/ Differences between guidebook grades??...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
Hey all.
So what do we all do when for example a rockfax grades a climb at 6c+ and a climbers club guide grades it at 7a?? Which tick do we/should we give ourselves. Personally I started thinking to use the grade of the newest publication, however this strategy soon flawed as earlier additions of the rockfax displayed the same grade as the later addition, where as the newly compiled (but older than new rockfax) states a higher grade as do the climbers club updates. Is it right to tick it as the highest to satisfy ego, or to tick it as the lowest as that's how easy someone else thought it was...?
a lakeland climber on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Ego says the higher grade, honesty the lower.

Back in the day, Apocolypse on Chee Tor used to be given E6 but it then became common knowledge that it was going to be downgraded to E4 in the next guide so lots of folk went out and grabbed it as the E6!

Routes do change and if the route is a relatively new one then the grade may not have settled down but this should be sorted out by the next edition of the guide.

ALC
Simon Caldwell - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:
You climb it as the lower grade, as that makes it easier, then log in as the higher grade, as that makes it more impressive.
CurlyStevo - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
"Apocolypse on Chee Tor used to be given E6 but it then became common knowledge that it was going to be downgraded to E4 in the next guide so lots of folk went out and grabbed it as the E6!"

I always think the grade to take for any climb is the one in the last definitive guide published.
Bulls Crack - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:
> Hey all.
> So what do we all do when for example a rockfax grades a climb at 6c+ and a climbers club guide grades it at 7a??

Always go for the highest grade recorded anywhere, at anytime by anyone
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Why not use the grade you thought it was worth?


Chris
phja - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs:

"Why not use the grade you thought it was worth?"

_______

OK...3PS=E1 :D
Hardonicus - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85: UIAA rules state you may take the higher grade but prepend it with 'soft'
Wiley Coyote - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Always start from the basic premise that guidebook writers could not grade flour and treat all printed grades as a basis for negotitation only.

The only time this is not true is when you collect loads of E points on a route you actually find quite easy, in which case the grade is absolutely correct and you are climbing like a Rock God.
victim of mathematics - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> (In reply to Rockhopper85)
>
> Why not use the grade you thought it was worth?
>
>
> Chris

This.

I put a route into my offline logbook at the grade it gets in a guide which it felt most like to me. So, for example, Lucky Strike is in there at E1, even though it's E2 in the latest definitive guide (I know not why). Anything else is just cheating isn't it?

What is certainly not allowed is claiming a route at the grade it felt to you if it hasn't been given that grade in any guides. Young Mr Oswald got quite upset when I told him he wasn't allowed to claim any E-points for the sandbag HVS he led on Lundy the other week that was clearly actually E2.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to CurlyStevo: so follow the last definitive guide... So it is quite apparent that rockfax use all of their old grades from their old guidebooks and just add the new routes. So technically the climbers club guide is the newest, so follow that? Also one route that got mne thinking this recently was a 6c+ in Rockfax and a 7a+ in climbers club guide. The cc guide was written by the guy who first climbed/bolted the route. This climb felt bloody hard for a 6c+. So would logic suggest he originally gave it a 6c+, that's where the new rockfax got that grade, then it was argued and regraded to a 7a+?

In reply to Rockhopper85:
> So it is quite apparent that rockfax use all of their old grades from their old guidebooks and just add the new routes.

Apparent and cobblers!



Chris
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs: well yes, is say its apparent. All existing routes have exactly the same description and grade, however one climb rockfax still grade as 5+. Whilst climbing an adjacent climb I witnessed a key hold fall off whilst being climbed by others.
The new cc guide says, was 5+ but due to the loss of a hold is now 6a , yet rockfax haven't mentioned it or adjusted the grade to suit in their newest guide.
In reply to Rockhopper85:
> (In reply to Chris Craggs) well yes, is say its apparent. All existing routes have exactly the same description and grade, however one climb rockfax still grade as 5+. Whilst climbing an adjacent climb I witnessed a key hold fall off whilst being climbed by others.
> The new cc guide says, was 5+ but due to the loss of a hold is now 6a , yet rockfax haven't mentioned it or adjusted the grade to suit in their newest guide.

Name and grade please?

> So it is quite apparent that rockfax use all of their old grades from their old guidebooks and just add the new routes.

Where do you get this stuff from? Have you looked at a Rockfax guide recently?

Alan
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH: lol yeah I'm always reading ny guide books. I live on Portland, Dorset. Guide books are a pain because there isn't actually one complete guidebook. I had the old Dorset rockfax and deep water solo rockfax. Then the climbers club guide came out, so I got that thinking that would be the One.... but nope, New crags and routes aren't in there, neither is all the bouldering etc.
Then the new rockfax came out, it has the new crags etc, but they got rid of all the TRAD routes. So now when out on a dawn till dusk day I have the dws, rockfax and cc guides, haha. I'll look up the specific route discrepancies if you would like?
In reply to Rockhopper85:
> lol yeah I'm always reading ny guide books.

So how did you come up with the idea that we never change the grade of any route in any of our books, once published?

> I'll look up the specific route discrepancies if you would like?

... er, yes please.

Alan

Iain Peters - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Ermm; do you realize how long it takes to produce a new guide, and how much work is involved? Doesn't make a scrap of difference whether it's a Rockfax or a CC guide, or any other for that matter.

Rockfall or loss of crucial holds is nearly always reported by someone on this and other sites, or you could, as have a number of generous souls in Devon and Cornwall, compile your own on-line mini-guide and put it out on the Web. Would help pass the time before dawn and after dusk.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85: sorry, does ukc publish rockfax? On the plus side, I love the rockfax guides... I came up with my assumption based on most of the route descriptions of routes and the grades have remained the same in the new rockfax as the 2005 publication. Ok, that could mean they are the same, but then when compared to the cc's definitive guide to Portland, there are a lot of routes with different grades, yet they were both released close together. So the common conception amongst most people I have climbed with is that rockfax has improved the layout on the 2005 guide and added all the new areas and routes.
So what I meant by the grades haven't changed is the new rockfax (of the top of my head as guides are at home) has slim fingers revenge as a 7a I think and cc guide has it 7a+.so has the grade changed from 2005 rockfax grade and if so why wasn't it put in the newer rockfax which came out after the cc guide, or if not why has cc printed it as 7a+?
tom.e - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to CurlyStevo: What do people mean by 'taking' a grade? I thought grades were there to tell you how hard a route will be before you get on it... once you've done the route the grade has done its job and doesn't need to be taken anywhere.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to tom.e: sorry was meant to say tick.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Iain Peters: yes I do realise how much time it takes, and am not putting any book down, was just asking what to follow. When a route is graded at 6c+ by one book and 7a+ by another, what do I do. That was the original message. I'm being asked to go into depth by what I mean by someone when using comparisons between the guides.
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Yes, Rockfax and UKC are the same company.

No, we don't synchronise our grades with other guidebook producers, maybe we should, be we don't. Hence our grades are a reflection of what we think the routes are based on our opinions, and those of the votes on the databases at the time of publication. In our case every route is assessed between each edition. The changes may not be that numerous but that may be because we are getting it right.

Slim Fingers' Revenge

Rockfax Database - http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=3387
UKC Database - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=13185

Both of which suggest that 7a is fine

Alan
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH: Thank you for taking the time to answer. So with "sunset sessions" at sharpits quarry, rockfax give a 6c+ and cc give a 7a+, which is quite a difference. That was the main reason I asked what to follow for a tick. In a previous message I said should I take the higher tick or the lower tick, because that's how easy somebody else found it.
So thankyou for your answer, it confirms that you don't believe the grade has changed on some routes, you think its an accurate representation, which to me states I should take the lower tick.
Michael Gordon - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:

Tick it as whatever grade you thought it felt like.
Jon Stewart - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to tom.e:
> once you've done the route the grade has done its job and doesn't need to be taken anywhere.

It's also a measure of one's achievement though eh? For example

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67488
Kevster - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Rockhopper85:
Ukc / rockfax arguement to one side, grades are in the eye of the beholder
I take the grade as what oi believed it was whenI climbed it. If I re-ascend the route when it gets a different grade and I believe it to be true then I'd have climbed it at 22 different grades.
The grade only matters when its ay your limit.

Phone won't correct typos

K.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Jon Stewart: Very true and a great article Jon, thanks for sharing. I'm lucky enough to work and live on Portland, so this is my climbing wall. This is how we mark improvement and gain a perspective of grades for ourselves and judge how good we are for when we visit elsewhere. Like Africa in El Chorro, its 6b+ above a gorge, only way out is 60 meters up after the abseil. The grades guide us as to what we can climb. As it happens, I had to ab into the gorge and swim out anyway, haha but that's another story.
Rockhopper85 - on 04 Oct 2012
In reply to Kevster: Thankyou for your input Kevster :)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.