Table reproduced with permission of Rockfax
Rockfax Limited 2006

Quotationsystem of Klem Loscot:
B1 = A boulder from which you knough that his easy to repeat time after time
B2 = A boulder which you can repeat after a bit of practice
B3 = A boulder that will be hard to repeat even after a lot of practice
Source

BoulderingRatings . . . How fine a partition?

In 1958 I devised the first American boulderingrating system . At that time 'trad' climbing was king, and hadthere been any forays into what we now call 'sport' climbing, theywould have been dismissed as unethical. Consequently, as Yvon Chouinardobserved, 'The hardest moveswill always be done on the boulders'. I envisioned threecategories oftechnical difficulty: B1 would denote the highest level of difficultyin traditional roped-climbing, B2 would be a broad category of moredifficult or'bouldering level' problems, and B3 would be an objective categorysignifying climbs that were unrepeated, though attempted. When a B3 wasrepeated it would drop to a B2 or perhaps even a B1 level. As time wentby, B1 would correspond to higher levels of traditional climbingdifficulty, and the system would shift accordingly. My idea wasto promote this new sport by challenging climbers to improve theirtechnical skills to the point they were capable of  'boulderinglevel' difficulty, but discourage thedegeneration of bouldering itself into a numbers-chase .

In retrospect, I regret even considering a rating scheme forbouldering. Although I saw bouldering could be an exciting competitive venue, I thought of it more as personal challenges among asmall group of participants in bouldering sessions as they explored newterritory together. Beyond this sort of 'chilvalrous combat', I sawit as a blend of exploration, artistry, and athletics. To me, style, grace and form - qualities the climber brings tothe rock - were equally as important as difficulty , an aspect of bouldering that, because of geneticdifferences of height, reach, compactness, finger size, etc., permitsno 'leveling of the playing field'among competitors working on a single route. (Indeed, I recall RichGoldstone observing that a particular boulder route done by me and ashorter climber could be more accurately described as two separate problems or climbs). On longer ascents or on avcircuit of boulder problemssuch a leveling may occur.
 
The development of sport climbing and the tendency in human nature to create a finely partitioned hierarchy to determine relative status ( Isoon began seeing B1- and B2+ ) degraded and nullified myB-rating system. I now hear comments from young boulderers such as 'If it's not about numbers, then it's not aboutanything!' Coming into bouldering through a climbing gymapparently sometimes produces young athletes with perspectives of thesport thatcontrast with those of previous generations. I recommend that anyoneinterested in bouldering learn traditional climbing in naturalenvironments. I'm not suggesting you'll be a stronger boulderer becauseof this, rather that you will experience bouldering as an integral partof the venerable sport of rock climbing and not as just another weirdX-game.

Bouldering is substantially different from lengthier rock climbing inthat a rating system is not necessary to avert dangerouspredicaments, merely convenient for judging one's progress. For highballs, the ADS would suffice. However, back in the real world where it seems that numbers are more tangible than the rock we climb on, here is a glimpse of the current ratings jungle . Compare this with these ratings . Now take two aspirins. For an alternate, possibly more objective rating structure one might consider a Par System .

There is no bouldering grading system that has a consistent internal integrity. The more one tries to subdivide categories of difficulty - 'slicing the grades thinner and thinner' as John Sherman puts it - the greater the resulting errors. Even at therelative beginning, when Yvon Chouinard and I bouldered together in the1950's the differences in our height and body compactness made it virtually impossible to assign numbers or letters, that seemed fair to both of us, to certain problems. But we could usually agree that a problem was 'of bouldering difficulty'. Now, as I witness an influx of youngsters into the sport, usually via climbing gyms and without the benefit of historical context, enticed by an array of numbers and letters, I get the impression of the tail wagging the dog, and forsee the possibility of bouldering exiting the parental environment of conventional climbing. Here are some additional thoughts about bouldering & skateboarding & ratings.

British Trad Grades: Widely misunderstood by anyone but the Brits but actually a very simple and effective system. This system contains two distinct parts, explained below:

	Adjective Grade:   This gives an indication of the overall feel of the route. Routes with high adjective grades and low technical grades will generally be poorly protected whilst those with low adjective grades and high technical grades will be relatively safe. Routes falling between these two scenarios will most likely have a bit of both.
	Technical Grade:   This records the level of difficulty of the hardest individual move on the route.

French Sport Grades: Originating in France with the birth of Sport Climbing (i.e.routes with fixed protection), this grading system is probably the most widely recognised and used system in the climbing world. The route grade reflects the overall difficulty of the climb (being as fixed protection is used no consideration of danger is necessary), although anomalies can occur with routes with short hard sections getting equal grades to sustained technically easier routes.

UIAA Grades: This system was developed in Germany and Eastern Europe around the same time as the French Sport Grades. It works in a similar anner to this and is generally applied to Sport Climbs.

USA (Yosemite Decimal System) Grades: The American System, originally developed in and around the Yosemite region (hence the name) starts with a 5. prefix - which indicates the route to be a rock climb, 1-4 prefixes being for routes/trails comprising walking through to scrambling. The grading of the value following the 5. prefix again works in a similar manner to the French Sport Grade. Additional letters are sometimes added at the tail end of the grade to give an indication of route nature, R = Runout, X = Dangerous, XX = Make sure your health insurance payments are up to date!.rks

Australian Grades: The simplest and most logical of all the grading systems. An open ended scale that starts at the bottom and finishes at whatever the strongest climbers in the worls are up to at that moment in time, no +'s or -'s are used. Higher grades are used for routes which are technically easy but difficult to protect than for those of the same technical standard but with adequate gear. (Note: The grades indicated in the current table are slightly out of sync. As a general rule minus two from the grades indicated to correct this error. A new table will follow at a later date).

V Grades: Developed in Hueco Tanks, Texas, USA by John 'Vermin' Sherman this grading system appears to be the gaining favour on an international scale having already been widely adopted in the US, Australia and the majority of Europe. The grading system is open ended, starting at V0 and currently extending to approx. V15, and relatively simple to use, however, it does not cater very well for easier problems and the British Technical Grade is found more appropriate for these.

Fontainebleau Grades: As the name suggests, this system was developed in Fontainebleau, France, and consists of both technical, font, grades and colour coded problem cicuits. This system is only widely used in France, mostly around Fontainebleau itself, and suffers from vast irregularities of grades at the lower end of the spectrum.

Average Rating	Meaning	Colour	Difficulty of moves
			inf.	normale	sup
E	Circuit for childeren	White	-	-	-
F	Easy	Pink	1a-1c	1c-2a	2a-2b
PD	Low dfficulty	Yellow	2b-2c	2c-3a	3a-3b
AD	Medium difficulty	Orange	3b-3c	3c-4a	4a-4b
D	Diffilult	Blue	4b-4c	4c-5a	5a-5b
TD	Very difficult	Red	5b-5c	5c-6a	6a-6b
ED	Extremely difficult	Black or White	6b-6c	6c-7a	7a-7b
ABO	Abominable	-	7b-7c	7c-8a	8a-8b

Note: The words by «Meaning» don't have a correspondence with the similar British rating words.


British Tech Grades: This system applies a numerical prefix accompanied with either an a, b or c. The grade assigned gives an indication of the standard of the hardest move on a problem. This means its great for very short problems where there is no need to take account of moves already completed but effectively useless for longer, more stamina orientated, problems. Due to their less demanding nature this system is probably the best one to give an indication of grade for 'easy' problems.

Sport Grades: Some boulder problems, in particular traverses, contain more moves than alot of routes out there. To account for their length, these problems are occaisionally given sport climbing grades. Refer to 'French Sport Grades', outlined above, for further details.