UKC

I've noticed a few grade discrepancies between guidebooks and UKC. The edit function doesn't allow grades changes to be suggested and even the voting doesn't change the grades.

So what is the right way to get a logbook corrected?

In reply to radddogg:

You can alter the grade if you're the Crag Moderator.

In reply to radddogg:


You could contact the moderator. Is it an obvious mistake, or just borderline on grade?

In reply to radddogg:
Pm the crag moderator. I tend to listen to those whom propose grade adjustments especially in areas where there are few repeats to get a round opinion before the guidebook is drafted.

Worse case scenario if it generally out of whack you could always offer to moderate the crag and start a grade review/retrospective in the forums.

In reply to radddogg:


It's quite an assumption to make that you or anyone else knows the right grade of a route and those who have done it, and graded it before, do not. The exception is if there is some drastic change in the route, like key holds coming off. Another exception is when a new and easier sequence is found, though this pretty rare, especially on established routes.

When you vote on the grade of route you are, in effect, suggesting a change. If a route is consistently voted differently from the given grade then people can see that. Though it's worth bearing in mind most people tend to overgrade rather than undergrade.

In France they don't seem to go in for changing grades the way we do. Personally I think that's a better system and although newer areas may be more softly graded than older ones at least there is consistency within each area. Constantly tinkering with the grades just leads to more confusion in my opinion.

In reply to stp:
I'd say the bigger assumption is your reply. There are plenty of experienced climbers who can tell a grade is plain wrong despite any number of UKC votes. At lower grades some of these can be classics. UKC votes in contrast suffer from confirmation bias and lack the facility to out the true grade of a very badly graded route. Some regular users are way more trustworthy on their route comments (someone like Simon Caldwell is a great benchmark on badly graded routes)

The example I cite most as an undergraded classic route with bad UKC voting is Land's End Long Climb which still gets voted lowish HVD depite being tough Severe at the very least for the tricky jamming corner and the jump/technical traverse and the scary final wall (solid HS for me). A slightly harder one is Masochism at Ramshaw which is at least top end E1 as a genuine ground-up style onsight (plenty of HVS votes). On the overgrade side we havethe FRCC HS for Bowfell Buttress (an easy 4b move above a ledge doesn't make a HS) predictably a bit undergraded in UKC votes given the Rockfax VD . Lands End Long Climb is a god bit harder adjectivally than this.

Maybe the French don't go in for as much silly grading in the first place but they are crap with dealing with real changes. I've tried plenty of 4s and 5s in France that were utterly brutal due to polish (harder than a 6 next door) and so definitely wrong as well. Font is infamous for crazy sandbag bouldering grades below f6, that hard climbing locals witter on unbelivably about people missing techniques. On famous orange circuits we have some of the worst graded popular lines in the world.

I found two good editorial maxims when changing grades is think how many notches you think it should really move then subtract one and think many many times when considering changing a borderline route.

For the OP's information where Rockfax also have a guidebook, the Rockfax grade is always the default grade, not that the definitive guide. The moderator can't change this.

In reply to Offwidth:


Agreed

In reply to Offwidth:

For relatively well established crags and climbs it is difficult unless an obvious new sequence or hold breakage occurs.

I moderate Rocklands and I try to bring the boulder problems in line with the regions super classics at benchmark grades, I would rather people enjoy themselves and know a good climb is within their ability rather than spend the afternoon wearing down their skin dry humping a lost cause getting frustrated. This also said if you aim is to dry hump a hard problem then you want to feel that it's grade will stand the test of time, in the cases that a climb is boarderline I tend to drop it to a + if under dispute. At least this way you should get on with lots of benchmarked climbs at that grade elsewhere.

In reply to radddogg:

It's still not E0

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

I'm not on about Looning the Tube :oP

In reply to stp:


No assumption here most examples I'm talking about are regraded routes in Lancashire Rock (2016).

Cherry Bomb (VS 4c) is now HVS
Metamorphosis (VS 4c) is now HVS
Jomo (VD) is now Severe (and probably should have always been!)

Not just my opinion but that of the guidebook writers.

In reply to radddogg:
An example of the voting showing a sandbag route needing upgrading is Mohammed the Medieval Melancholic (VS 5a)

Voting puts it as HVS 5a (which I'd agree with).

In reply to Offwidth:

OK why should a moderator take the word of some random person who writes in over all those who have voted and graded the route in the past? Surely that's just another form of bias, a proximity bias in terms of the personal contact and time bias in that it's the most recent.



So by simply writing to the moderator you assume that a climber is more experienced? And those who simply vote are less experienced?

Equally there are plenty of experienced climbers who sometimes get a grade wrong - maybe they use a duff sequence, miss hold, or are just more tired than the think they are.

In reply to stp:

I guess you missed my post? I'm talking about routes that have officially had their graded corrected in the latest definitive guide. Surely UKC should reflected the latest accurate information?

In reply to stp:
Firstly the person commenting might be very experienced. I've explained above why I'd trust a regular who is good at outing bad grades over the UKC votes anytime. I'm not saying all commentors should be trusted, just that almost everything you said in your reply critiquing the assumptions of the OP had even worse assumptions (especially claiming 'role model' mangement of grading from French examples !?). Its quite funny the OP was just looking for upgrades for the latest definitive grades.

Votes do contain some useful information. They are normally OK to within half a grade on good voting numbers. For fine tuning I did develop some loose benchmarks to make UKC votes more useful for grading gritstone, based on comparing larger vote numbers with the experience of guidebook workers who knew the crags and watch the reality of climbing there. For example on easy VS climbs on popular grit crags (esp Stanage Popular) subtract a third of a grade from UKC votes for crack climbs. For moorland tough VS classics add a sixth of a grade.

In practical UKC logbook terms there are rules for grade changes and the moderators (crag or site) are the only ones who can do this and should be following this advice

"Q6: Changing grades?
Please use the grade for a route/problem from the most recent guidebook, rather than your own personal grade. Note that if you change the grade (e.g., because it was a mistake, or when a new guidebook comes out) then any grade votes will be deleted from the system."

I understand but regret UKC force Rockfax grade use over the latest definitive, as with the system currently in use it can lock in very bad grading for longer. However the real problem with the logbooks is when new guidebooks come out and the moderator changes a grade, all the previous voting is lost. At some point they need a floating system that rectifies this wastage of votes; then the Rockfax grade precendent wouldn't matter nor would moderators be able to cause damage by not following the rules.

I'd also like to see attributed votes to user names, like on Mountain Project, this would allow guidebook editors to see who grades sensibly in their local area and to 'out' any clueless idiots distorting grades and logbook trolls who deliberately vote badly.

Where hold breakage occurs or a new sequence is found, that has a significant effect on a grade, I think there should be policy to reset votes as incorrect legacy votes then need clearing.

In reply to radddogg:

If it's obvious that the grades for a given crag are based on an older guidebook then drop the logbook editor a message asking to share moderation. If it's just one or two routes then you could always request the existing moderator update.

Re changing grades based on UKC votes, the moderator help pages state the following:

'Please use the grade for a route/problem from the most recent guidebook, rather than your own personal grade.'

I've never changed a grade of a route based on votes as a moderator, unless it has changed in some way. Even then I create a new logbook entry and marked the previous entry as no longer climbable from whatever year. If the UKC votes were properly blinded, in that you didn't know how previous votes had been registered at time of voting, then they might be more reliable.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think LELC is a blind spot for you. I did it when VD was top of my grade and I couldn't do some of the Sennen VDs at the time ! Without the jump, mind.

In reply to radddogg:

A couple of good examples here in the Lakes are:

Napes Needle, which was V.Diff in the FRCC guides for years, but now gets H.Sev 4b, and has been upgraded on UKC.
Bowfell Buttress, which was V.Diff in the FRCC guides, but now also gets H.Sev 4b in the latest guides. On UKC Bowfell Buttress still gets V.Diff.

Surely the FRCC guidebook team, and all the climbers who do this route throughout each year, have a better handle on the grade of Bowfell Buttress than the crag moderator?

In reply to radddogg:

It is not always possible for a moderator to adjust the grade of a route. This is especially the case if the route is covered by a Rockfax guide as the database is synced. For example I often try to alter the grade of a route that has been modernised (old fixed gear to new stainless bolts). A change from E grade to sport needs to be made. You then need to click "report a major grade discrepancy" so it can be reviewed by the logbook editor. However there are some updates problems so you will need to persist.The Day of the Long Knives (7b+) Chee Dale Lower

In reply to GrahamUney:


The guidebook team think it's HS 4b. The climbers who do the route throughout each year and vote on UK reckon hard VDiff. So which to go for? It's academic anyway, as this route is also in Rockfax, and so the moderator is prevented from changing the grade (though Rockfax grades it Severe so something's gone wrong!).

PS It was Diff when I first did it

In reply to GrahamD:

It's not a blind spot. I'm super experienced at recognising moves that are difficult for VD leaders and other similar climbers I know have commented on the logbook as well. Most mid-grade leaders will romp up it paying no attention to such things, its climbers like that who have the blind spot. Some of the Sennen VD routes are also sandbags so comparing to them is idiotic; you compare to grade standard VD classics with no grade complaints. The area was renowned for its famous sandbags... Terriers Tooth was another infamous one (the direct start was given VD for years for tough HS work harder and more serious say than the crux on Tophet Wall). LELC can be climbed at VD by bypassing the corner, climbing down the jump section (the alternative wall traverse is scary for Severe as well) and bypassing the top wall but those pitches are the route. There is also a sign that a good hold/placement has broken on the top wall a few years back.

In reply to GrahamD:


Tend to agree with you there.
I soloed it as a competent bumbly 25 years ago( missing out the top pitch which was already known to be HS at the time).
Thought it was just another hard-for-the-grade Cornish route.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree about the top pitch of LELC. Thought it was v tough for VD, and certainly top end severe.

As an aside, last time I was there I noticed that the toop pitch had suffered aggressive cleaning - looked as though someone had taken a broom and swept away the lichen from a 2m wide strip up the middle of the face.

In reply to radddogg:



That's a really interesting example. It might be a total sandbag as you say. But as it was put up by Les Ainsworth in 1966 it might actually be the right grade, that is for back then. In the first place we've had 5 decades of grade inflation since then so if that was the original grade it's no surprise it's out of place today. Secondly it's a crack and generally I think people's ability to climb cracks has gone down relative to other techniques and general fitness.

Although most rate the route HVS there is still nearly a third (10) who voted the route at VS, albeit high in the grade. Could those 10 people have better crack skills than the other perhaps, and if so does that mean the route grade should be changed?

What's interesting is that with both the voted grades and the original grade, along with the year it was first done, you've actually got more info about the route than if the grade was just changed to the current perception.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I think BB is around HVD 4a (nearly 4b) for the short wall. Napes Needle in comparison is HS for me (maybe only 4b though). This attitude of 'its been VD for years' ignores the fact that protection, skills and tactics have changed.(as a some simple examples combined tactics used to be OK to defeat low crux moves, early climbers were secure in clefts and very good on slabs as they could relax and think). Back then was when VD climbs truly were 'VS climbs with ledges'. In risk terms VD leads back then would be at least equivalent to VS leads now with modern equipment.

We need to grade for reasonably experienced and skilled climbers appropriate for the grade but you can't expect true expertise on anything for a genuine VD leader. The consequences of not sorting out such grades is another nail in the coffin of UK trad climbing and our wonderful adjectival grading system. Too many climbers wax lyrical about UK adjectival grades and fu@k it up with daft application (like a few '3PS is VS really' types I used to know well)

Another old Lakes sandbag was North Climb on Pillar which I'm pretty sure was a terror inducing Diff when I first did it (at least for my inexperienced seconds)

In reply to alan moore:
So 25 years ago it was a cornish (hard grading area) hard for the grade VD (ie around S 4a in modern UK terms) with a HS finishing wall. This is exactly what I have just said is my opinion. Where exactly is the blind spot?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

To be honest Simon, I reckon Severe as well! Just goes to show!

In reply to radddogg:




>Interesting example of 'different strokes for different folks' there. I always found Cherry Bomb desperate and Metamorphosis a straightforward warm up.

In reply to Offwidth:


I don't know what the latest edition gives it, but the previous one it was still Diff but with a Severe last pitch. We thought the whole thing was tough VDiff.

Have you done West Wall Climb, another alleged VDiff on Pillar?

In reply to Offwidth:

I'll agree that terriers tooth was a sandbag. Direct start was probably a sandbag at HS !

However I do not accept LELC as being a sandbag. I was not a middle grade climber when I did it. I doubt I'd ever lead a severe (and I'd climbed in the Peak and the Lakes by then).

In reply to radddogg:

"Corrected" and "accurate" grades in a definitive guidebook are also just somebody's opinion, albeit an opinion that probably deserves more respect than most. They're all just some combination of history & current consensus - with history admittedly often carrying more weight than it perhaps should.

I don't know the rotues you're talking about, but VS to HVS doesn't seem to me to be an obvious sign of blatant mis-grading. The hardest VS is by definition only infinitesimally easier than the easiest HVS.

In reply to AlanLittle:




I think it helps to actually thinking of then overlapping for the average climber. Think overlapping bell curves where the exreme tails of the distribution overlap.

In reply to Pekkie:

>Interesting example of 'different strokes for different folks' there. I always found Cherry Bomb desperate and Metamorphosis a straightforward warm up.

Now that I have done it a few times I'd put Cherry Bomb at VS 5a. A bit desparate at the start then comfortable bridging until the well-protected top crux which isn't that bad. Saying that I backed off the onsight and my E2 leading partner dogged it.

Metamorphosis I'd give HVS 4c. Straightforward VS but with possible decking potential if you get the crux wrong.

In reply to GrahamD:
So what makes your view so worth consideration? Sorting out bad lower grades is a passion of mine and my partner and we've been doing it in various guidebook teams for over 15 years now. We have learnt tricks to take the effects of our individual strengths and weaknesses out of consideration (to grade for a nominal average climber) and know when fear might be distorting our views. We also write notable stuff down as soon as we can afterwards. The recall of route experiences can be an odd thing, especially as a beginner and research in Psychology clearly shows that our memories get retained in a narrative base that may end up a long way from the initial real experience.

Alan has already said the top wall was always regarded as HS even 25 years back that's the bit I think is HS. I last did it a couple of years back. Your only evidence so far is it was easier than some VD sandbags you did a long time ago when you were inexperienced. I climbed numerous VS climbs in my first year that didn't feel so hard when I felt was only a S leader (through subsequent upgrades or from misreading the guidebook and climbing the wrong route). Also as a relative bumbly a couple of years later I was OK soloing easy juggy 'VS' routes I knew well, like Mutiny Crack, in trainers.

In reply to GrahamD:

I considered saying exactly that.

There's that classic American example that goes something like:

5.11a
5.10d
5.11b
5.9 offwidth
5.11c
5.12a
5.11d

In reply to Offwidth:


Because I'm a fairly experienced low/middling grade climber who has climbed pretty extensively across the UK, I would imagine. I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume that my opinion was definitively right of course, but I do think its as valuable opinion at these grades as anyone elses and more valuable than many's.

In reply to Offwidth:


No, my evidence in this particular case was based on the fact that it was no harder than all the Vdiffs I'd done until then in the Peak or in the Lakes. I either couldn't get up or had a really hard time on a couple of Sennen sandbag Vdiffs.

In reply to GrahamD:

So it was a long time ago when you were not experienced at grading and when there were way more sandbags. Go back and see what you think now.

In reply to AlanLittle:

Yet one Tuolumne 10c offwidth I tr'd ( https://www.mountainproject.com/v/galens-crack/107676048 ) was way easier than some 5.9 offiwidth pitches I've tried. I think this is partly because US guidebook turnaround is much slower and the editors in famous knarly venues are more stubborn about retaining old school grades than UK equivalents, especially on big wall pitches. It frustrating because offwidths and slabs were better practised and so graded harder for the same secure climbing reasons as early climbs in the UK (ie the grades used to be more accurate).

In reply to Offwidth:


Next time I get the chance I will.

In reply to Offwidth:
I think a big part of the problem is that there is no agreed consensus on what to do, if anything, about grade inflation. Is it a good or bad thing? Should we just accept it and upgrade routes accordingly with each new edition of a guidebook? Or should we try to slow it down or even stop it altogether?

Speaking purely personally I'm against it. I think it causes more problems than it solves. I find it far more confusing to continually upgrade everything because if you just have one guidebook when you're out climbing there' no way of telling when a route was given it's current grade. If it's just been upgraded in a new guide it's fair bet it will be a soft touch. If it's an old grade from 20 or more years ago there's a good chance it will seem fairly solid for it's grade.

I'm not saying my approach here is right or wrong. It's just my opinion. And I'm sure my opinion is different to others. And that's the point. Unless there's some consensus on this issue we'll probably never agree.

In reply to stp:

I prefer the term "grade correction" to "grade inflation". Just because something has been wrongly graded for years doesn't mean it should stay that way. And the oldest routes were all largely unprotected so with modern protection, in order to differentiate them you need to upgrade (adjectivally) the one without gear.
Grades go down as well, though possibly not as often as they should.

In reply to radddogg:

I moderate a couple of crags, and I'd only change the routes grade if the offical guidebook had it down differently.

But, if the route is generally felt to be over or under graded I'd often add that in the route description comments.

In reply to radddogg:



And apparently so do the new guidebook writers as that has actually been upgraded too I noticed in the book tonight.

In reply to stp:
Grade inflation is the slow creep of known standard routes moving up the grade. As Simon points out what I and others like me have always been involved with is grade correction, getting rid of wrong grades. On Peak grit a good number of routes got downgraded by this process. I'm actively anti grade creep, inflation, or whatever you want to call it. My maxim above advises editors not to upgrade borderline routes until sure the upgrade is justified. There is a good enough consensus on most classics and people just need to grade compared to them. I would downgrade a good number of soft grit classics if I had a free hand and upgrade the odd sandbag like Masochism but the process in the BMC was very democratic and I was outvoted. The Knights Move down to VS is top of my bucket list.

I'd add I have very little tolerance for bold sandbags. Again we have a beautiful sytem in UK adjectival grading and way too many people write poetry on it then try and convince me a bold route is a grade below as they are cruising and can only feel the technicality. Routes like Sunset Slab and 3PS (with the proper RH finish) graded for boldness to me always typified proper route information for onsight leaders at their adjectival limits. Of course they feel easy to good climbers, but you deck if you fall.

In reply to Offwidth:


.... which is a particular problem with the grading of slabs. I experienced this a lot when preparing the Fairy Cave Quarry script (limestone slab climbing, no fixed gear, a lot of bold routes). A lot of downgrading was called for; in general I confined changes to one grade down. This apparently wasn't enough for a number of climbers, some quite experienced, who wanted shifts of two or even three grades on several routes.

In reply to bpmclimb:
Again benchmarks and the reverse engineering of grades are the answer. On reverse engineering if it's super bold and 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b its VS, HVS, E1, E2 and E3 respectively. One notch down if not quite that bold. Benchmarks exist for all those grades. The message from the combination is a great example of why UK twin grades are so useful (until you get to 6a when the tech grades get too wide).

In reply to radddogg:

I get a little uncomfortable when climbs have had a certain grade for years and years and someone comes along and changes it. I can't for the life of me understand how Hargreaves Original at Stanage was Severe for decades and known to be unprotectable but along come Cams, making it protectable, and it gets upgraded to VS.

Al

In reply to Offwidth:


So you agree Looning the Tube (E1 5a) really is E1 then?

In reply to GridNorth:

Hargreaves Original used to weave around a lot more didn't it? There's no way that the current line could ever accurately be graded Severe regardless of protection.

I think you have a more general point though. For instance Cubic Corner at Brimham used to be a fairly bold MVS 4b. Cams were invented and it became well protected - and the grade increased to VS 4b.

In reply to GridNorth:

Perhaps the better question is why it was ever given Severe?! I don't know the answer but it definitely seems to fit in well at VS in my experience and the UKC voting reflects that. In my opinion, grades should reflect current consensus based on the current state of the climb and current technology. Anything else is a confusing nonsense.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It may have gone a little further left before moving back right but I like routes that follow the line of least resistance. IMO that's part of the skill of being a climber and contributes to a climb being a classic rather than seeking out difficulty for difficulties sake. I think it was originally called Black Slab.

To Luke90: Because climbers back then were better than many modern climbers give them credit for.

Al

In reply to Simon Caldwell: The weaving around version was Macleod's Variation - if I remember correctly from the Green 76(?) Stanage guide (I no longer have it): HO was VS(-) and MV was S(+) which both seemed ok with respect to other routes in that guide. Paul Nunn probably had the whole slab a S 4a.

I think HO is seen as pretty mid-grade VS but I would contend that it's actually fairly low in the grade in that although the moves themselves can be tricky, you can stop pretty much anywhere for however long you like, you can get good gear in (even before friends there were plenty of hex placements), and it's also fairly escapable onto Macleod's Variation.

In reply to Luke90:

See Offwidth's comments (often repeated) about the voting bias for Stanage classics - if you think a Stanage VS classic that's voted as mid-grade is actually mid-grade, then you're going to struggle on quite a few VS's elsewhere.

Edit: excuse the slight assumption that "seems to fit in well at VS" means that you think it's mid-grade.

In reply to Luke90:
Hargreaves has been VS since 1976 and was HS in 1964 so those bringing up that it used to be a Severe are talking ancient history. Again Simon is right: in those days the climb wandered about more. Also, as it was in balance and climbers were used to very bold routes then, the grade was reasonably consistent for the 1950s. The real problems for bumbly grades came in the 70's. When modern protection came in a lot of crack climbs should have been downgraded but they were not, harder bold routes usually got upgraded to give consistency to the new benchmarks but but lower grade bold lines were often overlooked as the focus of the editors was much more towards the leading edge. The sport of FA sandbagging was also at its peak. The myth of the purity of the UK onsight ethic also took hold airbrushing out the many naughty tactics of the golden age. We used to have Sutty here, who climbed at that golden time, to keep the site grounded in its history.

Its good fun to simulate the experience of the time. Try soloing easier Stanage routes in plimsolls or stiff walking boots and the grades in the 1951 guide generally make sense.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I suspect many folk will vote 'mid-grade' unless the route is clearly (to them) right at the bottom or top of the grade range. Their vote is simply a vote for the overall (non-subdivided) grade. Sometimes it's possible to read too much into the logbook voting.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
That is part of what confirmation bias is. It adds to the novice ego factor and boom: the bottom half of the VS grade band gets reduced to barely nothing. Hargreaves, according to the UKC vote average is pretty much as difficult as Inverted V (and the other VS classics at the bottom of the Stanage graded list). At the top of the Stanage graded list things shrink down a bit: Fern crack is about 0.9, as is First Sister and the Little Flake Crack; Paradise Arete is around 0.7, as is Counts Crack. Agony Crack which at soft HVS is barely different in difficulty from these top end VS climbs sits at about 0.4 up the HVS band. Top end of HVS: Rusty Wall at 0.6, Greengrocer Wall at 0.5, Tower Crack at 0.9, only the notorious Kelly's Overhang pushes into E1 (at about 0.2).

In reply to Offwidth:

If Hargreaves original used to weave about more, does that mean that MacLeods variation and the more direct/ contrived version of Hargreaves Original were invented/ defined more recently?
Comparing the line of polish/ cleaned rock to the guidebook lines seems to suggest that HO rarely gets done compared to MV. I'm not sure I've ever done the proper HO as (like most people approaching that slab) I just climbed the easiest way up the slab which doesn't seem like a cop out or particularly excessive weaving.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Inflation is more accurate. Grades are going up not down. The same phenomenon is happening elsewhere - like in France where routes are bolted.



There is no right or wrong grade. A grade is simply a number or word which is matched to a certain level of difficulty. It doesn't really matter what word, number or letter is used. The problem is that the scale we use is not fixed. It keeps changing and the change is always upwards. There are understandable reasons why this is so. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing. It's out of control, creates confusion and serves no purpose (other than a short term bolster of a few people's egos).

In reply to Michael Hood:

Hargreaves original (or black McSlab or whatever variation I ended up doing) doesn't seem to be one of the worst ones for Stanage soft grading though. Central trinity and Via media could easily be HS (one well protected (low)4c move) and are roughly middle of VS according to votes and Martello buttress is even easier and still gets VS.

In reply to stp:

I prefer 'recalibration'

In reply to Offwidth:


So are there more votes overall in the logbooks for high in the grade than low in the grade (any grade)? I don't see why there should be, but it would be interesting to find out.

In reply to stp:

I don't think there is much grade inflation in the US.

In reply to Offwidth:


The only way to stop grade creep when making grade corrections for a guide to make sure as many routes are downgraded as are upgraded (ignoring routes that have physically changed through rockfall etc.). This doesn't happen. Usually far more get upgraded and that inevitably introduces grade creep.

The experience of getting shut down on a route stands out far more to us than when we find a route slightly easier than expected. When we get shut down we need a reason to explain our failure and a very common one is that the route must be harder than it's graded. But when we find a route easy we don't need a justification, there's no reason to complain. We just assume we must have climbed it well and that's the reason it felt easy. It's no surprise then that more people will say a route is a higher grade than say it is a lower one.

In reply to stp:

My take on this is that upgrading more routes than downgrading is OK if it is bringing grades closer in line with most areas of the rest of the UK. It's not OK if it means making an area even softer, relatively speaking, than most other areas; in this case I agree one shouldn't shy away from making many downgrades. So, unsurprisingly, I'm more in favour of upgrades on grit than other areas / rock types!

In reply to stp:

Experiences of getting shut down?, really??... you think guidebook editors don't realise and deal with that???

In my view you can only judge grade creep on classic benchmarks. By that measure, creep in sub extreme grades on classics in my guidebook area, the Peak, since the introduction of cams, is small. Only a small proportion of the old classics have changed since the '70s guides. Check them (Im sure I produced a Stanage VS classic list on an old thread somewhere). From the 50's to the introduction of cams, in real onsight experience terms those same VS classic grit routes shifted two adjectival grades, as the largely unprotectable became mainly safe. Never mind though, its a free country and you can bleat like all the others on this subject in the face of the facts. The real grade creep problem was mainly in the 70's. Also new sandbags from that era and locked in bad grades on lesser lines stayed until the new millennium, when the guidebook teams had more lower grade volunteers and decided to fix them. Hence, loads of minor lines (at least a third) have been regraded on Peak grit, since then, to be in line with those classic benchmarks. This is not grade creep to me but hey, this is a post truth world.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


What stp said above. If we were talking about whole grade bands then I'd say there are way more HVSs that have been voted as E1 compared to VS for example.

In reply to Mr. Lee:

Yeah, that's not what I meant though. Now that there's the opportunity to vote for the next grade up/down, someone isn't going to vote 'high/low in grade' if they think the grade is just wrong?

In reply to Offwidth:


Perhaps Hargreaves Original is a good example of this. Pre big hexes, pretty much a solo. Carrying big cams seems commonplace now - and I'm guessing you can slot 'em in at will. A couple of decades ago, I saw several shaking leaders place large hexes poorly (pretty much in desperation) in the breaks and then shake on. Barring miracles, those badly placed hexes would never have held a fall.

Mick

In reply to Offwidth:


My comments are for anyone on this forum not just guidebook editors. Anyway I have no idea what they know or what they don't know. But given that grade creep continues it might be reasonable to conclude that at least some them do not.



What facts? I agree that if you choose a small subset of routes like sub-extreme classics the number of upgrades has to be fewer. Maybe there was more in the 70s that was connected to the introduction of cams. But the fact is it continues today. Here are some sub-extreme classics from Stanage '84 guide to the latest one:


Cave Innominate VS 4c up to VS 5a
Cresent Arete HVS 5b up to HVS 5c
Fern Crack VS 4c up to VS 5a
Flying Buttress Direct HVS 5b up to E1 5b
Goliath's Groove VS 5a up to HVS 5a
Hell Crack VS 4b up to VS 4c
Inverted V VS 4b up to VS 4c
Kirkus's Corner HVS 5b up to E1 5b
Not to be Taken Away HVS 5c up to 6b
Rusty Wall HVS 5c up to HVS 6a
The Blurter HVS 5a up to HVS 5b
Wall End Slab VS 4b up to VS 5a

So the classic sub extreme routes are going up too. And just as well because if they remained static over time they'd just end up as total sandbags and wouldn't fit with the rising non-classic routes.

In reply to stp:

It seems we did this before:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=599946&v=1#x7902289


Offwidth

In reply to stp:

Since the 83 guide the following 2/3 star classics changed adjectivally (in four editions of the BMC guidebooks)

Goosey GG E4 to E5
Old Friends E3 to E4
Wolf Solent E3 to E4
Impossible Slab E2 to E3
Goliaths Groove VS to HVS
Not to Be Taken Away HVS 5c to V4 6b
Namenlos HVS to E1
Stanleyville E3 to E4
Balcony Buttress VD to S
Agony Crack VS to HVS
Left Twin Chimney M to D
Wuthering E1 to E2
RHRHBD S to HS
FBD HVS to E1
Kirkus Corner HVS to E1
Unprintable HVS to E1
Tippler Direct E2 to E3
Crack and Corner HVD to S

Which I make 18 out of 80 and in the graded lists most of those routes are low in the grade band so have shifted half a grade at most. Never mind the facts getting in the way of a good story though.

In reply to stp:

I think anyone who cries about grades of classic VSs at Stanage should be exiled to Black Rocks to think about it. This should reduce grade creep.

In reply to stp:


But that's because of polish. If traffic improved friction you'd see more soft routes.

In reply to Wayne S:

Grade checked by pretty much the same team... they are a special collection of VS brutes and I luv em despite the scars. You did forget the blatant grade creep in upgrading South Corner to HVS

In reply to stp:

Thought it worth adding the follow up to my comments in that thread, so we dont need to repeat the rest of the argument as well...


stp - on 11 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:


Yes, well done. You must be feeling very proud of yourself. Award yourself 10 points. It is of course not that difficult to prove someone wrong when you completely change what they've said. I never restricted this to only adjectival grades nor 2 or 3 star routes.

But I rechecked and was out by a few percent. In fact 48% of routes were upgraded (320 routes) which contrasts with a mere 3.5% that were downgraded in the same period. I think my point is still valid that if you upgrade almost half of all the routes at a crag you are essentially changing the grading.

Offwidth - on 11 Oct 2014
In reply to stp:
I dont feel proud I'm just pointing out realities. You can only really measure creep on classics that everyone knows. Plus Stanage contained lots of daft obscure sandbags in the no star lower grade list in '83 and the changes for them are not grade creep, more realigning with the classics. Most of the classics on my list changed grade between '83 and '89.The percentage change for all starred routes since '83 is not much from a quarter as well, but naming them would take too long.

So you had a go at the BMC recent grading as if they had the same problems as these new Langdale grades on classic lines and its simply not true. Over a period of 30 years, since '83, on graded lists, grade drift is averageing maybe around a quarter to half a grade (most in the first 5 years) when in the previous 30 its certainly well over a full grade (mainly due to improved gear). Add this to the fact that Stanage is still one of the softest graded of the major grit crags and I think the BMC have done an admirable job holding out against grade creep.

I'd defend Rockfax as well on grit. Where grades dont match grading concensus is nearly all on borderline routes where they made an editorial decision to hold against creep in the same way the BMC did. They know full well low in the grade classics at mid grade suffer a voting distortion.


Offwidth - on 11 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
Just for the record the extra upgrades (on top of GGG, FBD, LTC and C&C) from '89 to the latest guide, in the 2 &3 star category, were:

Orang Utang E1 to E2
Crypt Trip E5 to E6
Weather Report E5 to E6
Silk E5 to E6
Indian Summer E5 to E6
Punishment E4 to E5
Curving Chimney D to VD
Wall of, Sound E5 to E6
Chameleon E3 to E4

The two down-grades were Green Streak to VS and Paradise Wall to HS.

All on 120 routes (in '89)


stp - on 12 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:



If that's true then surely an admirable job would have been a realigning Stanage grades with what is average for gritstone grades?

Also the phrase 'holding out' doesn't really make sense to me. They are the people (along with Rockfax) who define the grades. No one else does. Do you mean they're not giving in to whinging climbers who want everything upgraded to nurture they're egos? I'm interested to know in what form that pressure is. This suggests that those who are against grade creep need to be more vociferous.

Offwidth - on 12 Oct 2014
In reply to stp:
I really dont get what you are trying to prove. I've shown the brakes were firmly on grade creep at Stanage after the 80s (a classic VS crack maybe had dropped 2 grades by then as it went from a virtual solo in the first edition guides to become fully protectable with nuts, hexs and cams). I think those transitional editors should have reorganised grades better but they didn't.

I started climbing keenly in the early 90s led by Steve Ashtons 100 classics series (Bowfell Buttress D+). When I first became involved in Stanage grades, in the late 90s, it was because I climbed everything I could and there were quite a number of obscure Diffs and VDs that felt at least 3 grades harder...some had a go spitting me out solo where I was lucky to escape uninjured (as someone steadily ticking through the HVS graded list)... by the mid noughties I was a fully signed up guidebook volunteer. I have seen a clear effort to make grades consistent and to resist drift but more importantly a desire to inform and inspire with a visual and written celebration of the climbing and its history. I always knew 'grade flack' was part of the cost of involvement in what we did but I felt our 'ground' was solid and still do. Stanage isnt uniformly soft, go climb the routes at the top of the grades in the current graded lists; its biggest softness aspect I guess is a bunch of classic mid-grade friendly climbs at the bottom end of the grades in the graded list, especially at VS at the Popular End (a statistical fluke?).

In reply to stp:

I've got most editions of the peak guidebooks since the dawn of time, and after a trip I usually flick through to see what the grades used to be.

In an entirely unscientific way, I'd say that the biggest "grade creep" occurred during the 70s and 80s, with routes that were Moderate or Diff before then are often now VDiff or Severe (or greater). In recent years, most of the changes seeme to be much smaller, with maybe just the tech grade changing or just the adjectival.

I don't have the books with me to give any examples, but I do have a spreadsheet I did for Agden Rocher, and here, the majority of the increases occurred in the 1976 and 1983 editions.

And there are almost as many grade reductions as increases, some of them baffling (Deceptive Crack went from VS in 1957 to HS in 64 and 76 to S in all later editions. We reckoned VS 4b).

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

All peak grit lower grade histories are tracked on 'Offwidth'... you don't need the books.

http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/guides.html

In reply to Offwidth:

Good point. But you only go back to 64 at Agden, so don't see that Man of God (currently HS 4a) used to be MVS

In reply to Offwidth:
Indeed routes to love, usually a little battered at the top, perhaps even a little blooded. At the tops of which I'm usually happy to have made the journey and the last thing I would waste energy on is worrying about half a grade. For my money:

Birch Tree Wall (VS 4c)
Lean Man's Superdirect (VS 5a)
Lone Tree Groove (VS 5a)
Sand Buttress (VS 4c)

are the benchmark for mid/ high VS.

PS to make up for many things we don't agree about, I do think the Froggatt to Black Rocks guide is a great piece of work!

In reply to Wayne S:

Life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, so its fine by me as long as disagreement has some spirit and logic... I can't remember ever being annoyed with you for being ideologically constipated or plain dumb in the face of evidence (too common here these days).

To your list I'd add Hush, VJ Crack (if clean), Green Crack, Black Crack, CB Chimney, GW Traverse, Lean Mans Eliminate. Chancery Slab, Jammed Stone Chimney. Birch Tree Variant, Tree Crack. This would together form one of the ultimate crag VS tick lists for the VS leader who wants to be sure they are ready for HVS. Niall wrote the crag is the equivalent of a mad auntie locked in an attic... threatened by all that limestone, but don't worry, it can handle itself... best shown bags of respect but an essential crag for those who want their gritstone badge.

Great work is easy when you stand on the shoulders of some giants and work with many others, but as someone interested in real quality in informing and inspiring fellow climbers it was very satisfying.