line and as soon as it got repeated it became B2 so there were essentially only two grades. Easy, no?

B1 was tops in roped climbing, around 5.9 or 5.10 in the late '50s. Sport climbing came along later and essentially moved bouldering into that realm, as well as a surge in difficulty in trad, fouling up my simplistic system! Today a B1 would be roughly equivalent to 5.16 (?) or so. 

A B3 could be reduced to B2 or even B1. The whole thing seems like nonsense now, but it worked pretty well for a small contingent of boulderers back then. Jim Holloway even had his own version in the 1980s: JHeasy, JHmedium, JHhard. 

I didn't go with a simple progressive unbounded scale because I hoped the sport would not reduce to number chasing. In this I was hopelessly naive.

Andrew Child wrote:

With regards to differences in between Josh V4 and say Leavenworth V6 I think it makes sense if you consider the history of route development and the evolution of climbing skills. Many of the Josh sandbagged V4s were put up in the pre gym pre sport climbing era by climbers who probably developed their climbing skills almost entirely at JTree or other similar areas. As such it makes sense that those climbers were masters of JTree's very particular style and routes that may feel hard to an outsider might feel easier to them. Comparatively Leavenworth was developed much more recently and also features climbs which (in my opinion) cater more to the skill set of most current day climbers. Obviously grades are still suggestive and yatta yatta, but I think its also important to realize that the average climber 40 years ago also just had different strengths and weaknesses than the average climber has today.

One should also take into account the rock quality in J tree and how the surface of rock disintegrates over time. Every time I put my foot on Stem Gem some grains come off. I could imagine that the start has morphed quite a bit over the years.

Nkane 1 wrote:

I think someone tried that on here a few months ago, and concluded that like a bunch of 12a's were actually 5.9. or vice versa. I suspect it was a problem with execution rather than concept though. I like the idea.

My guess is that this comes from gym bros with terrible footwork having a hard time on old school 5.9s, rather than 5.12a's being soft. I mean I have seen soft 5.12a's but it is not possible to mistake a 12a for a 5.9.

Old School  

B1 - really hard boulder problem but everyone is doing it

B2 - super hard bolder problem, has only been done twice

B3 - has been done once, not yet repeated (too hard for everyone else)

But the real authority is John Gill (up thread).  What he says is gospel.