This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I am not sure this has been discussed yet on its own but assuming that a Risk grade accompanied by a French grade is adopted as an alternative way to grade trad routes then how many increments/grades of Risk should there be to be usable and useful. IMO the US system and Yorkshire P system would appear to have too few.
The overall Risk grade in my view would have to proportional to the difficulty ie a runout Fr6a might get a high overall risk grade for the route but a Fr8a that was well protected on the hard bit but had a runout Fr6a bit would have a low overall Risk grade (unless it was on mud!).
6 - 8 grades of Risk might be a better number. I think establishing the number from the outset would be important as it wouldn't be an open-ended system so perhaps erring on too many would be the best way to go.
The overall Risk grade in my view would have to proportional to the difficulty ie a runout Fr6a might get a high overall risk grade for the route but a Fr8a that was well protected on the hard bit but had a runout Fr6a bit would have a low overall Risk grade (unless it was on mud!).
6 - 8 grades of Risk might be a better number. I think establishing the number from the outset would be important as it wouldn't be an open-ended system so perhaps erring on too many would be the best way to go.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Sport routes shouldn't have a high degree of risk anyway should they?
Sport routes shouldn't have a high degree of risk anyway should they?
In reply to Wide_Mouth_Frog:
No they shouldn't but I am talking about "an alternative way to grade trad routes" which borrows the sport grades in part.
This has been talked about extensively mainly with reference to giving high E grades to routes which have only beeen headpointed but I think it could be adopted widely.
No they shouldn't but I am talking about "an alternative way to grade trad routes" which borrows the sport grades in part.
This has been talked about extensively mainly with reference to giving high E grades to routes which have only beeen headpointed but I think it could be adopted widely.
In reply to Simon Lee: I haven't read all of the previous threads but I've always thought that it wouldn't really solve any of the shortcomings of the UK grading system to use a simple 'french grade with boldness factor' system.
Trad routes are generally tried onsight/ground up which causes a problem in how to apply french grades which are, of course redpoint grades (lets not get into the whole onsight french grade rubbish). furthermore, if you're not trying a trad route onsight, but are pre-inspecting it first then it doesn't really matter if the grade is right as you'll find out on a toprope. French grades also grade the climbing so really you'd need a 'new' french grade which grades how hard it is to onsight the route, and put the gear in. The french grade doesn't tell you how hard, specialised or tricky the gear is to get in either. For example, two routes could be given F7b+ and P2. One route has a blindingly obvious sequence with easy to place gear before a bit of a runout whereas the second route could be 7b+ with the cunning sequence of hidden holds but nearer 8a to onsight, and has blind and specialised gear that is good but only if you can get it in. The former route might get E6 in the UK system, and the latter route E9.
This is where the E-grade system works really well. If you want to know the physical difficulty as well as the difficulty to onsight why not give a route an E grade (or guess an E grade) and couple this with a french grade to describe only the climbing. E5 6a (F6a+) for flashdance and E5 6a (F7a+) for london wall*, say.
* not that I've done it.
Trad routes are generally tried onsight/ground up which causes a problem in how to apply french grades which are, of course redpoint grades (lets not get into the whole onsight french grade rubbish). furthermore, if you're not trying a trad route onsight, but are pre-inspecting it first then it doesn't really matter if the grade is right as you'll find out on a toprope. French grades also grade the climbing so really you'd need a 'new' french grade which grades how hard it is to onsight the route, and put the gear in. The french grade doesn't tell you how hard, specialised or tricky the gear is to get in either. For example, two routes could be given F7b+ and P2. One route has a blindingly obvious sequence with easy to place gear before a bit of a runout whereas the second route could be 7b+ with the cunning sequence of hidden holds but nearer 8a to onsight, and has blind and specialised gear that is good but only if you can get it in. The former route might get E6 in the UK system, and the latter route E9.
This is where the E-grade system works really well. If you want to know the physical difficulty as well as the difficulty to onsight why not give a route an E grade (or guess an E grade) and couple this with a french grade to describe only the climbing. E5 6a (F6a+) for flashdance and E5 6a (F7a+) for london wall*, say.
* not that I've done it.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Always better to keep things simple.
R and X seems fine to me: "You could take a long fall" and "You really mustn't fall off". Routes with safe cruxes, but bold sections elsewhere, don't fit perfectly into that model perhaps ... but ... so what.
Always better to keep things simple.
R and X seems fine to me: "You could take a long fall" and "You really mustn't fall off". Routes with safe cruxes, but bold sections elsewhere, don't fit perfectly into that model perhaps ... but ... so what.
In reply to Aly:
So guidebooks need a Rockfax-style 'awkward gear' symbol for the few routes where that genuinely applies. Or a note in the text.
> The french grade doesn't tell you how hard, specialised or tricky the gear is to get in either. For example, two routes could be given F7b+ and P2. One route has a blindingly obvious sequence with easy to place gear before a bit of a runout whereas the second route could be 7b+ with the cunning sequence of hidden holds but nearer 8a to onsight, and has blind and specialised gear that is good but only if you can get it in.
So guidebooks need a Rockfax-style 'awkward gear' symbol for the few routes where that genuinely applies. Or a note in the text.
In reply to Aly:
To me focussing on the difficulty and the risk of harm are the most important things (after quality) in choosing to attempt a challenging route. I would like both to be as objective as possible. Adding the French grade in brackets is a reasonable 'patch' but still fudges attempting to quantify the risk which includes the risk of poor gear.
A route should be graded for the easiest sequence. The risk will take into account the poor gear. If the route has hidden holds that is all part of the challenge of the onsight - to seek them out. Similarly if the gear is hard to place that is another challenge of an onsight. In sport climbing if you onsight 7b you are likely to be able to redpoint 7c in a day and multiday siege redpoint 8a so I dont think you are saying anything significantly diffrent about the spread of difficulty between headpoiunting and onsighting trad routes.
Whilst occasionally a sport route will be disproptionately easier to redpoint than onsight this is the exception rather than the rule. You never get exactitude in grading routes.
To me focussing on the difficulty and the risk of harm are the most important things (after quality) in choosing to attempt a challenging route. I would like both to be as objective as possible. Adding the French grade in brackets is a reasonable 'patch' but still fudges attempting to quantify the risk which includes the risk of poor gear.
A route should be graded for the easiest sequence. The risk will take into account the poor gear. If the route has hidden holds that is all part of the challenge of the onsight - to seek them out. Similarly if the gear is hard to place that is another challenge of an onsight. In sport climbing if you onsight 7b you are likely to be able to redpoint 7c in a day and multiday siege redpoint 8a so I dont think you are saying anything significantly diffrent about the spread of difficulty between headpoiunting and onsighting trad routes.
Whilst occasionally a sport route will be disproptionately easier to redpoint than onsight this is the exception rather than the rule. You never get exactitude in grading routes.
In reply to tobyfk: Always better to keep things simple..R and X seems fine to me
Is it though - are you saying that changing Exteremly Severe into subdivisions was a complexification too far ?
Is it though - are you saying that changing Exteremly Severe into subdivisions was a complexification too far ?
In reply to Simon Lee:
This whole E grade debate perplexes me a little. I understand the issue, but I'm not convinced it is a new thing or a major problem. I think that prepractice has happened since the dawn of climbing.
Really we are only talking about routes of E7 and above that have not yet been onsighted (although I am sure there are several E6s that haven't been done onsight such as Strawberries - or has it...). My thinking is that people operating at these grades are well capable of deciding whether to go for it or not, and fully understand that routes of this level have in no way reached any sort of consensus grading so they could be out. I am not convinced that we need to adopt a new grading system to reflect that a route has not been onsighted, but maybe adopt something like the dagger symbol to reflect this in a guide. E7 and E8 I guess are a bit of a shady area as there are so many of them about and they are starting to get climbed now, but anyone going for an onsight of an E8+ route is going to know a bit about the reputation of that route anyway. With time and ascents (onsight of course) the grades will settle, just as they have always done for any new grade/route.
Finally (and hypocritically), I struggle to understand why we are discussing this issue on here, as there must only be a handful of people on UKC qualified to comment, or even likely to be affected by this debate!
This whole E grade debate perplexes me a little. I understand the issue, but I'm not convinced it is a new thing or a major problem. I think that prepractice has happened since the dawn of climbing.
Really we are only talking about routes of E7 and above that have not yet been onsighted (although I am sure there are several E6s that haven't been done onsight such as Strawberries - or has it...). My thinking is that people operating at these grades are well capable of deciding whether to go for it or not, and fully understand that routes of this level have in no way reached any sort of consensus grading so they could be out. I am not convinced that we need to adopt a new grading system to reflect that a route has not been onsighted, but maybe adopt something like the dagger symbol to reflect this in a guide. E7 and E8 I guess are a bit of a shady area as there are so many of them about and they are starting to get climbed now, but anyone going for an onsight of an E8+ route is going to know a bit about the reputation of that route anyway. With time and ascents (onsight of course) the grades will settle, just as they have always done for any new grade/route.
Finally (and hypocritically), I struggle to understand why we are discussing this issue on here, as there must only be a handful of people on UKC qualified to comment, or even likely to be affected by this debate!
In reply to tobyfk:
They usually will have a note in the text or similar but if not, it is reflected in the E-grade - this is why they are so useful for grading onsight trad routes. This would not be reflected at all in a french grade/danger grade setup.
> (In reply to Aly)
>
> [...]
>
> So guidebooks need a Rockfax-style 'awkward gear' symbol for the few routes where that genuinely applies. Or a note in the text.
>
> [...]
>
> So guidebooks need a Rockfax-style 'awkward gear' symbol for the few routes where that genuinely applies. Or a note in the text.
They usually will have a note in the text or similar but if not, it is reflected in the E-grade - this is why they are so useful for grading onsight trad routes. This would not be reflected at all in a french grade/danger grade setup.
In reply to Monk: Really we are only talking about routes of E7 and above
I'm not. Personally E6 and below graded in this way I would find more helpful than the current system.
I'm not. Personally E6 and below graded in this way I would find more helpful than the current system.
In reply to Simon Lee:
XP Grades?
Let's see:
The route would keep resetting itself and you'd have to reinstall all your pro from the ground up.
None of your gear would be compatible.
You'd get halfway up and a sign would appear reading "It looks like you're onsighting a route, would you like some help from the wizard?"
The Beta would be rubbish...
You'd get to the crux and freeze up totally.
Vista would be even worse, you wouldn't be allowed to install any pro without a valid certificate.
"The holds just disappeared!" "Yeah, we'll fix that in the next release"
XP Grades?
Let's see:
The route would keep resetting itself and you'd have to reinstall all your pro from the ground up.
None of your gear would be compatible.
You'd get halfway up and a sign would appear reading "It looks like you're onsighting a route, would you like some help from the wizard?"
The Beta would be rubbish...
You'd get to the crux and freeze up totally.
Vista would be even worse, you wouldn't be allowed to install any pro without a valid certificate.
"The holds just disappeared!" "Yeah, we'll fix that in the next release"
In reply to Aly:
So Brits insist. How the rest of the world copes without any equivalent to an E-grade is truly miraculous.
> They usually will have a note in the text or similar but if not, it is reflected in the E-grade - this is why they are so useful for grading onsight trad routes.
So Brits insist. How the rest of the world copes without any equivalent to an E-grade is truly miraculous.
In reply to Simon Lee:
You're joking I suspect but: no.
> Is it though - are you saying that changing Exteremly Severe into subdivisions was a complexification too far ?
You're joking I suspect but: no.
In reply to tobyfk: That's not what I said Toby. I just don't understand the rush to abandon a system which works perfectly well, for a system which seems to have just as many (if not more) shortcomings as the one we're using. If it isn't broken... and all that.
In reply to tobyfk: You're joking I suspect but: no.
So following that just because the X or R rating works doesnt mean it cant be improved - the fact that you use X/R above shows that it has limitations (is X/R a full grade of itself or borderline between the two grades?).
Also Darkinbad is riskier than Right Wall because of the start.
So following that just because the X or R rating works doesnt mean it cant be improved - the fact that you use X/R above shows that it has limitations (is X/R a full grade of itself or borderline between the two grades?).
Also Darkinbad is riskier than Right Wall because of the start.
In reply to Aly: If it isn't broken... and all that
You can't pretend there aren't problems otherwise why would Jack be moved to write an article entitled - The E Grade. Is it broken? Can it be fixed?
You can't pretend there aren't problems otherwise why would Jack be moved to write an article entitled - The E Grade. Is it broken? Can it be fixed?
In reply to Simon Lee:
E is for mEdia indeed. Perhaps UKC have wised up to the fact that the only thing which generates more page impressions than E11 repeats is grading arguments...?
I jest, of course. Sort of.
E is for mEdia indeed. Perhaps UKC have wised up to the fact that the only thing which generates more page impressions than E11 repeats is grading arguments...?
I jest, of course. Sort of.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I see what you mean. You are basically proposing replacing the E system with Sport grade plus P or R/X grades. I can't really comment on higher grades, but our current system seems to work pretty well for me. If you see an E1 5b it's going to be fairly average E1, E1 5a indicates more risk and E1 5c indicates a hard but well protected route. I think we already have a system similar to your proposal, especially when combined witha route description that would hopefully mention if the route was surprisingly bold or technical or whatever.
To be honest, I am not a big fan of Yorkshire P grades. I simply don't find that they add much to the information already available, especially on short routes that you can see from the ground. One area open to improvement would be in multipitch climbing, climbing aas a mixed ability pair where you get routes graded HVS 5a,5b,4c - is that 4c pitch safe and easy VS or is it totally run out so HVS? This could be a useful application of P grades, or just giving an adjecival grade for each pitch.
> (In reply to Monk) Really we are only talking about routes of E7 and above
>
>
> I'm not. Personally E6 and below graded in this way I would find more helpful than the current system.
>
>
> I'm not. Personally E6 and below graded in this way I would find more helpful than the current system.
I see what you mean. You are basically proposing replacing the E system with Sport grade plus P or R/X grades. I can't really comment on higher grades, but our current system seems to work pretty well for me. If you see an E1 5b it's going to be fairly average E1, E1 5a indicates more risk and E1 5c indicates a hard but well protected route. I think we already have a system similar to your proposal, especially when combined witha route description that would hopefully mention if the route was surprisingly bold or technical or whatever.
To be honest, I am not a big fan of Yorkshire P grades. I simply don't find that they add much to the information already available, especially on short routes that you can see from the ground. One area open to improvement would be in multipitch climbing, climbing aas a mixed ability pair where you get routes graded HVS 5a,5b,4c - is that 4c pitch safe and easy VS or is it totally run out so HVS? This could be a useful application of P grades, or just giving an adjecival grade for each pitch.
In reply to Monk:
I would go further than that. I hate P grades. They can lead to a false sense of security and , as happened to me, leave you gibbering away looking for the 'promised' gear.
I would go further than that. I hate P grades. They can lead to a false sense of security and , as happened to me, leave you gibbering away looking for the 'promised' gear.
In reply to Monk: You are basically proposing replacing the E system with Sport grade plus P or R/X grades
I dont think it would be accepted yet but it might happen over time. If they end up being used and understood for the top E grades they are likely to filter down to be used at lower E grades. What the top climbers do have a big influence on the direction of these things and a two-tier system wouldnt last forever. The three P grades seemed like a blunt instrument and grit routes have always been a bugger to grade - so Yorkshire grit not the best testing ground.
I dont think it would be accepted yet but it might happen over time. If they end up being used and understood for the top E grades they are likely to filter down to be used at lower E grades. What the top climbers do have a big influence on the direction of these things and a two-tier system wouldnt last forever. The three P grades seemed like a blunt instrument and grit routes have always been a bugger to grade - so Yorkshire grit not the best testing ground.
In reply to Simon Lee:
That article was about high E grades, where some people think that it shouldn't be used for headpointed routes (correct me if I'm wrong) - this doesn't show that there's anything wrong with the system. All the ruckus seems to me to be about people (ie Dave Mac) saying that he's climbed E11 and others getting upset cause he's getting all the media attention.
That article was about high E grades, where some people think that it shouldn't be used for headpointed routes (correct me if I'm wrong) - this doesn't show that there's anything wrong with the system. All the ruckus seems to me to be about people (ie Dave Mac) saying that he's climbed E11 and others getting upset cause he's getting all the media attention.
In reply to thomasadixon:
Yes you caught me out. But it could be the thin end of a wedge. I'm just waiting to hammer it.
Yes you caught me out. But it could be the thin end of a wedge. I'm just waiting to hammer it.
In reply to Simon Lee: In reply to Simon Lee:
But I thought the sport + R/X grades was simply being proposed for routes without an onsight ascent, to be regraded to E grades by the first onsighter?
This seems to be a solution to a problem that some perceive, but I still think the E grade works well for the British style of climbing. I think the major thing is to place media emphasis and attention on the difficulty and skill required to onsight hard trad routes and a record in guides of the first onsight (I think this happens at times already), rather than a new system.
But I thought the sport + R/X grades was simply being proposed for routes without an onsight ascent, to be regraded to E grades by the first onsighter?
This seems to be a solution to a problem that some perceive, but I still think the E grade works well for the British style of climbing. I think the major thing is to place media emphasis and attention on the difficulty and skill required to onsight hard trad routes and a record in guides of the first onsight (I think this happens at times already), rather than a new system.
In reply to Monk: E grade works well for the British style of climbing
(To save Tobyfk the trouble) What is this British style of climbing you speak of ?
I have climbed trad routes abroad - even in Spain
(To save Tobyfk the trouble) What is this British style of climbing you speak of ?
I have climbed trad routes abroad - even in Spain
In reply to Simon Lee:
Fair enough I guess. I mean that on this Island we climb predominantly trad routes and our grading system has grown up to refleect this style and it works for most of us. Maybe other systems work in other countries (I'm sure the YDS works in the states) but I have no experience of it, so why change what already works? The only possible argument I can see is so that we have one sytem worldwide, but who gets to enforce that and whose do we use? French? Australian? American? German? Czech? UIAA?
Each major climbing area has it's own system. I think that our E grade system is very versatile and works pretty damn well. I can certainly glean more info from it with regards difficulty and protection than I can from any of the other systems around (bar possibly the YDS with R/X grades), so why fix what ain't broke?
Fair enough I guess. I mean that on this Island we climb predominantly trad routes and our grading system has grown up to refleect this style and it works for most of us. Maybe other systems work in other countries (I'm sure the YDS works in the states) but I have no experience of it, so why change what already works? The only possible argument I can see is so that we have one sytem worldwide, but who gets to enforce that and whose do we use? French? Australian? American? German? Czech? UIAA?
Each major climbing area has it's own system. I think that our E grade system is very versatile and works pretty damn well. I can certainly glean more info from it with regards difficulty and protection than I can from any of the other systems around (bar possibly the YDS with R/X grades), so why fix what ain't broke?
In reply to Simon Lee: Very good hypothetical question.
I think you are correct, we would need a number of graduations to properly describe the breadth of UK trad. 6 seems about right, although I'd interested to hear where you might slot in another 2.
Very well protected - G?
[e.g.The Foil f6c G - crack climb you can lace]
Adequately protected - A?
[e.g. Left Wall f6a+ A - safe but you climb above gear.]
Runout - R?
[e.g. Right Wall f6c/+ R - big fall potential, good gear]
Very Runout - R+?
[e.g. Rhapsody f8c/+ R+ - very big fall, ok gear]
Marginal/low protection only - X?
[e.g. Brown's Eliminate f5+ X, Mouse Trap f5+ X - crux marginally protected, rest of route completely unprotected.]
No worthwhile protection - X+?
[e.g. Hareless Heart f6b+ X+, Indian Face f7b+ X+ - unprotected.]
However, I'm not convinced this is a panacea. I would be more than happy for the Tech Grade of routes just to be supplemented on a route for route basis with sport OR BOULDERING grades, but only when and where appropriate.
In many cases standard UK grades are pretty spot on - Great Slab at E3 5b is far better than f5+ X. The same I think applies to most very bold routes up to E5 as sport grades don't reflect the style of climbing particularly well. Equally at the other end, grades like E1 5c generally wouldn't be improved with use of a sport grade and at that level, tech grades work equally well as bouldering grades. However when you get something like E4 6b, a description of E4 6b (V4) would be of more use to me than f6c G, which could equally be the same grade as a classic E4 like Arms Race which would definitely be best described as something like E4 5c (f6c).
The same thing applies at the top end - The Groove E10 (font8a+) and Rhapsody E11 (f8c/+) are probably the best concise descriptions available.
I think you are correct, we would need a number of graduations to properly describe the breadth of UK trad. 6 seems about right, although I'd interested to hear where you might slot in another 2.
Very well protected - G?
[e.g.The Foil f6c G - crack climb you can lace]
Adequately protected - A?
[e.g. Left Wall f6a+ A - safe but you climb above gear.]
Runout - R?
[e.g. Right Wall f6c/+ R - big fall potential, good gear]
Very Runout - R+?
[e.g. Rhapsody f8c/+ R+ - very big fall, ok gear]
Marginal/low protection only - X?
[e.g. Brown's Eliminate f5+ X, Mouse Trap f5+ X - crux marginally protected, rest of route completely unprotected.]
No worthwhile protection - X+?
[e.g. Hareless Heart f6b+ X+, Indian Face f7b+ X+ - unprotected.]
However, I'm not convinced this is a panacea. I would be more than happy for the Tech Grade of routes just to be supplemented on a route for route basis with sport OR BOULDERING grades, but only when and where appropriate.
In many cases standard UK grades are pretty spot on - Great Slab at E3 5b is far better than f5+ X. The same I think applies to most very bold routes up to E5 as sport grades don't reflect the style of climbing particularly well. Equally at the other end, grades like E1 5c generally wouldn't be improved with use of a sport grade and at that level, tech grades work equally well as bouldering grades. However when you get something like E4 6b, a description of E4 6b (V4) would be of more use to me than f6c G, which could equally be the same grade as a classic E4 like Arms Race which would definitely be best described as something like E4 5c (f6c).
The same thing applies at the top end - The Groove E10 (font8a+) and Rhapsody E11 (f8c/+) are probably the best concise descriptions available.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I copied and pasted that list from a thread from 2003! Then I deleted it because I realised my views had moved on a bit since then. The examples were poor also.
> So following that just because the X or R rating works doesnt mean it cant be improved - the fact that you use X/R above shows that it has limitations
> Also Darkinbad is riskier than Right Wall because of the start.
> Also Darkinbad is riskier than Right Wall because of the start.
I copied and pasted that list from a thread from 2003! Then I deleted it because I realised my views had moved on a bit since then. The examples were poor also.
In reply to Aly:
To be honest I hardly ever climb in the UK these days so have no axe to grind. My point is merely that climbers overseas seem to find simpler grading systems perfectly adequate. I couldn't care less what ultimately happens to UK grading (though I'd guess the technical grade is more at risk of extinction than the E).
I do - however - somewhat care as a guidebook writer in a country with boulders, trad, long trad, DWS and sport routes where people have variously submitted new routes descriptions in UK, French, UIAA, YDS and Ewbank grades (not to mention Font and V boulders)! I can rationalise all of those into a single system quite easily except the UK graded trad stuff, which will have to stay as it is. No problem for me to understand but it seems an unreasonable burden to force on the Indonesian flight stewardess, Bulgarian IT guy, Palestinian civil engineer, South African paramedic, Canadian teacher, French lawyer, etc, etc who comprise the climbing community here ...
> (In reply to tobyfk) That's not what I said Toby. I just don't understand the rush to abandon a system which works perfectly well
To be honest I hardly ever climb in the UK these days so have no axe to grind. My point is merely that climbers overseas seem to find simpler grading systems perfectly adequate. I couldn't care less what ultimately happens to UK grading (though I'd guess the technical grade is more at risk of extinction than the E).
I do - however - somewhat care as a guidebook writer in a country with boulders, trad, long trad, DWS and sport routes where people have variously submitted new routes descriptions in UK, French, UIAA, YDS and Ewbank grades (not to mention Font and V boulders)! I can rationalise all of those into a single system quite easily except the UK graded trad stuff, which will have to stay as it is. No problem for me to understand but it seems an unreasonable burden to force on the Indonesian flight stewardess, Bulgarian IT guy, Palestinian civil engineer, South African paramedic, Canadian teacher, French lawyer, etc, etc who comprise the climbing community here ...
In reply to Monk:
Love the capitalisation of Island. Accidental pomposity I'm sure!
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
>
> Fair enough I guess. I mean that on this Island we climb predominantly trad routes
>
> Fair enough I guess. I mean that on this Island we climb predominantly trad routes
Love the capitalisation of Island. Accidental pomposity I'm sure!
In reply to tobyfk: Hehe. Yeah, I noticed that soon after I posted and was amused by the subconcious pomposity. I do have a bad habit of capitalising nouns. I think it's a hangover from German lessons
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Good examples. Using the 'Risk' grade does tend to make you think in very practical terms what the danger is. The E grade seems to fudge, romanticise or sentimentalise it - though that may just be me.
The difference in inches between hitting the ground and touching it on rope stretch is measurably small but the consequence aren't and that might be clearly quantified in a risk grade.
Good examples. Using the 'Risk' grade does tend to make you think in very practical terms what the danger is. The E grade seems to fudge, romanticise or sentimentalise it - though that may just be me.
The difference in inches between hitting the ground and touching it on rope stretch is measurably small but the consequence aren't and that might be clearly quantified in a risk grade.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
So just F6c no need for qualifier
Again just F6a+ no need for qualifier. Certainly wouldn't rate for an R or X if it were in North America.
Clearly F6c R
Sonnie Trotter has it at 5.14c R on the Patagucci website
Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
More X's ... though Indian face would seem more serious because of the much-debated blind moves and friableness. But presumably the X is sufficient to warn some hypothetical onsighter who knows nothing of the route - do they exist? - to take care/ ask for beta/ stay away?
> Very well protected - G?
> [e.g.The Foil f6c G - crack climb you can lace]
> [e.g.The Foil f6c G - crack climb you can lace]
So just F6c no need for qualifier
> Adequately protected - A?
> [e.g. Left Wall f6a+ A - safe but you climb above gear.]
> [e.g. Left Wall f6a+ A - safe but you climb above gear.]
Again just F6a+ no need for qualifier. Certainly wouldn't rate for an R or X if it were in North America.
> Runout - R?
> [e.g. Right Wall f6c/+ R - big fall potential, good gear]
> [e.g. Right Wall f6c/+ R - big fall potential, good gear]
Clearly F6c R
>
> Very Runout - R+?
> [e.g. Rhapsody f8c/+ R+ - very big fall, ok gear]
> Very Runout - R+?
> [e.g. Rhapsody f8c/+ R+ - very big fall, ok gear]
Sonnie Trotter has it at 5.14c R on the Patagucci website
> Marginal/low protection only - X?
> [e.g. Brown's Eliminate f5+ X, Mouse Trap f5+ X - crux marginally protected, rest of route completely unprotected.]
> [e.g. Brown's Eliminate f5+ X, Mouse Trap f5+ X - crux marginally protected, rest of route completely unprotected.]
Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
> No worthwhile protection - X+?
> [e.g. Hareless Heart f6b+ X+, Indian Face f7b+ X+ - unprotected.]
> [e.g. Hareless Heart f6b+ X+, Indian Face f7b+ X+ - unprotected.]
More X's ... though Indian face would seem more serious because of the much-debated blind moves and friableness. But presumably the X is sufficient to warn some hypothetical onsighter who knows nothing of the route - do they exist? - to take care/ ask for beta/ stay away?
In reply to tobyfk:
Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
Eh?? Here's where the whole quantifying of risk malarky falls down (sorry - no pun intended) - I'd say that Mousetrap is steady and decently protected apart from one very short section at the end of the traverse where you aren't likely to fall anyway. so under this scheme, I'd have given it G. What one person finds unacceptable another doesn't, what one person can protect well another cannot. So do you rate the risk for the competent or the incompetent?
The adjectival grade isn't broken, only people's egos.
ALC
> [e.g. Brown's Eliminate f5+ X, Mouse Trap f5+ X - crux marginally protected, rest of route completely unprotected.]
Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
Eh?? Here's where the whole quantifying of risk malarky falls down (sorry - no pun intended) - I'd say that Mousetrap is steady and decently protected apart from one very short section at the end of the traverse where you aren't likely to fall anyway. so under this scheme, I'd have given it G. What one person finds unacceptable another doesn't, what one person can protect well another cannot. So do you rate the risk for the competent or the incompetent?
The adjectival grade isn't broken, only people's egos.
ALC
In reply to Simon Lee:
But will equally depend on how lardy you are, how stretchy a rope you use, etc etc... it's just a whole new complication to the system rather than a clarification. People will just say "that's never X, I fell off and survived" etc.
> The difference in inches between hitting the ground and touching it on rope stretch is measurably small but the consequence aren't and that might be clearly quantified in a risk grade.
But will equally depend on how lardy you are, how stretchy a rope you use, etc etc... it's just a whole new complication to the system rather than a clarification. People will just say "that's never X, I fell off and survived" etc.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Haha. didn't read your post before I posted, but nicely proves my point. Thanks
Haha. didn't read your post before I posted, but nicely proves my point. Thanks
In reply to tobyfk: As I've said, it's an interesting discussion, but I do think E-grades should stay and it's the tech grade if anything that needs fixed.
However, in Simon's hypothetical situation I do think only having '3' grades - default, R & X isn't ideal.
Several points.
Identifying super safe routes has a number of option - it's left to the climber, the fact is mentioned in the description, a guidebook symbol is used (e.g. the in On Peak Rock) or an extra suffix is used. Compared to Yosemite we don't have many routes where you can have runners above you for the entire route so an extra suffix doesn't really clutter things, although as you say it isn't that important.
You're correct, the default suffix, whatever it is would normally be omitted.
There is a massive difference between the fall on Right Wall and the one on Rhapsody. I presume this is one of the main reasons why Simon feels 'R' isn't really descriptive enough.
Finally, thanks to the skewed popularity and profile of UK gritstone, compared to other countries we have many high profile classic routes with either gear at 1/2 height or gear at 1/3 height. Following on from Simon's point about the difference between missing the ground by inches or hitting it, there is a massive difference between saying, don't fall after the crux and don't even fall at the crux. There are 'X' routes and there are 'X' routes.
However, in Simon's hypothetical situation I do think only having '3' grades - default, R & X isn't ideal.
Several points.
Identifying super safe routes has a number of option - it's left to the climber, the fact is mentioned in the description, a guidebook symbol is used (e.g. the in On Peak Rock) or an extra suffix is used. Compared to Yosemite we don't have many routes where you can have runners above you for the entire route so an extra suffix doesn't really clutter things, although as you say it isn't that important.
You're correct, the default suffix, whatever it is would normally be omitted.
There is a massive difference between the fall on Right Wall and the one on Rhapsody. I presume this is one of the main reasons why Simon feels 'R' isn't really descriptive enough.
Finally, thanks to the skewed popularity and profile of UK gritstone, compared to other countries we have many high profile classic routes with either gear at 1/2 height or gear at 1/3 height. Following on from Simon's point about the difference between missing the ground by inches or hitting it, there is a massive difference between saying, don't fall after the crux and don't even fall at the crux. There are 'X' routes and there are 'X' routes.
In reply to Simon Lee:
They've got a similar system to what you propose in Mario Sertori's "Solo Granito" for rock climbing in Bregalia. Uses a number ranging from 1-5 that dictates risk - e.g. proximity of gear / length of fall. This is in addition to the French technical grade. Operates for both bolted and non-bolted routes.
Logically seems a pretty sensible idea, since some of the pitches can be smooth granite slab horrors. Yet on first encounter I didn't find it that useful.
They've got a similar system to what you propose in Mario Sertori's "Solo Granito" for rock climbing in Bregalia. Uses a number ranging from 1-5 that dictates risk - e.g. proximity of gear / length of fall. This is in addition to the French technical grade. Operates for both bolted and non-bolted routes.
Logically seems a pretty sensible idea, since some of the pitches can be smooth granite slab horrors. Yet on first encounter I didn't find it that useful.
In reply to a lakeland climber: If you genuinely think Mouse Trap is 'steady and decently protected' then it should be HVS, but it isn't, it's E2.
There are plenty of places on the upper half of the second pitch where a fall caused by a hold breaking will lead you to probably die. That isn't the case for 99% of UK routes. Even on the first pitch, the only really solid gear is high on the left before the traverse so a serious pendulum is very possible.
However, you have kindly illustrated the point I was trying to make. There is a vast variety of dangerous routes - ones like Mousetrap where the biggest danger is, as we both agree, actually past the crux and ones that are dangerous full stop.
There are plenty of places on the upper half of the second pitch where a fall caused by a hold breaking will lead you to probably die. That isn't the case for 99% of UK routes. Even on the first pitch, the only really solid gear is high on the left before the traverse so a serious pendulum is very possible.
However, you have kindly illustrated the point I was trying to make. There is a vast variety of dangerous routes - ones like Mousetrap where the biggest danger is, as we both agree, actually past the crux and ones that are dangerous full stop.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
I did it 19 years ago and remember very little of it. You may well be right. But,anyway, if risk is too subjective to quantify (I disagree, but whatever) that applies equally to E grades as anything else.
> (In reply to tobyfk)
>
> [...]
>
> Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
>
> Eh?? Here's where the whole quantifying of risk malarky falls down (sorry - no pun intended) - I'd say that Mousetrap is steady and decently protected apart from one very short section at the end of the traverse
>
> [...]
>
> Can only pronounce on Mousetrap. X seems OK.
>
> Eh?? Here's where the whole quantifying of risk malarky falls down (sorry - no pun intended) - I'd say that Mousetrap is steady and decently protected apart from one very short section at the end of the traverse
I did it 19 years ago and remember very little of it. You may well be right. But,anyway, if risk is too subjective to quantify (I disagree, but whatever) that applies equally to E grades as anything else.
In reply to Aly:
I don't think there's much of a rush to replace it below E6/7 - fortunately. works perfectly well below this, if not completely perfectly and isn't as soulless as the alternatives and, for me at least, that character is prt of the overall game.
> (In reply to tobyfk) That's not what I said Toby. I just don't understand the rush to abandon a system which works perfectly well, for a system which seems to have just as many (if not more) shortcomings as the one we're using. If it isn't broken... and all that.
I don't think there's much of a rush to replace it below E6/7 - fortunately. works perfectly well below this, if not completely perfectly and isn't as soulless as the alternatives and, for me at least, that character is prt of the overall game.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Well the first time I did Mousetrap it *was* HVS! I didn't think it was unfairly graded, I was probably leading E1 at the time, and can think of other HVSs in N Wales that are harder or at least as serious. Though I note in the crags database that both of the examples I was going to use have been upgraded to E1
Using specific examples of routes that the current system doesn't get right (or rather the grade can be ambiguous about) actually reinforces the point that for the vast majority of routes it does work. So why fix something that isn't really broken?
This is more about Simon banging his lonely drum on change for changes sake. Troll marks 5/10
ALC
Well the first time I did Mousetrap it *was* HVS! I didn't think it was unfairly graded, I was probably leading E1 at the time, and can think of other HVSs in N Wales that are harder or at least as serious. Though I note in the crags database that both of the examples I was going to use have been upgraded to E1
Using specific examples of routes that the current system doesn't get right (or rather the grade can be ambiguous about) actually reinforces the point that for the vast majority of routes it does work. So why fix something that isn't really broken?
This is more about Simon banging his lonely drum on change for changes sake. Troll marks 5/10
ALC
In reply to Simon Lee:
Its called the UK trad grading system.
> I am not sure this has been discussed yet on its own but assuming that a Risk grade accompanied by a French grade is adopted as an alternative way to grade trad routes then how many increments/grades of Risk should there be to be usable and useful.
Its called the UK trad grading system.
In reply to a lakeland climber: This is more about Simon banging his lonely drum on change for changes sake. Troll marks 5/10
I'm happy enough on my own in the wilderness pointing out the bleedin' obvious to the blinkered BUT remember if the E grades do get superceded in 10 years time - you read about it here first
I'm happy enough on my own in the wilderness pointing out the bleedin' obvious to the blinkered BUT remember if the E grades do get superceded in 10 years time - you read about it here first
In reply to Simon Lee:
You mean *adjectival* grades, E grades are a subset of those. Or are your blinkers that restrictive?
You still haven't addressed why replacing a system that works in the vast majority of cases is needed.
ALC
You mean *adjectival* grades, E grades are a subset of those. Or are your blinkers that restrictive?
You still haven't addressed why replacing a system that works in the vast majority of cases is needed.
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Yes that was unconsciously elitist - had a bit too much wine last night. however I think I can say safely that I would encounter a higher and nastier level of resitance/blinkeredness if we went sub E1.
A system is worth replacing if a better alternative is avaiable - that doesnt necessarily mean it will be replaced ie wider guage rails, VHS vs Betamax
I have to admit 'risk' has become a hobbyhorse (article to follow). I believe that one tool that could be used to guage it better would be to have a part of the grade that considers it more in isolation rather than the 'adjectival' grade which fudges it. There is still a necessary relationship between the Risk grade and the French grade which I mentioned in the opening post but is still far more distinct in its intentions than the all-embracing adjectival grade. As somebody pointed out this approach, whilst logical, might not prove that useful at the crag but until it is tried out you don't know.
Another gripe I have is that E is for Ego. A grade can be a bit meaniningless but it is a key thing that people aspire to (I know I do) and take extra risk just for the E grade. End of the Affair is a fantastic looking route but can ALL the people who have done it look deeply into their conscience and honestly say that ticking an E8 had nothing to do with it. If it was graded something blander but more accurate like Fr7a-b (depending on height)/ Risk grade 5 those that were grade-influenced might not have been similarly motivated leaving only those who were genuinely inspired by the line (rather than the romanticism of the grade) to take the risk of a nasty fall for arguably the right rather than wrong reasons.
(Does sound like the equivalent of social engineering expressed like that !)
Yes that was unconsciously elitist - had a bit too much wine last night. however I think I can say safely that I would encounter a higher and nastier level of resitance/blinkeredness if we went sub E1.
A system is worth replacing if a better alternative is avaiable - that doesnt necessarily mean it will be replaced ie wider guage rails, VHS vs Betamax
I have to admit 'risk' has become a hobbyhorse (article to follow). I believe that one tool that could be used to guage it better would be to have a part of the grade that considers it more in isolation rather than the 'adjectival' grade which fudges it. There is still a necessary relationship between the Risk grade and the French grade which I mentioned in the opening post but is still far more distinct in its intentions than the all-embracing adjectival grade. As somebody pointed out this approach, whilst logical, might not prove that useful at the crag but until it is tried out you don't know.
Another gripe I have is that E is for Ego. A grade can be a bit meaniningless but it is a key thing that people aspire to (I know I do) and take extra risk just for the E grade. End of the Affair is a fantastic looking route but can ALL the people who have done it look deeply into their conscience and honestly say that ticking an E8 had nothing to do with it. If it was graded something blander but more accurate like Fr7a-b (depending on height)/ Risk grade 5 those that were grade-influenced might not have been similarly motivated leaving only those who were genuinely inspired by the line (rather than the romanticism of the grade) to take the risk of a nasty fall for arguably the right rather than wrong reasons.
(Does sound like the equivalent of social engineering expressed like that !)
In reply to Simon Lee:
It will be interesting to see. I reckon UK techical grades will start to vanish from UK guidebooks within ten years but wouldn't bet similarly on adjectival/ E- grades. I think they are more entrenched in climbers' minds.
> I'm happy enough on my own in the wilderness pointing out the bleedin' obvious to the blinkered BUT remember if the E grades do get superceded in 10 years time - you read about it here first
It will be interesting to see. I reckon UK techical grades will start to vanish from UK guidebooks within ten years but wouldn't bet similarly on adjectival/ E- grades. I think they are more entrenched in climbers' minds.
In reply to tobyfk: It will be interesting to see. I reckon UK techical grades will start to vanish from UK guidebooks within ten years but wouldn't bet similarly on adjectival/ E- grades. I think they are more entrenched in climbers' minds.
Yes. To my mind they are dead already - tortured beyond usefullness as they are. Additionally as the high and rising general profiency of bouldering ability rises then failure at a crux on a trad route due to technicality/difficulty of a single move is going to proptionately decline and the usefulness of that part of the grade declines.
Yes. To my mind they are dead already - tortured beyond usefullness as they are. Additionally as the high and rising general profiency of bouldering ability rises then failure at a crux on a trad route due to technicality/difficulty of a single move is going to proptionately decline and the usefulness of that part of the grade declines.
In reply to Simon Lee:
I see what you are getting at but think it is is flawed. Risk is relative to the individual and isn't exact. For instance, due to having had several, non-climbing related, leg injuries I am very wary of technical moves close to the deck where if I decked I could do more damage. So a route with easy but bold climbing to a well protected crux has higher perceived risk for me than someone else. Conversely if a route has a long run out where I'm not likely to hurt my legs then it's not a problem even though I might fall five times further than in the first example. However I've a mate for whom any form of runout, even on sport routes, is highly unnerving.
As for perception of the words used for UK grades, well you'll have to exhume O.G. Jones and complain to him!
The grit routes that are really highball boulder problems such as End of the Affair are the main problem and would be better graded using bouldering grades along with a risk factor. Whether that risk grade is the P grade or some other 1-X system is neither here nor there but would have to be absolutely defined along the lines of the US aid rating system - the P, G, R, X system has its own perceptual baggage and is too vague to be of use.
At the end of the day, grading routes is like trying to plaid mist.
ALC
I see what you are getting at but think it is is flawed. Risk is relative to the individual and isn't exact. For instance, due to having had several, non-climbing related, leg injuries I am very wary of technical moves close to the deck where if I decked I could do more damage. So a route with easy but bold climbing to a well protected crux has higher perceived risk for me than someone else. Conversely if a route has a long run out where I'm not likely to hurt my legs then it's not a problem even though I might fall five times further than in the first example. However I've a mate for whom any form of runout, even on sport routes, is highly unnerving.
As for perception of the words used for UK grades, well you'll have to exhume O.G. Jones and complain to him!
The grit routes that are really highball boulder problems such as End of the Affair are the main problem and would be better graded using bouldering grades along with a risk factor. Whether that risk grade is the P grade or some other 1-X system is neither here nor there but would have to be absolutely defined along the lines of the US aid rating system - the P, G, R, X system has its own perceptual baggage and is too vague to be of use.
At the end of the day, grading routes is like trying to plaid mist.
ALC
In reply to Simon Lee:
>I believe that one tool that could be used to guage it better would be to have a part of the grade that considers it more in isolation rather than the 'adjectival' grade which fudges it.
But the 'fudge' of combining the risk with the difficulty of the climbing, reflects the actual experience of climbing the thing.
A dangerous route is only dangerous (objective hazards excluded!) if you fall off it - hence a grade which combines the difficulty of the climbing with the potential consequences if you fall off seems appropriate in giving you a sense of the overall difficulty. Take something like Sunset Slab as an example - it's UK adj. grade tells you most things you need to know: the route overall is HVS in difficulty, the hardest move on it being 4b. You know it's the sort of route which is appropriate for the well rounded HVS climber, particularly lending itself to the specialist on bold unprotected routes.
Whereas something like F5 X doesn't really give you that same info. What does it mean to be an F5 X leader? Presumably you need to be able to onsight every F5 without the possibility of fluffing anything. But what sort of F5 is it? does it have a stopper crux? Is it easy to read, and what is it like to onsight? Where is the dangerous fall? Is it from the crux or is it have an upper section which is easier but with a groundfall?
Yes, the adjectival grade is a fudge, but IMHO it's one which reflects the fairly complex experience of trad onsighting, which is a bit of a mish-mash of different skills anyway - being a well rounded (say) HVS climber is all about having a broad enough base of experience to cope with everything that HVS can throw at you - and I like that.
>I believe that one tool that could be used to guage it better would be to have a part of the grade that considers it more in isolation rather than the 'adjectival' grade which fudges it.
But the 'fudge' of combining the risk with the difficulty of the climbing, reflects the actual experience of climbing the thing.
A dangerous route is only dangerous (objective hazards excluded!) if you fall off it - hence a grade which combines the difficulty of the climbing with the potential consequences if you fall off seems appropriate in giving you a sense of the overall difficulty. Take something like Sunset Slab as an example - it's UK adj. grade tells you most things you need to know: the route overall is HVS in difficulty, the hardest move on it being 4b. You know it's the sort of route which is appropriate for the well rounded HVS climber, particularly lending itself to the specialist on bold unprotected routes.
Whereas something like F5 X doesn't really give you that same info. What does it mean to be an F5 X leader? Presumably you need to be able to onsight every F5 without the possibility of fluffing anything. But what sort of F5 is it? does it have a stopper crux? Is it easy to read, and what is it like to onsight? Where is the dangerous fall? Is it from the crux or is it have an upper section which is easier but with a groundfall?
Yes, the adjectival grade is a fudge, but IMHO it's one which reflects the fairly complex experience of trad onsighting, which is a bit of a mish-mash of different skills anyway - being a well rounded (say) HVS climber is all about having a broad enough base of experience to cope with everything that HVS can throw at you - and I like that.
In reply to a lakeland climber: Risk is relative to the individual and isn't exact
No more relative than difficulty. Moves can be 'morpho' usually favouring the tall. Moves can also favour the flexible, the dynamic, those who can lock-off. I can't climb slabs for toffee but I am happy that they are graded equivalently to steep routes for the 'average' climber. We all have to factor in our own strengths and weaknesses alongside the grade. If you are especially fearful the Risk grade is going to be more important than the French grade. If you are weedy with a deathwish then the opposite.
The grade should be as objective and informative as possible. You can overlay your individual subjective factors afterwards.
No more relative than difficulty. Moves can be 'morpho' usually favouring the tall. Moves can also favour the flexible, the dynamic, those who can lock-off. I can't climb slabs for toffee but I am happy that they are graded equivalently to steep routes for the 'average' climber. We all have to factor in our own strengths and weaknesses alongside the grade. If you are especially fearful the Risk grade is going to be more important than the French grade. If you are weedy with a deathwish then the opposite.
The grade should be as objective and informative as possible. You can overlay your individual subjective factors afterwards.
In reply to plexiglass_nick: But what sort of F5 is it? does it have a stopper crux?
If it had a stopper crux would it be a F5 ? It sometime since I did it and I dont like slabs but is it not more likely to be 4 or 4+. Also a stopper crux is something you recognise as you climb/solo (without a blidfold)and make a decision on whether to reverse easy ground (by definition) or continue. So is F4+/X as useful as HVS4b ? - Yes. You just aren't used to it.
BTW you can use grit routes to prove anything. Where else in the world would you have 20 foot 'routes' climbed,let alone recorded, that can have ridiculous grades like HVDiff 5b or whatever Verandha Buttress? is given
If it had a stopper crux would it be a F5 ? It sometime since I did it and I dont like slabs but is it not more likely to be 4 or 4+. Also a stopper crux is something you recognise as you climb/solo (without a blidfold)and make a decision on whether to reverse easy ground (by definition) or continue. So is F4+/X as useful as HVS4b ? - Yes. You just aren't used to it.
BTW you can use grit routes to prove anything. Where else in the world would you have 20 foot 'routes' climbed,let alone recorded, that can have ridiculous grades like HVDiff 5b or whatever Verandha Buttress? is given
In reply to Simon Lee:
OK, let's say that we begin to grade routes using your system. The FXx part covers how hard the climbing is and the G/R/X part covers the risk. Does the difficulty part include looking for and putting gear in? In which case it is already different from how it is used on sports routes. Or does the risk part include that, in which case it would have two uses - not ideal.
At the moment your proposal is just as much a "fudge" as the system you aim to replace, you are just using two different sides of the same triangle. Unless of course you intend going along the lines of the Drummond scheme.
The sports grade can be just as obtuse and can need route by route description, I've done routes at F6a+ that have UK 6a or V3 moves on them, on the same crag other F6a+s have been straightforward UK 5b. OK, you aren't going to do yourself any damage trying either but at higher grades it can make the difference between an onsight and a dogging/redpoint session.
ALC
OK, let's say that we begin to grade routes using your system. The FXx part covers how hard the climbing is and the G/R/X part covers the risk. Does the difficulty part include looking for and putting gear in? In which case it is already different from how it is used on sports routes. Or does the risk part include that, in which case it would have two uses - not ideal.
At the moment your proposal is just as much a "fudge" as the system you aim to replace, you are just using two different sides of the same triangle. Unless of course you intend going along the lines of the Drummond scheme.
The sports grade can be just as obtuse and can need route by route description, I've done routes at F6a+ that have UK 6a or V3 moves on them, on the same crag other F6a+s have been straightforward UK 5b. OK, you aren't going to do yourself any damage trying either but at higher grades it can make the difference between an onsight and a dogging/redpoint session.
ALC
In reply to Simon Lee:
Haven't read whole thread so excuse any repetition.
6 sounds good. P1-3 does cover it in terms of pure danger but doesn't include likelihood, an expanded system could do this although it does represent a slight fudge as that implicitly assigns a grade to the route, not just consequences. To clarify: if P5 meant you could die off the crux,but could perhaps back off before this but P6 meant that all the difficult climbing was potentially terminal and absolutely inescapable once you've got into it, that seems a worthwhile distinction in terms of risk but does imply something about the character of the route as well as just the consequences of a fall at the most exposed point.
That would be my preference.. and seems pretty much the old E grade's function before strenuous climbing started to be given high E grades.
Haven't read whole thread so excuse any repetition.
6 sounds good. P1-3 does cover it in terms of pure danger but doesn't include likelihood, an expanded system could do this although it does represent a slight fudge as that implicitly assigns a grade to the route, not just consequences. To clarify: if P5 meant you could die off the crux,but could perhaps back off before this but P6 meant that all the difficult climbing was potentially terminal and absolutely inescapable once you've got into it, that seems a worthwhile distinction in terms of risk but does imply something about the character of the route as well as just the consequences of a fall at the most exposed point.
That would be my preference.. and seems pretty much the old E grade's function before strenuous climbing started to be given high E grades.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Its more misleading that that. Sunset Slab is nowhere near F5 - its F4 climbing at the outside. F3 X is even less useful.
Its more misleading that that. Sunset Slab is nowhere near F5 - its F4 climbing at the outside. F3 X is even less useful.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
Yes. The gear factor is included in the risk grade. If only poor placements are available or the rock the gear is placed in is generally friable (like Blackchurch) then that increases the risk and will be taken into account in arriving at the overall risk grade.
I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
Yes. The gear factor is included in the risk grade. If only poor placements are available or the rock the gear is placed in is generally friable (like Blackchurch) then that increases the risk and will be taken into account in arriving at the overall risk grade.
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
>
> yet been onsighted (although I am sure there are several E6s that haven't been done onsight such as Strawberries - or has it...).
Stefan Glowacz >
> yet been onsighted (although I am sure there are several E6s that haven't been done onsight such as Strawberries - or has it...).
In reply to Simon Lee:
It was weird (with a capital we) - four digits, each could be 1, 2 or 3, where 1 was good, 3 was bad, to indicate strenuousness, looseness, exposure, boldness. So you'd get a grade like 5b 2312. ???????? WTF??
ALC
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
>
> I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
It was weird (with a capital we) - four digits, each could be 1, 2 or 3, where 1 was good, 3 was bad, to indicate strenuousness, looseness, exposure, boldness. So you'd get a grade like 5b 2312. ???????? WTF??
ALC
In reply to mrjonathanr: That would be my preference.. and seems pretty much the old E grade's function before strenuous climbing started to be given high E grades
Is that what happened ? Extremely Severe rather than Extremely Strenuous at a time when climbers were not as fit to hang around and place gear !
If so then yes then all I am suggesting is a reversion to the original intended use. If E grades were close ended and reconsidered solely in terms of Risk the net effect would be the same - although the confusion that would cause would be huge and potentially dangerous
Is that what happened ? Extremely Severe rather than Extremely Strenuous at a time when climbers were not as fit to hang around and place gear !
If so then yes then all I am suggesting is a reversion to the original intended use. If E grades were close ended and reconsidered solely in terms of Risk the net effect would be the same - although the confusion that would cause would be huge and potentially dangerous
In reply to Simon Lee: there has already been a guidebook published with a grading system like you are advocating. It was called 'Extremely Severe in the Avon Gorge' by Ed Ward-Drummond. It was only used the once and abandoned as being stupidly unwieldy.
In reply to Simon Lee:
It was weird (with a capital we) - four digits, each could be 1, 2 or 3, where 1 was good, 3 was bad, to indicate strenuousness, looseness, exposure, boldness. So you'd get a grade like 5b 2312. ???????? WTF??
Er, E grades were never meant to be closed and just for seriousness, remember that they are an open ended extension to the overall adjectival grade. There were one or two people, especially in the Lakes, who did grade their routes just according to the seriousness so you had routes on Scafell being done and getting E3 that are more like E5 - they've certainly got F7a/7a+ climbing on them!
ALC
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
>
> I can't remeber the Drummond scheme - was to grade free-climbing with skyhooks?
It was weird (with a capital we) - four digits, each could be 1, 2 or 3, where 1 was good, 3 was bad, to indicate strenuousness, looseness, exposure, boldness. So you'd get a grade like 5b 2312. ???????? WTF??
Er, E grades were never meant to be closed and just for seriousness, remember that they are an open ended extension to the overall adjectival grade. There were one or two people, especially in the Lakes, who did grade their routes just according to the seriousness so you had routes on Scafell being done and getting E3 that are more like E5 - they've certainly got F7a/7a+ climbing on them!
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Sounds like a good attempt at something that didnt happen to catch on.
Sounds like a good attempt at something that didnt happen to catch on.
In reply to Simon Lee:
You mean like Whillans on Forked Lightning Crack, or Goliath (which he graded HVS, (now E4 5c).
> Is that what happened ? Extremely Severe rather than Extremely Strenuous at a time when climbers were not as fit to hang around and place gear !
You mean like Whillans on Forked Lightning Crack, or Goliath (which he graded HVS, (now E4 5c).
In reply to Al Evans:> You mean like Whillans on Forked Lightning Crack, or Goliath (which he graded HVS, (now E4 5c).
Both unusually toproped which will have influenced how they felt on lead ie a lot easier. Also as we know crack skills have declined whereas other abilities have risen since then.
(maybe Goliath wasnt but it arguably a highball with a flat landing which would have made it less serious by the standards of the time)
Both unusually toproped which will have influenced how they felt on lead ie a lot easier. Also as we know crack skills have declined whereas other abilities have risen since then.
(maybe Goliath wasnt but it arguably a highball with a flat landing which would have made it less serious by the standards of the time)
In reply to Simon Lee:
I concede SS probably much easier than F5, possibly F4 or F3 as GrahamD suggests. F3/X?!
French grades are pretty much an average assessment of difficulty - they give you no idea how hard the crux is. I could name a fair few F3 - F5 routes which have a 'trick' crux (usually to overcome a blank section in an otherwise really easy route) where I think a technical grade for the hardest move is only sporting if you expect people to be onsighting in a potential death situation.
Yes, grit is particularly tricky to grade, but grit (like it or not) is a disproportionately important part of 'British Climbing' so any grading system for the UK really should be able to cope with grading grit.
I concede SS probably much easier than F5, possibly F4 or F3 as GrahamD suggests. F3/X?!
French grades are pretty much an average assessment of difficulty - they give you no idea how hard the crux is. I could name a fair few F3 - F5 routes which have a 'trick' crux (usually to overcome a blank section in an otherwise really easy route) where I think a technical grade for the hardest move is only sporting if you expect people to be onsighting in a potential death situation.
Yes, grit is particularly tricky to grade, but grit (like it or not) is a disproportionately important part of 'British Climbing' so any grading system for the UK really should be able to cope with grading grit.
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
Can you just explain why F3/X is worse than HVS4b in this instance. To my mind both tell you what you need to know - that the physical/technical difficulty is disproptionate to the danger. If you were a fearless F3 climber you might attempt it on the basis of that grade and if you are a cautious F5 climber you might attempt it knowing its well within your ability.
Can you just explain why F3/X is worse than HVS4b in this instance. To my mind both tell you what you need to know - that the physical/technical difficulty is disproptionate to the danger. If you were a fearless F3 climber you might attempt it on the basis of that grade and if you are a cautious F5 climber you might attempt it knowing its well within your ability.
In reply to Simon Lee:
if you replace the current system with an overall difficulty grade plus risk indicators all you do is gain one piece of information for the loss of another (tech grade) Overall grades have a weakness in describing cruxy,'unbalanced' and/or dissimilar routes - but work so well on homogeneous sport routes. British trad routes are generally heterogeneous and most aptly described by the nuances grading systems plus the guidebook description..and your eyes.
If you want to calibrate the trad grade further use P grades.
if you replace the current system with an overall difficulty grade plus risk indicators all you do is gain one piece of information for the loss of another (tech grade) Overall grades have a weakness in describing cruxy,'unbalanced' and/or dissimilar routes - but work so well on homogeneous sport routes. British trad routes are generally heterogeneous and most aptly described by the nuances grading systems plus the guidebook description..and your eyes.
If you want to calibrate the trad grade further use P grades.
In reply to Bulls Crack: work so well on homogeneous sport routes
Rubbish. Take Raven Tor 30meter pumpfests at one end and 8meter extended boulder problems at the other.
(Hetero for trad, homo for sport - what are you implying ??)
Rubbish. Take Raven Tor 30meter pumpfests at one end and 8meter extended boulder problems at the other.
(Hetero for trad, homo for sport - what are you implying ??)
In reply to Simon Lee:
Can you explain why F3/X is better? You're the one trying to change things after all.
HVS 4b is better imo as it compares the overall difficulty to other routes - an HVS should be doable by all people who can climb HVS.
Can you explain why F3/X is better? You're the one trying to change things after all.
HVS 4b is better imo as it compares the overall difficulty to other routes - an HVS should be doable by all people who can climb HVS.
In reply to Simon Lee:
F3 / X is a bad grade because it doesn't tell you how hard it will feel to climb - all things considered. HVS tells you that.
F3 / X is a bad grade because it doesn't tell you how hard it will feel to climb - all things considered. HVS tells you that.
In reply to Simon Lee:
See what you think of this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=320012&new=4721336#x4721336
See what you think of this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=320012&new=4721336#x4721336
In reply to Simon Lee:
Well quite! It works for self-similar pumpfests or self-similar boulder problems; just not very ell in comparison between those or if you have a cruxy sport route..in my experience anyway.
Must have been subconscious!
> (In reply to Bulls Crack) work so well on homogeneous sport routes
>
> Rubbish. Take Raven Tor 30meter pumpfests at one end and 8meter extended boulder problems at the other.
>
> Rubbish. Take Raven Tor 30meter pumpfests at one end and 8meter extended boulder problems at the other.
Well quite! It works for self-similar pumpfests or self-similar boulder problems; just not very ell in comparison between those or if you have a cruxy sport route..in my experience anyway.
>
> (Hetero for trad, homo for sport - what are you implying ??)
> (Hetero for trad, homo for sport - what are you implying ??)
Must have been subconscious!
In reply to Simon Lee:
So why do we need to change it?
> (In reply to plexiglass_nick)
>
> Can you just explain why F3/X is worse than HVS4b in this instance. To my mind both tell you what you need to know - that the physical/technical difficulty is disproptionate to the danger.
>
> Can you just explain why F3/X is worse than HVS4b in this instance. To my mind both tell you what you need to know - that the physical/technical difficulty is disproptionate to the danger.
So why do we need to change it?
In reply to Al Evans:
Admittedly in that specific instance it adds nothing new but for a range of routes say at E4/5 starting with Hairless at Fr6b+ to Mooncrack at Fr7a+ it does.
Admittedly in that specific instance it adds nothing new but for a range of routes say at E4/5 starting with Hairless at Fr6b+ to Mooncrack at Fr7a+ it does.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Hmm, perhaps this heading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7608867.stm would be better as "X waves worry Australia"
ALC
Hmm, perhaps this heading: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7608867.stm would be better as "X waves worry Australia"
ALC
In reply to Simon Lee:
Yep - as others have replied. F3 could potentially be sustained UK 3c moves the whole way up, or it could be a ramble with a single stopper crux of 4c(?) at a push. Or F6a/X which could be anywhere between lots and lots of UK 4c, or potentially a single move of 5b.
It's the difference between knowing you can solo any number of steady 4c moves, and knowing that you can solve a tricky, technical, potentially hard-to-read 5b in a death situation. Also the X presumably doesn't tell you where the runout is. Is it death from the crux? Or is the crux protected but there is easier but unprotected climbing above?
Yep - as others have replied. F3 could potentially be sustained UK 3c moves the whole way up, or it could be a ramble with a single stopper crux of 4c(?) at a push. Or F6a/X which could be anywhere between lots and lots of UK 4c, or potentially a single move of 5b.
It's the difference between knowing you can solo any number of steady 4c moves, and knowing that you can solve a tricky, technical, potentially hard-to-read 5b in a death situation. Also the X presumably doesn't tell you where the runout is. Is it death from the crux? Or is the crux protected but there is easier but unprotected climbing above?
In reply to plexiglass_nick:
A quick glance at the highballs being done at places like the Buttermilks (This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and The Damned, etc) suggests an obvious approach to grading most grit. Thus:
Sunset Slab VB X
Browns Eliminate V0 X
Great Slab V1 X
etc
> Yes, grit is particularly tricky to grade, but grit (like it or not) is a disproportionately important part of 'British Climbing' so any grading system for the UK really should be able to cope with grading grit.
A quick glance at the highballs being done at places like the Buttermilks (This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and The Damned, etc) suggests an obvious approach to grading most grit. Thus:
Sunset Slab VB X
Browns Eliminate V0 X
Great Slab V1 X
etc
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...