UKC

Bubbling under the surface of top trad climbing is a question: 'Do these big E grades really exist?'

E grades are designed to be used for an on-sight ascent, but at the very highest levels this is only theoretical. Are the top grades skewed? Does the British grading system fail above E7?

What role does the climbing media play in the push for higher grades? Does the media encourage these stratospheric numbers? Is the media to blame for the grading system getting de-railed?

In these two editorial articles E is for mEdia and The E Grade. Is it broken? Can it be fixed? I have a look at the issues surrounding these questions. I look at alternatives to the E grade and I look at how the media shines in on the big numbers.

Top climber Dave MacLeod also gives me his thoughts on the subject, as well as discussing how he graded Rhapsody E11, and what his thoughts are for Echo Wall.

• NEWS: http://new.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=08&year=2008#n45238


• E is for mEdia: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1189


• The E Grade. Is it broken? Can it be fixed?: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1191

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Two great articles there.

I see you having a running theme that 'On-sight climbers don't get the media recognition they deserve'. I agree that this is partly media led, but I think there is also some schoolyard jockying involvolved. Headpointing and broadcasting achievements being seen to be much less cool than onsighting and keeping-your-head-down-I-hate-media-why-don't-I-get-paid-for-climbing-grumble-grumble type attitudes which I think are rife in climbing, especially at the upper grades.

I also think that there is a certain issue with the E grade, although it's open ended, there are some limits to it which will run in line with sport/technical difficulty of the route in hand. I still find it hard to contemplate that certain death isn't the outcome of some of our E10's at technical 7a, wouldn't this be the equivalent of E7 6a .......

Jack: Yes, the E grade is broken!

In reply to andi turner: No because 7a is broken as well!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Jack I have been consistently impressed with the standard of articles and editorials in the last few months, and these two editorials are of the same high standards.

I don't think the E-grade is broken, but I certainly think it has been misused quite a lot.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

good choice of routes to illustrate the bredath of the E5 grade.

some random thoughts:

- everybody knows the difference between an E8 onsight (if there were one) and an E8 headpoint, this is usually made clear in the reporting, so where is the confusion.
- saying "nobody knows what E10 is like to onsight" should be qualified by adding "at this point in time"....some wad will be along in the coming years to do just that....let them settle any debate on the grade.
- i am sure a statistician would point out that climbing grades correspond to a normal distribution (skewed to easier routes)....that's why you don't have a whole bunch of E11's all over the place....so at least the current distribution of grades at the top end is what you would expect.

In reply to Alun:
dards.

Precisely.

Whilst the top-end e grades are, in part, theoretical the onsight limit - or 'proof' if you like - is still creeping up which shows it's not broken but is just the nature of the beast.

Below the top grades we have a legacy of past misuse and a reluctance to extend the system when it should have been.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Good article. The amount of amazing ascents on that list are inspirational!! Especially when some of them are at your local crag and you know the routes, it sounds weird but when you hear about someone climbing a hard graded route it doesn't hit you as much as one being done that you know well. I like these articles as most people can relate to them.
PS its Yukan II : )

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

E is for ego, money and a laugh!


The E grade has been hijacked partly by the media and partly by folk wanting to hype their achievements. Years ago (circa 1986) for this very reason I stopped using the E grade system preferring to grade my new routes HXS. Also, I proposed and got passed the P system for Yorkshire grit. This system as proposed was meant to do away with the E grade. It represented protection:

P1 = safe
P2 = possibility of harm
P3 = certainty of harm

This system along with the technical grade is really all one needs on grit. But what about E for effort I here you all ask? Well I think it’s pretty obvious looking at a route whether it’s going to be strenuous or sustained.

Sadly, Yorkshire MC decided to keep the E grade as well, so the last time I looked routes had three grades, a P grade, an E grade and a technical grade.

Cheers,

Craig

In reply to Craig Smith: I thought the P grade was for 'Prang Potential' or something?!

A brilliant system, especially when coupled with the 'P3 don't scare me boyo landing mat' or whatever it was in the back of the guide.

In reply to Alun: Thanks Alun.

Jack

In reply to Craig Smith:

As in:

5.11a ... = P1 = safe
5.11a ...R = P2 = possibility of harm
5.11a ...X = P3 = certainty of harm

In reply to Craig Smith:
>It represented protection:

kind of like S0, S1, S2 & S3 for deep water solos....i can see the logic.

In reply to Craig Smith:


err yes - why leave the adjectival grade out? It gives perfectly useful information even if it is 'obvious' from the ground - which it wont always be and may not ever be to some!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Headpoint ascents get more media attention because of the build up. The reader tends to have heard of the route involved as it's normally a last great problem. Then you can read about the climbers training and top roping etc etc. It all builds up to make an interesting story. With onsight, the first you hear about it is when it has been climbed. Once a route has been climbed, it tends to loose some of it's appeal (although not true for Indian Face).

It is interesting though, that onsighting is seen as "catching up" with headpointing. This does seem unfair but inevitable as there are few onsight first ascents these days of classic routes. I can not actually think of any recent, quality routes which have been climbed onsight as the first ascent (but maybe that's because of the media?).

The Belgiums' ticklist is amazing. How long did that take?

I'd be more interested in seeing top climbers ticklists - people who onsight lots of E5+ one after the other on a road trip, which is essentially what the rest of us mortals do except only much harder!

In reply to Ackbar:

Right Wall? What has "the media" got to do with it?

In reply to Morgan Woods: Is right wall recent? The media might not have published onsight first ascents, whereas might have published headpoint first ascents instead, so we do not hear about them as often.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Strikes me that the problem lies between what the grades should be, and what people really want

A grade is a notional indication of the difficulty of a route. Not only will it always be an approximation, because of measurement issues, it would vary from climber to climber depending upon their strengths and weaknesses.

However what we all want, but perhaps are reluctant to admit, is an indication of performance. Some method of measuring our sucesses and failures against how we've done previously, or how our mates have done. And the same applies a the top level - the climbers, the media and the sponspors want some means of telling us that something special has occurred. The problem is that this is even more unquantifiable, because it includes factors relating to the style of ascent and the level of danger.

Maybe the most honest thing to do is to assign sport grades to trad routes until they have been on-sighted ? But will it sell magazines ?

In reply to kareylarey:

sorry, yeah take your point about the reporting of recent ascents.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: A good way to give onsight ascents the recognition they deserve is for the guide to list the first red/headpoint and the first onsight. For instance, where I live in Italy, and specifically in Ogliastra in Sardinia, on the page of the hardest routes (7c+ to 8c) in the guide there's the name of who did the first RP, the first OS and the first repeat (this is for crags with sports routes). Clearly, doing the first OS is as news-worthy as doing the first RP, especially if you think that "typically" someone can RP over several days a full two letter grades harder than they can onsight.... Here we also have a lot of discussion about E-type grading for multipitch routes, since you do have bolted routes with the bolts 7-15m apart so any falls are long and it's hard to work the moves (which can be 7c...)...on some such routes you really don't want to fall off and so the guides give the max grade (hardest move), the obligatory grade (you can't aid this bit/it's above the bolt) and an "S" grade for the seriousness. A route like Rhapsody could have a higher "S" grade than a route bolted like a crag, each 3-4m.

Peter
Peter

In reply to Morgan Woods:


No they don't. And it is often not made clear when it is reported....headlines such as "Jean Smith Climbs E8" stick where the distinction often doesn't. We at UKC always make the distinction, sometimes even offering an explanation as to what headpointing is.

We can't presume that everyone knows the difference between a headpoint and an onsight ascent.

In reply to Ackbar:

Given youtube, climbing vids and word of mouth I think true on sights of hard trad routes today are very rare.

Least we forget, a true on sight is get to the crag WITHOUT any prior knowledge, uncoil ropes, climb route, go home.

Cheers,

Craig

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Interesting articles. Pete Robbins has it spot-on. The E-grade works well for onsighting up to E6 and I see no reason why not for harder onsighting.

Mick’s _,R,X or Craig’s P1,P2,P3 solution only works if you have a cumulative physical difficulty grade, like every other widely used rock-climbing grading system in the world. Otherwise Cave Route Right Hand and Face Route both get (UK tech.)6a P1, which would be ludicrous.

The real problem is with the UK technical grade. It works well enough for ledge shuffling when crux moves can be isolated so knowing something is 5a rather than 5b is useful information. On harder routes 6b and 6c are too broad to be sensitive to quite large increases in difficulty and, on many harder routes, the difficulty becomes a summation of many moves.

The solution? All routes get a sport grade and a danger grade. If the route has been onsighted it also gets an E-grade:

Big Crack E2 6a+ P1
Brown’s Eliminate E2 5+ P2
(works better than giving them both E2 5b doesn’t it?)
Sundowner E2 4+ P3

London Wall E5 7a+ P1
Right Wall E5 6c P2
The Long Run E5 6b+ P2/3

Rhapsody 8c/+ P2 ?
Echo Wall 8c+ P3 ??

If you’re toproping you get the sport grade, headpointing you get the sport grade + danger grade, if you’re onsighting you get the E-grade (or HVS, VS, it applies to all adjectival grades).

(Sean’s tick-list is f’in’ amazing…)

In reply to flaneur:

"Mick’s _,R,X or Craig’s P1,P2,P3 solution only works if you have a cumulative physical difficulty grade, like every other widely used rock-climbing grading system in the world. Otherwise Cave Route Right Hand and Face Route both get (UK tech.)6a P1, which would be ludicrous."

If you notice I mentioned I proposed it for Grit only. Although it would work for limestone too. The US system of R and X works perfectly well for many rock types in my experience. At the end of the day, who cares if the thing is uber sustained as long as you're not going to die! What's wrong with 6a P1 and mentioning that it is strenuous? Although I think if you stand under Cave route right and can't make out that it might be a tad pumpy in places then...

In reply to Peter Herold: It's a good idea to put first OS in the guidebooks. It would easier to see what has been done and what hasn't been done.

In reply to flaneur: the trad system works but this works even better - i guess though that any change would face stiff opposition and people will just say that the UK grading system is sufficiently subtle and informative as is. i tend to find that knowing a sport grade for a trad route gives me a much better feel for what to expect.

great article by the way! FWIW i reckon onsight climbing has a special quality, especially on trad, that redpointing or headpointing can never have.

In reply to flaneur:


Except that it's obvious what the e grade means when you see them and 5b more accurately describes their technical grade. I can't see you've gained that much - eg Big Crack could be 5b or 5c at that grade - what you gain with the spor grade you lose in accurately describing the hardest move.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Excellent points. I am afraid the E system is just a bit passe. ie times have moved on. Now people are familiar with the French system which most countries have now adopted. The American system is effectively a duplicate of the French system above F7a at least. Americans use R and X for poorly protected and death; similar to someone's grit scheme of P1-3. So one can easily standardise by just using the French system with R and X modifiers. Why don't we? In 5 years time if all this was done the old grades would be forgotten and not missed. Strange at first, but strange not to, later.
After all the French system was introduced into UK at Harrisons and later at Avon in the 40/50s. It was modified into the Cloggy system in 60s. Now is a good time to regrade all these routes back into the original and present French system.
Discussions about what a UK technical 5c move is, or series of moves, would be redundant, and everyone knows that 10 pull ups are harder than 1.
The on-sight using a standard rack, or at least with only those additions recommended in the guide/topo, must be the ideal. Head pointing and resting are just deviations, better to wait for standards improve; or one just accepts that 'cheating' is human. Pre-inspection and dialing up some abstruse bit of mechanical protection is really the most unnatural cheat of the lot. On the other hand if there is just only a limited amount of rock and local fashions enthuse. Why not? On southern sandstone everything is 'headpointed' on a top rope. Rarely do people then go on to solo it. And the first soloist is rewarded with his name in guide book. A head point in its truest form is just a solo. It is also a good way of speeding up the process to the grave. personally I will just stick to routes without an R or X attached.

Oliver Hill

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: how many important first ascents above say E4 where or are climbed onsight? I would imagine the majority have been/are abseiled and cleaned and therefore inspected

The headpoint E grade seems fine to me if the e grade system is used across the full spectrum of difficulty from E1 to E? I find it utterly remarkeable that someone can climb 8C+ or above with the prospect of a ground fall (headpointed or not) therefore deserve the high e-grade, and yes grades are important if most of us are honest, chasing the grade and pushing yourself is an important facet of the sport

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Seems to me that UKC does its fair share of stirring the E grade pot.

Dave MacLeod says 'I climbed Echo Wall, not really sure what to grade it.'
UKC maildrop says 'Dave MacLeod - a possible E12?'

In reply to Oliver Hill:

Whether you choose to describe it or not a routes technicality still exists and is possible to be reasonably objective about

If you just have an overall grade plus the R or X or P attachment you still don't know if it applies to technicality or pumpiness/sustained nature - something that can be derived form the nuances of trad grading.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

The problem is that the tech grade is broken, not the E grade.

I've been saying I'd like to see French Grades used for the last five years now.

Would that be useful for your E5 onsight new routes at Gogarth though?

In reply to Paz:

Te grades aren't broken - the graders are

In reply to Paz:

Exactly!

As others have said, replacing the tech grade with either a sport grade and/or bouldering grade is certainly the way forward in the middle and high E-grades.

When routes are reported or discussed here, or at the crag, it is rarely UK tech grades that get used. Most often it is a sport grade, regularly supplemented by a bouldering grade(s) to better describe the crux(s).

In fact when it comes to a few E8s that I can think of, I know what sport grades have been reported for them but haven't got a clue what tech grade they have as it's almost completely irrelevant.

The sooner it becomes widely accepted to use grades like E8 f8a or E10 font8a+ the better. It's not an issue for those operating at those grades but in terms of having an informative grading system that gives the maximum amount of information to people who don't already know every detail of the routes in question, it can only be a step forward.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

With the greatest of respect, what the f*ck do you know?

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Cheers, I think it's effectively in use already. For short techy routes and slabs, especially Grit, they're just hard to give sport grades to anyway, so maybe bouldering grades are better as you say, though sport is possible as it's not like the Peak isn't famous for short sport routes.

But if you get a sport grade, you cna work out the E-grade,

If it's 8a, then 8a on bolts probably merits E7, so you know it must be at least that, but soloing one probably warrants hard E9 or E10 (the boundary is disputed, there being no E10 solos, but Meshuga's 7c so go figure).

That's a bad example because I'm at the cutting edge but if you know the climbing's 7c then you know the route must apart from one or two examples be at least E6 (IMHO), unless it's short and cruxy. E5 6c is usually 7b+ climbing though there's probably a counter somewhere.

But then again if you know it's only 7c climbing then that's just no where near hard enough to possibly merit E10 and so can be E9 at best.

A given trad grade already could have climbing of any one of 6 or 7 sport grades on, so climbign of a given sprot grade could be anyone of e or 5 trad grades.

Trad grades aren't broken Jack, they were just f*cking useless to start with. I'll have a sport grade and a guidebook description please.

In reply to Paz:

>With the greatest of respect, what the f*ck do you know?

Note, I am staying well clear of this thread, I know nuffin guvnor

Paz. Cut the swearing please.

In reply to Paz:

But Paz

The E grade in the ultimate expression of climbing difficulty capability. Your profile quotes your hardes onsight as E5 and 7a+, but 7a+ climbing should be E6/E7 if the protection issues are ignored

When on a good day I know I can climb E4, it could be a well protected very technical/strenuous route or a poorly protected technically easier climb, I think the same applies to many trad climbers up to E6

For trad climbers to judhe how well they are going by technical grade is meaningless. The E grade in the UK does seem to be an excellent benchmark of the combination of physical and mental strengths and skills needed to get up climbs, which may vary considerably in technical difficulty

Kevin Stephens not logged on

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Personally I've though for quite some time that the best way of thinking about many British Trad climbs is through a combination of the British and French grades. British grades simply don't always tell the full story about how hard the climbing is; if say you're climbing around the E5 mark - its pretty useful to know if your E5 6a at Pembroke, Gogarth, the Peak or in the mountains involves french 6c+ climbing or 7b - the range is literally that wide. Using this system the following examples might apply:

Right Wall E5 6a (6c+)
Headhunter E5 6a (7a)
London Wall E5 6a (7a+)
Mammoth E5 6b (7b)

Not rocket science really.

Well now that's a surprise...a new route by Dave M and a new E grade...(E12!) - have we been here before or was I just dreaming...

Case in point: media and sponsored heros creating new column inches....I see the dollar signs, I smell the money....

In reply to Craig Smith:

Now now Mr. Smith, we all have to make a living. As you well know UK professional climbers make a pittance from sponsorship and have to do many other things to make a crust.

I very much doubt that Dave M is motivated purely by money, if so why is he is not in banking, property or being funded by a Pharmaceutical company?

It's a little more complex than dollar signs.

In reply to Paz:

Clearly more than you think.

It's a simple system, anyone can understand it be they a Severe or an E8 leader....well maybe not anyone

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

I agree with your view on the subject and have looked at trad grades in this way for many years.

When considering a route, I always try to find out roughly what the sport grade would be before an onsight attempt. This gives me some idea as to what I am in for; a bit of a head game with long run outs (eg Right Wall) but not too hard climbing or safe but pumpy with a hard move, (eg Mammoth).

I don't think the E grade is broken, with experience and knowledge of climbing, it works very well.

Regards,

Rich White.

In reply to Richard White:

Seems the FRCC are ahead of the game as quoted in Jack's article:

"The FRCC made an extremely useful and positive step forward in their 1999 Lake District Langdale guide. In the graded list they state:

It is considered by some climbing at the highest standards that French grades provide information not currently available from the normal British grade. Therefore as an experiment, traditional routes of E6 and above have also been given a French grade in the Graded List, in addition to their British E grade... ...This step represents perhaps the beginning of an overhaul of the grading system at this level, based on the emerging thoughts of some of those most qualified to comment. It will be interesting to see how the debate develops.

This adds another piece of information to help a would be on-sight climber asses the difficulties they are likely to face and it has proved popular and useful. These days most hard new routes are quantified with a French grade when they are reported in the press (and crux moves are often described with bouldering grades). The inclusion of these 'extra' grades in to our guidebooks would be a worthwhile and helpful exercise."

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1191

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Completely agree Mick. It is good to see that our (UK)trad grading system works and can be enhanced by the use of sport and bouldering grades.

As for the article discussion that E grades are controlled by the media, I would disagree.

Climbers operating at the upper end of the grading system, creating new routes and proposing (guessing) an onsight grade I'm sure realise that their ascent is different to an onsight. However, they are breaking new ground and pushing the boundaries. This is always difficult in any aspect of sport. Even though it could be argued that Big John (in the article), by working a new route has stacked the odds in his favour, he still doesn't know if it is possible to lead that line. The first onsight ascensionist knows the line has been climbed and the mental barrier has been broken to a certain degree. They still have to climb the route though!

When Indian Face is onsighted(!) will that take something away from Dawes's first (worked) ascent. Not in my opinion.

Are grades dictated by the media, ie do climbers sometimes inflate the grade to get the media coverage. Perhaps, but we should look on it as more of a challenge, a gauntlet thrown to other climbers to come and repeat the route (in a better style?) and give their opinion. I'm sure it's difficult for first ascensionists to get it right every time. It's easy to miss that little drop knee, hidden hold, small wire placement etc first time around which get found after a few repeats.

Regards,

Rich.

In reply to Mick Ryan:

Yes Mum.

In reply to Kevin Stephens:

The E5s I've onsighted haven't had climbing on anywhere near that hard and the 7a+s have been mostly short. 7a on a few pegs maybe, and they were old E4s.

I too know I can climb E4s, luckily I know I can onsight the bold ones, but ticking a safe E4 6b (or even one particular E4 5c) might take me three days, including many falls and a cheeky look from a rope... I reckon the safe E4s at avon ( the ones with a couple of staple or Eco bolts) are 7a+.

I'm totally willing to put up a `cragging grade' instead of a `best onsight' low gravity day purple patch with a tail wind when everythign clicked grade that you'll neve match ever again, but I reckon a great deal of the of the people with E1 on their profile haven't consolidated it, so until they admit they're hardly VS climbers, I'll play by the same rules.

If I'm climbing on bolts I feel it's justifiable to slap my way up. Some I get the onsight on, some I fluff.

At the moment unless it's at Pembroke and I get some more trad fitness and stamina from somewhere and over my mental block there, or it's got a lot of fixed gear, or a boulder problem start, or is well cruxy and I fluke it, I don't see myself onsighting 7a+ on nuts just yet. Not until I've done some longer ones.

Does anyone else recognise this - on a trad route your climbing style is fundamentally different, i.e. slower. You can't afford to throw caution to the wind unless you've got good gear in, and even then you've got to stop and place it well. What do people think the best way to progress at trad and tap in to your sport ability is - climbing trad routes faster and lighter, or climbing sport routes slower, in more control (with training weights even)?

The other point is that like as Rich says a little egyptian or subtle refinement can make a huge difference. Actually I would guess finding one Egyptian on Right Wall or other stamina route, makes naff all difference, the primary necessary requirements are still basically being fit and bold enough. But on a cruxy route on the crux, especially on Grit, it could make the difference of an English technical grade, which could obviously make what trad grade you feel it is tumble.

I reckoning jumping a technical grade that you can onsight or even onsight solo in control, makes a much bigger difference than your trad grade, as above 5a it could be worth two or more of them.

In reply to Craig Smith: Dave hasnt given his route a grade. Dave is a world class climber who deserves every meagre amount of sponsorship he gets. Do you think he spent days shovelling snow from the top of the route for the love of paltrey amounts of money or for the love of a phenomenal line on a phenomenal mountain? to give you an idea of where his heart lies below is a response to a suggestion he should be doing more 'easier' routes for the benefit of others..

"I do actually do stack loads of other routes, and spend many an hour with wire brush in hand. The day after I did Echo Wall I was up the glen onsighting Centrepiece E6 - an older classic in need of traffic, pulling out bits o grass as I went. You maybe just don't hear about it. Mike and I gave Yosemite Wall the same treatment back in May for example, but I only mentioned the new E8 on my blog. I've been cleaning many of the Glen Nevis routes at all grades since I moved to the glen. Did the same back in Dumby - rebolting the whole crag etc taking skip loads (I kid you not) of rubbish away, visit by visit, year after year. Notice this year there have been serveral threads/blogs complaining that the rubbish is getting worse there.

Anyway thats my defense, I could go on but you get the point. Keeping the crags clean through all the grades diff-E11 is more than a one man task. But getting out and doing new routes in the mountains is not a bad place to start.

It's been so much fun spending time up at Echo Wall it's a beautiful place in summer - there are loads of other prime new lines to to go in the vicinity from about VS to E10. I'll miss it (until next time!)."


does this sound like a climber who is chasing the dollar?

In reply to Craig Smith:

>Now now Mr. Smith, we all have to make a living.

(Dr Smith to you Mick : ))

Well get a real job then like hanging a door then.



Hold on a minute...sponsored climbers have to make news so that the folk that sponsor them get advertizing and brand recognition. So if the media or the climber in question say their new route is a new grade (even if it ain't!) then this is news and news makes dollars. It really is that simple.


>I very much doubt that Dave M is motivated purely by money, if so why is >he is not in banking, property or being funded by a Pharmaceutical company?

Because then he wouldn't be climbing E12!


>It's a little more complex than dollar signs.

Ok then, enlighten me?

X

CPS

In reply to Craig Smith:
So when did he give the Grade as E12? I don't remember seeing the number mentioned by Dave himself, only other people.

In reply to StuDoig:

Plexiglass wrote:


"Dave MacLeod says 'I climbed Echo Wall, not really sure what to grade it.'
UKC maildrop says 'Dave MacLeod - a possible E12?'"

So it's the media not Dave. And it's an open question...in claissic red top media styli...Hope this clears things up.

Anyway, the line of Echo wall looks awesome. Well done Dave for climbing it. Does it really matter what grade it is mate? You climbed a fantastic route, let that in its self stand proof of your vision and prowess.

In reply to Paz:
So basically what you're saying is you have to get stronger and better to climb harder trad?

Well....yes - I always found sport climbing good for that

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I'm asking what's the best way to use sport climbs get stronger and better for trad.

I'm more interested in subtle hints, quick fixes and magical cures, than anything that involves hard work.

In reply to Paz:


See what you've done? That's bad language for you.

As for e grads being 'w*nk' - I think you're doing your side of the argument no favours.

Huh - I got deleted.

I get the feeling that the word I used (w*nk) may be more offensive in England than in Canada. If so, I apologise. No offence intended.

So I'll re-try my post:

I have said for years that the E-Grade system is broken. I do not believe that it communicates the engagement on a climb clearly, but rather muddies the waters by trying to communicate too much in too small a space.

Many posted above with the opinion that French grades with a danger-rating is more accurate, and I tend to agree with them.

Try not to delete this post if you can restrain yourself, Mr. Webmaster.

In reply to Kurt:

Well put - we'll agree to differ - I still think you just drop one piece of information in favour of another...not that it matters very much.

I've always found sterling symbols harder to draw as well : p


Isn't that why he didnt grade it? to avoid accusations of such?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Bah, your fault.

It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of climbing... but by our skills on the crag.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: There's nothing wrong with the E grade. Most of the information that the E grade does not give you is either in the guide book or can be deduced from just looking at the route. And remember, if you give too much information away, it will not be an onsight and therefore not an E grade anymore. To give a headpointed route a French sports grade would be ignoring the boldness of a headpoint and does no service to any potential onsight climbers. But I think replacing the E with a H is the way to go because onsight climbing deserves to be properly recognised. That way, when someone climbs E9 onsight, the headline will read, first ascent of an E9. Likewise, Macleod's route can have the headline, first ascent of a H12. The implications of this are big. Consider how different any guide book history section would be if the two were properly seperated.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Also guidebooks should try to mention if some of the more historical routes were first top roped or led on sight. That way we can better judge the progression of British rock climbing through time. Did Puttrell, Brown etc practise their routes before? It's not really mentioned in the guidebooks.

In reply to Ackbar:

Spot on. I do hope that things head that way. At present people are saying 'I did a route in one style that would be x if I did it differently, but I am going to give it a grade for the style that I didn't do it in'. I hope that Dave Macleod leads the way with this.

And I should say that, whatever happens on what it gets called, we know what Dave Mc has done and it is an amazing achievement, which in the end is the most important thing.

This is an interesting thread. Maybe the discussion could benefit from a comparison to the US system.

It was mentioned briefly above, but to state it more clearly, routes in the States get a technical difficulty grade (physical difficulty, analogous to a French sport grade), then a separate indicator for the routes relative danger. The "danger" rating consists only of two levels: R or X. Some folks put an R/X on routes too. R=runout=relatively sage but longer distances between good gear; possible injury, but certainly no death. X=certain death or very severe injury. R/X=somewhere in between all that.

So, a good example, which Mick Ryan commented on at the time of his ascent, is Sonnie Trotter's grading of Rhapsody. He gave it 5.14whatever R. He appropriately gave it R because the fall was big, but relatively safe.

Alternatively, some folks in the states (like in North Carolina) have adopted a slightly more nuanced danger rating system which essentially describes the danger up to R and X. Following movie ratings (no joke), this system proceeds as follows: G, PG, PG13, R, X. It's simply a way of parsing the danger even more.

All that said, DM seems sensible when he suggests that no overhaul is needed--people can understand the significance of E8 onsight versus headpoint.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

E is for ego? American grading system seems eminently more sensible to me.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Back down in the mortal grades- much as it galls me to say it, the yanks do probably have a simpler (better?) system with the R,X addition- though there's something more 'romantic' about rolling E3 5b out than 5:10 X.

That said, away from the crag (which is after all where grades more detailed than easy, hard, and no chance matter ), looking for say *** E3's to aspire to is easier than looking for 5:10 X to 5:12 routes, and down the pub (where grades really matter... ) calling yourself an E whatever climber takes less breath than 'dangerous grade A to super safe grade B'... isn't the rain depressing

In reply to Ackbar:

Using H for headpoints would be fine except in the repository for info - i.e the guidebooks, it could be out of date for the 20 years that go between some editions!


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs: Well 22 years later noone has onsighted The Indian Face!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Great article Jack... but how come Strawberries is still E7. If it were graded for an on-site it seems a bit mean since almost everyone falls off first go. Masters Edge ditto.

In reply to Chris Craggs: Except for Rockfax's online database of course. I do not think we should change to the American system because our grading system is part of our climbing heritage. It can be added to though. This is how we ended up with the awful but amazing Hard Very Severe grade. And how useful is te American grade system? The Danger aspect i.e. R or X, does that refer to falling from the crux or falling from the worst position?

In reply to Ackbar:

I'm also not clear how it works at identifying the easier pitches - with the UK system you obviously get a technical grade for each pitch.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: The H prefix for headpointing does seem to solve the problem at higher grades. However, I think it will have the negative effect of making the practice of headpointing trad routes in general much more accepable. So your E1 punter will aspire to be a H4 punter, which I dont believe is a positive move.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

If your best onsight is E2 are you allowed to call people who climb E1 punters?

<ponders this :| >

In reply to es: I am an E2 punter

In reply to Chubbard:

Upgrading them to E8 would explain why Caff and his friend's didn't strictly onsight them, and only Gogarth onsighted them.

I feel a new thread coming on, but the mega bitch has been promoted to daemon and has grown wings,

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Storm in a teacup yoofs.
The American system is absolutely crap as a way of summing up the overall difficuly of spicy gear routes. The R,X etc is a pretty blunt instrument. The E-system works great in comparison. If you must use a french grade (or american grade-same thing really) then it should be a top rope grade that includes the pump of placing gear, not a bad supplement to the e-system I suppose.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

The E Grade works fine up to some airy number (E7/8/9) so maybe its just these upper grades that need sorting rather than simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater?


Chris

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Its not the E grade that is the problem but the Uk grade ie French and US grades are more defined. A English 6a can be a french 6c or 7a and can be a US 5.11 a,b,c

E4 F7a+ or E4 5.11d would make more sense.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Indeed. One point that doesn't seem to have been picked up earlier is that each E grades is typically pretty wide (covering 2 french grades for well protected routes) - at the top end you seem sometimes to get the argument that route x is harder than route y therefore must deserve a harder grade. At a more normal grade for example I think most people would agree that Star Wars is easier than Ressurection which is easier than say Mortlocks Arete or Apocalypse, but all are correctly E4.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


Isn't that simply because the E grade is for the onsight, and there haven't been any onsights above those grades? You can hardly expect a grading system to work for ascents that have not occurred! If and when a good sample of onsights at E9/10/11 have occurred, it will likely be fairly straightforward to arrive at consensus E grades.

It seems that guidebooks adopting H grades where onsights haven't occurred is a good interim.

In reply to whoever:

The Lakes guides used to put a dagger symbol next to routes that hadn't been checked by the guide writer or that the description hadn't been checked. I don't know if this is still the case - no guidebook to hand - but why not use it to indicate routes that, as far as is known, haven't had an onsight ascent? No extra ABCDEF whatever, the route gets graded *for an onsight* but the dagger indicates that it is a proposed grade. Obviously an onsight of the route will put the guide out of date but at the grades we are talking about, this is likely to be known about.

Using the French grade to indicate pure difficulty on trad routes - yet another Lakes innovation! First the adjectival grade, then the splitting of the Extreme grade into E1 etc, now this. Perhaps it will encourage folk to get up here and do some climbing! (Way better than the Peak or Yorkshire BTW)

ALC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: This is an attempt to steal the spotlight by people who are desirous of praise, rather than loving the sport for its own sake.

Approval should not be a motivation. It degenerates the sport into competing against rather than striving together.

Seeking the sense of being a great person in comparison with others is the bane of mankind. We could just be great.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Absolutely not. The whole point of this thread is that E grades don't provide the consistency required by the UKC clientele, who wish to extrapolate from their own experience (E1, say) in order to prognosticate about the latest top end route. If your random UKC punter can't confidently explain why Rhapsody is E11 rather than E10, or vice versa, then what is the point of it all?

In reply to interested3: That's rubbish.... quite a few climbers in the top grades have not given an E grade to headpoins specifically because of the onsight issue.

In reply to Papillon:


I think his post was a joke.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Really? bit crap then

In reply to interested3:

What all 90,000 regular visitors, including yourself? Great generalisation.


Try Moderate to E12 if you want to get the full range of experience on 'UKC'.


Just as you are.


Your random top climber can't confidently explain why Rhapsody is E11 rather than E10.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It was a joke! But obviously not to the taste of UKC punterdom - including the head punter Ryan - for whom this is a Serious Issue.
I'm sure there are Top Climbers awaiting the consensus...

In reply to interested3a:

And proud of it.

In reply to interested3a:

that must be me then!

Try using a smily next time, or even consider making it funny.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

E grades were supposed to be open ended, but UK technical grades are effectively not. 6a and 6b encompass a lot of territory. So the resultant e grade is meaningless as the table of e5 6a's in the article shows. You just don't know from the guidebook alone what it is that you are going to be getting into.

Incidentally I have always understood that the uk tech grade was introduced as the grade of top ropeing the route, not just the hardest move. As such it was meaningfull.

The advantage of using the sport grade alongside the e grade is that the scale is linear and internationally recognized.

To fix the e grade system, just swop uk tech grades for sports grades.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:My note here may have been said in the many posts above ? Anyway I started new routing in the 50's and I am still at it here is my two pence worth. First in the 50's, or before, inspecting a route fron above was very rare ( maybe because abseiling was primative) and when practiced was always known as a somewhat flawed ascent.Yes even Kipling Groove . Over the last 8 years climbing in the US we have produced over 100 first ascents up to 5.10 all on sight from the ground up as these climbs are long and top roping is not possible.In The UK I did over 100 FA's the early ones were mostly done on sight, the inspected ones usually seen from above when cleaning ,but in later years seeing the trend we started inspecting from above and top roping ....what a difference.. I can say without reservation that this practice method together with the use of pre chalked holds reduced the grade to the first ascent climber by at LEAST 2/3 grades . Inspecting and top roping these E9/19/11 before an ascent does not impress me at all ,if the climber is strong and has talent after sometimes months its very rare they do not succeed. Like myself after even one practice run on a much lower grade say of 5c I know for sure I will be able to lead it almost as if it were an on sight VS .I always thought the E grading after E3 made no sense at all. As mentioned above all you really need simular to the US trad system is three grades giving the danger factor... E1 good pro E2 good chance you might get hurt and E3 you will get hurt ( US.. R and an X).. and then add the technical difficulty...No need at all to drag along and up the E grade .The real grade a climber is capable of is a on sight lead. Even these wonderful El Cap free ascents often start with at times 1000' top ropes and pre placed pro..and yes sponsorship does encourage this monkey buisness.Perhaps the term First Ascent should only be used on a on-sight lead, other than that its just another new route.

In reply to me.:

As a matter of interest, when did you start using chalk, and on what grade? most of your routes in the higher grades were very bold for their time, one crag still seems a place only people climbing a grade harder goes on.

Don't go falling off those sandstone towers again, each time repairs take longer to heal.

In reply to me.:


Except that doesn't tell actually give you the information the trad grade gives you - for example, is the crux on the massive run out section or well protected? The grading system works and is really quite simple to understand. Just leave it alone.

In reply to thomasadixon:


It's only 'quite simple' if you 'understand' it.

For someone who is ignorant of it, it is quite complex, as are all the different style of ascents involved.

It does however work, quite well, as most grading systems do once you experience them first hand on lots of different routes.

In reply to me.:

Doesn't this contradict your view about wanting a US grading system ? After all the E grades are the only ones that at least try to gauge and recognise the on sight concept.

In reply to GrahamD:

How does this discussion fit in then? Sport grades wanted for trad routes.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=315050&v=1

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I think its different. It seems reasonable to suppose that if you give a route a UK grade and a French grade(or US if you prefer)you will get more information about a route. The difficulty comes if you want only one grade (UK versus US) because any one system is optimised differently.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The grading system works well up to the low E grades and then doesn't work very well because, in my view, the uk tech grade stops working. It seems to me that the most sensible thing to do is to start using a technical grade that does work - either the french grade in a slightly modified form (because it was intended to be an 'overall' grade). The other option is revamp the uk tech grade by giving it a wider spread of grades - say uk 4a to 9a - basically changing it into a version of the french sport grade.
As for the E grade/overall grade I think it has it's place if combined with a meaningfull technical grade. I don't really see the point of anything more than E1 to E5 as an overall description of seriousness/sustainedness/remoteness/cumalative difficulty.
Like I've said in previous posts on the subject, if the most serious alpine horrors in the denali range can be summed up in six commitment grades why does dumbarton rock need eleven.

In reply to sutty:
Hi Sutty.
I very very rarely use chalk on sandstone climbs or on other types of rock. If I do on the harder free climbs its to mark small FOOTHOLDS in case I want to down climb . I wear bifocals and only have sight in one eye (rugby kick when 15)...Age is the least of my problems!!Cheers

In reply to petejh:So true

In reply to thomasadixon: Well with most US route discriptions each pitch is individually graded for example 100' 5.10R (runout),so you know if you fall off the 5.10 bit your off for a good flying experience. Whats the fall difference between an E3 and an E10, it must be either R or X ?

In reply to me.:

I have to agree with the sentiment that an on-sight lead is the FA.

I've only been climbing about 18 months but the real pleasure for me is onsighting a climb. It is something that can only be experienced once.

For me onsight IS climbing.

If I repeat a climb I have failed it is only so I can learn and have a better chance of succeeding on my next on-sight climb attempt.

Why give a climb a theoretical on-sight grade if its never been done. Give it an H grade and then when someone does it transfer it to an actual on-sight grade.

It's a bit like an arctic explorer getting a lift in a snowmobile and a helicopter and then saying; oh well if you walked it, it would be really hard !!

Good call.

In reply to everythingConnected:

Not really. Maybe if they did that and scouted it out before actually walking it then saying it would be so hard to do without prior knowledge.

There really is no problem here, everybody knows it's a grade given by the FA and not confirmed. Everybody knows that it's never been onsighted. You can give it an H grade but it's just telling people something they already know.

In reply to thomasadixon:



Wrong Thomas. Not everybody knows, those in the know do, many just go E9.... they don't pay attention to the style. I base this on my own observations and conversations with many climbers.

But does it matter?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Pretty much everyone knows that all E9+ routes have been headpointed. The area of confussion is around the E7/E8 region where some have been headpointed (the majority of E8s?) and some have been onsighted (the majority of E7's?).

How to tell which is which?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Maybe, but anyone who actually cared enough to check would find out pdq. You'd have to be pretty disinterested to not know that Rhapsody was top-roped first, and if you're not interested why would you care either way?


Does what matter? If it was onsighted or headpointed?

In reply to thomasadixon:


That some people don't know the difference or actually care.

In reply to me.:

There doesn't have to be any fall difference between an E3 and E10, in fact there's no reason why an E3 couldn't a have bigger fall potential than an E10.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

No.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

As I commented above:

"The Lakes guides used to put a dagger symbol next to routes that hadn't been checked by the guide writer or that the description hadn't been checked. I don't know if this is still the case - no guidebook to hand - but why not use it to indicate routes that, as far as is known, haven't had an onsight ascent? No extra ABCDEF whatever, the route gets graded *for an onsight* but the dagger indicates that it is a proposed grade. Obviously an onsight of the route will put the guide out of date but at the grades we are talking about, this is likely to be known about."

A simple solution to the "problem"

Now can we get back to climbing please?

ALC

In reply to me.:

The 5.10 bit is a 100' in that example which is a pretty big distance, are you falling off near the bottom or the top? Is that section hard or easy?


What Serpico said.

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Not here in the Lakes you can't..........

In reply to thomasadixon:

E5 6a ....... are you falling off near the bottom or the top? Is that section hard or easy?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Would an American route that was 5.11, but with very runout climbing at around 5.7/8 and the rest well protected get an R? Obviously one where the hard moves were run out would.

The E grade at least takes that into account, having runout moves of 4c/5a when there's a 6a crux coould be E3, but if the runout moves are harder it might be E5 - even if the climbing wasn't much different physically.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Bit hard to answer when I can't climb that grade!

At a guess though (E5 is well above me) I'd have to have a look at the route - if it's a crack it's super sustained and v.hard, if it's blank then there's probably a few hard moves with a safe but long fall. I'd have thought a definate ground fall from the crux would get a higher grade. So in generally a one move wonder with a nasty fall -> super sustained and well protected. Looking at the route lets you know which. Overall I know not to even try the route, it's far too hard for me...which is what grades are for.

5.10b R tells me it's doable on a top rope but might have a long hard section with no gear, or might have a long easy section with no gear (I haven't climbed US grades though, this is just from reading up on it).

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: I really don't see why there is so much moaning about E grades. UK tech grades are a bit funny I agree, but the E grade is simply the overall grade for onsighting the route. A proper E2 climber should be able to onsight all E2's. Some being hard and well protected, some being easy but much bolder all all in between. The fact that the route is or isn't onsighted doesn't change the grade. Just like sports routes are graded for redpoints.
What if Climber A cleans and equips a sports route and can't do it, then his mate, Climber B (probably Steve Mac!) comes along and onsights it, should it not get a sports grade cos it hasn't been redpointed?

The one problem I do see is that the top chaps are getting so strong and are getting a bit afraid to go to higher grades so we may end up with a similar situation to the tech grade where it pretty much stops at 7a cos nobody wants to say 7b any more. If Dave Mac can't say E12 for Echo Wall then it will probably be a bloody long time before anyone will put E12 on anything...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

>

The only case where it matters whether climbers understand the style of ascent is when it's being used for gain in some way - as such it's really up to the climbing media to recognise the value of accurately reporting the style of ascents, as well as the level at which an ascent in any style becomes newsworthy.

I think the real difficulty in understanding is that many of us don't rehearse routes regularly, or work any to the extent that some top level routes are worked - so we have nothing to guage the achievement. First ascents are always going to make the headlines - and at the levels currently in play they are rarely going to be onsight, and I think that is a key reason why we see so much headpointing column space.

In reply to Nj:

The one problem I do see is that the top chaps are getting so strong and are getting a bit afraid to go to higher grades so we may end up with a similar situation to the tech grade where it pretty much stops at 7a cos nobody wants to say 7b any more. If Dave Mac can't say E12 for Echo Wall then it will probably be a bloody long time before anyone will put E12 on anything...

We had this problem in the Lakes in the late 1970s just after Pete Botteril came up with E1, E2 etc. Pete proposed an open ended system but reckoned that the then current top grade was E5. What then happened was that a lot of E4s appeared that are now given E5 but could be closer to E6 if they were anywhere else. I mean Ringwraith at E4 6a! I think this partly contributed to the apparent width of the E5 grade when compared to sports grades.

ALC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Jack making a first ascent on-sight and guessing a grade of E5.

This is the byline to one of the photos in your well written article,but I have an issue with the use of the word "guessing" in this context. Surely the meat of the piece is that climbers who have headpointed a route can only guess what the onsight grade may be, but if you made the first ascent of an E5 onsight (well done btw) then your guess is much more well educated than if you had top roped it first. I am not suggesting that your E5 will be its definitive grade eternally but the use of the word "guessing" detracts from the contrast between onsighting and headpointing grades, surely the point of the article.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Not sure if it is mentioned above but there is an article on headpoint grading by Adam Wainwright in Climber. Very good summary of the issues and he agrees with Mick on how best to grade headpoints. So he must be wrong then

As said above, See the september issue of Climber for my opinion on this subject.

In reply to some of the issues brought up above:

- This argument only applies to top end grades as headpoints only really exist above the E6/7/8 mark so it is never going to 'filter down the grades'. ie. tagging routes (7c, R) rather than E8 is never going work for E3's because E3's are first climbed without headpointing (or at least have been since the first ascent).

Once a route has been climbed by someone without headpointing then they will be able to give it an E grade for the first time. This way it will be perfectly clear who first climbed what and how.

- This argument has nothing to do with not giving credit to headpointers, but all to do with recognising different aspects of climbing with due respect. Ice climbs do not get compared to rock climbs or boulder problems with the same grading scales, so why should headpoints be compared with normal climbing - they are all as different.

Look at the confusion bouldering was in years ago when it was graded with a UK technical grade, and look at where it stands now it has its own recognised grading system. The same clarity will extend to headpoints once they have their own grading scale.

- Some threaders are very right on the breadth of grades. In North Wales E5 runs from say Positron or Poetry Pink, to Crow or Alien. Thats a big gap. Is the gap the same higher up the scale? I dont know but it wouldn't matter if we used a headpoint grading system because people know the difference between an 8a and an 8a+.

- To date people are usually not informed of the difference between headpoint and on-sight ascents. Whilst word of mouth amongst the climbing community means that a select few know whats going on, due to the lack of reporting of ascent styles in the climbing press and in guidebooks this information is not recorded. UKC has been hoisting the flag here. It is high time magazines and guidebook first ascent lists took up the banner.

- A different grading scale is needed because headpointing and on-sight climbing are very different things. This is because headpoints are climbed after perfection from a top rope, as is a redpoint (perfected from the bolts), and therefore a redpoint (french) grade together with a danger rating is the best way to represent these routes.

cheers
adam

Ps. Can we stop using the phase 'traditional' climbing. Its ridiculous.

In reply to Adam Wainwright: I mostly agree with your post and think there is a good case for a separate way of grading things which have yet to receive a non headpoint ascent. I can however see problems with just giving the route a sport grade as this gives no indication to the potential non headpoint ascentionist of the level of seriousness they are likely to encounter. The suggestion has already been made of using the P1-3 system as per the old Yorkshire Gritstone guide. The P grade plus a sport grade whilst not being as headline grabbing as E-very-big-numbers, would be very descriptive of the nature of the route. So a route might be 7c P3 when first head pointed and then E8 6c when onsighted.
Thinking a little more I can see two other issues. Firstly, given that E8 6c gives less useful info than 7c P3 it would seem a backward step to regrade something this way when it gets onsighted. I suppose you’d get round that by giving it the long winded grade of E8 6c (7c P3) Hmmm and foreign climbers already accuse us of having an overcomplicated grading system.
The other problem would be deciding if and when an ascent is sufficiently pure to merit awarding the complete grade. Would this be the first ground up even if this includes falls, would gear need to be stripped between attempts, would this have to be by a silent partner while the climber looked away so as to avoid incidental beta; would it have to be wholly onsight, if so what would constitute an ascent voiding piece of beta, be that verbal, visual, text or pictures in magazines? Would it not be a total minefield? At least with headpointing it is pretty hard to cheat so long as an ascent is witnessed as all forms of friggery are ‘allowed’.

In reply to Adam Wainwright: Mainly in agreement with Adam: I think we need to step back a little and remember what the British grading system is based on: ground up, clean. That's always been the basis on which the adjectival grade is given.

Unfortunately it isn't true that headpointing is only practiced above E3. These days I see people headpointing at all grades from VS upwards, which is fine as a training strategy but there's a danger of bigging up the ascent in the pub (or on UKC threads- I don't mean you Adam, your thread implies E5 is your limit and I know that's very conservative!) The 2 tier grade system still works, but it has been highjacked a bit by some headpointers... because if having headpointed a route you then quote the adjectival grade, there is an implied style of ascent- which isn't headpointed! So I agree that a headpointing grade could be used for headpoint ascents, but surely this actually frees us up for a second blaze of publicity; when the route gets a ground up (beta) flash ascent,(after all its virtually impossible to avoid all information about a climb!) I think this would be great for UK climbing and more honest.

I've never headpointed a route, but I have led routes that Ive previously followed somebody else up - and yes, I've neglected to mention that unless specifically asked. I've also neglected to volunteer the failed ground-up attempts before the successful one, so perhaps I'm a glasshouse dweller throwing stones?

At the moment it's the headpointed ascent (with or without pre-place gear - a crucial distinction!) that gets all the media attention. If you free a previously aided route you get to remame it or at least remove the A0 or A1 from the grade. Well how about the first on-sight gets to remove the Headpoint grade and re-appraise the e-grade? I remember years ago Nick Dixon suggested that Strawberries should be graded 8a because that implies how everybody climbed it. I'm actually editing the next Tremadog guide so I'm quite interested in this, and despite initially disagreeing I now think Nick was not far off the mark. What I propose is the normal "trad" (for want of a better word, Adam!) grade followed by the Headpoint grade until the first non-headpoint clean (i.e. placing the gear on an on-sight ascent. After that only the trad grade would get used as this is now the achieved style. So visiting climbers get to know the score.

I think Strawberries would have seen a flashed ascent during the BMC international meet (I belayed Rolando Larcher, and he got as close to it as in the Pete Robins video) if the guidebook said something more honest such as: E8 6b(8a). Rolando consistently flashed hard E6's all week; so he went at Strawberries with the wrong mindset. Surely this gives all the information you need to know: E8 6b is either terminally dangerous or very sustained and a bit runout. Combined with the bracketed bit you can tell its the latter. Compare this with similar E grades on Cloggy that await a non-headpoint, and they will have lower headpoint grades, showing that they are more dangerous. This would also protect visitors from setting off up Indian Face on-sight without full knowledge of what they are taking on.
Last but not least it gives people a chance to put the guidebook out of date (Strawberries E11 6b! - or perhaps "I don't know the grade, but its harder than my E9 on-sights!") giving guidebook writers a new lease of life, and fuelling more pub-talk! I think the FRCC approach of sticking headpoint grades into the graded list has some merit but it doesn't tell you if it has actually been done in purer style.

In reply to Morgan Woods:

Knowing Petes usual level of preparation I very much doubt that Right Wall was an on-sight as we understand the term today!

In reply to Steve Long:
Steve you talk much sense, as usual, but if you add sport grades, do you think it will begin to undermine the adjectival grade?

i.e. take your example of Rolando on Strawberries, It is very well protected, why not just ditch the E8 bit and say that it is 8a on trad gear? In the same vein, you might take the yank idea and add R or X for runout/dangerous routes e.g. The Indian Face at 7c X.

In both these cases the British grade only adds one piece of information - i.e. whether there is a 'stopper move', or whether it is long and sustained. This is fine but I can't help noticing that the majority of other grading systems in the world do without such information, so the question is, is it really necessary?

In reply to Steve Long: Well how about the first on-sight gets to remove the Headpoint grade and re-appraise the e-grade?

Thats pretty much what the article in Climber is saying.

Another valid issue that it sounds like the Lakes guides are taking on is that UK technical grades of 6a, 6b, 6c and 7a cover routes of E grades E6 - E11, which cover an equivalent French scale of around 7a+ to 8c+. Thats clearly ridiculous as F8c+ is far more than 4 scales harder than 7a+ and so publishing French grades is useful above E6. As Steve says though: it doesn't tell you what style a route was done in.

BTW Strawberries and Indian Face are both F7b+. Just because everyone isn't nipping up Strawberries doesn't mean the grades are wrong. Just that truly on-sighting proper E6 is hard.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Any consensus yet? or just belllyaching and name calling?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

There shouldn't really be a debate. If people only onsighted things then there would be no need for guessing and cheating. I would erge UKC not to report non-onsight ascents as people seem to get deluded that people have climbed E11. It is obviously for publicity- otherwise they wouldn't grade it so. Who's going to onsight Rahps?- no one. so what use is an onsight grade?

As for higher E-grades, I don't climb that hard, but if the people who climb E6,7 and 8 think they exist, then I believe them. There sure are a hell of a lot of people better than me, so that part of the grading system probably does exist, but headpointing is ruining the whole system- obviously. How can you grade a route by headpointing it, when the system is for the onsight?

In reply to Franco Cookson:


So you think someone climbing Rhap / Echo Wall isn't newsworthy? I certainly think it is, no matter what the reported grade may or may not be. You're confusing a problem with a grading system with the climbing itself - a (non)grade doesn't devalue the climbing.

In reply to James Jackson: Iy, tis, but if it's at the expense of people misunderstanding and underestimating on-sighting achievements, then i'd rather not hear of it.

Climbing is about the onsight. If people don't think an E7 onsight is more amazing than an E11 RP then something needs to be done.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

you'll find that E11 RP is more impressive than an E7 onsight, based purely upon the number of people who've done either, and the fact that E7 onsights have been occurring for more than 15 years now

In reply to midgets of the world unite: Even though less people work E11 that onsight E7, I find hard onsighting more impressive as it is actually my sport. Headpointing routes to death aint what I call climbing.

Also, what do you find more impressive out of an E8 onsight and an E11 RP?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

So your argument has now become that UKC should only report news that interests you?

In reply to James Jackson: how did you get that from what I was saying?


UKC should be reporting impressive onsight ascents much more than impressive worked ascents, as at the moment people don't really seem to understand how much more impressive onsighting an E8 is rather than working one.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Is that a problem? Do those doing hard on-sights need publicity? I doubt if they are doing it for fame and wealth. Those of us in the know will recognise the level of achievement involved.

In reply to Jamie B.: by that argument there is no point in reporting anything.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
If it wasn't against forum policy I'd call you an idiot, but seeing as it is I shall refrain.
Anyone observing the history of climbing will understand that headpointing is a valid style at the cutting edge of the sport and a process which creates the conditions for future onsighting by cleaning up routes and providing knowledge on which an onsighter can judge what they are getting themselves in to. To my mind headpointing at the top end of the sport is a vital precursor and complementary disipline to onsighting.
You'll find few hard onsighters with as blinkered a view as your own. Views differ on the reletive merits/significance of headpoint versus onsight but few would subscribe to the idea that headpointing is an invalid way of opening up the very hardest routes.
The issue in question is how the grading system could be amended to more accurately reflect the achievements of both styles. It’s not a case of all headpointers are egomaniacs and all onsighters are unrecognized superstars, which seems to be your view.
It is also pretty stupid to criticise new routers for how they grade routes when there is only one system currently in use.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


I would erge UKC not to report non-onsight ascents as people seem to get deluded that people have climbed E11.

They'd have to be pretty stupid people. I don't think people are, or are being 'deluded'; we're all aware that it's for a theoretical onsight....aren't we??

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: As far as I read the one type of climb that is not refered to in the above discussion is the ground up on sight lead of a first ascent trad route. Its many many years since this was the practice in the UK.There are perhaps two reasons. One there is so little unclimbed rock left in the UK and secondly the bits on the crags that are left are usually easely accessible from above.In some areas of the US as an example unclimbed desert towers and other large crags have to be climbed onsight from the ground up.Todays "new routers" that only climb in the UK have no concept of what its like making a move to what may or may not be a hold on a first ascent. ( I note all these brave so called first ascents in the Mags always have above them well chalked holds not to mention preplaced gear and more than often the camera man ). During true onsighting if the hold was not as good as it looked your in trouble,and if its not a hold at all you can be in deep s**t.If a climb has already been done and graded this again may not a true on sight.Perhaps therefore the only "real' true on sight is a ground up ascent on a first ascent.I also note that sometime in around the 80/90's at least in the Lake District climbs seemed to jump up one or two grades as new guide books were produced ,not only the older routes but the newer ones as well.It seemed like no new router wanted to put up a climb less than 5c whether it was or not.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
>Who's going to onsight Rahps?- no one. so what use is an onsight grade?

If i was a betting man id have put money on Ste Mac. As it happens he didn't, but from what i hear, it wasn't out the question.

I'd stake quite a lot on Paxti Usobiaga onsighting it.

In reply to Adam Lincoln: 'On Sight' means walking up to a climb with no prior knowledge and leading it in one push. It's a concept that disappeared in the late 80s at any grade higher than E5.

In reply to Craig Smith:
Well maybe I'm a bit sad but i was thinking about just this the other day, and it seemed that the 'P' system could be expanded a bit,to reflect the level of commitment involved.
Take Downhill Racer vs Edge Lane, both totally unprotected, but the crux sections would be very different propositions to fall from, and expanding the P grade might convey some valuable nuance..
What does seem sensible however is to use French grades rather than our current system for difficult headpoints - after all, headpoints are simply necky redpoints, aren't they?

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Edge Lane E5, 5c
Downhill Racer E4, 6a

Doesn't the 'nuance' come from the grades they have already? Or, if for some reason there is any doubt, from what is plainly obvious when standing under them?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

...then of course, you could always read the guidebook description.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Blimey Dave - you don't expect folks to do that do you? Get it categorised into a definitive system then ask around on here.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I just don't see the problem. Maybe at ridiculous grades of which I have no experience it all goes wrong, but E5,5c tells me all I need know.

In reply to AntiGrav:

What a load of rubbish.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Me neither - I can see the point being made but the E grade (and the rest of the adjectival grades) work fine for the vast majority of climbs and are a better option than any 'overall' grading system. The onsight grade is also creeping up slowly and as along as people know the situation at the top end I can't really see the problem. Give them as many grades as you like - you don't have to rigidly choose one and ditch the rest

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Then re-read the thread. The 2 routes quoted were to suggest that 3 P grades might be expanded to give a little more information. Routes at that level might well be adequately explained by the traditional grading system, but headpointing E9? Might be much better to have a grading system that indicates an French grade with the seriousness separately graded. No -one's saying that E grades don't give valuable information, but that there's an absence of clarity. E6 isn't just nice straightforward E6 is it? It covers a massive range and a more precise system might be better.
But the big point is that really hard headpoint ascents are using an onsight grading system - why? No-one's onsighting them, and the french (or even font) grade usually gets quoted at some point up to give an accurate reflection of the difficulty of the route.
So why not just be honest and give them that grade from the start. They can always be given on onsight grade by the first onsight ascentionist.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Truly the essence of the entire thing. I do not accept that doing a route in one style entitled you to grade it for another, harder, style. The E grade is not broken, just misused.

There does seem to be a tipping point approaching here. What would really tip it would be if all the (amazing) climbers who have headpointed really hard routes that they then gave E grades would renounce those E grades in favour of a French plus risk combo rating with the E glory left to the onsighter (plenty of glory still in the headpoint).

In reply to Eric Herring:

Agreed - up to a point, but if someone like Dave M considers a route to be possibly the hardest trad route in the world then why not have an absolute trad grade reflecting that? You can can also have a headpoint grade made up of sport or bouldering grades as well - after all, it's only another couple more centimeters of text on the page .

All this does smack a bit of (and I may be quite wrong here) 'my mates aren't getting the recognition I think they deserve (possibly true) so lets have a go at the system and a few big names with it' I don't really buy this 'I've no idea what the grade is' either eg Elder Statesman.

The original system was to use an A grade until they have been freed ground up on sight without rests.
So you could have a grade like H9 6c A4

Only joking.