Assigning a grade or level to a boulder problem (or any climb, for that matter) is complicated. A grade must account for many factors, including strength, power, and technique, each of which encompasses a wide range of variables. It is no wonder that climbing gym setters face an insurmountable challenge when it comes to grading boulders in their gyms. Adding to the complexity is the fact that gym setters are acutely aware that their labels have a significant impact on the climbers in their gym. 

Gym setters know that they are, in a way, the architects of how a climber views their progress in the sport. People chase grades, but grades can be inconsistent. The grade assigned can either entice or discourage a climber from trying the problem at all. Because good setters aim to encourage climbers to explore new movements, refine their technique, and build strength and confidence, assigning a grade to a climb is even more involved than one might expect.

We interviewed two head setters at Canadian gyms, Max Summerlee and Karlo King, to better understand how they navigate the challenges of assigning grades or levels to boulder problems. Summerlee is the Director of Routesetting at two gyms in Ontario –The Guelph Grotto in Guelph and The Core in Cambridge. King is the head setter of Climb Base5 in North Vancouver as well as a setter at Ground Up in Squamish.

Some gyms use V-grades, while others use a colour system. We asked King and Summerlee what system they prefer and why. Summerlee thinks the most effective gym grading system is one in which each grade encompasses a broad range of movements and skills. “Our bouldering circuits represent a range of difficulty levels,” he said. “I think that helps balance out body morphology quite well, and offers more variety and style.”

King agrees: “Personally, I like colour circuits. I think people get so caught up in the numbers. It’s hard not to—I totally get that. People want to know where they’re at and that they’re improving.”

Both Summerlee and King propose that specific labelling can be prohibitive, discouraging climbers from trying something that a proposed number grade precludes as too hard. They enjoy somewhat vague grading systems because it means that climbers at their gyms will get on problems that might be a little out of reach–an obviously important step for growth. 

“One of the things we did for The Core was move to a three-grade system,” explained Summerlee. “I wanted people to try climbs they wouldn’t normally try. [With the three-grade system], there’s no colour circuit you’re used to. There’s no V-grade you’re used to. There’s no number system. What we’ve seen is greater participation across the whole gym. People are challenging their expectations. The grade doesn’t have to define a climb.

“It’s cool seeing people try things they would never have tried simply because they have no idea what the grade actually is. I don’t think I’m doing people a disservice by getting them to try things they normally wouldn’t and getting them out of their comfort zone.”

King offered similar sentiments: “We’ll often set with a V-grade in mind, but outward-facing, it’s in a circuit. I like that because I think it encourages climbers to try more things. They’ll think, ‘Okay, it could be somewhere in this range,’ and they’ll go try it. Maybe they’ll come back and say, ‘That’s definitely a harder red tag,’ (for example), but they’ll still try all the red tags.

“Sometimes, climbers get really dialed into V-grades. Because they’ve never climbed V5 before, they might just climb all of the V4s and decide everything else is way too hard. I think a system like that pushes people away from trying things that aren’t actually outside their skill level or aren’t that far beyond their abilities. The whole thing with grading is that a climber can assess if a climb is more appropriate for them. But just because it’s harder than they’ve ever climbed, it doesn’t mean they can’t go and try it.”