Proposal for the Adoption of an Advanced System for Dab Reporting
Andrew Child
Conventional wisdom holds that a “dab” is when a boulderer makes contact with an object that is not part of the route they are climbing. In practice this definition is too stringent and most climbers allow some amount of leniency in what is or is not declared a dab. An issue arises when the amount of leniency allowed for dabbing is not universally agreed upon. One climber might consider something like grazing a nearby tree on a top out dabbing while another climber may consider the same scenario a valid send.
These discrepancies affect our social dynamics as climbers and muddy the waters when we discuss our achievements. Furthermore, climbing is an entire industry and professional athletes are granted sponsorships and brand deals for their accomplishments. In short, style matters and we need robust vocabulary to communicate what style of climbing is being conducted. Thus, just as climbing difficulty is subdivided into a grading scale, I propose that dabbing should be categorized on an ascending scale of severity with classifications defined as follows:
Class 1: Non impactful contact through a non load bearing object. Hair or clothing touching the ground would count in this category. Also contact with leaves, grass, or very small tree branches.
As a rule of thumb a class 1 dab is any connection that probably would not disqualify a climber in a competition. Some may not even consider this a dab, and most would be ok claiming an ascent which has been marred by a dab of this magnitude. Whether this (or any other dab) tranishes an ascent is up to the climber and their own personal code of values. The utility of this grading scale is only as a communication aid, not a tool for validation.
Class 2: Contact with the ground or a rigid object in a clearly non advantageous way such as a foot grazing a crash pad or being handed a chalk bag mid-climb. Touching an off route hold on an indoor climb without using it also falls into this category.
Class 2 is perhaps the most contentious type of dab. Many feel no trepidation with claiming an ascent featuring a Class 2 dab, while others disagree. Climbers will also have a tendancy to miscategorize more severe dabs as Class 2 in order to dismiss them.
Class 3: Contact with the ground or any foreign object in a way that is ambiguously advantageous such as sweeping a foot along a crashpad on a big swing or touching a spotter during a deadpoint.
We have all had the experience of class 3 dabbing on the send go. Being unable to render an unbiased judgment if the contact was meaningful enough to tarnish the experience of the climb. By adopting this new language we are better able to understand the events that transpired and should we choose to award ourselves the send anyway we can honestly communicate the context of our achievement to our peers.
Class 3 Dab. Artist’s Rendition
Class 4: Contact with the ground or any foreign object in a way that is clearly advantageous such as fully placing a foot on the ground mid route, or pressing one’s body against a different boulder when climbing through a narrow gap.
In terms of physical actions Class 4 is the upper limit of dab severity. For instance no matter how blatantly a climber pushes off the ground with their foot Class 4 is the maximum grade assigned to the action of dabbing alone. Beyond this point the scale considers the concept of “meta dabs”, additional actions which can impact the severity of a dab.
Class 5: Any dab (Class 1 through 4) where the violating party lies about the occurrence of the dab. Turning a blind eye or lying on behalf of another climber who dabs is a class 5 quasi dab and it is punishable to the same degree as a class 5 dab.
Accomplishments in climbing are mainly self reported. Thus honesty and transparency are paramount to the health of the climbing community. Dishonesty through the failure to report a dab is not tolerated and it automatically results in a class 5 dab.
Class 6: Any class 5 dab where the violating party goes so far as to falsify evidence of the dab, such as if the violating party edits a video to make it look like they did not dab.
Class 6 currently represents the upper limit of our understanding on this topic. To date higher order dabs have not been articulated. It would be arrogant, however, to think that the contemporary climbing community has already performed the most egregious possible dabs. In reverence of the unknown, the scale is left open ended.