Soft Grades, Hard Realities: How Europe’s Climbing Gyms Are Rewriting Difficulty - Part 1

Across the more gym-dense cities of Europe, a subtle but consequential shift is gaining traction: grades are softening. What used to be a shared language of difficulty is becoming increasingly inconsistent, influenced by commercial pressure, competition between large operators, and the industry’s rapid expansion.

While softer grades can deliver quick wins in customer sentiment and social media buzz, an increasing number of routesetters warn that the long-term consequences may be far more complex — and far-reaching — than many gym owners realise.

This is what they told us.

The Appeal — and Illusion — of Easy Progress

Andrew “Yorkie” York, Regional Setting Manager for LCC, begins with the psychology:

“Personally, I’m a fan of more solid grades than softer because I feel a bit cheated when I top the bloc without a challenge, however customers tend to feel a lot better when they step into a new grade which they haven’t climbed before. Even if the customer knows the bloc might be soft, it certainly gets a lot of traction on social media and becomes a talking point, inviting more customers to get on the same bloc.”

Soft grades, in other words, can be good for business. They boost confidence, generate shareable content, and create the sensation of rapid progress.

But Yorkie acknowledges that grade philosophy shapes entire gym identities:

“There are gyms known for their savage or solid grading, but still have lots of customers and it really depends on the ethos of the gym. Are you focussed on getting people to the top of the wall or is the gym keeping one of the original concepts of climbing in that, ‘it’s a challenge, and therefore you should be falling off to progress’.”

He also offers historical context for the UK’s grading split:

“I think The Depot were one of the first climbing walls in the U.K. to really lower the grading in climbing gyms to make it more accessible for new customers, AND IT WORKED! The Depot sees thousands of customers every day because of this. The Arch then brought that similar thought process to London and even created VB as a grade which had specific rules on how to set them, lowering the accessibility… Customers tend to get into climbing at these gyms and then start branching out to others.”

The result: a funnel where soft grades attract beginners, who later migrate to gyms with stiffer difficulty once they’re invested.

“People aren’t stupid”: When Soft Grading Undermines Trust

In Germany, Stuntwerk Rosenheim Head Routesetter — and German National Routesetter — Martin Tekles argues that climbers eventually recognise grade inflation:

“I think you get more climbers with good routesetting and not biased grading. Sometimes there are gyms that are sandbagged and people know it. Sometimes it's the other way. I personally don't like to attract people with biased grading because they realise it, they aren't stupid.”

Setters sometimes bump a borderline climb up a grade to give people a psychological win:

“Sometimes if a boulder is just between two grades we tend to give the higher grade. So people stay motivated and get a boost. But it can go the other way easily: oh I climbed some V4s and now I can't climb V3?”

His conclusion is radical but clear:

“It's a complicated topic. The best would be a gym with no grades.”

An Exciting Sport Doesn’t Need Fast Wins

Portugal’s Frederico Hall Silva, Head Routesetter for ClimbUP and National Chief Routesetter, warns that artificially easing progression misunderstands how climbers stay committed:

“Using soft grading to attract customers may work in the short term, but it often lowers retention in the medium and long term. Climbing has a slow learning curve… If we don’t engage from the start participants who are genuinely interested in a challenging and methodical sport, it’s hard to keep them committed.”

He draws a comparison to surfing — a sport defined by repeated failure before meaningful success:

“Take surfing, for example: beginners often spend over a dozen sessions just to catch their first wave… yet the sport remains hugely popular. Its appeal comes from the challenge and the sense of progress, not from making it easy.”

Soft grades, he argues, are a poor substitute for good easy climbs:

“This can be achieved through creative and engaging routes even at lower grades… It’s also important to introduce clients to climbing culture, helping them appreciate both the physical and mental side of the sport.”

“A very bad practice”: The Danish Warning

Ettore Murer, Head Setter at Beta Boulders in Denmark, is even more direct:

“What do I think about inflation grades in commercial gyms? Well I honestly think that's a very bad practice (if you want a short answer, we can stop it here!) This practice could help in the very short term, but in the long term it will affect the whole industry.”

Inflated grades create false expectations:

“If you trick a new climber thinking that they progressed when this is not the case, they will feel good for a few sessions/months, then what will you do? Move the bar even lower?”

For Murer, the solution is straightforward:

“The solution for climbing gyms is trying to make the climbers progress with good routesetting that allows the climber to try different style also in the lower grades and not having an hard barrier between easy and intermediate grades.”

He acknowledges the commercial realities of beginner-heavy markets — but insists on transparency:

“If the majority of the climbers in a specific location are beginners… the gym should set more easy boulders… but staying transparent about it, without inflating the grades.”

And he closes with a reminder of what grades are — and aren’t:

“I think grades in climbing are really important but at the same time they are too glorified; as climbers, we should try to strive for challenges and experiences that will help us improve, and that it's not always a direct correlation with grade.”

The Industry’s Common Issue: Grade Creep

Not every inconsistency is deliberate. Many gyms grapple with plain old grade creep — the natural drift that happens as a setting team trains together, becomes stronger and more attuned to its own style, and slowly forgets how the climbs feel to outsiders.

When a cohesive team improves physically, what feels like “the usual difficulty” to them may feel significantly harder to the general customer base.

Freelancers add another layer. Some come in exceptionally strong, with highly dynamic movement styles. If the lead setter doesn’t confidently rein them in, or fails to set expectations during the morning briefing, the resulting blocs may land far outside the gym’s intended difficulty band.

This isn’t just a customer experience problem. It also risks undermining the gym’s brand identity.

Grades as a Design Language

For routesetters, grading isn’t just a number — it’s a shared design language. It’s how teams communicate internally, how freelancers align with house style, and how climbers understand what’s expected of them.

When that design language becomes inconsistent, freelancers struggle to produce their best work. A weak briefing, unclear expectations, or a muddled difficulty scale all create work that feels disjointed.

Operators who invest in strong brand identity — whether that means a reputation for being soft, tough, technical, playful, or varied — are increasingly recognising that consistent grading is part of their product.

Not necessarily easy grading. But predictable grading.

For Setting-as-a-Service, Customer Engagement is Key

Alongside concerns raised in the UK, similar sentiments are emerging across Europe. In The Netherlands, the SET Routesetting team emphasised that their biggest priority is maintaining an environment where climbers feel supported rather than discouraged:

“At SET we do not like sandbagging. We like to keep grades friendly — that means if we are hesitating about which grade to assign to a route or boulder, we tend to choose the friendly one. Example: after forerunning we discuss if something is a 6a+ or 6b, we choose 6b.
We notice that people enjoy their climbing sessions less when sandbagging is happening, so therefore we choose to grade friendly. Furthermore, we really appreciate input from the climbers by having a whiteboard in the gym with new routes where people can leave their comment about the route or grade; this gives us an indication of how our grade opinion resonates.”

Their approach highlights two themes echoed across multiple interviews: climbers respond better to generosity than punishment, and gyms with active feedback systems tend to maintain far more stable grading cultures.

This dovetails strongly with concerns raised by William Jackson, Head of Route Setting at Mile End, who argues that many of today’s grading inconsistencies stem from wider structural shifts within the industry. According to Jackson, the current landscape cannot be solved by “putting a higher grade on it” alone — the roots run far deeper…

“Fast food” Climbing: How Commercial Pressure Reshaped the UK

William Jackson, Head of Route Setting at Mile End Climbing Wall, argues the current situation can’t be pinned on any single decision — but is instead the culmination of overlapping industry shifts.

He identifies four key drivers:

1. The “race to the bottom” (2017–2018)

“As climbing walls—particularly large multi-site operators—expanded rapidly, many began competing to become “the softest wall in London.” This created an environment where grade inflation became a marketing tool, and in my view, this period marked the beginning of a broader decline in consistency and quality.”

2. The rise of simplified, commercially driven setting

“Route setting increasingly shifted toward boulders that were easy to understand but physically demanding, where difficulty came more from power than from movement or problem-solving. This approach created climbers who were strong but less skilled at reading climbs. Alongside this, coaching trends changed: rather than teaching principles, some coaching models focused on showing climbers “the solution,” which gradually eroded many people’s ability to analyse climbs independently.”

3. COVID-19’s long-term impact

“The pandemic disrupted climbing for an entire generation. Many new climbers started, stopped, and then spent lockdown training strength in isolation—fingers, pull-ups and board climbing—without the movement exposure essential for developing footwork, coordination and technique. When climbing reopened, many returned stronger but less skilful, and we’re still seeing those effects today.”

4. Gaps in setter training

“Post-COVID, the push to build more diverse and representative setting teams was a positive step. However, the speed of this expansion often outpaced the availability of structured training, mentorship and technical development. New setters were sometimes placed into roles before they’d had sufficient time to build a deep movement vocabulary or craft the pedagogical skills the job requires. At the same time, commercial walls prioritised volume to meet customer demand, leaving less room for experimentation, refinement and growth.
The outcome has been a cohort of enthusiastic but under-supported setters who simply haven’t been given the time or resources needed to create consistent, high-quality, teachable boulders.”

The combined effect, Jackson argues, is a shift toward convenience-driven, commercially compliant climbing:

“You end up with climbing that becomes more like fast food: quick, accessible and easy to consume, but increasingly disconnected from the skill, depth and creativity that make climbing meaningful. Grades become inconsistent, and head setters often come under commercial pressure to keep customers satisfied at the expense of quality and integrity.”

At Mile End, the response has been the opposite:

“Our priority is education. We aim to give climbers the skills they need not just to enjoy climbing but to grow into well-rounded, thoughtful climbers—not just “gym participants.” We focus on creating teachable, empathetic movement at the lower grades so that meaningful learning happens early. By the time climbers reach mid-level difficulty, they already have the technical foundations to progress confidently and sustainably.”

He concludes with a defence of independent walls:

“They keep climbing interesting, diverse and rooted in movement rather than metrics. They preserve what makes our sport unique.”

Across Europe, a Shared Warning

From Portugal to Denmark and beyond, a consistent message emerges:

Soft grades can attract customers, but good easy climbs retain them. Inconsistent grades damage trust. Inflated grades damage climbers.

The long-term health of the industry depends not on making climbing easier, but on making it better — through craft, consistency, education and honesty.

Climbing, after all, has always been a sport built on challenge. The question facing Europe’s gyms today is whether they want to help climbers meet that challenge — or smooth it over.

Now we want to hear from gym owners and managers, what is your take on grading soft to attract customers to your gym?