Mammut Bus
Vertical-Life
Climb to Paris
POWERED BY Mammut Logo
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
meters to Paris
VERTICAL-LIFE STATS
0
Members
0
Total ascents
0
Ascents last 30 Days
0
Ascents last 24 hours
Open forum

Block or not

Today there is a clear trend towards longer and longer problems. But how long can a boulder be and still have the bouldering characteristics? Do we need to start thinking about an entirely new way of grading? Does it really matter if you use a rope or a pad?
Grades depending on height is actually a natural place to begin.
DD It is would be shortsighted to think that this grading scale would last. It only stands as a reflection of the climbers' level of understanding at the time it was created. New barriers broken yield new understanding, new planes of view, new topics; via evolution. I think this is an interesting topic. It is one that will see much more debate, in respect to its current level, within the several years. Whenever someone takes the first step it will open the door for discussion. What constitutes the first step? Well, it is really up to what works. There are clearly some issues with grading systems, regarding accuracy and legitimacy. In other words, what does the grade really mean. An example, shorter and taller people tend to sharply contrast in the beta they use on a climb. Hence, there is a greater possibility that a climb's rating will contrast as well. This is just a correlation between size and difficulty, but the fact of the matter is that the climb is very different for each of the two climbers (tall and short). I know shorter climbers who are built like gymnists and I also know the Holloway types (tall and lanky). The shorter ones tend to have more core strength and brute power. While the taller ones have more reach and flexibility. My point, which further provokes your question, is that there are many things to take into consideration when attempting a climb. We have only mentioned a few. There are many more, use your imagination. Because, it is quite possible that it may be strongly considered in how to best describe the "general difficulty" of a climb. Let's face it, thats what grades are. They are generalized, an estimation if you will. As it pans out climbing will be broken down into many more niches. That's basically what is happening. The anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics of climbers ultimately discern what style of climbing they are "best suited for." However, just because they might have the genetic predisposition to be a power boulderer does not mean they won't chose a different route. Say, endurance (big wall link-ups). This is where it starts to get confusing. But, do you understand where I am coming from? One might not see the parrallel between your query and my response, but the common factor is "grading." So, to answer your question, yes. I think it is a good thing to consider, "...thinking about" a new way of grading. Not necessarily entirely new. There are some good things about the current grading system. I won't attempt to name them all, but it is part of the foundation laid by the "fathers of climbing" so to speak. Because let's face it, each region tends to have its own significant precursor to the current foremost climbers today. And today's climbers tend to base their knowledge on the legends of yesteryear. It is hard to know what topic to focus on... Many things to take into consideration.