Will Hammersla - Inside Climbing

Grades are dead part 1 + 2 (2024)

Grades are Dead

V grades are dead, well at least for routesetters they are, or they should be. As a routesetter V grades are the bane of my existence. They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They don’t tell you how long a climb is, how powerful, how fun, how dangerous, how beautiful, really how anything, except the ‘cudos’ you might get from your climbing buddies or digital forums if you post a send vid.

Plus, V grades raise so many questions. If you’re really tall and dyno past the crux, do you still ‘get’ the same V grades? If you’re tiny and have to pull on the footers, do you ‘get’ more V grades?? I think it is no surprise we see people downgrade, but heaven forbid a small climber should be able to up grade!

The other bizarre thing we do as climbers is reduce the difficulty when a more complex solution is found. Climbing is the only sport or activty I’ve ever encountered where more technical solutions apparently lower the overall difficulty. How many times have you been at a crag and someone said “it was V9 until someone found the toe hook, now it’s like 7”. The only value V grades seem to handle is intensity, and in the world of routesetting, intensity is really only a starting point.

So, let’s rewind….. it must have been 5 years ago when I first heard about RIC. The ingenious metric for describing boulders create by Tonde Katiyo (I am sure that he would hand ball off much of the creation to his mentors). R or risk, is how difficult it is for a climber to repeat a movement, it is used to describe climbs with bad feed, or dynamic movement, or co-ordination. I or intensity, is how hard something is physically to do and C or complexity, is how difficult it is to decipher the method to climb something. Each value is scored from 1 to 5, and is based on the group of people that climb is intended for. So a boulder that is a 5 risk for beginners, may only be a 2 or a 3 for advanced climbers.

After using RIC for half a decade, I began to notice a couple things. The first is that risk and complexity have a very close relationship with intensity. Basically if you want someone to figure something out, the intensity has to be at the right level to give the climber enough capacity (time to think) to solve the problem. The same goes for risk, if you want someone to do a paddle, the intensity of the catching holds has to be just right, so they can actually pull on the holds, but not stop before performing the paddle. The other thing I noticed is that climbers had very different abilities depending on the ‘intensity’ of the hold (it’s easier to campus on a jug than a crimp).

One of the outcomes you seek being a head routesetter for a commercial facility, is to create some form of gradual progression through your grades, with the idea being that if you create the right sized steps, your climbers will always have something to work on. (I believe there are other models too, but as a starting point). This makes it very attractive to create some form of database that shows you how much of everything you have in the gym. If we were to use V grades, we would want there to be lots in the middle band (usually V3-V5, depending on what that means to you), and less on either end. You also want good diversity within the grades, and for each grade to step up gradually. V grades, as I said earlier, just don’t give you this kind of resolution. RIC on the other hand does, but what it misses is the ability to place all of your boulders on the same continuum. You would have to log a V grade, plus the RIC, and then how do you compare the RIC descriptors across grades?

So, I introduce to you PICA…. P for precision (another word for risk), I for Intensity, C for complexity and A for athleticism. The reason for calling it something else is:

  1. So it sounds cool
  2. So you know it is something different to RIC

The goal with this structure is very similar to RIC. The difference is all the boulders are graded on the same continuum. So your V11 in the corner uses the same scale as the V1 at the front. This allows you to look at your progression, in a similar fashion to V grades (just with less ego and more information). Values are calculated from 1 to 7 (why 7? Well check out this link), and intensity is split into 2. I or Intensity is how hard it is to hold on and A or Athleticism is how hard it is to move. To calculate the overall difficulty of the boulder you simply add each variable, P+I+C+A= difficulty.

The other benefit of using PICA is that it grows your vocabulary during the testing phase for your routesetting team. “This is too hard” can become “I think the athleticism is too high” or “I think the intensity is too much for the precision” which gives you actionable information to make your idea work where it needs to. Plus, routesetters who may not be able to handle the intensity of the boulder have specific vocabulary to add to the conversation.

PART 2 -

OK, so, where did we finish?

So now, let’s circle back to one of the points I made in the first part of this post - “I am not trying to develop a new grading system to take outdoors, another value system to compare and contrast your performance, or add to your conversion chart.” PICA is a tool, originally developed for routesetters. I say ‘originally’ because I think there are uses outside of routesetting that I can cover in another blog, but for now….. routesetting. PICA will not suddenly give you super powers to understand and cut through all ego and emotion, finding the one true grade….. It is only as good as its users, and like any tool, with practise it can be weilded with great precision and make your life easier than before. So with that in mind, let’s talk about PICA.

First off, I will discuss the way PICA can be used to build a spread of boulders in a space. Each circuit (colour, number, whatever) has a PICA range. You could use a PICA value as a circuit, but ranges allow for a little more flexibility and the ability to be more diverse. In a 1-7 scale, the mid circuit might have a range of 12 - 16 (PICA sum). So you could get those values with: 1 + 2 + 4 + 5 = 12 which might be some sort of stem or press (low precision, low intensity, high complexity, high athleticism) 5 + 2 + 4 + 4 = 15 which might be an easy paddle (high precision, low intensity, moderate complexity, moderate athleticism)

Really the type of movements and the tangible thing each value communicates is up to the setting team, and the vision of the chief setter. You might be focused on creating a space that is ideal for beginners, which may mean that a 7 intensity means one thing, where at a gym for competition climbers, a 7 intensity means something else. This is where PICA shares one of the key ideas of RIC. The values are group specific, determined by the routesetting teams vision.

Let’s move to the next logical question then. What if I have a gym or a space that provides for beginners and athletes! Isn’t PICA just like using RIC, if one set of values works for one group but not the other? Well this is where the idea that PICA as a ‘tool’ really comes in.

Increase your value range. Creating a space for beginners to advanced climbers may mean that you need 1 - 10 for each attribute. One word of advise, is that I would suggest the minimum number you would use would be the same as the number of circuits you have. So, if you use colour circuits, and you have 7 colours, your value range is 1 - 7. This gives you a value for each attribute that is in line with your offering. It makes it easier to discuss and differentiate each value.

This complexity is what we would see in the top circuit, but with holds we usually use for the middle circuit, so Complexity would be 7, but intensity would be 4……. Of course it doesn’t actually work like that, but it is a good place to start.

Another interesting way to set it out would be to grow the values as your community grows. You could start with 1 - 7 and then add values as they are required. “We have never had this level of intensity before, let’s make it 8”.

Basically the actual values don’t matter as much as the scheme itself. P+I+C+A = Difficulty. Just remember that there is always a trade off between the detail of a model and how user friendly it is. If you create your values in a way that each attribute has a different range (say I has 1- 8, but C has 1 - 5), inducting new setters into your program becomes much more challenging! I hope you are still with me!….. Now for the fun part.

Climbing in general has very little research, so what I am about to say is based more on observation over time than from any studies…. But…. ‘Climbers tend to choose intensity, before choosing anything else.’ Watch a competition, you will see lots of climbers try to static the dyno. Watch climbers around the gym, you will see people fighting barn doors instead of matching feet, campusing instead of heel hooks and cutting loose rather than keeping feet on.

As routesetters, this is the balancing act we find ourselves in. We think someone will match that hold, the hold size decreases. We think someone will static the dyno, the launch position might get further away, or the hold you jump from becomes worse.

So let’s use PICA to talk through one of these examples. We set a dyno in our middle circuit that has a PICA range of 12 - 16. The team thinks the current values for it are: 5℗ + 3(I) + 2© + 4(A) = 14

Turns out, Steven (it’s always Steven….) can static the dyno, which he thinks is ‘easier’. We ask Steven what he means and he says easier……. “ Well I can reach, which maybe ups the intensity (because he really has to hold on hard to the first hold), but drops the precision a lot. Which might mean that doing the boulder this way is more like: 2℗ + 4(I) + 2© + 4(A) = 12

Now, we have a decision to make, because a 12 still sits within our circuit range…… So maybe we are ok that there are a couple of solutions (after all, we set problems, not solutions). But the team says no, we want to chase the dyno. So imaginary setter 2, let’s call them Kat, she suggests we increase the complexity, to encourage the jump. Holds move, now you have to land a foot when you catch the hold, which means Steven can’t solve the boulder statically anymore, but it feels a lot harder. The team thinks the values are now more like: 6℗ + 3(I) + 4© + 4(A) = 17

Adding in the foot stomp bumped up the precision too (adding another moving part usually does this). It also pushes the boulder outside the PICA range. The solution? We drop the intensity. The catch hold gets more positive, and hey presto, we are back in range: 6℗ + 2(I) + 4© + 4(A) = 16

At first, as you get used to the PICA tool, asking questions about the values might be useful, but over time, they begin to matter less. What is more useful, and more valuable, is the language and communication this process creates. Everything that happened above could be summed up with something more like:

For a lot of experienced routesetters, this process might be second nature. We test boulders and we can feel in our bodies what is going on. What is exciting about this process though is that it makes the testing and tweaking process more accessible. PLUS, it also allows us to maintain the most important aspect of a boulder during the tweaking process. This is where the brief comes in. At the start of the day, the chief Routesetter might determine that we need more intensity in circuit A. There are too many complex climbs with positive holds, and we need something crimpy or slopey to improve the diversity of the circuit. Let’s say we use Steven again, who sets this super fun complex bloc with a kneebar rose move….. it’s amazing….. but it’s too hard (and too complex). Using PICA again, let’s say the values are: 2℗ + 4(I) + 6© + 4(A) = 16 We know how to fix the boulder, and make it work within the circuit. We drop the intensity, add in a more positive hold and then it works and is closer to the difficulty we wanted….. BUT….. We have lost the intensity, which is what the chief wanted in the first place. So what do we do? Well we have the other 3 dials we can turn….. To keep the intensity where it needs to be, the team decide to reduce the complexity of the boulder. They scratch the rose kneebar sequence, even though it was pretty cool, because it wasn’t what the space needed! The team finish with a simpler, but intensity focused boulder, which creates more diversity in the circuit. I’m not saying numbers don’t lie, but they provide a routesetting team a way of discussing the effectiveness of a particular boulder, without attacking the quality of it. Quality after all is much more subjective and is really something that occurs based on many other factors (see my what is good routesetting post).

Hopefully this has been interesting and useful for my fellow routesetters out there. I always love hearing from my readers, so feel free to comment on my socials. Keep up the good work! Will