\u00a0by Elena Corriero
\n
\nAfter discussing bouldering grades with Fred Nicole and Bernd Zangerl, here\u2019s some considerations by Adam Ondra who was the first, and still is the only one, to have repeated Christian Core\u2019s Gioia, 8c+. We are sitting at Pio\u2019s caf\u00e9 in Arco, on the day preceding the lead competitions.
\nAdam, did you read the interview with Zangerl? What do you think about it?
\nI agree with him that the initial purpose of grades was to help a climber get acquainted with a new area, to help him choose the proper routes and have fun. In this sense, they work pretty well. No matter if they are not completely objective, grades prevent that someone tries something which is way too hard for him, or her.
\nAnother aspect of the matter is the one concerning sponsors, and the hunt for numbers: but in the last analysis it depends on each individual climber. Some are searching for numbers, other not. If people enjoy chasing grades, it\u2019s okay with me, but personally I also search for something else in my projects: a beautiful line, not just grades.
\nA lot of boulderers have started to point out how much time they needed to climb a problem, to highlight their strength.
\nIt is a competition, that\u2019s clear. But it is up to you whether you want to take part in that competition, or not.
\nAnd what about you? Do you take part in this competition?
\nWhen I fill my scorecard on 8a.nu, sometimes I write down the time that I took, but I am not pointing it out to sponsors, or publicizing it.
\nConcerning Bernd\u2019s point of view, I have the feeling from what Bernd wrote that he thinks grades are not even important, that climbers should not care about them.
\nThere are two different perspectives on climbing: on one side, it can be considered purely recreational, a passion, the love for being outdoors, in the nature; on the other, you can consider it a sport and research paying sponsors, in which case there must be grades.
\nAnd if there are to be grades, they should be as precise as possible, even if they won\u2019t ever be 100% precise.
\nGuidebooks shouldn\u2019t be taken as a mantra; if the first sender proposes a grade for a boulder and afterwards someone repeats it, with a different opinion on the grade, the final decision should be reached by consensus. This does not necessarily mean that the opinion of the second sender is right, but that the grade should be somehow averaged out.
\nJolly Lamberti recently made a proposal to reach an objective grade thorough the use of an algorithm, based on parameters such as number of tries, falls, and so on. Do you think this could be a solution?
\nI don\u2019t think that you can really take into consideration the time and the umber of tries, when grading a problem. It all depends on whether you know the beta or not, if you were lucky or weren\u2019t, which were the conditions of the rock and the weather when you made your attempts…
\nI prefer to evaluate a route or a boulder by using my subjective feeling, that is to say how I felt when I sent it. Obviously, even if I send a 9b in 3 days, and then I send another route in 10 days, the second route isn\u2019t necessarily harder: it can still be 9b, or 9a+\u2026 And the grades can be totally appropriate. The point is that you cannot take everything into consideration when you give a grade; on a route or on a boulder, you may get stuck psychologically, falling at the same point. For example, when I started trying The Change, the 9b+ route in Flatanger, I did the first pitch, 9a+, on one of the first days: but in the following days I wasn\u2019t able to redpoint that pitch. Was it harder than 9a+? Or was I more tired?
\nI consider the subjective feeling – my personal feeling – the only criterium to grade: yet, after the first evaluation, you can introduce a bit of science, and make an average of the feelings of the repeaters.
\nWhat about downgrading? Is it another race?
\nI have the feeling that the proper 8c in bouldering now is completely different than 10 years ago. It\u2019s because the standards have changed, but mostly for what concerns the hardest problems. It is a consequence of improving technique.
\nA reason that explains a lot of the cases of downgrading is that easier betas were found for many of the older problems, and it\u2019s only logical that the boulders should be re-evaluated accordingly. Besides, grades have to indicate how hard it is to climb a route or a problem in the easiest way.
\nThe same revision has taken place for routes grades, but it has been less visible because, on a route, a single easier move will not affect the grade so much. On a 3 moves boulder, one single move made easier will affect the grade enormously.
\nConcerning the diatribe between Nalle Hukkataival and Paul Robinson: how important do you think it is to declare your beta?
\nI think it\u2019s important, in order to be respectful towards the first ascender. We could say that Nalle\u2019s behavior on that occasion was a bit offensive towards Paul.
\nZangerl also hints at a certain lack of respect in the climbing community, which he sees dominated by competition for publicity and sponsors. Do you think it is true?
\nMaybe I am naif, but I don\u2019t feel like that. You can see certain instances of disrespect, but it\u2019s not as bad as in the rest of our society. The percentage of honest, nice people is still much higher in the climbing community than in the rest of the society.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0by Elena Corriero After discussing bouldering grades with Fred Nicole and Bernd Zangerl, here\u2019s some considerations by Adam Ondra who was the first, and still is the only one,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8066],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-boulder"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n