UKH

Something that perplexes me is regular requests on this forum and elsewhere for recommendations at climbing destinations of routes at a certain grade - often 7a - which are known to be 'soft'. 

This is predictably followed by a flurry of answers like: 

"try 'x', I never climb 7a usually but I onsighted this!"

To me this seems like trying to get drunk on non-alcoholic beer. It's not the real thing, everybody knows it's not the real thing, and it's never going to actually get you where you want to go. 

What's the point of climbing a '7a' knowing it was actually 6c+ all along? 

Sensible avoidance of death.

Sensible way to progress to a higher grade.

To clarify I was mostly talking about sport. That said, the same applies to trad. A nice benchmark E3 with good kit is a damn sight better than a soft touch that's going to be E2 in the next guide. 

I just don't see how it helps with progression to climb something that clearly isn't actually the grade you want to climb. 

A climbing partner of mine deliberately seeks sandbags of the grade below before stepping up to next grade...

So was that E1+ or E2-?!?

I’ve climbed a few soft touches on trad to break into a grade as it’s a mental boost but then you know it’s doesn’t matter how many Pembers HVS/E1s you climb that HS on grit will still feel nails. 

So you're a 6c climber who wants to climb 7a - get to it ! Don't waste energy at 6c+ - its not the real thing. Jump in the deep end !

Perhaps it's about breaking the psychological barrier.

It makes sense, surely, to test yourself, when taking a step up, on something a bit harder then a bit harder rather than going from a route that might be mid grade 6c+ to something that might be absolute top end 7a and be shut down and take a confidence knock.

There's also the numbers game. If you do a bunch of 'soft touches' there's a fair chance that among them will be one or two that don't really deserve the term - and 'Bingo!', you're in. By that time, too, you may have become sufficiently relaxed about trying routes at that grade that you no longer bother to seek out the easy ones.

In bouldering I can often do a few problems at one or two grades above my current level.  Whilst it is a bit of an ego boost, in reality I am always looking to get a solid "classic" at the next grade.  Until I have got a solid classic I don't real feel like I have broken into the next grade and just feel like I am kidding myself about the soft touches I have got.  Of course I am then still a long way from being consistent at the grade.

So my view is that whilst doing a soft route for the grade may be a good ego boost and help to get you into the grade you really need to aim for a solid classic to really have got the grade.

Of course, none of this really matters.  What matters is that the routes/problems are interesting and enjoyable whatever the grade.

E1+ is much, much harder than E2-.

Depends totally on your background. Some people freak out when they're above the sea and get pumped stupid on steep juggy routes. Others are good at little rounded cracks.

In sport, I can see the OP's point that "you're only cheating yourself", since it doesn't really matter what route you try, and the achievement is measured in numbers. Ticking a soft touch sport grade is just a misrepresentation of your ability.

In trad it can be a bit different since you're often talking about committing to something when you decide to try a route. It might actually be committing (abseil in/difficult to escape/whatever), or it might just be a right faff to get your gear back if you can't do the route, but either way, you're setting out with the intention of getting up the route. So soft touches play an important role: getting on a soft route at the next grade changes how you perceive that grade to be - from out of your league to something you've got a chance at. Getting into that next grade opens up a whole load of routes that are now on the table, and it might open up whole new crags - e.g. once you've done a couple of soft E2s you might thing "wow, now I can go down Huntsman's Leap". So the confidence you get from some soft E2s could change a lot, from walking straight past committing crags where everything's an E-grade to actually getting stuck in.

Since in trad, so much depends on confidence, the ego-boost you get from cruising a soft-touch can make a big difference. I always went for soft touches when breaking into a new grade, and I always felt great after doing those routes even though I knew that what I just climbed was nowhere near the hardest thing I'd done. Soft touches are great (and so are sandbags, but not nasty dangerous ones).

This won't be a problem when all the grades are consistent. 

Because it is there.

This is from Steve McClure's tips on how to climb your first 7a

"When breaking into new ground you could even go one further: choose the soft options, those ‘low in the grade’ routes. Although, this does run the risk of it getting downgraded at some point!"

So the expert says go for a soft touch - just not too soft

One of my old partners would have ignored  any number of *** HVS on a crag and gone for  a few no starred E1 s because at the end of the day HVS doesn't get you E points. I don't think he was at all unusual in this.

I've climbed with people like this, and worse. Even the choice of crag is determined by there being a soft touch route at their "top grade", one that's not even good. I'd much rather do the big, classic routes, somewhere round my grade. If I'm at a new crag, I want to do the classics, or routes that are my cup of tea. If there's a soft-touch classic route at my top grade in my style, then obviously I'll be all over it (and I'll go to the crag specially), but I'm not going to climb some bag of shite for the number. It's cheap, degrading (ha!) even.

From the perspective someone doing boulder circuits; heading for the hardest ones straight away would be kind of dumb. You ease yourself into that grade or grade band by doing the easier ones first, gaining confidence and practice, and getting good enough to do the hard ones eventually. When you’re half way through that circuit you might have a crack at the easier ones in the next harder circuit, pretty satisfying.

Banging your head against the wall by trying the hardest problems in a circuit first seems counter productive to me, and also a bit ‘macho’ for want of a better word.

Graded lists were not only great fodder for pub arguments, they could be very useful for progression too.

Yup, grade tarts. 

Within sport climbing, whilst there clearly are some soft touches, a lot of it is style dependent and whether the route suits you or not. 

I can climb almost 2 full grades harder if the route suits my preferred style of climbing. One of my regular partners has a diametrically opposite climbing style to mine and exhibits a similar differential the other way around. 

One man's soft touch is another man's horrorshow. 

Because ego.

This is my experience as well. 

When guidebooks had graded lists at the back, I always had a cluster of ticks in the bottom third of each grade but the high end of each grade might be empty, right down to VS. 

I did Cry of Despair (7c) as my first 7c in 2014. It took 4 sessions which at the time was the longest I'd ever spent on anything, and there was a distinct sense of disbelief on clipping the chains. 

On lowering off, my belayer - who at that point was a lot better and stronger than I was and had persuaded me to get on it in the first place - gave me a big clap on the back and said

"Nice one. Nobody's ever taking that away from you!"

This stuck with me somewhat as I suddenly considered what it would be like to work hard on something, to feel that I'd achieved a new level of difficulty for myself, and then to have someone tell me it was 7b+ all along. I'd feel incredibly cheated. 

Since this point I've always made absolutely certain that any first few routes of a grade are classic benchmarks. Since the definition of progression in sport climbing is challenging yourself to further levels of difficulty and in better style, it seems logical to ensure that time, effort and emotion invested into a route should take you where you really want to go. 

I rest my case regarding 'soft touches'. You're not getting on the route because it's easy. You're getting on it because it's hard - and you want to know if you're up to the challenge. 

Don't kid yourself. 

But 6c+ is UIAA VIII-.

Then 7a.

Then 7a+ is 5.12a.

You just have to keep an open mind about grading systems & it's landmarks all the way! (What's Ewbank 25?)

I climb for fun, the harder the grade the less fun it is.

Are you suggesting that I'm not having fun when I try a hard route? Because sorry, but I am. 

Agreed- been a while since I've done any sport but 6c/6c+ is a funny old grade in my experience. I've had much more fun just not bothering with it, trying stuff 7a and above and falling off.

To turn this on it's head, what about routes getting upgraded? Would I feel like I'd climbed an 8a if my only 7c+ got upgraded*, or would it feel rather hollow? 

*Just about conceivable because it's considered stiff or "Spanish 8a" now.

I don't think you're being honest.

I'm not a performance-focused climber, and haven't been on a hard (for me) route in ages due to an interrelated combination of injury and motivation. But I have by far the most fun when the level of difficulty hits a sweet spot of being challenging but nicely within my capabilities. Without sufficient challenge, the experience is not intense, it's missing something important (although it can be pleasant). Too hard, and I get scared, frustrated, throw a wobbler, back off and curse myself, etc, and the experience is overall negative.

There is a different kind of sweet spot ("type 2") where it's horrible at the time and I scrape my way painfully up a route in a state of gibbering anguish, but seems fun in retrospect because I ended up with some sort of "trophy". This is basically what climbing always used to be for me, but I'm kind of done with it now. The grade is important here, because if I gibber up something with a high grade (for me) I feel good, but if I gibber up something that's supposed to be easy, I'm just being told I'm shit by the guidebook and that's not nice. So, the automatic response is to go straight onto UKC logbooks and try to find some confirmation that the route's a massive sandbag.

Worked on Tarkus, Dow Crag which was graded E1 but is more like E3!

Grades are discrete steps.

Routes are a linear scale, but rated within the stepped grade band.

Climbing ability progression is (mostly...) linear, not discrete steps.

Moving up a grade step means it is sensible to start with routes that just make it into the next grade step. And, as HannahC says, doing sandbags at your current grade.

I'm sure some people want self-deluding bragging rights, too.

Is that tongue in cheek?

Putting climbs in a particular grade box is artificial since there is obviously a continuous rise in levels of difficulty ie not stepwise (and that's omitting differences due to individual preferences, heights etc ). Graded lists help with assessing relative difficulty: the bottom climbs being more likely to be soft touches.

In actuality for a few there's boasting possibilities in the pub, especially to novices: eg "I can climb E3." Also its sensible for a nervous leader to start on soft touches in a grade, especially in trad.

Edit:  Sorry, Captain Paranoia and others beat me to it while I was typing.

I rather foolishly announced to all and sundry that I had a goal of on sighting 7a as I approached the age of 70.  I never redpoint nor train in any structured, formalised manner and achieving my goal was looking increasingly challenging under these restrictions.  I had no intention of changing my approach to climbing so I started to seek out soft touch 7a's.  I was quite open about it and I am under no delusions that to date the vast majority of 7a's I have climbed were a soft touch, some have even been subsequently downgraded.

Al

In some ways this is irrelevant. It could be argued that what’s important there is you gave the route 100%, everything you had, and despite being in disbelief, you made it to the top. Someone might say it’s 7b+, but if it felt hard to you, it felt hard. The grade doesn’t affect the difficulty of your experience. 
 

Maybe this is why I like onsighting? It might not be the hardest number you can possibly ever climb, but you can climb/try as hard as you possibly can. Regardless of the grade, if you’ve had an all out war with a route and you get to the top, it’s a good feeling! 

Al, with respect - yourself being someone who is very comfortable with their ethic and honest about their opinions and styles - do you not reckon those softer 7a's were really 6c+?

I think you probably feel the difference afterwards as to whether it was merely an easier 7a as opposed to a mislabelled 6c+. 

Personally now if I onsight a 7c (current best OS on rock) and feel like it was soft, I just take 7b+. I'd rather not kid myself because, sensible or not, progression in my personal climbing ability does form a fairly important cornerstone of the way I currently pursue goals. 

Maybe I'm construing the rather abstract concept of pursuing difficulty into the far more tangible pursuit of a certain grade - I'm interested in the former, not the latter - so if it wasn't as hard as it should be, I feel compelled to be honest about that with myself. 

Perhaps this is just a personal hang-up? 

It is? Christ, when did that happen? Damn is used to be good!

This is actually a rather good point. If what you're really after is trying hard, then the grade becomes largely irrelevant as long as you're experiencing that 'try-hard' mode. 

The tricky part comes when you want to share that experience with others and need a frame of reference to phrase it around. For example if I say to my mate who climbs 8a RP 'This 8a+ is hard but good', that to me is a top recommendation because what I'm saying is 'I think this will take time for you to do, but I also think the route is worthy of that time investment.' 

Onsighting is spectacular and certainly does involve trying very hard, but I'd argue against the idea that we try our hardest when onsighting. On a redpoint where every move is wired, you know the holds in intimate detail and you still have to give absolutely everything - that's when you're trying as hard as you possibly can. It's the oddest form of meditation and mindfulness. 

Just take the grade  you're given. If I struggle on a 6b I don't  mark myself up to 6c because 'it must be undergraded because 6b is usually pretty  routine for me' and likewise  if I razz a 6c I don't mark myself down to 6b just because' I don't usually cruise 6c so it must be overgraded'.

And, yes, I am looking for my first 7a so, yes,  I have been asking friends what would be a good one to try, which, let's be honest, is just another way of asking which are soft touches.

Absolutely which is why I said I was under no delusions.  I used them as a stepping stone to boost my confidence and get hard climbing mileage in.  To date I've not cleaned too many genuine 7a's and most of those were when I was in my 50's. I've never considered myself a 7a or E4 climber.  I'm a competent, consistent E2 climber who on a good day can climb E3 and when everything is in line a few E4's.  I've been like that since 1965 although more climbing, indoor facilities and better gear moved me to the harder end of the spectrum.  If I have a lay-off I'm back to E2 and 6B.

Al

Trying hard is very much independent of prior knowledge. I think what you're referring to is a combination of trying hard, pulling hard and getting everything right. You can get a lot of things very wrong indeed, be so pumped stupid you can hardly pull at all any more, yet still be trying your very hardest.

An alternative perspective is that you tick some easy routes in (target grade+1) in order to confirm your level in (target grade) eg. tick off 10 7a+ on different rock/types/sectors/counties (NOT Kalymnos of course ) and you can confirm your level at 7a.

I believe soft touches in trad are useful and sensible to gradually move up the grades and avoid serious consequences.

In sport it is much more about ticking a specific grade, so it does seem a bit like cheating to seek out a soft route to say you've ticked the grade (being inspired by the line and wanting to climb it for the climbing is a whole other thing). 

Anyway we all know that everyone should climb at  The Cuttings for proper ticks at the grade because the only thing that will get downgraded there is your ego.

Spot the irony.

Ahh but this is the thing, isn't it. What I ​​​​​want is the ​​​​​​challenge, but the way that I identify it is the grade. 

So if I want to be sure that I'm going to challenge myself to the level I believe is going to be hard but ultimately should be achievable with work, I need to choose a route which I'm sure is going to represent that challenge - which is a benchmark. 

This ultimately is designed to avoid fooling myself about how hard something is and to goal set in a pragmatic way.

I'm not saying grades don't matter - but rather that without the associated difficulty, the grade doesn't mean anything. 

If u want a challenge why don’t you climb a route that hasn’t already been bolted for you and a nice little guide book that tells you about the route.

Lots of places in climbed in the world

Sounds convoluted.

I have sympathy with your position - I have always been reluctant to say I've done a given grade until I've done one that seems solid at that grade.

But a soft 10a might still be harder than than a mid-grade 9c+, so if it's purely about pursuing difficulty, there's no need to protest too much about trying a soft one at the grade above your limit.

Agree 100%, never understand why people do this. If I onsight a hard E2 that feels right on my limit, and an E3 which doesn't, I'll get much more out of the E2. If I onsight an E3 which feels right on my limit, and a supposed E4 which in reality is an overgraded E3 in which I have a little to spare, I'll get much more out of the E3. 

The difficulty is more important than the grade written in the book. To me, difficulty in itself is much more tangible than someone else's representation of difficulty which could be completely wrong.

But 'soft touch' just means easy for the grade, it doesn't have anything to do with seriousness. Why not just pick something well protected?

Low-hanging fruit.

Soft-touch hunting is a skill and, once bagged, you are entitled to keep the ticked grade, irrespective of subsequent down-gradings, courtesy of Pearson's Law

Your question sounds rather judgemental, and I apologise for saying this, but a tad arrogant, don't you think? I see from your profile that you are undoubtedly a good climber, and no doubt you derive pleasure for climbing at your grade and pushing it, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of climbers, who don't or can't climb themselves so hard, yet get plenty of satisfaction from climbing at whatever level they enjoy. We all know that grading is subjective, and what's wrong with someone giving themselves a little boost to their ego by climbing a soft touch route? It's personal to them, but by asking your question you are "judging" them. Why not stick to what gives you satisfaction, and give others some slack? 

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think you’re necessarily trying any harder on your hardest redpoint, you’re just using the prior knowledge of things like (you say) how to exactly hold a hold, where to rest, which holds to skip, body positioning etc to get a route that’s graded at your limit. Hence why you might have to try harder on an 8a onsight than an 8b RP. Depends on the route. You might not even get a look in on an 8a on the onsight if it’s not your style, it’s not chalked and you’ve read the sequence incorrectly, but if at the 5th bolt you were absolutely convinced you were off, but your still holding on by the 10th, and after milking the rest and giving the last 3m every last ounce of what you’ve got, and some, you might be at the chains, having tried as hard as you possibly can. A bit off topic anyway. 
 

Fact is, everyone loves a nice soft touch, I bet you do too, I know there’s a heart in there somewhere!! 
 

A soft touch doesn’t have to been graded incorrectly. I’m not talking about a 7b that’s actually 6c+, no one really likes those. Climbing is a skill, mental and physical game. Even sport climbing, I route that’s low in the grade will convince you to try another of the same grade. Once you’re a few routes in, you may not be so worried about trying then anymore, and that’s part of the mental battle won; thinking you can do it important. I love a soft touch, but I also love a good sandbag, because for me at the end of day if I want to climb at my limit and a route delivers that, the grade doesn’t exactly matter. Probably more important is consistent grading. It’s all subjective anyway...

If I’m looking to break in to a grade I don’t necessarily go and hunt out something that’s solid/benchmark. I probably want something I’ve got a chance of actually getting up. If it gets downgraded who cares, by then youll probably have done a load of routes at that grade anyway. Some might call this the low hanging fruit though! Guess it’s up to you and what you want 

Personally I like good climbing, I research hard/soft and star ratings (character) before getting psyched to attempt something at my limits. I don"t mind extra effort if the rock is rewarding. Having discovered a route which is hard/obscure at the grade I often vote star rating down because its not good 'at that grade'; less sure to have done the converse ... because its a joke (soft) 'at that grade' ?

In all events if you imagine to have 'made the grade' reality (or your mates !) will soon bring you down to earth in time.

What if it's your first ever E4? I bet you'll walk home with a right swagger on.

Because, young man, people like to feel good about themselves, quite simple.

What might be a soft touch 7a to a 6ft male might be a hard 7a to a 5ft female. 

All grades are relative and should just be an indication of the potential difficulty level to expect.

You're right, and I did! It's just the other ones for which the reason I got up them wasn't that I was going well. 

This discussion seems not to be about absolute difficulty but about pushing our own personal limits, whatever those may be. If it is judgemental, I don't think it's from the perspective of looking down on less good climbers - it could equally apply to better climbers. 

6c and 7a have a massive overlap, the difference in difficulty caused by a specific route suiting your strengths or not will always be bigger than the difference in difficulty between two adjacent, similar routes of those grades. Compare 6b to 8a and the general difficulty will tell.

However, I can climb overhanging offwidth crack stuff at grades where I would be shut down at any other style, so even that comparison does not always hold.

It is all about bragging rights in the pub, anyway, so no need to worry.

CB

The fact that something is soft for the grade does not mean it is actually the grade below or/and will get downgraded in future. In fact,  in most of the UK the grading is now so mature having been subject of repeated guidebooks and years of rockfax voting,  this is in practice very unlikely. It simply means it is lower in the spectrum of difficulty for that grade. For me,  I take the grade given and if I can get up a climb of a new grade then the fact that I know it to be soft will not prevent me feeling a major sense of achievement. 

The benefit is that going in to it knowing it is low in the grade means that you know in advance that it is theoretically only a small step up from what you have done before. This makes it seem less intimidating, which can be a major factor in success. 

I think this actually helps a lot more on trad than sport though. It's most important when you need to get something right first time and nerves play a part. 

P. S.  Just to illustrate the futility of it anyway in some cases. I found your CoD example strange because that was the 7c I have found easiest (I think it.took me about 4 goes on a rope.) In contrast, I was told that Sturgeon in the Cupboard down the Dale was soft and close to 7b+ (pre breakage) but I couldn't do it in 4-5 sessions. I think at higher grades on sport or bouldering,  the difference in difficulty in a grade band are at least matched by variance in climbers' individual strengths/weaknesses at that grade. 

Edit: I just realised my postscript paragraph was just making the same point as the guy above...

Yes.  Worryingly, if you are not careful probably about half of the routes you do would be somewhat easy for their grade and therefore not worth wasting your time on.  Fortunately we have graded lists so real climbers can avoid them.

Why don't you just make 7a harder and make 7a be the hard number and make that a little harder?

That only works between 10 and 11

CB

Which ones?

(Asking for a friend) 

Just a thought,  but won't half of all 7as be easier than average?

Not necessarily. They will, however, be easier than the median.

CB

Good job I  covered my arse by putting  in the question mark

I agree. 6c+ is still going to be harder than 6c but without the sense of achievement of 7a. Might as well go for it! I suspect 7c+ is the same. No idea about 8c+. Of course this is entirely arbitrary due to a fairly illogical grading system (though I suspect the Australians and South Africans value 20 more than 19).

To the OP - it’s an odd question. As I said on another thread, just because you do something, you shouldn’t assume that everyone else wants to do the same thing. Not everyone wants a ‘proper’ tick all of the time.

The median is an average. He didn't state the mean, but might of meant just that.

Sorry, just being a bit nit-picky

just in case for those who don't know (not aimed at cb294): there are 3 "common" averages;

mean - add them up and divide by how many there are - this is what we tend to think of first when people say "average" but when statistics are involved, people/companies/whatevers will use the one closest to their argument.

median - put them all in a line in order, go half way along the line and there's the median

mode - the most common value

An example - average number of arms. The mean will be a weeny bit below 2 because some people unfortunately have lost arms, etc. The median will be 2 because only the values near the end of the line are likely to be anything other than 2. The mode will definitely be 2.

But I could say either that I have an average number of arms (I have 2 thank goodness), or that I have above the average number of arms if that suited my point better.

And the whole point of me saying this - beware when you see the word "average" in the media - it may not be what you think.

P.S. there are other types of average like geometric average but they're much more rarely used.

I would have thought that it is meaningless to talk about a mean grade, since grades cannot actually be measured - they are just arbitrary cut off points in an hypothetical perfect graded list (the further up the list, the fewer people could hypothetically succeed on the route). So grades simply rank the routes and the only meaningful average is the median.

But of course this tactic isn't always going to work - jumping 6c+ to get 7a is averagely more feasible for the many than jumping 7a+ to get 7b 

but whatever - a useful trick to help find new limits

Yes I was semi trolling. To stick with your example the average (mean) human has two arms, one nose, one breast, and half a dick.

CB

Pahaha. Solos a solas (7c) was certainly right on the border, for example. 

I suspect opinion and style has a large role to play here 

This summer I onsighted, on paper, my hardest trad route. It receives a slash grade. I'd climbed a good few in the lower grade and was looking to break into the higher grade. So a slash grade seemed like a good stepping stone. It was the hardest I've tried on a trad route and a definite step up in difficulty. I didn't feel cheated. I'm happy claiming the higher grade because it still feels harder than anything I've done in the lower grade. Other people might not feel that it warrants that, but frankly I don't care. It was a personal experience. 

Can't see how this is any different on sport routes. I can't remember many specific routes because I generally find sport climbs less memorable, but ultimately if I'm managing to get up 8a's with a tiny bit left in the tank, and I want a harder experience, a soft 8a+ would provide that. The only conceivable reason for being upset that the route you did got downgraded in the future is ego. If you find the harder experience you were looking for, then why does anything else at all matter?

Edit - 

The first 8a I did is considered by most to be fairly tricky for the grade. But I did it because I found the technical fingery climbing far easier than the powerful climbing on the soft touch 8a routes which most people do first at the same crag. I still haven't done those routes. At a similar time I tried a powerful 7c+ through the roof on the left of the crag and it took me 3 times as many sessions as the fingery 8a. I probably found completing the 7c+ more satisfying than my first 8a. I had to try harder. I certainly learned a lot more. Thought I'd add this in as an example of how arbitrary grades are. 

So it really is about the grade and nothing else?

Many of the the best routes I have done have been at the top end of my grade

Why? How about so you can gain the specified number of prerequisite climbs at that grade in order to register for a certain mountaineering scheme/award!!!! (forgot how to do winky mojo)

M 

Firstly, nice work. However, that's actually not exactly what I was thinking about because you knew it was a slash grade and that represented the level you were looking for - a step up, but an achievable one. 

Let's say the route in question got the slash-grade on paper, but everyone told you it was easy for the grade and after climbing it you knew it wasn't as hard as it said on paper and didn't really represent the level of challenge you expected to get from the next grade, rather being pretty much another notch in your belt from the previous level of difficulty.

So just to be abundantly clear - let's say you climbed an 8a/+ on trad. Your mates say 'it's definitely not 8a/+, it's 8a, but the guide says 8a/+. You climb it, and it feels 8a, and didn't challenge you more than previous routes did. Would you still have felt the same? 

This strikes home, however. I think after posting this in a rather grumpy mood the other evening and subsequently reading the many detailed responses to this thread I'm feeling a lot more amicable to the idea that folks simply want to take a smaller step towards their goals which makes a lot of sense. 

No, and I wouldn't claim the harder grade if it didn't feel like a step up in difficulty. 

But I also wouldn't know for sure without climbing the route whether or not it did actually represent a step up in difficulty, for me personally. I don't care whether my mate or anyone else thinks it's 8a or 8a+. We're different people with different bodies and a different set of skills. 

Climbing a soft touch route can give me confidence whether or not I get a positive or negative result in terms of progress. If it felt harder and I succeed then I know I'm good enough to try harder still. If it feels no harder but I succeed with some left in the tank then I still know I can climb harder, perhaps more so than climbing a route which is solid at the grade below because its hard enough for some people to consider it the grade above, even if I didn't.

I think your original point might have been regarding people who claim a harder grade for a route they know is no harder than what they have done before. But if they're really able to convince themselves that they did a 7a, and that gives them confidence to try another which might be more solid at the grade, then how does that not aid progress? 

I just don't see that it matters at all, in any circumstance other than people making money out of dishonesty. Sometimes people just need to feel good about themselves and 99% of the time that is totally harmless.

As I stated in my last post, its all completely arbitrary anyway. There are 8a sport routes I know I could on sight. There are 7c routes I would struggle to red point. Most of those 8a's are in Spain and most of those 7c's are in the UK. By the logic of this thread I aught to always push my grade in the UK, but that is clearly rubbish because most sport climbing in the UK is fractionally as inspiring as sport climbing in Europe. And also because coming from a trad background I find it much easier to climb sustained 40m pitches with no real cruxes than 20m pitches that are basically boulder problems surrounded by easier climbing. So it makes sense to choose routes that suit me, as well as inspiring me.

Basically, its all totally meaningless. Which, let's be honest, is a big part of the beauty of climbing.

I think you conflated easy for the grade with incorrectly graded.

There always must be soft for the grade routes. Easy ticks. The only way to avoid this is to regrade the lower half of the grade band in every guide.

Obviously the new lower half would need regrading in the next edition. We could however ensure that there are no routes that are easy for the grade and every climb could be harder than the average.

After a few editions everything would be down graded to moderate and we would then split Moderate up into M1 - M34.

Exactly this, I can only see it as some form of self deception I know I should struggle on 6b, so what does it mean if I flash a 6c, it doesn't mean I've suddenly become a good climber, that's for certain.

I've heard people at the wall saying, "if you want a soft 6b there's on over there".

What does it mean to people?

Related to this is the old, "I can't climb that, it's a 6c", if you like the look of it, give it a go! It's just a number, and you never know, it might be a soft touch

From where I'm sitting your attitude looks very similar to the people you are criticising. You're using other peoples opinions of a route to validate your experience of it. Surely the "real thing" is you're own experience?

Isn't a mean grade just the opposite end of a soft touch?