Forum: GLOBAL / News / Tyler Landman (16) does 8B+ Login in to contribute
Tyler Landman (16) does 8B+
  2007-01-29 00:00:00    
Tyler Landman has repeated Coeur de Leon, 8B+ in Hueco Tanks which was put up by Fred Nicole in 1998. The 16-year-old writes 'soft' as it only took him one hour! This is either a new world record or the 'very good' problem has to be downgraded. Tyler has the last three weeks done another four 8B's.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-29 17:26:11    

It should actually be noted that most of the first ascents by Fred Nicole in Hueco Tanks have been or are actually subject of being downgraded!


It seems like the new youngster generation, with a background from steep indoor bouldering, compared with vertical training facilities in the 90-ies, are setting up a new platform for grading.


Maybe, the slabby and vertical boulders put up by Nicole have to be upgraded!? It will be very interesting to see how the 8B youngsters produce on a classic vertical boulders in Fontainebleau.

OffLine fling
  2007-01-29 19:20:43    
Tyler, congratulations! Anyway, sorry to put it here, but this is where I don't agree with Jens. The youngsters think overhanging problems are soft because they usually have a lot more practice on these types of climbs. But I think downgrading is wrong in that case. Why? Because they have trained so much more on that type of climbing, as mentioned. I have big troubles with 6b slabs even after 8 years of climbing. And I will not mention my poor crack-climbing skills. Still, I flash many 6b boulders that are overhanging. But that is not the same as to say that the slabs are wrongly graded, is it? This is also what many people don't think about (maybe partly because of the articles on 8a about grading theory?!). It only took Tyler an hour to repeat the problem but how long time, how much training, did it take for him to become that good?
OffLine slopergroper
  2007-01-29 21:17:49    
Just to add the logical extension of what Jonas is saying (which I totally agree with): to what extent does Tyler's fast ascent (impressive as it is) reflect that he was traing on similar moves and how many other problems on his scorecard reflect a similar style?  When Fred came to the States and made first ascents in Hueco, he was mostly bouldering in Switzerland or France, neither of which have any rock similar to Hueco.
Does this mean we should never downgrade Fred's problems?  No, but we should be mindful of why things "feel easier" or are being sent fast now as opposed to when he proposed a grade.

Cheers!
OffLine Christian Mengel
  2007-01-29 23:07:40    
One also must not forget about physics. I don`t know Tyler personally and can only wish I were able to do things his way but maybe we should also keep in mind factors such as weight or finger size. It has been the same discussion with Dave Graham and Nicole I think, Fred is just way heavier than Dave (and Tyler?) and thus a problem on small crimps will feel like 8b+ for him and "only" 8b for somebody smaller and thereby better suited for that style of climbing. If somebody who is extremely strong in a physical way puts up a very physical problem like Sharma did with Full Throttle, lightweight guys like Daniel Woods who don`t have such big muscles as Fred or Chris Sharma comment on that stuff as hard.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-29 23:42:38    

If Tyler can do this 8B+ in one hour, he should be doing a 8C (of this style) after one day, an 8C+ after one week and 9A after months of work.


At the same time he should be able to easily do loads of 8A in Fontainebleau, where bouldergrading were invented.


If 90 % of the boulderers of today find steep boulders easy graded and vertical boulders hard graded. The grades have to be adopted.


The reason for this change is that 10 years ago, there were no such thing as steep indoor bouldering, thus they felt that steep boulders deserved a high grade.

OffLine Patrick Cassiday
  2007-01-30 00:37:56    
I'm honestly sick of this debate... Jens define 8B+ for me? You cant, grades arent real.  This isnt to say that they arent helpful but there is no standard by which to define them. No boulder problem is the same as any other. Where as in a sport such as running you can define 1600m (its the distance that light travels during a certain amount of time) and you can define time.

Further more, the arguement that becuase he can do ONE grade x is y amount of time so he should thereful be able to do grade x+1 in y^z is a falacy. first, your sample size isnt big enough to make any real conclusions, and second you CANNOT have any clue as to the shape of this progression curve. If you do those and can give me an equation for it I'll start buying ad space on your this site.
OffLine Herman Feissner
  2007-01-30 03:45:39    

Patrick, thank god someone with some sense responded. I am working on that formula. MIT is helping me with it. The route or boulder problem grade will be a function of: age, current weight, physiological attributes, when you last ate, whether or not you puke after eating, whether you drink RedBull or water, your parents net worth, the number of sponsors you have, and whether or not girls (hot ones) were watching you climb.  


Jens, these discussions that your [stupid] comments instigate are a waste of time. Maybe you should be banned from your own website.


How can you criticize Fred and speculate on his thoughts about the grade of one of his too numerous to count FA’s? Many of these ascents were made at a time when there was no one to collaborate with and when the V grading system was in the earliest stages of development.


Also, why target Fred? Where would the sport be without his contribution? Have a little respect for the man instead of pointing out that most of his FA’s are the subject of downgrading. When was the last time the word ‘legend’ was used to describe your contribution to anything?


The only real reason that this matters to you and others is because of the points that are accumulated on your website. Turn those points into hundred dollar bills and then we’ll have a reason to argue. Too late, I think the days of grade based incentives from sponsors went the way of the Dodo sometime in the mid 90s (circa Joe Brooks).


Congratulations to Tyler on a great ascent, and a quick one at that.


And Jens, go climbing. Get away from your computer. Do a few pull-ups or something.


 

OnLine Justin Alarcon
  2007-01-30 04:18:35    
WORD! Herm, thank you. 
OffLine Patrick Cassiday
  2007-01-30 06:32:26    
oh and lastly, because of what I said earlier (the fact that grades are arbitrary) means that a "real" grade only comes from consensus. that is to say that when a route/problem has only had a very limited number of ascents, as is the case with most of these problems you (Jens) always insist need to be downgraded, the orginial grade was only a suggestion.  Really, even when something has seen 3 or 4 ascents the grade being proposed is likely a poor reflection of the "true difficulty" of the climb. it is not until tens, or really probably hundreds of ascents have been made that you can really pin down a "correct" grade and still there will be a (mostly likely) normal bell curve associated with the opinion of the grade. (ie- it is quite possible for some one to think something rated grade-x is actually as much as 2 or 3 grades above or below that grade and very common for some one to think it is +/- 1 grade)
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-30 09:54:38    

Grading is an invention by climbers and there is no such thing as an established grading theory. I have, over the years, tried to create such thing in order to guide us how to climb. There are articles on the subject presented here several time. I welcome discussions!


I present my thoughts in order to create a debate that can assist us to understand how grades work.


Güllich, Sharma etc spend months and years to put up new routes which mean they are hard and of new standards. If the youngsters of today only spend hours, days or a week to do a boulder, this means that these problems are not very difficult for them. They could climb much harder grades working one problem over nine months. However, if the youngsters of today only can perform on steep terrain compared to vertical. The grading system is not working any longer and has to be adjusted.

OffLine indigo
  2007-01-30 10:44:38    
I am sick of the same story repeating over and over again. But as I am bored at the moment I will try to mess up the 'discussion' a bit more.

1. As soon as the kids start getting stronger suddenly the problems need to be downgraded. They never realize that they became fucking strong, how could they? One can't compare to himself when he's on the peak of a linear progression curve. Seen that soooooo often around here.

2. What a crap is that statement: '...with a background from steep indoor bouldering, compared with vertical training facilities in the 90-ies...' How on earth can someone come to that conclusion? Our training facilities were damn steep shit. I f you were only training on vertical walls in the nineties Jens, thats sad and i feel with you, but everybody fit around here in the frankenjura (and the places I have been like the Peak) did train on bloody steep stuff. Even in the 80ies already. Probably you guys don't even know that the Campus-board was there in the 80ies already.  And now please don't tell me that's not steep cause the angle of the board was only 20 to 30 degrees. It's footless and all about athletics and even body tension is a key to do good laps. Actually there wasn't any vertical spot to train on. And if there had been, no one would have trained there.

3. What the heck has the weight to do with it? I have especially seen Fred hold these micro edges in a way that was more than impressive. Not only that, he held even the biggest slopers as crimps, that's his style. So please don't argue that heavy climbers can't do small edges. Also Toni Lamprecht, heavy gladiator, but he can crimp like hell.

4. Should standards be adapted to exceptions? I don't think so. A single event never makes the rule. In the contrary, it proves the average. Even if this boulder will be repeated many times in the next weeks (and it will, climbers are like cattles, always following the herd) that doesn't say much. Ever heard of group dynamics? Now this boulder is HOT. Betas are around. Spotters galore. Bouldergroupies trying to support their star. All of that makes it easier to repeat a boulder and still doesn't change the difficulty of the boulder itself.

5. All of these kids are welcome to visit the Frankenjura if they are bored with too easy shit in Hueco. No holiday grades here :-P

6. Now bash me, I love it...

OffLine Rumen Neshev
  2007-01-30 11:47:25    
In order not to listen the same song over and over again let all the 8B+ become 7B+ (and etc.) because surely the grand-chilren of this youngster generation will make a 8B+ problem in 15 mins after one year of climbing. People improve, it's so obvious. Of course there are so many boulders and routes that have to downgraded or upgraded but not because of the time spent to them.

OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-01-30 18:09:04    
Landman, you're sick!  Great send.



Jens, normally I'm a supporter of you, but this time ... you're
wrong.  Every climbing area is different.  I've gone to some
that I just crushed because the routes all fit my style and others that
completely shut me down the first week until I started to learn the new
style then I saw meager progression.  Look at this example Landman
crushes Hueco because of the over hanging style of climbing.  He
goes to Font and struggles a bit more to do harder problems because it
is out of his style.  Now bring the Font strongmen to Hueco and
watch them flail.  They will most likely confirm Fred's grade and
maybe call it "hard" 8B+.  Using Font as the standard (which I
think it should be) doesn't mean that you can compare it to every
boulder area in the world since they are all so radically
different.  Grades should be relative to the areas they are in and
I think Coeur de Leon is probably close enough to other 8B+'s in
Hueco.  Time will tell as it sees more ascents.  Report the
news any discerning climber will read 8B+ in an hour and think "sounds
soft".  Give your readers credit for some intelligence and if you
want to start a discussion do so under the forums section.  Start
one called "American Grades are Soft" since that seems to be your
latest bent, or "Fred Nicole is a Horendous Overgrader".  Leave it
out of the news section.


OffLine Patrick Cassiday
  2007-01-30 20:00:57    
jens:

"Güllich,
Sharma etc spend months and years to put up new routes which mean they
are hard and of new standards. If the youngsters of today only spend
hours, days or a week to do a boulder, this means that these problems
are not very difficult for them."


how does this support your arguement that these problems certain problems are overgraded? The new generation of climbers (which is drawing from a large field) has produced new, superior climber (ie-stronger) and therefore all the old grades must be too high?

"
The grading system is not working any longer and has to be adjusted."

so how do we fix it? do you have to qualify every grade by placing a brief discription of said route after the grade? it has an average overhang of ___, x moves long, this rock type? I mean the whole thing is you are either going to have this hugely flawed system (what we use now) or you'll have to write ten pages about a route and that will be the "grade"

"
I present my thoughts in order to create a debate that can assist us to understand how grades work."

and yet when people debate with you you fail to address the counter points they come up with.

At the end of the day I enjoy your site, its normally the most up to date source of peoples doings on the net but, and its been said before, you need to stop editorializing your "news."
OffLine Jimmy Frejd
  2007-01-30 20:13:40    
"If Tyler
can do this 8B+ in one hour, he should be doing a 8C (of this style)
after one day, an 8C+ after one week and 9A after months of work."

I don´t agree with you there Jens.
I can do a 7A in a day, a 7B in a week and I have many friends that can do 8As in a week but none of us would be able to do a 8C+ or even 9A after years, its not that simple and you know that. Of course Tyler is different than us but the amount of time you put into a problem does not show the grade of the problem.
OffLine fling
  2007-01-30 20:30:18    
You guys have all good points. Lucky you, because you don't have to have this debate in swedish too!
Why was this piece of news taken away from the Swedish site?
Anyway, I hope you guys here can help me out. I am looking for the term (I think it has paradox in its name) for why it is so much easier repeating something than doing the same thing the very first time. This is yet another reason for quick repeats - because other climbers know it might be possible!!

Jens, sorry, but you lack logic in your arguments. That also goes for the first ascent-discussion (it is in swedish, unfortunately).

All the critics doesn't say that the 8a.nu page is bad. Rather, because it has a big potential influence on climbers, I think you should think more about what you write. You are just coming up with ad hoc-theories about grading. Too bad, at least Björn seems to have caught on, and maybe other Gbg climbers?!
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-30 21:55:53    

Thanks!


Tyler wrote 'soft' and 'not sure about the grade'.


I think this shows that Tyler is surpriced that he did an 8B+ in one hour, i.e. he is humble of his capacity and world record performance.


What is the big deal about this?

OffLine Patrick Cassiday
  2007-01-30 22:23:58    
I'm not personally fimilar with this problem (perhaps I looked at it in awe briefly on one of my visits to hueco) but how many times has it been repeated? As I said before I am not completely convince that just because Tyler felt it was easy it needs to be downgraded. 

Finally, being humble implies that he is not proud or arrogant (and not to imply that tyler is arrogant) but downgrading something does not make you humble, infact, in some respect it could make you arrogant (ie- you could down grade something to lower that level of others achievements while elevating others of your own). All it means is that he expressed, I assume, his honest opinion of the rating... thus making him "honest" but not ness. humble (again, not implying anything about tyler specificially as I do not personally know him)
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-30 22:39:15    

If you imply that your personal record might be soft or should be downgraded, for me this is humbleness.


To downgrade something that is way below your personal best has nothing to do with humbleness, it might instead be arrogant!

OffLine jay
  2007-01-30 22:44:07    
Jonas: you mean Global Conciousness?

Jens: your suggestions are funny and lead to a discussion, but they lack a lot of thought. you suggest the grading scale should be changed because the climbers evolve. thats rediculous.

if Mercedes builds a new super car without the functionailty of steering, would you also suggest that all roads are incorrect?

climbers evolve and they pass along the grading scale. as once the first 8C was climbed, thus will the first 9A one day be climbed etc. is it really that hard to let go of 8B+/8C a the physical limit?

PS: get rich text support for OSX sorted out, please
OffLine jay
  2007-01-30 22:46:37    
downgrading your personal best could very well be percieved as arrogant. and upgrading your personal best could very well be seen as humble.
OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-01-30 22:55:49    
Ok, now we are debating humbleness... come on...



Jens just say you're sorry or give us some poetic philosophy about how
the site is growing and its hard to keep up and we'll all forgive you
and continue to visit the site 3 times a day and then when this topic
comes up again in a few weeks we can resume this discussion.


OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-30 23:05:57    

Jeroen - I will exaggerate my thoughts in order to make them better understandable.


Let's say we have some Fontainebleau vertical specialist who is pushing the limits during the 90-ies with 8B that takes them months to do.


When they try new very steep boulders, they find them super difficult as they have no experiance. Maybe the challenge is so great so they work a roof project for a year and thus logically suggests 8B+.


In the 90-ies, it was much more hard to find good steep training facilities compared with today.


In places like magic Woods, some 33 % of the 8A and harder steeper boulders are already been downgraded or are subject of.


I guess, if we take a group of youngsters with equally much training on steep and vertical, 50 % of them would reach steep 8A within three years, however on vertical only 20 % would be able to do 8A! It must be equally difficult for them to do an 8A in Fontainebleu as an steep 8A in Hueco, otherwise we will end up with separate garding scales for different places and angle.

OffLine Svet
  2007-01-30 23:41:51    

Hello, Jens, and everybody!


Well, its mega cool that on this page the discussions like this arise, and as you know one can get closer 2 objective truth only via discussion, and otherwise "in vina veritas" :) im not super pro in gradin ideas, but heres my subjective shit on this:


1. grading is based on number of ascents of different guys. Humble, shitty, egoed, some guys with iron fingers, some dudes with only 4 or 3 fingers, cuz it got cut decade ago. and they all have the right to comment. they are neither humble, nor brave, cuz you never know what shit is really in their brains. Just gather comments, and make neutral, average commented grade. If community accepts this, let it be then downgraded, or vice versa.


2. Its overall tendency on the planet: next generations are stronger. Due to tech progress, x-raying, gsm emission, better nutrition, or whatever. They are sometimes called "mutants", even though i dont like this "term" :) They will do always better. And if somebody makes 8B+ in a minute, it just means he is fucking strong, or will be called merely "strong" in 10 years. but the problem is still 8B+ if its been graded like this by many guys before. its kids gettin stronger, not stones gettin easier.


3. the problem can be that, guys fear to give a problem lets say 8c+ grade, cuz there can be "Rouhling syndrome" ie i mean, if one feels smth is damn hard, he fears to get out of the "normal grading limits" - 8B-8C/9a-9a+. the pressure from discussions, calling somebody "liar" or "naked king" makes things perverse.


4. If a kid is born in 2007 when he is 10, he must well understand he lives in 2017 AD, but not in 10 AD. By this i mean the scale must not be changed, neither problems or routes downgraded with time runnin, but the  new probs and routes will be getting much fuckin harder, and old ones remain same, as they remained for aeon. there must be 9b, 9b+, 9c apperaning, just matter of time. It doesnt mean, if Ondra will send 9b+ one day, he should try La rambla after that to state it is 9a or 8c+, cuz its easy. bullshit. its all about relativity, ain't it :)


5. no matter steep wall training, or not, generally, the steeper things are harder if with same holds. If i were born with piece of iron shit in my ass of 10 kg, and when im 20 i just forget about it and play soccer well, i still have 10 kg in my ass, doest matter how i feel it. it shouldnt be down graded :)


6.It seems like theres now absolute limit. And thats inspiring. Because a man can always make a problem harder, a route harder, and there will be 9b's, 10a's, 10c's appearing. Lets look into the future, it will be like this. especially in route climbing.


PS. there can be loads of shit said, but main thing is grades must be growing as well as (displaying) the human capacity. Inflation is seen anywhere, universe is still  being inflated, and all things in life. Public opinion must just be correcting, averaging things. Stronger kids do stronger things. just  watch em do it fair ...    rgds from Kiev.

OffLine sidepull
  2007-01-31 00:03:30    

hah! and I didn't even start this one . . .


Here are some thoughts:


1) Humility - as others have noted, this is completely subjective and we really shouldn't be assigning these attributions.


2) Different grading scales - Isn't this already the reality? I agree that there should be some level of parity, but the fact of the matter is that I know that I climb a different grade in Joshua Tree than Bishop than Font. I'm not sure there's anyway to standardize that simply because of the differences in stone, texture, weather, etc. Moreover, there literally are two different grading systems (v-scale versus french scale), so it makes sense that there's some slippage between the two. It seems that Jens' bias is that Font should be the standard - which is a discussion on its own. But at the very least I think most informed climbers realize that every area has its nuances and this makes climbing fun. For example, it's much harder to onsight a route in Maple Canyon because there are so many holds it's harder to read sequences, however, redpoints are generally considered soft. Sure, a part of this is due to how the grades have evolved at that area, but a large part is due to the type of rock and the nature of the climbing.


3) Grades shouldn't change because humans progress.


Good discussion.

OffLine fling
  2007-01-31 00:14:04    
Damn it, Jens. This is b-s. If a guy from Font, that is "only good " on vertical climbing tries something overhanging and thinks it is harder for him still doesn't mean it should "Logically" be graded 8b+ if his personal is 8b is on vertical climbing. That means he's got the idea of grading wrong, just like you have. In swedish you have stated that you cannot compare Akira and Realization. Why do you
now (and also before) then say that the grading should be comparable for disparate types of climbing?? I tend to look at it as if the level of climbing improves, just like Svet remarks.
I do not downgrade cracks just because I am a beginner at jamming. I am humble enough to realize I haven't practised on it and there are lots of people that have.

   Also, is it a fact that steep training was lacking in the 90-ies (see e.g Ingo's post)?
  
   Btw, Coeur the leon has only seen three repeats, as far as I understood it, in 8 years. Why is that? because it is soft?

   As for the humbleness, that is a separate issue. Just like has been said before, people may very well downgrade because they are humble. But if you are at  you're personal best you may say "soft" to protect yourself from being seen as bragging - Fred Rouhling - effect. Or you are saying soft
because it make other people's performances seem less good. Just think it over for another time. Read e.g. about the point Morten Gulliksen is trying to make.
OffLine Tim Hatch
  2007-01-31 00:16:29    
I really don't understand Jen's fixation on downgrading as being humble. A first ascensionist grades for the sequence he/she finds. Later ascensionists find new sequences, holds get cleaned, grades stay the same or go down. Why is this so unexpected?

Whether or not Fred's problems are being downgraded I don't know. I do know that Tyler did not propose a different grade for Coeur de Leon and I think he has done enough 8Bs to know the difference. But either way, the grade of this problem will settle down when a meaningful number of climbers have done it (as others have said).

Finally, we climb where we have access and when conditions permit. These young boulderers are in the US (as 8a.nu has noted elsewhere) so why should we be surprised that they've not done as much in Font. Ty's record on grit is as good as his record on tuff and granite, so implying that he, Dan and the other youngsters would not fare well at Font is speculation at best.
OffLine
  2007-01-31 00:37:21    

Jens, I think what you are failing to realize is that grades
and grading systems are not nearly as important you think.  Grades should be taken as a guideline for
what to attempt but not as a fact of how hard a problem will be for any one
climber.  I have climbed 6C+’s that felt
harder than 7C+’s but that does not mean that I should downgrade all 7C+’s out
of humbleness.  You go to almost any area
and talk to different climbers and you will hear different grades, this does
not make one climber humble and another arrogant, it is just his or her opinion
of the difficultly of a route.  I am not
sure if you have ever been to Hueco, Jens, but the style of climbing and rock allows
for numerous quick sends.  In Bishop, on
the other hand, it is much more difficult to dispatch problems quickly.   That does not mean that an 8B+ in Bishop is
harder than an 8B+ in Hueco, it just means they are different styles.  Just because a problem is sent quickly does
not mean it is easier than the proposed grade. 
Regardless of the fact that Ty put soft on his scorecard he still called
it 8B+.  Daniel also used Fred’s
rating.  Coeur de Leon is not the most
beautiful problem in Hueco, especially when there are others of the grade that
are much more enticing to try, and thus has been seriously attempted very
little.  Only more ascents can verify a
grade or disprove a grade, not just one very strong climber, such as Ty.  It is also important to realize that just
because one climber thinks a problem is easy does not mean the easy grade
should be the accepted grade.  Matt Fultz
may have thought El Techo was 8A+ but it is much more likely the problem is 8B,
considering how many other strong climbers thought it was harder than 8A+.  You must also give credit to a first
ascentionist for the vision to climb something no one else has.  Take for example Chris Sharma’s ascent of the
Mandala.  He called it V16, albeit jokingly,
but the grade has settled around 8A+.  It
is not that Sharma wanted to inflate his resume or make some extra money; just
that he thought it was extremely difficult, partially due to the mental aspect
of establishing a climb with such a long history as a project.   Let us also look at Daniel’s ascent of Li
this winter.  Li has only seen a few ascents
(2 or 3 I believe) and is considered very hard for the grade but Daniel still
sent the problem very fast.  That does
not make Li 8A+ but rather Daniel was just strong enough to figure out the
moves and send.  Ditto to Dave’s quick
sends of Esperanza and Chris’s quick send of Goldfish Trombone.  To your point of today’s climbers not being
able to do yesterday’s testpieces, I believe many of them would be able to
climb these hard vertical lines, just these problems are not the ones that are
as interesting to many people.  I know I would
rather climb Total Eclipse then Dual in Font, just because after viewing the
problems I found the roof of Eclipse to be a more amazing climb then Dual.  Hopefully these examples illustrate that you,
Jens, are becoming overly concerned in downgrading and other aspects that are
not at the core of what climbing is.  I
am just trying to say that the climbing world will progress and things will
change and we should accept this and take the details with a grain of salt.

OffLine little chief wobblinggoat
  2007-01-31 01:29:22    

fools make note:  the only grade that matters is v7.  also, v3s sometimes matter.


the points system on this site should reflect a bell curve.  v7s get 100 points.  every numeral away from v7 will be 10 points less.  therefore, v negative 3 will fetch zero points, as will v17.  v negative 4 and v18 will commence the negative points in ten point increments.  i am fully aware of the fact that this site does not currently have a 'v7' grade designation.  the shortsightedness of this flaw should be self-evident.  you can leave the other shitty numbers in the font scale, but please revise the grading to offer the v7 option.  also, all news should revolve around sending v7s. 


gratuitious example:   ty landman almost sent this wicked-ass v7, but he messed up and sent some stupid v14 instead.  THE TRAGEDY OF YOUTH!!!!!11111


example #2:    joe everyman sent a v7 today.  YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT THE WORLD SHOULD REJOICE, FOOL!


example #3:  some say that font has the best v7s in the world, but this is not possible because they don't even have v7s there.  clearly, hueco is better.  hueco has tons of v7s.  it even has some v9s that are really v7s for a super wicked suprise bonus to those who send the "v9s" therefore validating their effort with bonafide v7s!  


 


i'll look forward to seeing the new site lay-out real soon.


werd.


--j

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-31 08:31:57    

Ok, one more try...


The difficulty of a certain route/boulder is based on how hard it is for the climbers to do it.


The climbing population consists today of a much larger percentage of youngsters and female than in the old days. The grading system was invented and based on how difficult grown ups thought different climbs were. Youngsters and female (shorter and smaller fingers) will perceive vertical climbs relatively harder compared to steep climbs with pockets. 


If we only ask 15-year-old climbers, we will end up with their perceived grading of doing vertical and steep climbs, which will be different from how grown up climbers perceive grading difficulty.


In five years, maybe 50 % of the active hard core climbers will be youngsters. Ten years ago, when the first standards of 8A and 8B were set, youngsters constituted at the most 10 %.


The climbing scale of difficulty must reflect and be adjusted on how hard also youngsters (smaller climbers) perceive difficulty!


 

OffLine Svet
  2007-01-31 09:58:35    

... i dont really understand whats the prob with it. then the next generation will think the same about previos, and downgrade and so on... its dead end.  let just the young kids try some classics in Boux, Ceuse, bla-bla and so on, and realize, that this easy 2 minute walk on slight overhang was called 30 years ago "Biographie extension", and then "Realization" by a guy named Chris Sharma, a veteran of rock-climbing, who's now 50 and lecturing around the globe.  And, my young 15 year-old friends, it took him 100 tries and 2 years to do this climb, which you now call an easy walk. And  the route was 9a+, and what you climb now is 9c+. And it takes you 100 tries... But its not 9a+ just becasuse it also took you 100 tries, as much once Sharma tried his route. what u do today, in 2037 is 9c+. u r just sick strong, compared to old bud Chris.


also, Jens, i believe that the discussion, and the prob, for which we all shit so much down here, will be sold pretty soon: simply a machine (robot) will be invented, which will have standard parameters, and called Climb Tester. It will be able to climb any route humans ve done, and measure and register, based on the input parameters, and math formulas (gravity, averages of human physiology, and other human capacities) the neccessary power (strength, capacity ... bla-bla) to be able to do this route. And fucking grade it!!!!! :)) Or simply a powerful computer with sick 3d-based program scanning the route type, holds, weather condition, steepness, bla-bla, all hell, and giving you average proposed (objective or independant) grade offer. And nobody will be shitting about what he thinks the (real - read "his")grade must be, cuz he's damn cool :))


Also i believe theres no end to route and prob hardening, as theres always room for a harder climb. Until people start flying... But when a human will finally work-out the skill of flying (which will happen, of course), the Anti-doping or "Fair climb" commissions will control the competitors or climbers for not using this skill for the sake of purity of what once had been called "climbing". And it will live forever! :))  so, lets damn take it easy , fellas :)))))

OffLine Jean-Baptiste Jourjon
  2007-01-31 14:20:45    

I don' t agree that grade scale should change. I mainly boulder in Bleau where grades are quite well established. In overhanging style, I reached almost 8B whereas I've only done one 7B slab (nail climbing...). I'm also better on slopers than on crimps. So it's not a problem for me not to reach the same grade on every style of rock (sandstone, granite...) and climbing. The only point you're right is that the grades should reflect the average level of the climbing community, and today most of the climbers are stronger in overhangs...


Nowadays, most of hard stuff opened in Bleau are really overhanging, and by people who train a lot indoor. So the question is just to know if an overhanging 8B in Bleau is harder than in Hueco. As Fred climbed a lot in both areas, I don't think so ! 8a.nu could sponsor the best "Bleausards" for a trip in Hueco, and do the same for the others to come in Paris ! 

OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-01-31 17:20:22    
Well it seems we are at a genuine disagreement here and both sides feel
strongly enough not to budge.  Maybe we'll just have to let the
climbers post their own grades on their scorecards from now on... Oh
wait thats what we do now and Landman listed this route as 8B+... Maybe
the route is 8B+ since no repeater has suggested a downgrade. 
Maybe next week he'll send something new and propose 8C+ and then Fred
Rouhling will repeat it and confirm the grade and this site will still
try to call it 8B because "nothing can be that hard, he just trains on
overhanging pockets 6 days a week for 5 years straight."  Jens you
are allowed your theory but please do NOT force it into the mouths of
other climbers.  Let Landman say what he will about the climb and
leave it at that.  Personally I read this news and I'm crazy
jealous of him being down in threatened Heuco right now while I sit
shivering in the NE occasionally tugging plastic and praying it doesn't
get shut down before my next trip down there.
OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-01-31 17:29:41    
Hey maybe this site could do something to genuinely help the climbing
community other than just give commentary on climbing news.  Heuco
is in pretty serious trouble of being shut down permenantly. 
Aparently some rich government types have set up a system where the
land can be taken over by the Historical Society and shut down for
climbing without any public opinion or court approval necessary. 
The only way to save Heuco now is to write to Texas congressmen and
senators and try to get a law passed to protect it (and for those
outside of the US that is really asking for a miracle).  Here is
the website that has more info.  http://www.heucotanks.com/ 
If you font boys want your shot maybe its time for some international
support here.
OffLine User Deactivated
  2007-01-31 18:58:10    

Jens: You wrote: "It must be equally difficult for them to do an 8A in Fontainebleu as an steep 8A in Hueco, otherwise we will end up with separate garding scales for different places and angle."


Your statement was made about young climbers but I assume that this theory applies to climbers of all ages.


So, my question to you is: Do you climb the same grade, whatever type of rock, angle, style you encounter? At all climbing areas worldwide? If your answer is NO, you have in one word undermined your own theory.

OffLine sidepull
  2007-01-31 19:21:18    
Jens, scales should not be revolutionized based on demographic shifts - that's really pretty senseless because it obviates years of history and accomplishments and only worsens the inherent subjectivity of grading. If we followed your advice, you'd have generational arguments and people would be confused - e.g. is this the new 8A for teenagers or the old 8A for adults? I think the current system in which climbers learn grades through osmsis is as effective as it can get. Perhaps what is needed here is for you (Jens) to adopt a bit of the humility you like to assign to others and consider the fact that no one that has responded has agreed with your position and that it's possible that you are wrong in this instance.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-31 19:42:41    

Thanks! Discussions like this are valuable. 8a grading theory from 2001. My theory can be read in this article. I have said many times that I might be wrong but many climbers support my thoughts.


Jonas - Grading is based on the climbing population not a single individual. If 90 % of the top climbers say that they find steeper boulders easier than vertical ones, something is wrong.


Why is 95 % of the new hard core boulders steep. Why is nobody doing any progress on vertical terrain. They climbed 8B on vertical rock in the early 90-ties. Why don't we see any progress on 8C also on short vertical stuff?


Why do we only see development on steep bouldering?

OffLine Tye Watkins
  2007-01-31 20:29:31    
I believe that the following statement sums it up nicely...

"its kids gettin stronger, not stones gettin easier." -Svet Moiseiv
OffLine fling
  2007-01-31 21:08:09    
Jens, I give up. You do not listen to others, think about the arguments or anything. You have not answered my question about Realization vs Akira.

     The consensus should be based on the population's opinon, of course,
but I think it is important for everybody (or maybe just you) to
clarify why some things feel easy and other not.

   I do not have one answer to why there is "development" on steep overhanging boulders. A quick answer is SPECIFIC TRAINING. Another one is that more elite climbers seem to like that type of climbing (come on Jens, you know why most people like overhangs more than slabs, and don't say indoor climbing). It does mean that the other climbs should be downgraded. They are still as hard (as in how long time it takes for you to reach that level on average) compared to other climbs of the same type as they have always been.

   Also, if "90%" of the climbers think problem A feels easier compared to another diametrically opposite type of problem, B, doesn't logically mean A should be easier gradewise than B, as pointed out numerous times before. E.g. If you don't train crack-climbing you don't get better on cracks, at least I haven't. I still lieback cracks... But why should these climbs then deserve a higher grade? I just know I am bad on even a 5.10 crack, especially O.W.

   Listen to Tye (nice comment, man) and all the rest here!
OffLine jay
  2007-01-31 21:37:35    
why only development on steep boulders and not short vertical?
PHYSICS! theres a point where its no longer physically possible to hang a human body of an edge, ie. the res a point at whicha vertical climb and the progression of difficulty in that angle is simply limited by the size of the hold(s). ever seen Golden Feet in Font? its 'only' 8A(+) but its nearing the limit of whats visible and possible to hang onto. theres FAR MORE room for progression in steep climbing and there also will one will get to a point where the progression of difficulty will be determined the size of the holds plus the number of moves. its simple maths and physics. YOU, jens, however seem to think that climbers and their performance are static and the grade sytem is dynamic. why is that?
OffLine User Deactivated
  2007-01-31 21:59:48    
kids getting stronger and Jens keeping stubborn....
i aborded this question a several times before on other comments on Jens editorial points... and i think the only way Jens doesnt force us to agree with him is because all this is over the internet...
every one in this thread and in tons of others before disagrees with Jens but he keeps on with is way and not realizing that we are a community and if different opinions are welcome, the most supported ones are the leading ones(democracy)...
Im sure many climbers support your thoughts but i've never saw them on this web commenting.

Jens you site is great, really helpfull and community centered, giving a important tool for a worldwide community to interact.
but some exemption is needed as all "jornalistic" work does.
keep your opinion to editorial proposes and give news free of any tought or spicy commentary
OffLine User Deactivated
  2007-01-31 21:59:59    
kids getting stronger and Jens keeping stubborn....
i aborded this question a several times before on other comments on Jens editorial points... and i think the only way Jens doesnt force us to agree with him is because all this is over the internet...
every one in this thread and in tons of others before disagrees with Jens but he keeps on with is way and not realizing that we are a community and if different opinions are welcome, the most supported ones are the leading ones(democracy)...
Im sure many climbers support your thoughts but i've never saw them on this web commenting.

Jens you site is great, really helpfull and community centered, giving a important tool for a worldwide community to interact.
but some exemption is needed as all "jornalistic" work does.
keep your opinion to editorial proposes and give news free of any tought or spicy commentary
OffLine gabor
  2007-01-31 22:16:41    
The reason there is more progression on overhangs versus vertical faces should be pretty self-evident. Seriously, who wants to grab holds on an 8C vertical wall? Not only is this style of climbing much more physically limiting but it is painful and much harder to progress on, thus providing reason for top climbers to shift their progression to more overhanging problems where other factors are involved other than just balance and finger strength. On overhangs, it is essential to have a strong core, power for hard moves, finger strength for small holds, accuracy for deadpointing moves, etc. This style of climbing is much more complex and overall challenging then vertical face climbing, thus providing much more room for progression. Jens, yor theory about how climbing was only progressing on vertical terrain in the 90's is not only false but undermining the achievements of those such as Fred Nicole who were establishing the many 8B's and 8B+'s in the 90's that you write your news about everyday. Fred has climbed boulders of this level not only on overhangs but also on any all types of climbing (including the so called "vertical 8B's" you write about), so when he grades a climb on an overhang 8B or 8B+ he is most likely correct in his proposal. It is true that a lot of his problems are being downrated, but this is not due to the fact that he misgraded them, but that people are finding new sequences and using methods that Fred did not use when he established these problems. The fact is, you fail to accept the fact that as time passes the climbers are getting stronger and achieving levels that previous generations have not been able to achieve. Perhaps instead of downrating 95% of the overhanging 8B and above boulder problems that currently exist, you should propose upgrading the 5% of "vertical" testpieces in Fontainebleau to fit the current "curve" of grading in the climbing community.
OffLine gabor
  2007-01-31 22:22:13    

And Jens, you say that many climbers agree with you, however so far not one person in this discussion has.

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2007-01-31 22:57:43    

Thanks! 8a is an open community for each and everyone. Anybody that has an opinion may, like me, state their thoughts. Anybody that are interested to become an editor of 8a, is most welcome to do so!


I do think that debates like this are valuable and they only exist if at least one person have a different opinion than the rest ;-)


Gabor - I have already said that probably some boulderproblems have to be upgraded. We have given Fred Nicole loads of credit on 8a. Fred was the leading boulderer for at least 10 years and he is still performing at the highest level at 36.


I guess, everybody could agree upon:


The climbing scale of difficulty is a measurement of how hard, how much effort is needed, it is for the climbers to do a certain boulder/route.


Is there something wrong with that assumption?


If the climbers think that much less effort is needed to do an steep 8A compared with a slabby 8A, something must be wrong.

OffLine Patrick Cassiday
  2007-01-31 23:06:35    
and it rages on.... oh well, atleast its entertaining.

does it really take less effort? when you talk about the effort put into a route/problem you have to also factor in training time... and as i'm sure we've all experienced (and has more or less been discussed below) training for one style (be it steep, vertical, bouldering, routes, trad) is most effective for gains in the same style.  thus, though it only took, in this particular example, 1hr for tyler to do this boulder problem you have to account for the countless hours, days, weeks, he's spent building up to that hour. though all this time also will improve his vertical climbing skills it wont be as noticable. if however, instead of training on steep climbing he had been focusing on vertical climbing, perhaps he would/could do the same grade at less of an angle.

until such has occured its all speculation and since i'm going to assume that tyler has the integrity to put the grade he feels is most correct for a problem on his scorecard, i can only assume that even though he climbed it in an hour, and perhaps thought it alittle easy for the grade, it sitll, none the less felt it to be said grade.
OffLine Tye Watkins
  2007-02-01 00:17:07    
Let us assume for example, that a large GROUP spend their years training exclusively on slabby, or verticle-esque boulder problems.

Said group would obviously feel that your supposed slabby 8a was signifigantly easier than your steep 8a, but does that neccisarily make one easier than the other?

Absolutly not. They would, (hopefully), recognize that their SPECIFIC training has better prepared them for this type of climbing, and allows them to do boulder problems of this type, that are much harder than boulder problems of another type.

This does not require a downgrade. This requires a change in MINDSET from the climber and the community.

A climb based on big moves, with decent holds, is far easier for a 6' 3" individual, than for a climber who, being only 5'8", prefers small crimps spaced closer together. Yet both climbs can be the same grade?

According to Jens (assumed), opinion, one or the other should be downgraded based upon the majority of climbers at one certain height.

Back in the stone ages, 5.13 (or thereabouts, use any lower grade really) was considered the threshhold of what was possible for the human to climb. As we all know..this is not true. But, have we downgraded ALL of the old benchmark 5.13s? 

No. Even though kids only climbing a few years can flash them with ease, we dont downgrade.

Instead, we RECOGNIZE the superior training and strength of these talented individuals, and commend them for it.
OffLine Jamie Emerson
  2007-02-01 04:33:36    

I bet John Sherman knows the answer.

OffLine Pies
  2007-02-01 12:14:44    

Just because Tyler sent it fast, it doesn't mean that the whole grading system should change - It hasnt in the past! If the system keeps adapting to younger climbers, we will never reach 9A, because once a new youngster does the current 8C+ standard in one day, the whole system will change again. This 8C+ will become 8C,  and it will be a test to get to 8C+ again!


This new "Jens" system is different to the one we have used in the past, where if you do a hard route, it gets a hard grade, everthing else doesn't go down.


Tyler is obviously a strong climber who can do 8B+ fast, so maybe if he works a route, He could push the limits of the worlds hardest bloc?

OffLine Pies
  2007-02-01 12:19:18    

One more thing, I new a guy who followed a friend of mine around the country, downgrading all his first ascents, just so my mate would look like he overgrades everything and look like he can only climb the new "Downgrade". Does this make the follower Humble?


Some People downgrade just so they look strong and that hard stuff seems easy to them. This is certainly not Humbleness. I actually see most people who downgrade all the time, as ARROGENT

OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-02-01 19:12:09    
Wow 50 posts and nothing new.  How many ways can the same thing be
said?  Is no one out there at all concerned about the threat of
losing Heuco?  If steep boulding is what is popular and what
everyone likes so much then why are we not talking about how to
preserve the birthplace of steep climbing?  Sandbagged or soft its
still a ridiculous place to climb with so much history.  Cour de
Leon may not ever see enough repeats to confirm the grade and then the
spark of this whole "discussion" is lost.  This is a rant against
every so-called climber at this site and Jens too.  DO SOMETHING
TO HELP SAVE HEUCO!!!!  If access is important to all climbers why
aren't there news posts on this great site about ways to help preserve
climbing areas around the world or at very least a link to some
non-profit group who does care about that?  Saving Hueco might
take a miracle but its definately worth fighting for and who knows God
might smile on the climbing community for once.
OffLine little chief wobblinggoat
  2007-02-01 21:16:33    

what does any of this have to do with v7?


pfft

OnLine Dan Cannaday
  2007-02-01 22:31:22    
Justin- Losing Hueco has everything to do with v7.  Where do you
think v7 came from?  And if it gets closed down then around 100
incredible v7's become inaccessable.  Admitedly you have something
different to say, but ...
OffLine Marcos Radical
  2007-02-02 02:53:30    
After reading about 30 posts, my eyes didnt wanna keep reading : D, so my overall support, for this debate-cycle with a never-ending point, is this;

Downgrading FA just because it was quick? then what to soy about Onsights? With all my respects, I think it is really stupid the downgradings, the only not-stupid way for me to downgrade is to have done at least 15 repeats after the One-boulder(or route, think this theory should apply on both)in which 5 would be one grade less, 5 the same grade, and tha other 5, a grade more(if not grade more, as i can see, then distribute this other five between the same and less grades, or forget it, keep with 10, for me it doesnt matter : D; but compare!), and then reapeat the boulder/route you`ve done, and then state your arguments and conclude (its a hard work, so better dont downgrade the ones which are recognized as those grades hehe)

And as Herman Feissner stated on his formula........I think in my formula a hot girl looking at me while climbing, gives me an extra plus on my way of climbing, hahaha!......seriously   : D  : D

Compare! but compare climbing not sitting on the matts. There are more variables than you will collect that affects the climbing moment to make the decission, and some, you will never find them!

Intuition!Thats all I say...
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-12-12 23:05:14    
interesting 2 years on and coeur de leon is thought of as (soft?) v13 and tyler has crushed most of the hardest problems in font in double quick time
OffLine chris sellers
  2009-12-15 15:40:45    
As Adam Wood pointed out Tyler crushed Font including the 8a slab Duel, 8b/+ arete Keops (sit), so he is no one trick pony, just very very good. I was told by a mate he couldn't do one of Fred's old school problems as it was too burley & he spent two days on a Rocher Aux Sabbots red circuit problem, so are these going to be up graded to 8c?
OffLine gerardo workel
  2009-12-16 06:50:46    
jens what would you say if adam ondra did jumbo love in 3 weeks???would you downgrade it? no, you would say ondra is better than sharma but that cant be since ondra has not climbed 9b so what would you do?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-16 07:38:40    
The scorecard of Adam Ondra shows that he would be capable of doing a 9b within three weeks.

It seems you have misunderstood something in the theory of climbing grading.

If anothoer person with just 8c at his best, did Jumbo Love in three weeks, than we could say that this ascent would be questioning the grade!
OffLine gerardo workel
  2009-12-17 09:29:07    
well if he can why he has not done it if he is always looking for harder grades
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-17 11:06:15    
Adam goes to school in Chech Republic.

Jumbo Love is located in the USA.
OffLine Christian Mengel
  2009-12-17 11:54:37    
Jens, again...your time theory is not the ultimate truth! There is some truth in it, beyond doubt. But concluding that Adam for instance would be able to do 9b in three weeks is a little strange. There is a good article by Bernd Zangerl where he says that only people who have actually experienced a certain grade can substantially speculate about it. Neither you or me belong to that category of people, let´s face facts. We might be charmed by the numbers or the astounding nature of those climbs, we might even be able to do some of the single moves if they were in workable places and we could work them over and over again...but, bottom line is, unless someone like Adam, Chris or Dani comes up with a theory of how fast you should be able to climb something the theory lacks substance to me. Jumbo Love is in the US...Golpe d`Estado isn´t. Coup de Grace isn´t. First Round First Minute isn´t. Neanderthal isn´t. We all know that something that just is a grade harder might seem a completely new level. If you think that Adam might be able to crush 9b in three weeks...well, maybe if he finds one that really motivates him, suits his style and all that. But as an absolute truth? No, not for me. Does he have to be proof for your abstract time comparison theory to be an awesome climber? No!
Let´s watch videos and marvel at their level. But any discussion of grades at that level that does not at least have their voice as well (and I can´t see Ondra, Graham, Dani or Edu posting here) is just guessing.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-17 13:02:58    
@ Christian: I guess I am allowed to make personal speculation here in the forum.Of course, my theory might be wrong, but I must be allowed to express it, in order to answer a question.

We have published the Zangerl article here. What he is saying is like to forbid fotboll suporters and journalist to speculate who will win the fotboll championship. Speculations is part of all sport, included climbing.

As regards Bernd, he suggested 8C+ for a boulder that is now 8B+ as I have specualted long time before the two down gradings.

Everybody with just some form of analytic skill will come to the conclusion that Adam Ondra could do 9b in three weeks. If we are not allowed to speculate about this, you could at the same time that no sport journalists are allowed to speculate!
OffLine Christian Mengel
  2009-12-17 17:30:38    
@ Jens: I made an attempt of trying to discuss with you. It´s stupid to even try, cause it´s just not possible to have a discussion with you.
I didn´t in a single sentence take your right to express your theory from you...I gave my opinion on your theory. Subsequently you state that I lack analytical skills because I won´t follow your Ondra example 100%. You don´t speculate, you state facts. If you speculated, you would allow for other opinions without labeling these people as clueless.
Concerning Bernd: his FA was downgraded. Having a look at your scorecard, I see that you faed a route you suggested 8a+ for and even speculated about 8b...turns out Said Belhai downgraded it to 8a...everybody knows that there is a HUGE difference between 8a and 8b. Now one could say that Said Belhai is clueless as well but that would be taking it just a tad too far;)
FAs at someone`s personal limit get overgraded all the time, that´s my point. Ascents put that into perspective, not some guy`s theory.
Do you know what I wonder about Jens: why, just why are there no 9bs in Adams scorecard. Tell me...just because he`s not psyched to try them. I guess not...and don´t tell me that he can´t try them because he´s still a pupil...
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-17 18:48:12    
@ Christian: You refer to Bernd Zangerl saying that I am not allowed to speculate abot the grade. "Neither you or me belong to that category of people, let´s face facts."
It is strange that you say that you say that I am not allowed to speculate like any other person or journalist.


Regarding my 8a+ FA. I put it up as a 7c but since there was no repeat in spite of all hard core guys in Göteborg tried it, I suggested an upgrade to 7c+, 8a and finally 8a+ after seven urepeated years. It took Said maybe seven days and 30 tries for Said who normally onsights 8a. Said put his grade as a joke towards me. I have a sand-bag reputation :-)

Of course there is no 9b's in Adams scorecard because he with limited time do not give priority for endless red point projects.
OffLine gerardo workel
  2009-12-18 00:13:04    
how do you know so much about jow adam ondra thinks or does do you talk everyday with him on the phone are you big friends??i dont think so, you can ofcourse have your own opinion but you dont let have our opinion you always say we are wrong and that only yours is right, based on your theory that he can do a 9b in three weeks and chris sharma in about 2 years you are saying that adam is way better than chris sharma and i dont really think so and im sure that if sharma had a scorecard based on your theory im sure he wouldnt do a 9b in 2 years but in much less, there is a huge step between 9a+ and 9b you should ask adam if he thinks he is able to do a 9b
OffLine gerardo workel
  2009-12-18 02:57:01    
by the way i just read an article wrote by you were it says that if sharma had a scorecard he would have 13545 or something like that which is higher than ondras and usobiagas and he doesnt do a 9b in 3 weeks...so your theory is wrong
OffLine Christian Mengel
  2009-12-18 06:31:09    
Jens...you have been told to practice reading a couple of times and you obviously didn´t. I didn´t say that you´re not allowed to speculate about the grade...if you qoute me, qoute me correctly. Anything else is not honest and a poor standard of reporting and press making. I guess we´ve had that before as well.
My precise statement was:

"There is a good article by Bernd Zangerl where he says that only people who have actually experienced a certain grade can SUBSTANTIALLY speculate about it. Neither you or me belong to that category of people, let´s face facts. We might be charmed by the numbers or the astounding nature of those climbs, we might even be able to do some of the single moves if they were in workable places and we could work them over and over again...but, bottom line is, unless someone like Adam, Chris or Dani comes up with a theory of how fast you should be able to climb something the theory lacks SUBSTANCE to me"

For you, I have highlighted the two most important words.
Concerning your definition of journalism, it´s fishy! Journalism is reporting of news, your definition seems to see the priority in speculating. Your definition is not my definition.
OnLine John Meget
  2009-12-18 07:24:04    
gerardo - Adam has said many times he doesn't like to do projects.  He doesn't like to try redpoints over and over.  He likes to onsight, and improve his climbing abilities until he can onsight the tougher routes, or at least do them in not too many tries.

Jens - you clearly are speculating when you say Adam can do 9b in 3 weeks of work.  Reasonable speculation, IMO, but not fact.  And maybe it's not so.  One example: maybe he doesn't have the mental focus to stick with a project for that long.  I doubt that, but until he does it, no one can know.

Have any top climbers tried to repeat Sharma's 9b routes?  If so,  how have they done, and what have they said about those routes?  
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-18 07:30:48    
@ Gerardo: If you check the scorecard of Adam you can see that he reguraly does 9a+ after some few days of work. One of the routes, he actually thinks is in between 9a+ and 9b.

If he would spend 21 days on a 9b that fits him, he would most likely do it.

@ Christian: "Journalism is reporting of news" and that is practiced in the news column. Here in the forum I guess I am allowed to do whatever I want. Instead of just complaining, why do you not try to discuss why my grading theory is wrong?

I mean, it is useless just to state that another person says that only hard core climbers could speculate about grades. If you check your statistics, some 50 % of the hard core boulders have actually been down graded. What does that say?
OffLine gerardo workel
  2009-12-18 10:00:55    
@John: Ethan Pringle and Dave Graham have tried Jumbo Love and they had no succes on it, Ethan Pringle even said it could be 9b+ so you tell me..

@Jens: based on Chris Sharma´s imaginary scorecard that you put up on an article he could do a 9b in less than three weeks based on your theory, but the reality shows it another way he spends like 2 years
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-18 10:16:30    
@ Gerardo: I have not said that Chris could do a 9b in less than three weeks, this you have just made up by yourself.

I have said that Adam Ondra could do it in three weeks but his track record is way better the Sharma's. when it comes to do 9a's quickly. Chris is a redpoint machine when it comes to 9a's meanwhile Adam does them normally in just a couple of days.
OffLine grubber
  2009-12-18 12:18:10    
time effort grading garbage link is dead.
please fix.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-18 12:26:22    
This garding theory article was first presented in 2001

It must be so fun for you to analyse it in order to be able to start complaining :-)
OffLine grubber
  2009-12-18 13:48:28    
I was talking about this link: http://www.8a.nu/eng/articles/gradjmf.shtml
that doesn't go anywhere.
furthermore, I only complain where I say fault or possibility for improvement. that you see it as complaining for complaining's sake, is your personal misinterpretation. and don't give me the 'don't change a winning team'-crap. we've been over that.
right here, we are talking about the time/effort thing, and I wanted to look up the theory. I couldn't because the link is dead. I reported that, it was no complaint.
in fact, you should be thanking me, because apparently, nobody ever reads it and I found out that you can make your theory better accessible. 
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-12-18 17:17:19    
Thanks for reporting it. Where did you find that link, it refers to the old system and I think it was actually a grade conversion. What you are talking about, I do not think I have made an article of it...just this graph. I hope this is what you were looking for.