UKC

Don't shoot me down; this is just an idea okay?

In view of the recent grading discussions here's my suggestion:

Firstly do away with the adjectival grade.
Secondly, use a three part grade:

[whole route] + [hardest move] + [protection]

ie,

[French grade] + [UK Tech grade] + [G; or R; or X; (or similar)]

Examples of single pitch routes would be (take the french grades with a pinch of salt - just my opinion okay):

Cenotaph Corner 6b,5c,G
Flying Buttress Direct 6a+,5b,G
Fools Gold 6a,5c,G
Wuthering 6a,5b,G/R
Great Slab 6a,5b,X
Chequers Crack 6b,5b,G (maybe!)
The Strand 6a+,5b,G

Whatever, all this system does is show how hard the hardest move is, with an idea of how hard it is to get up the route as a whole and whether you may hurt yourself or not.

Your opinions please?

In reply to FedUp: I reckon if you add an adjectival grade, plus an Alpine grade to take the weather into account, plus a scrambling grade for the approach, it would be perfect.

In reply to NickD:

There's just the same amount of info there as gleaned from our current system Nick; only it's presented in a more concise way. It's impossible to be two precise with any grading system.

In reply to FedUp: There's nothing wrong with the system we have until you get to E6/E7. After that, the vast majority of climbers are out of the equation anyway, so let those climb harder sort it out amongst themselves.

In reply to NickD:

Plus bouldering grades for any cruxes, in descending order of difficulty, plus the average call-out time for mountain rescue and the quality score of the nearest A&E and a rating for how good the bacon sandwiches are in the nearest cafe.

In reply to FedUp:

...would that be an oxymoron?

In reply to FedUp: I think it is perfect. However, I would remove the French grade and gear grade and replace it with a single grade. You could call this the abjective grade and depending on its relation to the technical grade would give a good idea of how hard / serious the route was.

A good attempt fella!

In reply to FedUp:

Look here, we have let you have metric weights and measures, kn instead ft/lbs, new pence instead of lsd, keep your sodding hands off our adjectival grades.;-P

In reply to sutty:

lol

In reply to FedUp: Come back Ed Ward Drummond, all is forgiven.

The current system tells me all I want to know and for climbs up to E4 seems to have worked well for many years. I'm reluctant to comment on grades above that as they are beyond my abilities but as hinted at by my comments on EWD this is not a new idea.

Al

In reply to FedUp:
why don't folk READ the bloody route description when considering the grade - then there is no ambiguity at all and the british system works a treat.

In reply to FedUp:

My brain hurts

In reply to Ava Adore:

>My brain hurts

Stand up and take the pressure off it a while.

In reply to all:

Okay, get ready to flame me:

I reckon that this system, together with Simon Lee's extension of the 'protection' grade (see, http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=319830) would be the perfect british grading system. It would eliminate all those: "Is it 'E' for Effort or 'E' for boldness?" questions, - easy to see from the deck on a single pitch route but more difficult on multi-pitch; it would be applicable for all routes sub-VS and up, and would give enough info -combined with a route description- without giving too much info. The addition of Simons protection extension would negate the need for an adjectval grade to ascertain the risk side of the route; the french grade would negate the need for an adjectival grade to ascertain the overall sustained nature of the route, and the tech grade would avoid people comitting themselves on a multi-pitch route with a single move that's too hard for them.

So hit me with it...

In reply to FedUp:

Hi. Its not my system. It is used extensively in the US successfully but didnt take-off when used in the Yorkshire Grit guide.

A useful grading system has to strike a balance between simplicity and informativeness as well as being widely understood. I think you are over complexifying. In meeting this fine balance I would prefer a system that tells me how hard the route is overall (as-if-on-toprope) ie the French grade coupled with how risky/dangerous if led ie the Risk grade.

These two pieces of information would be more useful objectively than the current system which more subjectively gives a 'feel' for the overall challenge ie the Adjectival grade coupled with the 'feel' of the most taxing move. A route with a technical crux grade might be given 6a if it is above gear but only 5c if next to it to get the right 'feel'. All a bit too touchy feely IMO compared to a more objective alternative.

In reply to FedUp:

Too clinical for me. I go trad climbing to do Hard Very and Extremely Severes and all the history they imply - not a string of figures.

In reply to Simon Lee:
but that still may not tell you if you can get up it or not as placing the gear on one 6a may be much easier than another 6a even though they are the same to top rope.

Also what if the crux is well protected but the rest of the route which is only slightly easier isn't? How does your grading differentiate between that and a route which is very easy for the grade and mostly good gear but has one hard move that is very dangerous to fall off?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Its only clinical because they are new. I bet E grades were considered 'clinical' when they were first mooted. Its only through usage and asociation that they have become romantic.

In reply to TRNovice:



Very good

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Absolutely - that is why I said in the opening post on the other thread:

"The overall Risk grade in my view would have to proportional to the difficulty ie a runout Fr6a might get a high overall risk grade for the route but a Fr8a that was well protected on the hard bit but had a runout Fr6a bit would have a low overall Risk grade (unless it was on mud!)."

So in answer to your question:"what if the crux is well protected but the rest of the route which is only slightly easier isn't? How does your grading differentiate between that and a route which is very easy for the grade and mostly good gear but has one hard move that is very dangerous to fall off?"

The answer is the former would have a medium level risk grade and the latter a very much higher risk grade based on likliehoods of falling and consequence of falling.

In reply to Simon Lee:
I think you misunderstood me.

The first route I described has a lot of very dangerous unprotected climbing only a bit easier than the crux, but a well protected crux. Whist the later has a very dangerous crux only slightly harder than unprotected climbing on the former route but the rest of the route is much easier and in the main well protected. They are both about the same sports grade.

In reply to FedUp:




Anything you need to know about a route that can't be deduced from the existing grades can usually be gleaned from the route description, if it's been written properly. So is the point of factoring more and more precise information into the grading system an attempt to render written description redundant? If so the grading system needs to be considerably more complex than yours - we need components that deal with reachiness, ape index, looseness of rock, to name but a few.

The Rockfax-style guidebooks have moved a bit in this direction, reducing the size of written descriptions by using grades in conjunction with photo-topos and the icon system (reachy, thuggy, technical, scary). This works quite well, although IMO they could be even more economical with descriptions, as they have a tendency to repeat in the description what they've already told us with the icons.

At the end of the day, I suspect most of us like a guidebook that's like a proper book with words in it, which removes the need to get too fancy with the grading systems.

In reply to bpmclimb:

And it helps publishers justify these £19.99 price tags. If the grading system got too good it would be a pamphlet for a fiver.

In reply to Simon Lee:


I know it's not 'your' system! I meant the system 'you' are discussing!


Are you sure...?
...as you're saying...


...which is just what I'm suggesting we do! Plus an addition -or rather, a 'retention'- of the UK tech grade to prevent climbers from reaching a 'stopper' move high on a multi-pitch route. It appears to me that we're kind of agreeing?



Which is just what I said in the second of my postings too!


Agreed!

In reply to FedUp:

Ok, I'll hit you, since I've nowt better to do:


It's E for several other things too. But it ain't frickin rocket science.


Pedant alert: That's all routes then.


(This is really the only reason I responded) Don't be such a pansy. You know enough when you start up a route to know whether you should continue or retreat should you find yourself in a hazardous position. If you find yourself in a position you can't retreat from (either by downclimbing or lowering off) then you've made a very very silly mistake.

And anyway, think back to your best experiences for a minute...

The routes I've enjoyed most are those I've known least about - it makes for a good adventure. We don't need a new system giving the exact details of a route and how to do the moves and giving away the fact there's a hidden hold and etc and so on ('we' meaning us rock mortals, not E7+ rock gods).

In reply to CurlyStevo:


If the crux on the second route is only slightly harder than the multiple moves on the first route but which are all equally dangerous then the risk grade is going to be similar but as you described it second time round it sounds like the second route would be more likely to have an easier French grade.

That is of course my opinion only. The level of risk would be graded by consensus.

In reply to FedUp: I quite like this. I think the french grade part is hard to judge though. I struggle to imagine french grades on trad, especially when it's slabby as all the sport/indoor climbing I have done has been steep in comparison.

Flying Butress Direct - French 5
Wuthering - French 5+

In reply to Simon Lee:
I guess. If the level of risk is done by consensus as compared to other routes of that overall grade then it makes sense.

Personally like you I'd prefer to have the risk element completely removed from the climbing difficulty grade and I find French grades more descriptive than a hardest move grade.

I do think however that the notion of onsighting something makes sense for trad and it would be better for the grades to reflect this. It's after all closer to true climbing (soloing) and let's face it the less you rely on gear on trad the less injuries that will occur!

In reply to FedUp:
why not scrap the hardest single move and use a french grade?

In reply to Simon Lee:
So just use the YDS?

In reply to james oswald:

Maybe because there are years of consensus behind some UK Adjectival / Tech grades (or at least several pints shared by guidebook writers and their mates) - who exactly is going to go and regrade everything - the ISO?

In reply to TRNovice:
Could this just come in slowly with new guidebooks and first ascentionists grade things in this way?

In reply to james oswald:

Brilliant. Now all we need to do is convince some guidebook editors that the next edition of their guide is going to be YDS, all the routes need to be re-checked and re-graded, and probably no one will buy it because no one uses the YDS system in their target market.

Good luck with that. Let us know what they say.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:
a very good point.

In reply to FedUp: Genius...Truly

In reply to FedUp:

I have had a change of heart, maybe there is something in what you suggest, but I think your equation:


is too simplistic. I think that with the following modifications you might be on to something:

In reply to FedUp:

But that's just confusing compared to E1 5c...


So I'm suggesting 'Scottish VS'! :-P

In reply to james oswald:

Read the rest of the thread?

In reply to Calder:


Is that so?


Lowering off eh? How many multi-pitch routes have you done in 1-3 years experience.

In reply to james oswald:


I have used both in my suggestion james. In order to both see the hardest move and also to see how hard it is the climb the whole route.

In reply to FedUp: so why not the E grade?

In reply to kareylarey:


Hahahahahhehehe. You are joking, the wimpy french would grade those at least 6b, 6b+

In reply to FedUp:

Aye, alright clever dick. Any combination of lower/abseil/downclimb/jump/whatever. It ain't impossible to retreat is it (with the exception of some sea-cliffs, obviously).

Plenty, but if you really want to know my logbook is public, so count them yourself you lazy sod. I hope it'll make you feel big and clever when you find it's less than you've done in your 11-20 years. And for that I congratulate you, well done.

In reply to Liam Copley:

The E grade is vague: it attempts to indicate both the seriousness of a route and also how hard it is to climb the route as a whole without suceeding on both counts! Having a protection grade, a french grade and a UK tech grade gives much more concise information.

In reply to FedUp:

The E grade isn't vague at all. It says how hard a climb will be, taking EVERYTHING into account.

In reply to GrahamD:

Would you prefer 'uninformative' or perhaps 'misleading' instead ?

In reply to FedUp:

It's the relation of the trad adjecteval grade to the tech grade that tells you that..or at least gives yoou enough info to go on in the vast majority of cases.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Maybe its a reflection our relative climbing standards ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Does it?
Consider this:
A certain climb is given a grade of E2 5b.
With no other information could you tell if this particular climb is given E2 because it is either:
i) sustained but safe
or,
ii) it is poorly protected?

No you can't.

Under a different more concise system a 5b climb given E2 because it's sustained would get:
6a+, 5b, G

Similarly, a 5b climb given E2 because it was bold would instead get:
6a, 5b, R

Indeed, a 5b climb that was both bold and sustained would get:
6a+,5b,R
Under the current system this last example may even get an E3 5b which is obviously ridiculous.

In reply to FedUp:

Why do you need any more information? You know the route's E2 so if you can climb that grade it's within your abilities.


Why?

In reply to thomasadixon:


So you're saying that E2 is E2 is E2? Climb one, you can climb them all?

Consider this at E2 5b:
The Rasp 'v' Brown's Eliminate.
Both E2, yet totally different styles of climbing. So why give then the same grade?

At E3:
Impossible Slab 'v' Right Eliminate
Both E3 5c but again totally different.

The grades should be:
The Rasp 6b,5b,G
Brown's Eliminate 6a,5b,R
Impossible Slab 6a+,5c, R
Right Eliminate 6b+,5c,G

By looking at the above one can tell which are sustained and which are bold routes. No need for a lengthy guide book description.

In reply to FedUp:

E2 is E2.

But I agree it doesn't mean you can climb them all.

Either way I find it laughable that with your vast experience it still bamboozles you. The two that are run out have easier climbing than the well protected routes, and the British adjectival takes this into account - ie. both the physical and mental considerations. And it works, because if it didn't there'd be more threads about dead climbers each Monday.

In reply to FedUp:


A f6b steep crack is totally different to a f6b blank slab. So why give them the same grade?


No, but E2 is E2, same as f6b is f6b.

In reply to FedUp:

The grade says how hard the climb will be, it does not say in what way it is hard. That means that you can entertain the idea of an HVS leader who can sort out and deal with the totality of the difficulties of an HVS. The same cannot be said of a French grade. A 'Fr3c leader' would be shitting themselves on Sunset Slab.

In reply to Calder:


So you've contradicted your argument then?


I understand the limitation of the E grade. It appears it bamboozles you more like as it appears you're simply accepting it as gospel, hence your above statement of contradiction.

In reply to GrahamD: The same cannot be said of a French grade. A 'Fr3c leader' would be shitting themselves on Sunset Slab.


Only if they had ignored the risk part of the grade and werent an 'X' climber in the same way that an E36b climb would defeat an E3 climber who couldnt climb 6b.

In reply to AntiGrav:

Not so sure. It seems to me that just about every 4c is a VS and vice versa, so little information on protection etc. Luckily past this stage now, but took me ages, because I never knew what I was in for, on the basis of the grading. Taught me to read the guidebook and just look at the route, though.

In reply to FedUp: fine