UKC

The new cc southern sandstone guide has a conversion table for bouldering grades the part of which I feel qualified to coment on goes like this

Fb Uk Tech US
5+ 5c-6a V0-V2
6a 6a V0-V3
6a+ 6a-6b V0-V3
6b 6a-6b V1-V3
6b+ 6a-6b V2-V4
6c 6a-6b V3-V5

now this is the first table of this type that fits with my experience of Fontainebleau & Uk grades & I know they measure different things so I'm happy.
My question is that 3rd column. I suspect they're trying to say something about the v-grade, about which I know nothing,
Does V0 really go up to Uk6b?
Shouldn't there be a direct relationship between Fb and V-grades as they measure the same thing?
Any thoughts.
I

In reply to i.munro:

by no means an expert...

but no, V0 is around 5a i'd have thought

V2 could be 6b, perhaps... more likely to be 5c/6a

dont really know the font grading system, yorkshire gritstone bouldering uses V grades, so thats what i'm familiar with...

gregor

In reply to i.munro:
I reckon the font to V grades is about right, but the English tech seem a bit on the high side for all the respective categories. I wouldn't have thought that you'd really find Eng 6b until V4 upwards, and probably not frequently until V6 upwards.
However, I may be wrong...

In reply to i.munro:
Looks a trifle suspect to me, I would normally expect to wander up a V0 onsight but I certainly can't onsight uk 6b, infact my hardest worked problems have been about 6a/6b. I've flashed one v4 but generally v3 is my limit. Definitely a bit odd.

In reply to Oli:





who's in a better better position to compare Uk tech to Bleau than boulderers who live in Kent?

In reply to i.munro:

True, but they're all soft down south so probably made a nicely overgraded list... (It's alright, I'm from Hampshire so I'm allowed to say things like that)

In reply to i.munro:
And surely this is all irrelevant compared to the main question; does the guide believe in V8+?

In reply to Oli:

Could be that all the Uk grades on sandstone are soft & I've got used to them I suppose.

As to V8, I couldn't be bothered to type the rest of the table?

In reply to i.munro: I meant the slightly controversial existence of V8+ used to make V and font grades compare directly.

I'm sure the tables fairly accurate really, I haven't got enough experience on sandstone to make sandstone specific comparisons.

In reply to i.munro:

Grade comparison tables are difficult to do and a minefield of disagreement - providing endless hours of discussion.

Try this one for size, I'm not saying it is right though - but like most it is a good estimate.

http://www.rockfax.com/publications/bgrades.html

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Not bad, it's major failing is not including V8+.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I've seen that one before & the Uk-bleau bit is pretty close to the sandstone table give or take a grade (although I'd come down on the side of the sandstone there)

But the two aren't even close for V-grades.

In reply to Oli:

Many would argue that V8+ is just a figment of Si Panton's imagination. Apart from that if you want parity you would also have tweak other so called mis alignments. Don't bother. Be fuzzy.

Some dude wrote:

"The problem was that the V and Font Scales on some comparison charts align and on others they don't. Simon's contribution to aligning the V and Font scales was to add a V8+, to make parity with Font 7b+, where before on some tables V8 was spread from Font 7b to 7c. But he then ignores the lower grades where there is a similar non-alignment of grades between the V and Font systems. Do those lower grades not count?"

In reply to Oli: V6 is nudging on Brit 6c and I'd expect V7 to definitely have brit6c or lots of brit6b in it.

In reply to i.munro:

Font grades give the overall difficulty of a problem. UK tech grades give the difficulty of one individual move. However, Font grades can also be used to describe an individual move as in "the crux is like a one move 7C+" etc.

As has been discussed at great length, UK tech grades have stopped making sense. Supposedly, some Font 7A problems feature UK 6c moves and yet the ceiling is still supposed to be UK 7b...........er. So 6c moves on Font 7A but only two grades harder on 8B or 8C? Nonsense. This filters down and if the system doesn't work at the top end, it can hardly be expected to function properly throughout the scale.

Unfortunately UK tech grades just don't compare any more so attempting to formulate any kind of table is always going to end in tears. Fortunately, Font grades make perfect sense so the answer? Just use them. On Sandstone, Font grades for bouldering, French grades for routes has always made the most sense anyway (but I've been banging that drum for about 20 years!).

Did someone mention V grades?

In reply to seagull:

One more time , my problem is not with the Fb & UK grades.
This is the fist table that corresponds perfectly with my experience.
(I 'm in no position to hold an opinion as to how it all works at higher grades).

My question was , what are the authors trying to say about V-Grades( sorry Seagull, I used that word again) here?
That there is no correspondence between them & anything else?

In reply to i.munro: It is all a bit subjective but in my op the table is miles off and is not even worth referring to. V3 is roughly font 6a/6a+ whereas VO could be font 3 the differance is huge. To place VO alongside british 6B is laughable. Again V4 is roughly Font 6b/6b+ so to place V1-V3 alongside font 6B again shows basic misunderstanding. V6 IS Font 7a, V9 font 7c, v10 font 7c+, v12 font 8a+ and so on . . .

In reply to i.munro:

That they have no clue about them?

In reply to seagull:

UKtech grades have stopped making sense?

What? all of them? Or just above 7a?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I quite like the BMC approach of V + UK tech (on lower grade problems) - it all gets a bit messy higher up the scale.

In reply to TRNovice:

I don't think it can be as simple as that. A lot of care has gone into this guide.
IIRC Neil Gresham wrote that it was the best he'd seen & these guys clearly know enough to correct the Uk/Fb bit of the standard Rockfax one, at least for sandstone.

If they had no clue about V-Grades they'd simply have published the standard conversion.

Perhaps they're suggesting that you can't translate directly because of the different way the two systems treat slabs & thuggery or that v-grades simply don't work at Bleau.

In reply to Bulls Crack:
>


It's not just 7a and above (above only being 7b and that being the root of the problem). 6c is pretty much nonsense too and if you look at the amount of debate that asking something as simple as "what grade is the hardest move on Raindogs?" causes then I'd say 6b and 6a are going the same way. As I said, it filters down.

Sorry Ian, I can't help with the V grades thing. As you know I don't see any point in them (in the UK/Europe).

In reply to seagull:
Hallelujah Spread the word!

Font grades are the only ones I can make head or tail of. Maybe thats because I've bouldered more there than in the UK?

In reply to i.munro:

IIRC Neil claims to be "a crap boulderer" (first-hand experience, not something I read in Climber). Although the SS guide has some of the bouldering in it, it is clearly not a bouldering guide and the above conversions to V-grades make no sense whatsoever. Whatever other failings the Rockfax table may have, it at least demonstrates a general understanding of bouldering grades.

In reply to seagull:


Amen to that, but they seem to have infected the London bouldering walls now so I'm going to have to learn to cope.

In reply to 220bpm:

You can make sense of Font grades in Font? - you are a better man than I am Gunga Din.

In reply to i.munro:

And North Wales and The Lakes and Dartmoor and Stanage...

In reply to i.munro:

For what it is worth here is my take on comparisons. (there are a few exceptions of course)

4 V0 4c,5a
4+ V0+ 5a,5b
5,5+ V1 5a,5b,5c
5+,6a V2 5b,5c,6a
6a,6b V3 5c,6a,6b
6c V4 6a,6b


V0 will go as far as UK 5b at a push, and it would be an exception to find 5c on a V0+ (2m high one move wonder with a manicured landing). UK 6b and it's comparitive V and Font Grades are a million miles away.

The Font system is messy in the lower grades but really firms-up and starts to make sense above Font6a

In reply to seagull:
>

I don't think that is ture at all. i think that UK 6a is actually a fairly narrow and defined concept, and 6b is pretty much the same. I certainly find that 6a and 6b work for me. I do think that for 6a and above the various bouldering grades work better to describe a problem, but the UK tech grade still works for individual moves up to 6c.

In reply to TRNovice:


Fortunately they are on the way out, in Wales and The Lakes at least. Stanage?! Only if you're using the wrong guide.

In reply to seagull:

I think that is a shame. I would like to see V grades + UK tech (below V4) used in the UK. Neither system (Font or V) works very well in the lower grades (below V2 and Font 6a). They simply don't cater for people who don't boulder hard as the range is far too large. The reason font works for low grade boulderers is the coloured circuits. The BMC system works really nicely for low grade problems, and we have a lot of low grade boulderers in this country.

At higher grades there is very little difference between the V system and Font grades so it doesn't really matter which system you use. One major advantage of V grades to me is that they are clearly bouldering grades wheres as you read 7a and wonder which of 3 or more systems it could be refering to.

In reply to Monk:



A problem easily addressed by adding a letter as in F (oh wait a minute you've already added one)

In reply to Monk:
>One major advantage of V grades to me is that they are clearly bouldering grades wheres as you
> read 7a and wonder which of 3 or more systems it could be refering to.

Exactly, unless you are in Jasper's club (which has its roots with Ben and Jerry) the notation gets confusing.......Fr 6b, Font 6b, English tech 6b.........6b 6b 6b....what's that all about?

Ah but it is cured as Font 6b is now 6B... that's no typo hombre.

We speak in tongues however when we boulder, so as long as you are possessed everything is fine and there is no misunderstanding.

In reply to i.munro: Surely this is in the wrong forum, this is a climbing forum, shouldn't you be Down the Pub or in the Chat Room?

In reply to Al Evans:

I'm actually of the opinion there are only 3 bouldering grades

A Can do
B Can't do
c Don't know cos its too dangerous to fall off

In reply to Monk:

What you read about a boulder problem and think it's got a route grade?

Seriously, it's usually pretty obvious and can easily be made more so by using the 8a.boast inspired system of 7C for bouldering 7c for routes (as Mick says).

I don't really get this crap about Font grades not working as well as V grades at the lower end. At least Font grades actually have a lower end whereas V0 seems to either cover everything really easy or just cut off the system leaving nothing to grade the stuff right at the bottom.

At the higher end V grades are also rubbish as how can V8 be 7B and 7B+? There's a big difference! Above that the systems seem to match which again begs the question, what's the point in using V grades?

In reply to Al Evans:


I'll leave that to the mods who move in mysterious ways.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

V-grades tend to get labelled as Vague-grades, but I actually think that is one of their main strengths. Bouldering is in general so specific to the size and strength (in both senses) of the boulderer that it is often hard to agree on whether something is Font 6c or Font 6c+ (just think of all that extra energy expended typing five extra keys "F-o-n-t- " each time!), whereas V5 fits the bill. It is a more honest appreciation of the diversity of experience of grades. Also the fact that the grade of anything below Font 7a in Font is generally allocated by a random number generator and designed to confuse visitors tends to discredit the whole system. Maybe easy V5 is Font 6c and hard V5 is Font 6c+, but easy and hard for who? Font grades remind me of The Lakes route grades - "MVS-" anyone - or should that read "HS"?

In reply to TRNovice:


I keep reading this but I've personally seen no evidence of it & the voting ting on bleau.info would seem a pretty good way of arriving at a concensus.

In reply to TRNovice:

So V grades are better because they don't actually tell you how hard a problem is? I like that argument, are you a lawyer?

The point about stuff under 7A in Font is just plain wrong. Yeah there are sandbags (like everywhere else!) but the idea that the grades are all wrong is a (British?) myth. I've always found that most of em work just fine and when I go to Font I'm generally with a group whose grade varies from about 4A to 7C.

In reply to i.munro: Its disgeacefull if thats true, and just takes the piss out of more modest performers. Elitist or what!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Looking at three of the UK's major bouldering areas and latest guides it is quite obvious that the Vermin grade is becoming more and more superseded by Font grades. I think more British boulderers visit Font than the USA and generally feel more comfortable with the Font system.

Where as you have lived in the USA for some time and probably feel more at home with V grades. But I suspect in the future any RF bouldering guides will swing toward the Font system to bring them into line with other UK publications. You may even have both grades at first.

In reply to seagull:

It was admittedly a moderately subtle point.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

They are interchangeable. It's just a matter of preference. What you use like you say depends on your experience, and your allegiance.

You are probably right, bouldering guidebooks should probably use both..... with a English tech grade thrown in for good measure.

That would be better for sales as well - dedicated bouldering guidebooks don't sell in great numbers, use both and you might get an extra ten sales.

In reply to TRNovice:

That's not a fact. I might agree if you change that to 'anyting below Font 6a'. However Font 6a and above it is pretty good and you know what you are getting.

p.s. subtract 1 from Peak Font grades to get real Font grades...

In reply to i.munro:

re your original grade list. I reckon if you knocked a grade off each Brit tech grade there it's pretty much spot on.

In reply to catt:

I would be willing to conceed that point (actually I would be more so if we could agree on Font 6a+), but rhetoric is so much more fun to employ when you are sweeping in your generalisations .

As to V-grades not telling you how hard a problem is, we seem to have this desire for precision (e.g. MVS- mentioned above), I'm not 100% convinced that this lines up with reality.

In reply to catt:

On low grade stuff, maybe. Higher up they're pretty much spot on.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I don't believe that. Gorilla Warfare or the Nose(Burbage West), both V6/7A, have nothing close to Eng 6c on them. I reckon they'd be hard pushed to see Eng 6b as well.

In reply to catt:


So V0 can be anything below Fb 6B ?

In reply to Oli:

This sort of proves my point about tech grades.

In reply to seagull:

No but if I read something like "Bill climbed Goliath, 7a at the weekend" or hear someone talking about grades "oh that was 7a for sure" (how do you pronounce capital letters exactly?) I am none the wiser. And the whole F7a, Fb7a, 7A thing is so easy to leave out or type wrong. V6 is unmistakably bouldering parlance.


Fair point. Maybe the font grades just need applying at low grades properly.



I guess I am a fan of Si Panton's V8+ then. Seems like an incredibly simple solution to me. I have to admit that I rarely climb hard enough for me to have an opinion based on experience at this grade but I do climb up to V7/7a+ fairly regularly.

In reply to Oli: And also, off grit, the problem that's called something to do with Beavers (can't remember it's exact name) in Parisella's Cave gets V6/7A and that's probably not Eng 6b either, and definitely not anywhere close to Eng6c.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I believe that using two systems is not a good idea. (and as for British tech, wee...). Look at it from the point of view of someone new to bouldering. They would be confronted by two systems, they may not at fisrt realise that there are two systems. One system is enough in a guide book, magazine, web site.

As for bouldering guides selling less than other guides, In general you may be right but in my experince bouldering guides outsell climbing guides.

In reply to seagull: I'd only skim read it and missed that, but I'd agree. Font grades are what we need.

In reply to i.munro:

Maybe there should be two editions of bouldering guidebooks; one with Font one with V-grades. This would be a bit like the "adult" covers for the Harry Potter books. The ones using Font grades could have more pictures, omit any polysyllables and use VERY LARGE TYPE.

In reply to TRNovice:

Ha ha! Yeah that's a plan, the ones with V grades would, of course, have nothing above V6 in them though and would only be sold in shops attached to climbing walls in London.

I think we're onto something!

In reply to seagull:

And the ones using Peak B-grades would only be available in "specialist" shops (ones with no windows).

In reply to TRNovice:



Fortunately B-Grades only existed for a period when I wasn't climbing so I am able to just pretend that they never did. Another system in the mix is certainly not the way forward.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

You've got to look at it from all points of view. Some are new to bouldering, some like V grades, some like Font grades, everyone in the UK uses UK tech grades. Some use both Font and V-grades. Then you have visitors from abroad.

We write/publish guidebooks for others, trying to leave our own preferences behind. If we do that we please most and maximise sales - which pays us for our efforts, funds the next edition and helps us produce the best bouldering guidebooks.

It could look something like this:

12. Nidderdale's Revenge .. V3 .. 6B ***

(6a) Right of the arete. Climb the thin thin finger flake to a highball baby's bum finish. An old classic.
FA: Jerry Moon. March 1903.



Yes in general I am right.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The English tech grade in brackets in the description is only the hardest move.

In reply to seagull:

If we all pretended really hard that they never existed then you could distinguish
Fontainebleau grades by writing B6B.

B for Bleau (or bloc or boulder) according to preference

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


"everyone in the UK uses UK tech grades", No they don't, boulderers don't and neither to sport climbers.

"next edition and helps us produce the best bouldering guidebooks.", To be fair you've only written two for bouldering in the UK, and haven't up dated either.

Because bouldering guides do not generate the sales, do you feel that RF tends to leave them on the back burner and concentrate on the more lucrative areas of climbing guides, almost like taking the cream?

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

RF does not use UK tech grades in their sport climbing publications.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I don't.


Hmmm.

Personally I think that example looks like a confusing mess. I get the idea but I'd like to see things simplified rather than complicated further. I take your point about selling guides but for me the best bouldering giude is 7+8 which is simplicity itself.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=292

Boulderers don't?

Personally I'd like to see tech grades for boulder problems as well as the V grade (or font grade), but then that could be because I'm a trad climber really just getting into bouldering.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I have nothing to do with Rockfax in the UK. You are bleating to the wrong person.

As regards my bouldering authorship/publication.

Bishop Bouldering Survival Kit, author, sold 8,000
Islands In The Sky, contains bouldering section, co-author, sold 5,000
Bishop Bouldering, co-author, sold 5,000

What I have made above as regards bouldering grades is a suggestion.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


"We write/publish guidebooks for others, trying to leave our own preferences behind. If we do that we please most and maximise sales - which pays us for our efforts, funds the next edition and helps us produce the best bouldering guidebooks."

I assumed by the quote above that you were involved in the writing of UK guidebooks. I stand corrected although a little confused.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I was using the royal "We".

I like bouldering guidebooks, although I wouldn't write one again as I've served my time spending 1,000 of hours mapping, collating and researching.

I do like the guidebooks, like the BMC's and RF's, that contain routes and problems, but would hate to see the demise of dedicated bouldering guidebooks.

That simple layout above, despite what Jasper says about confusing, could be part of a strategy that makes dedicated bouldering guidebooks sustainable in the UK.

The problem is that obsessive boulderers must acknowledge that the vast majority of us go bouldering as well as rope climbing.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
>

Only 5,000? It must have sold more than that - they even have them in V12 in Llanberis now!!!!

At the (considerable) risk of appearing sychophantic, I think BBG is the best bouldering guidebook I have seen by miles. I know the subject matter probably helps, but it is just very well put-together. Oh and the V-grades are another plus point .

In reply to TRNovice:

It hasn't been out that long.

Plus Marty Lewis also includes bouldering in his Eastside guidebooks, plus many still have the BBSK.

In reply to i.munro:

Oops, no. I cunningly ignored the lower number of the V spread. How about:

Fb Uk Tech US
=<5 <=5a V0-

5+ 5b-5c V0-V1
6a 5c V1-V3
6a+ 5c-6a V2-V3
6b 5c-6a V2-V3
6b+ 6a V3-V4
6c 6a V4-V5

6c+ 6a V5
7a 6a-6b V6

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Well I might have to push the figure up to 5,001 as my copy is beginning to show signs of wear - saying that no Bishop trip this year, which is rather sad.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I think Jasper is right, to confusing.

1. Fat Mick's Dyno 6b+
(FA Fat Mick, 1925)

Clean crisp and simple.

People who rope climb use either UK grades of French grades depending on the style they choose that day. They do not use a hybrid of the two. So why can't rope climbers that boulder simply use a third system solely for the activity of bouldering?

In reply to seagull:

That's a problem in their application - not in their actual existence.

Having done numerous 6b and the very occasional 6c move I've never had any problem in conceiving of harder tech grades - and I was neither very strong or gifted.

In reply to TRNovice:

Take a look at the 7+8's guide. The best written guide ever. It's very well written and worth buying just for the maps whether you climb 7a or not.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Me and my mates do if we're redpointing something. We'll normal describe the crux moves in terms of UK tech grades. Maybe that's just our point of reference as our local wall uses them (or a customised version of them). Infact I think this is quite normal practice in the UK. A look through the routes database comments on harder sport routes often have UK tech moves bandied about for sport route cruxes.

In reply to i.munro: when I see Fb I think french grades. Is that wrong?

In reply to kareylarey:

It's pretty will established in the Uk that F6a indicates a French sport climbing grade.

Less well established is how to distinguish Fontainebleau grades.
I used Fb because I couldn't be bothered typing Fontainebleau lots of times.
writng 6B (as opposed to 6b) is also used

In reply to i.munro:

The best way to distinguish a bouldering grade is to use a V.

In reply to catt:

Agreed - and don't most top end headpoints attract a (maybe more accurate) sport grade as well?

In reply to TRNovice:

Ok, if you like, but wouldn't that risk confusion with the grading system they use in the US? I'd pick another letter.

In reply to i.munro:

And I think we finally get to the crux of people objecting to V-grades.

In reply to seagull:


Yes, a beautiful guidebook. I look forward to using it this Autumn/Winter.

I think it is tailored to the unique bouldering in Font.

Bouldering in the UK is unique too, often quite different in topography and nature to bouldering in the Font.

UK bouldering is far more diverse and presents quite different challenges to the presentation of information than Font.

If you try to apply a 7+8 treatment to bouldering areas in the UK, which some have tried, I think you would fall short of having a great guidebook.

In reply to i.munro: Right so an Fb6a isn't the same as F6a. I have always seen font6a written if it is a font grade. That seems a sensible system.

In reply to TRNovice: a font grade is a justifiable bouldering grade. I dont mind which to use.

In reply to kareylarey:

V2 would be more sensible and no room for confusion - and don't get me started on traverses.

In reply to TRNovice:
]


Well yes. There's there's a well developed time-tested system in use across the world & handily it was developed at a site 3 hours from my house.
The majority of peeps bouldering in this country will go there at some point so there is a chance of getting standard grades across the country & the rock is the same as that in 3 of the major bouldering regions in the UK (the SE, the County & Torridon) .

So what's the point of importing a system that's too recent to have all the bugs out yet , that's principally applied to a completely different style of rock & style of climbing & that hardly any other country uses.

I realise Wales is closer to the States than London but not by that much.

In reply to i.munro:

What like standing on your head and doing feet-follow???

In reply to kareylarey:

8a,nu introduced a sensible system: lower case letters for sport - 6a -, upper case for Font grades - 6B -

In reply to TRNovice:

Dont go there! There is a whole stupid thread already for this, but I disagree with your qualification.

Back to bouldering now...

In reply to kareylarey:



'
However the only argument in favour of V-grades seems to be that V is easier to type than font so a briefer version would knock that on the head & we could reduce the no of sytems kicking around by one..

In reply to i.munro:

I think there is an argument for a triple grade to please all. Font grades are used by UK climbers, V grades are used by UK climbers as are English tech.

That wouldn't please the boulderingistas however.

In reply to catt:

How about if I changed "(maybe more accurate)" to "(maybe more accurate, with the exception of any route put up by Dave McLeod)", would that be more acceptable?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Agreed, now if you just dropped the font grade, you would get something perfectly useful V-grade plus British Tech - as used in such an enlightened manner by the BMC in their Stanage guide.

In reply to TRNovice:

I certainly wouldn't claim to be an authority on them, but they do give me a better understanding and 'feel' for the problem. I like the way the grades are all encompassing and not purely based on the hardest move(s).

Like I say, been to font 15+ times for a week at a time, 105 days (ok, so we didn't climb every day but if not then guidebooks were being perused). Maybe done 30 days bouldering in the UK.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


I'll refer you to my last question which was not answered.


People who rope climb use either UK grades or French grades depending on the style they choose that day. They do not use a hybrid of the two. So why can't rope climbers that boulder simply use a third system solely for the activity of bouldering?

In reply to 220bpm:

You have been to Font 15+ times and have a best bouldering grade of Font 6a - what do you spend your time doing when there?

BTW V-grades are not based on the hardest move either.

In reply to TRNovice:

You've been climbing for 10 years, how many E points have you racked up?

In reply to TRNovice:



So simple courtesy can be added to the list of things you don't understand!

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

1 E point, based on trying 3 E1s and 2 E2s - i.e. a 1 out of a possible 7 or a 14% conversion ratio. If 220bpm tried just one problem on each of his 15+ visits to Font then I suspect that this might be a lower conversion ratio.

But then I only get to do trad once in a blue moon and I'm talking about bouldering so :-p.

And it's 4-10 years BTW (aka 4)!

In reply to i.munro:

That and font grades makes two for sure.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

That is true.

But most use English tech grades when trad climbing. The majority trad climb, as well as sport climb. So most of us are familiar with English tech in the UK, and have a good understanding through experience of what it means. That is beyond dispute.

For those who are occasional boulderers they may find it useful to have an English tech grade that describes the hardest move on a boulder problem - it would help them decide if the problem was for them, and give a great feeling of achievement if the succeeded at or above their limit.

I'm more akin to think from the perspective of every climber, rather than just for myself. It's in my job description




They could, I agree.

But for those who occasionally boulder, or who do a bit of everything, they would get a greater understanding of bouldering grades, Font or V, if they were shoe horned into it.

It isn't a problem if you are a dedicated boulderer like yourself, but for those who aren't, just Font or V grades often causes confusion.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Why then do you think that SD has chosen to use Font grades and not UK Tech in his guide as has JE in the new Northumberland guide?

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

That's their call Francis.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.: I started using split V/Font grades a while back with the idea in my mind that it would be a transitional phase leading to a Font grade takeover. However, I'm starting to think that I will use split grades (and possibly even with the addition of the Brit tech grade as suggested by Mick) in my next bouldering guide. On the page it takes up hardly any room at all, so what's the big deal? I often break down problems into Brit tech graded sequences (i.e. two 6b moves into an easy 6c move, followed by a 6aish section). Funnily enough I've taken to breaking routes down in my mind into a series of boulder problems (i.e. a V4ish section leads into a V6 crux, followed by a second V5 crux and a pumpy V4 leading to the top).

Using V/Font split grades also removes the need for V8+, which I have stopped using (instead: V8/Font 7b+, V8/Font 7b).

With regard to the 7 + 8 guide - yes it's an impressive piece of design, but I think it fails on some basic guidebook functions. Maps (even beautifully drawn ones) should have scales and the basic star system (and lack of written clues) has lead me on more than one wild goose chase only to find a mediocre problem. I guess I just prefer my guidebooks to have a bit more character delivered via the written word. Mick is right, some of the recent non events in British bouldering guidebooks have come about because people have been too desperate to re-create the 7 + 8 template. The British crags are unique, they should have their own unique guidebooks.

In reply to Simon Panton not registered:

V4/Font 6b+ sounds perfect to me - just so long as it is in that order of precedence. V4 [Font 6b+] 6b would be even better IMO .

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:
most of the boulderers i know who have climbed sport/trad will use u.k.tech grades/sport grades when discussing the grade of problems.
for instance. "thats never v3/font 6b+.what would it get on a route"

In reply to TRNovice:

Ha ha. I preferred your "V grades are better because they don't make sense" argument to this pettiness......

Si - That's a shame. You've got the opportunity to stick another nail in the V grade coffin!



As I've said, I can see the argument for including as much information grade wise as possible. Unfortunatlely this situation has come about as (because of the introduction of V grades to this country) we now have mass confusion where some people understand the Font system (that was already being widely used here) others like Mr Novice only understand V grades and the poor "trad climber who wants to do a bit of bouldering" only understands (or thinks he understands!) UK tech.

So you can go one of two ways. Attempt to carry on with cramming as much information about each problem's grade as possible into new guidebooks thus perpetuating the mess or clear out all the confusion and go with one grade, one system.

V grades don't work on their own as we all know. V8+ has to be used, there's no lower end to the scale and even the system's strongest proponents (TRN) admit that they don't actually tell you how hard the problem is. UK tech is fine for individual moves up to around 6a but then it falls to bits. Nobody can agree on what 7a is, 6c is said to exist on every problem from 7A and upwards. It's nonsense unfortunately. So by process of elimination you use the Font system. A perfectly simple single grade that works from the bottom to the open ended top of the scale.

I know some people would not like this is in the short term but in the long term it would create a MUCH more simple, understandable situation. People would still be equating stuff to V or UK tech but if the guides were all uniform then everyone would soon "get" Font grades and we'd have an end to all the confusion.

I know this ain't gonna happen by the way but I fail to see how it doesn't make sense. However, I'm not in the business of selling guidebooks so I don't have to make these decisions from a financial point of view!

In reply to TRNovice:

To be fair I think the norm for V4/Font 6b+ would be brit 6a.

In reply to catt:

Ha ha ha ha ha........ Genius.

In reply to seagull:

A Fontinista to balance out TR's Verminista.

V's do work on there own, they are just the same as the Font system. The bottom end of the V's is sorted.

English Tech is the one that doesn't work for most problems like you say.

In reply to all:

Face the facts English grades shouldn't applied to bouldering. Font grades work the best for most problems similar to sport grades. V grades just make people feel good about themselves but actually mean much.

example would be Font 6b it could be a V3 or a V4, most punters would say they climb V4 ie 6b rather than saying they climb V3 font 6b. But you can't get away from the fact its still a Font 6b.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

If it don't work then why the feck use it?


PS Sunny here!

In reply to Flatlander:


Or indeed your profile photo, Sale Gosse 7c. Is that V9 or V10?

In reply to catt:

I got a bit bored after 40...

1. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=73079
   
2. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=77963
   
3. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=36885
   
4. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=36870
   
5. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=69680
   
6. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=52041
   
7. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=65501
   
8. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=19668
   
9. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=19674
   
10. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=19756
    
11. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=74792
    
12. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=74796
    
13. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=74799
    
14. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=74815
    
15. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=74869
    
16. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=97199
    
17. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=70598
    
18. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=97202
    
19. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=70646
    
20. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=70703
    
21. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=50094
    
22. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=97208
    
23. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=70871
    
24. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=70890
    
25. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=71029
    
26. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=71031
    
27. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=71031
    
28. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=29563
    
29. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=86553
    
30. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=86556
    
31. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=86563
    
32. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=15975
    
33. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=79004
    
34. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=60379
    
35. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=90812
    
36. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=90813
    
37. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=84722
    
38. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=62751
    
39. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=69847
    
40. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=43467

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

You weren't listening first time. A rough guide.


About time. Dark here. 5.30am.

In reply to Flatlander:

But that's a totally symmetrical argument, if someone climbs a problem graded V5, do they claim Font 6c or Font 6c+? In fact it is more likely the other way round.

In reply to TRNovice:


Some don't claim anything apart from a good time and a great experience - hopefully.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'm with you on that Mick .

In reply to TRNovice:
I don't project things, you may notice my flash grade is the same as the worked grade. Anyway, thanks for the disparaging remarks and apologies for not living up to your own exalted standards (ooo V3!). After all, its nothing to do with having fun is it?

FYI I can't take bouldering too seriously, I am more at home on mountain routes in the more remote parts of Scotland.

In reply to TRNovice:

I'm yet to see anyone climb this V4!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=44109

Probably the hardest V4 in the world?

In reply to TRNovice:

Thats the point if you said 6c then everyone knows its a 6c verses saying v5 which could mean 6c or 6c+ thats why its better.

In reply to 220bpm:

Please accept my apologies - I got a bit carried away yesterday and withdraw my remark.

In reply to TRNovice:

No worries, easy done

In reply to Flatlander:

But you just said "Font 6b it could be a V3 or a V4", which rather defeats your point. There is a range going either way surely. I appreciate that generally hard V5 is Font 6c+ and easy V5 is Font 6c, and that they begin to line up more in the higher grades, but (cf. my earlier post) I think we are chasing some nirvana of accuracy (again cf. "MVS-" in the Lakes guide) which does not accord with everyone's experience.

In reply to seagull:


Is that true? I suspect you may have been bouldering longer than me, but my introduction to bouldering was either from the route guides with a few problems in, normally graded with UK tech grades, and the original Peak Bouldering guides which used the B grades (did the Myers guide have Bs or just 1,2,3 etc?), based on the V system but easier. I wasn't aware of the font system being widely used here, but I wasn't good enough at the time to be interested in Stoney and Rubicon so don't know how they were documented.




Fair enough I suppose, but I disagree that V grades are fuzzy. Above V4 they pretty much synchronise with font grades, and below that the addition of a UK tech grade sorts out the problem (as you have said the UK tech grade works well up to 6a). I do agree though - we should find one system and apply it accurately across all areas. People will soon get used to whatever system is chosen.

In reply to TRNovice:

well if you are looking for vague and not accurate then go with V grades, isn't the point of using a grading system to judge how difficult a problem is? Which would lend its self to trying to be more accurate?

its all naff anyways, its a piece of rock at the end of the day

In reply to Flatlander:



You sound like my wife!

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

so you wife is very wise then?

In reply to Flatlander:

My point is that definitively saying how hard a problem is may not be 100% possible. Humans seem to always think that there is a black and white answer, but there may not be. I think V-grades cover this uncertainty very well. If more precision is required then a UK tech grade might help, but they tend to have even wider ranges than V-grades.

Maybe my problem is climbing to many weirdly graded Peak monstrosities with Font grades that seem to bear little relation to anything - or indeed the idiosyncrasies of (low grade) grades in Font itself. I have not come across these problems in any area which is predominantly V-graded. I also think that the BMC's Stanage V-grades make more sense and are more consistently applied than Font grades in - say - PDB.

Maybe this is all just the Font system being applied badly and could be rectified by the ISO taking up the cause, but the Font system does seem to be associated in my mind with grading that is a bit eccentric.

In reply to Flatlander:

Obviously wiser than me.
And a lot wiser than TRNovice! Because when she takes the piss she uses Font grades!

In reply to TRNovice:

Nail on head. You have had a bad experience of what you perceive to be the misuse of the system. This does not mean that the system is at fault.

In reply to seagull:

Ah! So the argument that communism as practices in the USSR was the problem, not communism itself - neat logic there. You have to ask yourself, why does the Font system get misused? Maybe something to do with the mind-set of its adherents - surely a possibility that should be considered.

Also the misuse of the system in its place of birth is something of a worry.

A counter example of misuse of the V-grade system would be a better argument - I'm sure that there must be some out there.

In reply to TRNovice:


grading in general is open to misuse, whether bouldering, trad or sport. I wouldn't worry too much.

In reply to All:

One good reason for not using English Tech grades for boulder problems is that they don't compare to English Tech grades on routes! An English "6a" move on a boulder problem 5 ft above a flat landing is usually way harder than the 6a moves you find high on a route with gear below your feet.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I don't (my own views are actually pretty close to Mick's), but it is a little annoying when Font grades are held up as some infallible example of perfection by their acolytes or somehow more appropriate because of geographic considerations (if that is true, just use UK Tech in the UK FFS). They're just a system like any other with advantages and drawbacks. A Font grade is only as accurate at the person (or ideally people) allocating it and if there is one thing that is the opposite of infallible, it is people - and boulderers in particular!

In reply to TRNovice:

I find Font grades in Font to generally be spot on which is why I said PERCEIVED misuse of the system.



As for V grades (again). The system itself is flawed - see above. I don't want to keep repeating myself! You neatly pointed out some of the flaws yourself.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

This is true and another reason why tech grades have become a nonsense. The original point was that the grade was supposed to transfer but they dont.

In reply to TRNovice:

I think you missed the point of my earlier post regarding the hardest V4 in the world ,L'Angle à Jean-Luc. This one problem demonstrates that grading doesn't always work no matter what system is used.

In reply to seagull:

I note the absence of a specific example of V-grade abuse for the second time, which is particularly odd as I can think of at least one pretty quickly.

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

No didn't see that earlier post (believe it or not I am actually meant to be working). I also concur that no grading system (even the saintly Font grades) works (in the sense of being self-consistent) in all circumstances.

In reply to TRNovice:

Had the problem you are thinking about have been graded with a Font grade would it still be an abuse of the grading system?

In reply to TRNovice:

So.

The bouldering grade debate continues. The UK, borrowing from the French Font and the American V, with English tech grades thrown in for good measure.

Will it ever be resolved? There are so many opinions, but the real change makers in this case will be the guidebook authors.

Greg Chapman uses Font.
Steve Dunning Font.
The County Font.

BMC guides...Font? I can't remember.

But perhaps the most influential author/publisher and self-styled Mr. UK Bouldering, Simon Panton has decided on Font/V with English tech.

Are we destined to always have a mix of bouldering grades in the UK?

It seems so.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Plus E grades for highballs of course .

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


I think the wall owners/managers will have some influence as well.
If V-grades weren't being used in 2 of my local walls I wouldn't have bothered asking the question that triggered all this.

In reply to i.munro:

Good point.

In reply to TRNovice:

Wow, that means the Arch grading is really far out!

In reply to i.munro:


Very true and fortunately The Works got it right. Not surprising really when the owners all know what they're talking about when it comes to grades.

In reply to catt:

There are lots of V4 UK 6as as well (probably the more predominant grade), just pointing out that there was nothing inconsistent with my use of V4 UK 6b. FWIW I would guess V4 / Font 6b+ has more of a chance of being UK 6b than V4 / Font 6b.

Not entirely sure what outdoor grades have to do with indoor ones.

Or alternatively this way madness lies...

*sigh*

In reply to Flatlander:

Pretty much the most sensible statement made on this entire thread!

In reply to TRNovice:

I agree with you that I've seen plenty of V4 6b bandied in guides. Dartmoor seemed to like them. And I've done a few of them. I've also done a few Fb6b/6b+/6c.

Funnily enough I wouldn't have said that any of them had anything brit 6b on them (despite claimed grade). The only moves I'd call brit 6b I've done or tried have been on Fb7a/V6 and up. hence my little grade conversions earlier.

There are some odd ones at Burbage for example Remergence Fb6b/brit 6b, but nothing 6b onit... just a few 6a moves.

Mention of indoor grades was partly lighthearted but is also what many people inculding us who climb mostly indoors (as location/weather dictates) base our refrences on. Which is what it comes down to at the end of the day, grades are just a reference.

Are you seriously trying to say that you couldn't be pointed at a bit of rock, told it was Vx or FbY or brit Z and regardless of the grading system not have an idea if you could potentially get up it or not?

In reply to catt:

It's only a piece of rock.

No it isn't. The rock we climb is part of our climbing culture. It's central to it.

In reply to catt:

Of course not, I would immediately assume that I couldn't possibly get up it.

In reply to i.munro: might be better if you ask ian hutton or big jim on the ukbouldering site

In reply to Egg:

Thanks, but I think I pushed ian's patience at least to it's limit with lots of 'where does this go' & 'how do you do this' questions before th eguide came out.

I'll ask in person next time I see him.

In reply to Egg: sorry should have said both kent boulderers that visit bleu and train at the arethusa.

In reply to i.munro: Back to the original question.

With the exception of font6a+ <> V0-V3 which should probably be V1-V3, I can't see any great issue with the table.

It certainly tallies with my experience of both systems being very vague in their own ways. Everyone seems to accept that at Font the low 6s can be very variable and hence the application elsewhere is also hard. Also my experience in Bishop was that V1 & V2 covered a vast range of difficulty.

- On with the general dabate...

My main issue with Font grades below 7A is basically there are TOO MANY of them. In Font you have 8 grades of difficulty between 5 and 6C+. In V grades you have around 5 (V1-V5) and in UK tech grades only around 3 (5c-6b). It may just be me, but I think that 5 jumps in difficulty provides around the optimum for climbers to grade with, understand and hence use and discuss easily. UK tech grades are not bouldering grades, but are a bit too wide anyway so aren't a solution. Conversely with Font, due to the 'narrower' grades all I feel happens is that the grade boundaries get really fuzzy and I can never really feel certain what Font6b+ for example should feel like.

It's weird but I know exactly what Tech 5c feels like, but I still get a bit woolly with the 6a/6b boundary. I've got a good idea of exactly what Font 7A feels like - I've failed to link enough of them, but I can't really nail down where things fit in between 6B and 6C+. However, when it comes to V1-V5 I can say with a fair degree of certainty which grade a problem is, and how it should feel at that grade.

Basically V-grades are a new system so it should come as no surprise that the jump between grades may be a lot more 'natural' and suit modern climbers better than systems that evolved many decades ago.

Hope some of that makes sense.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

As someone who has no experience of V-grades I have to say that you make a very poor case for them with

>Also my experience in Bishop was that V1 & V2 covered a vast range of >difficulty.

and


which was exactly my point about US style.
I've heard a lot of Yanks in Bleau amazed by the fact that bouldering isn't just for shirtless young men who's vocabulary doesn't stretch much beyond variations on the word 'dude' & that they are being outclimbed by old men, Grannies & those little dogs that Parisian women carry around in handbags.
(incidentally I've been comprehensively shown up by all of the above except the dog & I'm sure that'll happen next trip)

This leads me to suspect by 'modern climbers' you mean wall-trained, male & good at dynamic moves between big holds.

Now as a wall-trained male I find dynamic moves between big holds in Bleau to be generally easy for the grade but I assume this reflects the fact that I'm tall, strong & a bit rubbish with my feet compared to the average Bleausard.

A grading system better suited to a wider range of perticipants seems a good thing to me.

In reply to i.munro:

V's are the same as Font grades. Both originated in one area, Font and Heuco, then both were exported globaly. They are interchangeable.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Solarium at The Happys - allegedly V3 *splutter*

In reply to i.munro:

Your real reasons for not liking V-grades become ever more apparent.

In reply to TRNovice:

Not my words. Paraphrased from a group of young Americans I ended up giving a number of lifts to. Dude.

In reply to i.munro:

You chose to post them.

In reply to TRNovice:

I thought they were amusing.
Wish I could say the same for you.

In reply to i.munro:

I'm not trying to be amusing - just amazed that a main plank in your dislike of V-grades is that they are related to people who say "dude".

In reply to TRNovice:

Bishop sandbag. Solid at the grade.