Well, for doing a VIR session, you are usually supposed to pick the problems you have done before, you aren't onsighting, so you already know what they feel like, and you don't have to figure it out before doing a VIR session.

And even if the problems are rated V1/2/3/4, if one of the V2s feels like V4 to me, I am not going to pick it for a VIR as a V2, just because a guy who put the tape on the wall called it V2.


I don't know. But how would it be different if hte problem were labeled medium-, and I was still struggling on it and thinking that it is more like medium+/hard-. I still wouldn't know if it were b/c the problem was not graded accurately, or if it was bc I was just missing a key beta, or because the problem relied on a skill that happened to be my weak link.


In a gym without V scale I would judge progress by being able to do a problem that i couldn't do a month ago--regardless of what it is labeled.

Or by being able to do most medium problems onsight or after couple tries, whereas a year or two ago most medium problems took more than couple tries and were hardly ever onsighted.

When setting a goal I think more in terms of specific problems, than a target grade level. If I set a goal of climbing a V6, and I walk around the gym trying every single climb that is labeled V6, until I find one that is maybe doable, and work on it, until I get it, is it any better/different than setting a goal of climbing every medium problem? Or a particular medium problem that is giving me trouble?

IF there was a way to grade problems completely objectively, and IF the objective difficulty level was the same for everyone, yes, a system that has more gradations in it would be more precise.

But since the grading is not that precise, you can get away with coarser system for majority of people.

If I'm missing a trick on a V0 that makes it as hard as a V2, then it's like I'm doing a V2, isn't it ?

It means you're climbing a V0 badly.

Jay

...The V-system is more precise than a 3- or 5-level grading system. You're dividing a fixed range into smaller increments. That's the definition of "more precise..."

It means you're climbing a V0 badly.

Jay

or taking an easy problem and making it challenging to you.
I climbed a 5.6 a few weeks ago that was nothing but jugs.
I made it harder for me by not using any of those holds. only using crimps and when i could i would jam a finger or hand into a crack.
I would call it a 5.9 the way i climbed it.

The V-system is more precise than a 3- or 5-level grading system. You're dividing a fixed range into smaller increments. That's the definition of "more precise."


That makes no sense, because, as I tried to explain in response to Curt, reducing the number of categories increases the imprecision. I'll try again, although I can do little more than repeat myself. Say that the grades in your gym are off by up to +/– two V-grades, regardless of the rating system that is actually used. Then if the gym uses V-grades, a route rated V5 would have the highest likelihood of being V5 (say a 40% chance), but there would be a good chance that it also might be V4 or V6 (say 20% each), and there is a small chance that it could be V3 or V7 (say 10% each).

Now assume that the gym uses your proposed three-category scale (easy, medium, hard), and that the "medium" category is intended to span V3–V6. However, due to the above imprecision in rating (±2 V-grades) the category will also include problems as easy as V1 and as hard as V8. Sorry if I don't show my math, but using the same assumptions above, there will be an 80% chance that a route will be a true "medium" (ie, V3–V6), with an average 20% chance per V-grade in that range (so the rating gives you no information whatsoever where in that range it lies); there will be a 7.5% chance each that the route will be either V2 or V7, and there will be 2.5% chance each that the route will be V1 or V8.

The bottom line is that for efficient training you have to be able to quantitatively measure your progress over not just the long term, but the short term.

If I'm doing two VIR sessions a week, I want to be able to set a goal like "today I want to remove one problem from the bottom rung of last session's pyramid and add one problem to the top rung." That's impossible to do if all your rungs have the same rating.

Jay

Yes, I understand your reasoning, though in practice I have never seen a "medium" route that would feel like a V1 or VB, so the percentages are off.

Also, don't forget that most gyms that use easy/medium/hard grading use +/- to break up the scale, essentially, into more categories.

No, it isn't impossible, or even particularly difficult, because, once again, you can rank the problems in your own subjective order of difficulty, and then do the same thing

And the presence or absence of little writing on the tape saying " v4" didn't really impair my climbing experience that much.

It's not any different than going to a gym and deciding that today you're going to life x amount of weight instead of xx amount of weight

Taking a route/problem and limiting the holds available to make the problem harder is very different than doing a problem using all available holds but not using the correct climbing movement(knowing the trick).

It is different. Weight can be accurately measured. Same with time and distance if you are into some cardio thing where you use those to quantify your workouts. 5 kgs is the same world wide. Ditto 5 clicks. Climbing grades are not accurately measurable and vary widely from place to place and even in the same place. You have to let the grades go and operate by feeling - at least if you are doing it for training .

In my gym it is obvious that the route setters have a certain perception of what a V2, V3, etc. problem should be like, and they set problems according to those perceptions. This causes quantitative gaps and qualitative differences between V-grades that make it difficult for a climber to progress and "break into" the next level. The only saving grace is that the setters sometimes make errors and so there are usually some intended V3s that are actually V2+'s, and so on. Now if this tendency to target problems to predefined categories carries over to gyms that use scales with fewer categories, then the gaps between difficulty levels would be even greater, making progress even more difficult.

First of all, it's inefficient to have to obtain this subjective knowledge in the first place. How do you even get it?

I never have an unstructured gym session. VIR is what I do 90% of the time. Practically the only problems I ever touch are the ones on my pyramid. When I want to add a problem to my pyramid, I don't want to and don't have to sample a bunch of problems. I want to look at a frackin' piece of colored tape and put the problem on my pyramid, with medium-term goal of being to do 80% of the "red" problems in my gym within three tries. Then, I know by an objective metric that I am up to the "red" standard in the gym, a level I wasn't at three months previous.

Which brings up my next point: without rating how do you know whether you're getting better, stagnating, or even getting worse over the short to medium term? Maybe for three months all the problems that feel hard for you are V3 and you're not getting anywhere. I'd like to know that, and I don't see how you could without feedback from a valid rating scale or from better climbers in the gym (which would just be a surrogate for a rating scale, anyway).

For the less naturally athletic, I'd for sure tell them to start bouldering in the gym to get good base levels of strength, technique, and flexibility.

Maybe this is best illustrated by example. I am going climbing with my girlfriend and three of her friends on Monday. Two of them have never climbed before and the other one has has come with us once before.

The last time we climbed it was up at Valhalla six weeks ago. Same day I tore my tendon grrr. She decided to boulder as it was cheaper and they did not have to learn how to belay. We looked for the easiest V0 in the gym and they took us over to a slab portion on the left side as soon as you come in. However the route was fairly technical and a little reachy and she was not able to get to the top (nor was another friend we brought with us). We told her to nor worry about the route and use any holds however the V0 holds tend to be the best holds anyways. Someone who is having problems getting to the top of a V0 is not gonna find any help by reaching for a V5 hold, heck most V2 holds are going to be no help. At home I stack holds as tightly as possible which is great for teaching new climbers using the rainbow route method. However for those of you who set routes professionally or at your local gym probably know that most gyms space out their routes so that they are evenly distributed across the gym.

But Hey "climbing is hard" someone mentioned earlier. Maybe climbing is not the sport for her. But wait I have the shiny 5.5 route you can try. Both of them made it to the top and one of them flashed the route. She then tried a 5.6 and flashed it as well. Finally she tried a 5.7 and made it most of the way up using open feet.

Please tell me why she is allowed to top rope but not boulder?

Climbing is a sport with a lot of tradition however the elitist attitude that bouldering has to be hard is false. And is SLOWLY changing given the fact that many gyms use alternate climbing scales. There is not reason for every gym not to have X6 routes that are = to 5.6 top rope routes.

Rachael is going to go again. We told her that the gym we are going to (The Rock Club in New Rochelle) has a few bouldering problems that she should be able to do. Last time I was there there were a number of V0- problems that were designed for new climbers.

To all the people that has posted in this thread. Please tell me why it is ok for new climbers to top rope but not boulder. Why are there not bouldering problems specifically designed and graded for new boulders? Its a double standard.

I am one of the people whose ego the OP is trying to protect. A roommate I had 5 years ago worked at a climbing gym and took me there once or twice. I went climbing maybe 5 times since then, until a few weeks ago when I decided to start using the wall at my school.

Only recently did it even occur to me to start following the routes, because I am a noob. I just boulder for now because I don't have a partner and it's plenty fun for now. My background is in skateboarding, so I think it's fun to jump down from the top of routes, anyway.

Someone who works there suggested I try a V0 route. I had no idea about this supposed 5.10 = V0 thing, so I thought she was saying I'm weak and uncoordinated looking. I came back and tried the route and, like, omg, it was pretty hard because I have undeveloped technique and grip strength. I kept falling after the first 3 moves.

A week later, I have the route figured out, I'm slightly stronger, and my technique has improved. I have fun climbing and I'm starting to want my own shoes. What's the big deal, exactly?

I see it like skateboarding and learning to ollie. You're not going to get very far in skateboarding until you learn how to jump, and learning it will involve hours of time and probably some scrapes and bruises. Learning to ollie weeds out a lot of people who might otherwise be interested in skateboarding. I think people who buy longboards just cruise around are ridiculous, and that's probably how you guys feel when people complain that easy climbs are too hard.

Far from a troll just someone who has introduced tons of people to climbing. The ones who dont come back are the ones who who could not get off the ground.

And yes the V scale was designed to be difficult. That is why the V0 is soooo difficult. However this was a short sited move as bouldering has gotten very popular however it is still limited to climbers who can already climb 5.10. This is very limiting and artificial.

Has anyone else tried to introduce a new climber to bouldering only have them get shut down before they get started?

what's so wrong with toproping for a few weeks or months to build strengh and technique and THEN go get those vOs?
bouldering is supposed to be hard. it isn't supposed to 'ropeless lowball toproping'.

That is like telling someone who wants to learn how to play tennis that they need to play ping pong for a few weeks so they can develop their grip strength and racket technique. It just does not make any sense at all.

There is no inherent reason to do this. The only reason it is an issue is that bouldering problems are made artificially difficult.

That is like telling someone who wants to learn how to play tennis that they need to play ping pong for a few weeks so they can develop their grip strength and racket technique. It just does not make any sense at all.

There is no inherent reason to do this. The only reason it is an issue is that bouldering problems are made artificially difficult. On my woody at home I have a slightly inclined section with nice big jugs and extra large foot holds (the big foot holds are key) that is the equivalent of a 5.4. I use this when teaching new climbers that are not very athletic. I have never met someone who is not able to send these climbs (its no harder than climbing an inclined ladder). Unfortunately when I then take them to the gym they often cannot get off the ground and are frustrated by the fact that they have to buy a harness and take a test on belaying.

No, it's like telling a kid who wants to play baseball but can't hit a single pitch to try some T-Ball for a while.


Artificially difficult? WTF are you talking about? The problems are intentionally difficult. The whole fucking point of bouldering is to push you to do hard moves.

Sheesh,

GO

Speaking of running, I've always wanted to run a marathon but they make them so artificially long. They should make easier marathons, like 300m, for those of us who wouldnt even make it around the first corner.