UKC

The E - grade confusion continues.

At 8a.nu Jens Larssen thinks that "The E-grading system is just a joke in the upper scale", and at his blog James Pearson stresses that the E-grade system is open ended and that there needs to be, " some fundamental refines, starting with the insanity that is the ever widening English tech grade!"

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=11&year=2008#n45448

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

UKC just gets worse and worse

In reply to Pepe the King Prawn:

Agreed.

In reply to snoop6060:

I really like the fact that ukc news pulls out the latest discussions even on route gradings. I clicked through to james' blog which was very well articulated. It is great that these hard grit routes are being climbed by others and therefore the grades being more widely discussed, and i think it's a move forward that i can read about it in a ukc news article instead of having to plough through forums and blogs.

Unless you're saying this highend grade stuff is not relevant? I find it interesting actually, i like to read more about our top end climbers and what they are doing and thinking.

In reply to DrGav:

Its irrelevant to me, but maybe not others, so fair enough. However, why just regurgitate peoples' blogs over and over again?

If you like the blogs, them subscribe to the feed and read it.

In reply to snoop6060:

If you like to know what's going on in the world why don't you read the primary sources instead of the newspapers? It's the same here. Mick is being a journalist and reading the primary sources so that when an item of interest or importance comes up he can digest it and share it with a wider audience. I certainly don't have time to scan loads of blogs and I appreciate this article and the fact it brought an interesting blog post to my attention.

In reply to Monk:
me too. if you don't care then just don't read the news article - i throw away the 'appointments' section of the sunday papers, for example.

interesting how this debate keeps coming up and how things never change, which must be some form of appreciation of the system.

i read that thing on 8a and that jens fella seemed to miss the point of the E grading system in that he wants only one thing - physical difficulty. he also starts his argument with the answer he wants to hear people supporting and therefore supporting him.

it seems to me that the people doing these routes understand the system perfectly well, a fact i think supported by the very few serious injuries endured on these routes.

that E8 or for that matter any E number can cover a wide range of difficulty is not a problem - if the tec grade is low its either dangerous or sustained or both, if the the grade is high its probably just one or two hard moves that can be protected or there are decent rests. where doubt comes in it is more a matter of approach than difficulty.

the american boys seemed to be happily in agreement about the suggested physical and technical difficulty of the routes where differences arose it was in the perceived danger of the routes and that as partly due to the way they were climbed. pearson did his ascent believing that a fall from the crux would very probably lead to hospital, the americans use of a pad made a fall from the crux a situation best avoided but more painful that seriously damaging.

there is a lot of logic in the E system that most of us understand

e1 F6a ish
e2 F6b ish
e3 F6c ish
e4 F7a ish
e5 F7b ish
e6 F7c ish

then add an e-grade (or subtract a french grade) if its on gear you have to place (extra stamina required)(although this depends if the gear is very obvious and easily placed) and another if its dangerous and another if its likely to kill you if you really mess up.

the problem is the logic hasn´t always been carried through as everyone has been tlking french grades cos of the higher international profile of sport climbing.so when F9a came along we had E10 but we wanted to be a bit pompus and say ´yeah but its not real E10 cos its on bolts` and everyone agrees to call it F9a, but really it was E10 because everyone had accepted that E9 was F8c ish and then when F9b is confirmed we will have another E11 or when someone climbs F9a on a safe line or F8c in a really necky position, or like Dave Macleod F8c+ in scary place where a painful fall can be expected and then the next step up would be E12, F8c+/9a in a position you are probably best not to be thinking about.

so really it does make sense in french or english or any other language across all the range of difficulties both mental and physical its just not as cool as talking french, so i am told

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I think the really interesting thing is that Kevin reckoned:

"If I had to order the routes I have done so far in respect to difficulty, this is what it would look like:
• New Statesman, E9 5.13c/d R
• The Promise, E8 5.13c/d R
• Parthian Shot, E8 5.13b/c R "

So if End of the Affair being E8 leads one of the American team to believe that by that benchmark The Promise is E10, does that mean that they now believe New Statesman is E10 or E11? Has anyone asked them?

AJM

"I asked Alex to assume, from a historical perspective, that End Of The Affair is E8 (the grade it has been for the last 22 years) and then asked him what grade The Promise would be in relation to this? His answer was without hesitation – E10."

Surely weve come to the bottom of all this then? Weve got an American who feels he can change whatever grade he wants and adjust the scale on all other climbs. End of the Affair IS E8 so that makes the promise E10, despite what Alex thinks.

Btw, i have nothing against Alex, i just saw "The Sharp End" and cant wait to see more of his climbs, brilliant stuff and major respect.

In reply to Silum: btw, im not sure the promise IS actually E10, obviously i havnt been on it, im just making a point. I see history making an E9 out of the promise but we'll see.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I think you can give Alex more credit after James' excellent discussion; it strikes me that he made an assumption that the hardest British route was roughly equivalent to the hardest American, that E10 therefore represented this current high point, and graded everything accordingly. Unfortunately it turns out he was mistaken and he passed off some of Britains hardest climbs with relative ease (although, note that none of the four E11/E12 routes are on the list). Probably what we learn from this is that British climbers aren't, after all, the best in the world, but merely amoung the best.

Can I just add that in contrast to many of the posts on various web pages, those at the centre of the storm have conducted themselves with perfect grace, understanding and even humour; I'd like to thank them for it.

In reply to Ben1983:

Hardest trad climbs, that is. Remember that we switch grade systems when we go onto the harder sport routes - the 'merkins don't.

In reply to GrahamD:

This is, as Pearson says, all down to the squashing of the E grade, and more importantly the tech grade - which has totally bollocksed everything above E6/7, and British 6b tech... It's been closed down since the mid 80's. I blame the Sheffield Mafia!

In reply to mr.sheen: 7b can be E8 though can't it?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The 'ever-widening tech grade'?

Thought the problem was that it didn't widen sufficiently.

I'll await his next post.

In reply to Bulls Crack: I think it means the one tech grade widdens to cover many levels of difficulty.

In reply to mr.sheen: Returning to Mr Larssen, the basic thing he doesn't get is that French grades are 1-dimensional (6a, 6a+ etc) whereas UK adjective/tech grades are 2-dimensional...
VS 4b 4c 5a
HVS 4c 5a 5b
E1 5a 5b 5c etc.

This means that regardless of what the various grades describe, it doesn't matter what you do, you're never going to be able to properly map French onto UK. The best you could do is map various French "grade lines" onto the UK "grade area".

It might be possible to map the US 5.nn R/X type system onto UK because with the addition of the R/X suffix it has become 2-dimensional. However the 2 dimensions are different to the UK ones so it would be a bit difficult.

This is apart from all the problems that have happened by compressing too much into the higher UK grades - both adjectival & tech.

Connected to this is "grade width". To my mind if the majority of climbers (say maybe 80%) can agree that route B is harder than route A (for adjective and/or tech), then route B should be a higher grade than route A. This hasn't happened with UK grades which are generally too wide. This has allowed/necessitated graded lists to appear - although they're a lot of fun for discussion in the pub.

Also, it's a shame that the UK grades didn't keep one tech grade step for each extra E grade (mid-point: E2 5c. E3 6a, E4 6b, E5 6c, etc). This would have made it more usable.

Unfortunately, I think it's now too late to fix the UK grade problems. Luckily, this only happens above my level so it doesn't directly affect me

End of essay.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The E grade system is easy but it seems that the original standard for it has been out of print for a while. Here is a copy.

The E grade system only applies to an on-sight attempt. On-sight does not mean, as its name implies, climbing with no prior knowledge. On-sight means not having weighted any gear or used a top rope on the climb. Gathering information from gossip, binoculars or a quick reconnaissance from a neighbouring climb is good practice in a 'keep your nipples out of the mangle' sense. The E grade welcomes cunning.
An E grade means that you have to carry all of the equipment you are going to use up the route with you. This should include a wide variety of large and redundant Cogs, just in case. Small wires are acceptable as long as at least 2 of them have a strange kink that prevents placement. Protecting the bottom 8 inches of a route with one or more mats is fine so long as you climb past the crux while carrying the mat or mats first and then climb back down to place them.
A climbers E grade is that which he or she can climb on-sight 50% of the time. Similarly a routes E grade is that which 50% of climbers who display that grade can climb on-sight. The E grade is subjective and is administered by the respect of ones peers. All other discussion is spurious.