UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

My Simon, what big arms you have! Good effort.

Mick

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Just imagine, a whole article as a troll!!!

In reply to Al Evans:

Is that how it looks from under your particular bridge ?

In reply to Simon Lee:

So you really expect us to believe you have the kind of understanding of the E-GRADE we'd expect from a japanese boulderer?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Fraid so! Foll-de-roll.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Hmmmm interesting.
Were they correct when I heard someone on here say that Font grades encorporate danger whereas V grades don't?

In reply to Adam L:


So from that I take it you believe I either misunderstand the E grade or am pretending to misunderstand the E grade. Both being ad hominem by implication.

How about something substantive from you for once like where you believe our understandings differ and why.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You've convinced me!

I say for UK trad we take an equivalent french grade and swap the letter "F" for an "E" and add on the G:PG:R:X bit from YDS as required.

Thus "Three Peeble Slab" becomes E5 R/X.

I ask you, who wouldn't be happy with such a system?

In reply to Al Evans:

Al, drive-by posts dissing an article is the lazy work of trolls.

If you disagree, engage the brain, and explain why you disagree.

In reply to JLS:

And "Rhapsody" E8c/+ R

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Mick, it has been done to death, I would just be re-hashing old ground. The E and tech grade system has not been bettered for UK trad. Other systems work elsewhere but nobody has yet designed another system that works as well for UK trad and is not unweildy, there is no need for me to defend it just as there is no need for someone to attack it without suggesting a compact logical system that is better. Simon doesn't.

In reply to Simon Lee:

"I would personally like to see the Adjectival/E grade consigned to the dustbin of history"

is the above statement because of this...

"Currently in sport climbing mode"

In reply to Al Evans:

See also:

Dec 1: Grades, Grades, Grades - UKC Policy
by Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Al Evans: why do so many people (well-informed and experienced climbers) agree with Simon and use sport grades when describing trad routes then? it is pure fact that a sport grade can tell you / me more about a trad route than the adjectival system (especially above certain E grades).

everyone, whether they are for or against the use of sport grades (either as a replacement or useful addition), seems to agree that the UK tech grade at 6b (maybe even 6a) and above is inept. something needs to be done...

by the way Simon, another very good article - thanks.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

There is no problem with the E grade, stop trying to create one.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Does that mean all future E-grade threads will be closed or moved to The Pub?

In reply to ksjs:

Above somewhere in the E5/6 region adding the sports grade is of use. There is little point in providing it below that level as those routes generally aren't sustained enough for the sports grade to be of use so the UK tech grade (a bouldering grade BTW) makes more sense.

The fly in the ointment regarding UK grading system isn't the system itself but Gritstone: elsewhere most grit routes would just get bouldering grades. "Routes" like The Promise should be graded using V-grades along with something like the Yorkshire P-grade (which stands for "prang" and is a grading of the landing not of the route).

The UK adjectival grade tells me how a route will feel to lead. Below E5 the tech grade tells me the level of difficulty I'm likely to find over the crux section, above E5 the sports grade gives me a bit more info on how physically difficult the whole pitch is. All three are useful: I'd know what the crux is like; how it relates to the pitch as a whole and how both relate to the actual difficulty of leading it.

Simon's suggestion of dropping the adjectival grade in favour of sports grade plus risk rating has two flaws:

1. Replaces one pair of variables with another pair without providing any extra information (and losing a whole load in the process).
2. assumes that risk is a quantifiable variable and is reasonably similar for all climbers when in fact risk and perception of that risk (and consequences) is one of the most variable of human characteristics, changing almost on a route by route basis.

ALC

In reply to ksjs: the sport grade is for additional info for a better all round picture it can't be used to replace the E grade sport grades are not good for grading easy routes with hard bouldery cruxes the E grade works better in this situation more versatile did any one say, maybe the ineptitude comes from the understanding of the brit technical grade, how many climbers operating at the top end of the trad spectum are complaining about it?

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Re the two flaws can I put a couple of questions to you.

If the additional variables add no extra info then why is there a clamour for them ?

How can you square your contention that risk is too variable to be quantified whilst at the same time defending the adjectival grade where the risk multiplier plays a huge role ?

In reply to the flash:

top end of onsighting or top end of headpointing?

if you mean headpointing they shouldn't be given a chance to voice their oppinion.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Opinions are divided Franco. Some think there is a problem, others think there isn't. They seem to serve us well in the lower grades. At the higher levels there is much confusion.

Several 'fixes' have been suggested.

At UKC the fix being implemented is one that climbers and some guidebooks have been using for a while.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to the flash:

lots

In reply to Franco Cookson: and how do these routes magically appear that will be onsighted in the future

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Article claims to be about grades but only discusses rock climbing - what about winter or Alpine grades ? (or even aid) - either discuss them as well or change the title !

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I see no problem or confusion up to E7/8- where our grading system actually goes up to. I think people need to remember the system is for onsighting and it doesn't work very well for E12s for a reason- they're not onsighted.

In reply to the flash: by onsight FAs?

In reply to Simon Lee:
"the route itself has an inherent grade independent of the climber"
I'm not sure I agree with that - what about routes that are easy for those as lanky as me but desperate for a midget? Or maybe I misunderstood..

RE: whoever said french grades don't work for bouldery routes - they still get used fine at the tor, frankenjura etc.. I think the problem is more grit, where no-one's got similar style bolted routes to compare the difficulty to.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Well, there is one big problem.

Are grades for the onsight? Some can't agree on that.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

people who headpoint should be happy they're aloud to live, nevermind have an opinion on grading.

In reply to Doug:- what about winter or Alpine grades ? (or even aid) - either discuss them as well or change the title !


But why stop there - I'm sure there are grading issues to be addressed for ski runs and scrambles !

In reply to abarro81:
Maybe we should go bolt some grit then.....

In reply to Franco Cookson: look to the future why are you so keen to separate the two styles they are symbiotic....

In reply to Franco Cookson:

That made me laugh.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: they are when you start at V.diff and work yer way up

In reply to abarro81:- what about routes that are easy for those as lanky as me but desperate for a midget? Or maybe I misunderstood..


No you just didn't read carefully enough

Variation in ability to climb a grade is down to different individual talents such as strength, desire, stamina, morphology and technique. A specific above average talent would be advantageous on certain routes and irrelevant on others

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

then to solve that problem maybe the E should be replaced by H for headpointing above say E8? the cure to the "problem" rather going way deeper than needs be in the grade debate?

In reply to Simon Lee:

I didn't say there was no clamour for them, only that your proposal is flawed. You are proposing replacing A & B with C & D not augmenting the first pair. Like I said, add the sports grade for routes of E5/6 and above and leave everything else below this alone - it works, even if you think it doesn't!

It is only you that is stating that there is a "risk multiplier" in the adjectival grade. It is a part of it, yes, but it's not some mathematical formula to be applied.

The UK adjectival grade is grading a level of competence, so given a grade of VS or E3 or ... , a climber operating at that grade can approach a given route with a reasonable level of certainty as to what to expect. Replacing with a grade along the lines of F6a R gives little information about the experience. What is 'R' for one climber may be 'X' for another and 'G' for yet another for that route only. The system is too vague (and that's after you consider that grading climbs is like plaiding mist).

Let's look at a specific example, Resurrection on the Cromlech. Currently given E4 6a. I'd extend this to E4 F6c+ 6a which tells me that I can expect a UK 6a crux (OK 6b if you take the RH finish), the whole pitch is F6c+ so not likely to be too sustained if the hardest move is 6a, and that overall it is worth E4. E4 should be around F7a so given that we are a grade different and it isn't sustained then it is going to be runout in places. Compare with F6c+ R: Is it sustained or cruxy? Is it runout all the way or just at the crux? Much more limited.

Hope this helps in your continuing education.

ALC

In reply to the inspiral carpet: perhaps we should have an H grade for any route that hasnt been onsighted?

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Or to put the matter a little more kindly, they don't really need grades anyway, do they? Once you've top-roped a route you have all the information you need anyway.

jcm

In reply to the inspiral carpet: E should be replaced by H for headpointing above say E8? the cure to the "problem" rather going way deeper than needs be in the grade debate?


To a casual onlooker observing a headpoint and an onsight ascent of the same route there is no observable diffrence. They climb the same line using their hands and feet on the same holds and using the same gear for protection. To grade the route using a diffrent system is Byzantine.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I always wonder what Ed Drummond thinks about this kind of debate.....

jcm

In reply to Simon Lee:

Nice job Simon. Response as predicted ...

In reply to a lakeland climber:


This is an important point because it seems to me that gritstone routes are being used increasingly as the benchmark for particular grades.

In reply to Simon Lee:


The problem with the alternative danger grades like R/X is that they don't have enough detail. Surely a E6 with a 5c move you could die from could reasonably get an X and so could an E4 with a 6a move you could die on but they might have the same french grade for example. There must be examples like this using the American system, e.g. two R routes, same overall grade, one of which is much more R than the other! I think the best option is pretty much already being used - keep the E grade and add a V and/or a french grade.

I totally agree with what a lakeland climber said about how a route *feels* overall to lead, that's what the E grade gives you and is a very useful thing for a trad route.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

IMHO E8 would be a good threshold for the 'E' to change to the 'H' then as climbing progresses there's nothing to stop the 'E' going to 9 and the 'H' starting at 10, granted that may be some years in the future but i think such a system could work.

In reply to GrahamD: only for those operating in grit country!!!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:



If that just applies to the top end I couldn't care less but the adjectival system still works better than any other system for the vast majority of trad routes and thus trad climbers.

In reply to Simon Lee:

you've just undermined your whole article with this one paragraph simon!

In reply to the inspiral carpet: why are you trying to complicate matters th e E system already does this and when somebody onsights a noteable route its big news

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

At least 90% of climbers climb at the "lower" grades where the system works.


With reference to the above there is no need to fix anything. Those pushing the limits should expect that it may be harder to fit their efforts to the E grade system. Especially since their grading is pure conjecture - I understand that E is meant to represent the onsight grade whereas the hardest trad routes are all worked headpoints.

With that in mind please leave the E grade that 90% of climbers understand and use without problem well alone. If you must meddle then perhaps we should give all routes that have never been onsighted some other grade - (Headpoint) H11 8c or somesuch.

It's only because sponsors demand grades which fit the E (onsight) system for headlines that we're in this manufactured predicament. Well let's opt out, since when should the need for PR and athlete's self-publicising take precedent over the climbing world in general.

Current headpointing is valid and exciting, but is a departure from the trad ethics the E grade was designed for and is irrelevant to most climbers. Mark these top end routes up as headpoints (no disrespect inferred these are great achievements) and await the first onsight before E grading them. Sponsors and self publicists can just lump it, grading systems are not there to suit them they're to suit everyone. Eventually they might prefer the separate systems there would be twice the publicity when a climber rebadged a route to an E grade with a successful onsight attempt.

As it is we have different headpointers arguing over what the theoretical onsight grade would be and of course opinions will differ. No one has the authority of an actual onsight ascent to back their opinion up. That is the major problem at the higher grades.


IMO UKC is rather to informed by the wishes of it's paying customers and its founders other commercial interests in this case.

In reply to the flash:

The problem is that Grit routes tend to get disproportionately large amounts of press so when someone like Dave McCleod or Dave Birkett comes along and gives a big grade to a new route it gets pulled down in many people's eyes because they are comparing them to what are essentially highball boulder problems.

ALC

In reply to Simon Lee: Adding a french grade or V grade into the mix as well as the UK E and tech grade is probably the best way forward as it gives more info, even if it is slightly less wieldy. I don't see that going with just the french grade and risk factor gives any more information than the current system, except maybe being more precise in the upper grades. To me this suggests the debate could be sorted out just as well by fixing the English tech grade which many people say is too broad at 6b and above (I'm not quite there yet to give a qualified opinion).

Of course the other thing that you mention in the article is that the current system rewards bold routes with a higher number than they would get with an R or X, have you thought through the implications of this? Deserted gritstone edges, bolted peak limestone mobbed and queues and in-situ doggers on the Oak as hordes of number obsessed youths discover being bold doesn't cut it and they need to get strong to get their names in the mags/on the web, you might never find your project free again...!

In reply to a lakeland climber:

>It is only you that is stating that there is a "risk multiplier" in the adjectival grade. It is a part of it, yes,

So it's not just me its you as well then !

Re your comments about the US risk grade being limited I agree and think it should be expanded to 6 grades which we have discussed before haven't we http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319830&v=1#x4720595

In reply to Franco Cookson: if the system is so good why do 6a and above represent such a broad range?

In reply to the flash:

ok so it's big news, but the E system as we all know is primarily for an onsight, routes above E8 are very rarely onsighted and the most common form of ascent is a headpoint so why not give them a headpoint grade, it gives that little bit extra information i.e. it's unlikely to be onsighted. it's far less complicated than all the other proposed systems and still retains all the information of the E grade.

In reply to the inspiral carpet: you've just undermined your whole article with this one paragraph simon!

I think you have misread the article then. If you could be specific about any inconsistency you perceive then let's have it.

In reply to ksjs: they don't, it just feels broader as you're at the edge of your ability.

In reply to Simon Lee:


Why not replace with a big letter E in that case, and have numbers from 1 upwards....

In reply to the inspiral carpet:the E system as we all know is primarily for an onsight


This is a factoid (not the same as fact, thanks TobyA)

Keep repeating until everyone believes it, or forgot they knew different.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Why? What extra useful information does using an H give us, besides whether someone has stepped up to the plate and onsighted the route at some point in the past, which while it's nice to know, is pretty much irrelevant to me if I go to climb something.

In reply to Simon Lee:

No it isn't, not if the route was rehearsed and has only ever seen a headpoint ascent. The different H grade is not "Byzantine" it is merely informative.

Further the H prefix could be seen as part of the same spectrum as the E grades where the E grades push at the bottom of the H range especially since there will be some crossover where routes which are climbable onsight have not yet received such an ascent.

Why f*ck up a working system for the majority of climbers to suit the interests of sponsors and sponsored? What kind of stewardship does that infer from our best?

In reply to Matt Vigg:

If E just stood for Risk - taking physical difficulty out - then it would be perfect - but it wouldnt be the E system.

In reply to Simon Lee:

it is a fact. And if it wasn't it is now. Climbing needs a few more things defined- E grades are for onsights, if you want to headpoint go to france.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

how can they be classed as highball boulder problems, as mick said in a post somewhere, the US visitors are very well known and are pushing the boundaries in the states on both routes and highballs, yet they opt to use ropes while they're here, these guys know their stuff so maybe there's something to be said for grit eing as you say "essentially highball boulder problems"?

In reply to Wrongfoot:
>

When was this golden age of ethics when cutting edge routes were all climbed onsight and not headpointed, top-roped or practised on an ab rope?

In reply to Franco Cookson: Climbing needs a few more things defined- E grades are for onsights

When you were not even a glint in your father's eye I was instructed that climbs were graded for the easiest way they can be done - not for a flawed ascent.

Clearly you need to improve your onsighting ability.

In reply to Simon Lee:

No it wouldn't of course, but realistically surely we're better off just sticking with the E grade and adding the V or sport grade. In an ideal world we may want to scrap lots of things and start again, but in practice things usually have to evolve. Maybe adding a difficulty only grade to the E grade is the first step in the E grade dying, but it won't die for a while yet.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

wrong Franco! if that should be the precident then we wouldn't see as many amazing hard trad routes as there are regardless of rock type

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Headpointing is as old as the hills. It has been happening in the UK for over 100 years - further it has happened in many other countries for a long time too.

Only recently was this style given a name.

You can decide not to pre-practice, that is your choice, but very arrogant to say that is the only way.

In reply to Simon Lee:


part of english tech grades is how hard the move is to figure out, and this influences the trad grade. I dont really get your argument, but if it's 'i'm older so I know what i'm talking about' it's an incorrect argument.

In reply to chris j:

Think context. Unless you are pushing the envelope with our best then you will never be stepping up to onsight an H route anyway. So the H system will have no impact upon you at all. If you are at that level then you will be after the challenge of "E"ing an "H" or appreciate that you are attempting something entirely new or feel justified in rehearsing the route.

The H system doesn't help those climbing below the H grades at all what it does is protect the existing E system. We don't need to decimalise climbing grades, the exisiting system works, replacement systems fail (think the Rockfax B grades for the Peak - whatever their strengths they were not embraced and died a death). No-one is going to change the E system at lower grades because it works, most climbers climb at these grades, any fix should only address the "failings" at the top. To do otherwise would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In reply to Franco Cookson: well, why in that case do so many experienced (and good climbers) say they do?

In reply to chris j:

it would tell us that the route is of such a serious nature/technically difficult that an onsight is deemed highly improbable therefor the grade given is a headpoint grade

In reply to Wrongfoot:

You have it all upside down and inside out Wrongfoot. Commercial interests would prefer if we had E14's as it attracts readers.

Many of the suggestions made to fix the upper E's are about giving realistic grades and not inflated ones.

In reply to ksjs: because 6a,b and c are nearer their limit. If Humans could climb 8as and 8bs, they would no doubt feel the difference between 6b and 6c as the same as top climbers feel between 5b and 5c.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You are calling it a "multiplier" I am calling it a "part of". Either your understanding of the word "multiplier" is different from mine or you need to use a different word

Yes we have been here before (ho-hum) and most of the arguments both of us are presenting are the same as before.

ALC

In reply to chris j:

I'm well aware that headpointing and practice have always occurred, but that does not detract from the simple fact that the E grade is for an onsight ascent.

Why not type an answer to my actual points?

In reply to Wrongfoot:because it is the way of UKC, when proven wrong ignore the post or dont reply, they're cowards, the lot of em.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

It's arguable that the E grade starts to have problems 1 - 2 grades below where the H-grade would be introduced at current levels (E/H8? english 6c comes in around E6), though I still maintain it is the too broad tech grade at fault.

In reply to Wrongfoot:


Ha! You reckon?

A simple fact, you think?

There are no simple facts when it comes to grading silly.

I've been climbing a long time and always thought that the grade was for an onsight - now I'm not too sure.... and nor is Steve McClure.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Anyway, it's all academic to me. Congratulations Simon, this could be the fasted thread to 100 replies, like Toby said you just lit the blue touch paper and stepped back...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I don't see it that way. They'd equally want H14's in an alternative headpoint grade system. What they certainly wouldn't like is to find that their sponsored climbers are now considered E8 and H11 climbers (new money) rather than E11 ones (old money).


Perhaps but given an 8c+ unprotected route with 2 killer trick moves and several hidden holds would never be onsightable without a fall it would be effectively E infinity anyway. There's the flaw. It's an H route or a death route, playing down the E grade to represent only the difficulty and avoid inflating the grade misses the point. It's an H route and has only ever seen an H ascent.

It seems that you've got things backwards in trying to grade outside the remit of the E system?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
you may have hit the nail on the head there Mick, but why should it all be about commercial interests, climbing was around long before commercial interests were, why should we and indeed the top climbers feel bullied into giving inflated grades?

We all know that the hardest routes are headpointed, the climbing could be given a french grade equivalent as regards pure climbing difficulty but on the lead it's not all about the difficulty, we all know that Mick, there are varying other factors to be taken into consideration. how could a McLeod or a Birkett route be given a french grade? it can't other than if it were toproped or bolted and we know the latter isn't going to happen! that's where i think a 'H' grade shpould be implemented. As regards the sponsors, if a 'H' grade were to be implemented we'd all know it was some hard route that had just been climbed.
Example headline...

"McLeod repeats Pearson route and confirms H12"

it would still grab the headlines, would it not?

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

"to be said for grit eing as you say "essentially highball boulder problems"? "

Should that be "grit Eing" or "grit being" ? It's hard to parse your meaning.

I'm not saying all grit routes should just be classed as highballs (should have explicitly stated that -sorry) just some of them.

ALC

In reply to Franco Cookson: i have no experience of 6b and above on trad but as far as 5c and below go, you can readily relate them to a level of difficulty - usually within a range of 2 sport grades. this link does not seem to extend up the scale.

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Not an attack on you or your post ALC, it just serves to illustrate my point (rant?).

Why do we need all this additional information? Have I just been climbing without a reliable guidebook for so long that this level of detail seems absurd? Probably.

So what if the system is a little flawed and one number-pair can cover a wide range of experiences. Grades are a loose guide to help you select a route to suit your ability/mood. Every now and again you'll get it wrong, it's all part of the game. Totally accurate grades are only really of use for comparing 'achievement' away from the crag, for anything else you'll still be ultimately reliant on your own judgement on the day.

jk
<who was trying not to get suckered into these daft threads>

In reply to a lakeland climber:


your pedantry is noted :0)

In reply to Franco Cookson: part of english tech grades is how hard the move is to figure out, and this influences the trad grade.


You still have to work out hard moves when onsighting sport routes but there isnt a separate grade for redpointing. Why should it be any diffrent for trad routes ?. It is accepted in sport climbong that the grade is the same but the style differs. Sport routes aren't graded for the redpoint or the onsight. They are graded for the route. This is the axiomatic distinction I refered to.

Of all the grades English tech grades are by far the most meaningless to the extent I couldnt bring myself to address them in the article.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

See the news page and the report Jack has written .... keep the E-grade for trad routes....whatever it means, then add a French grade/bouldering grade. Dead simple.

Let's face it..... at the top end it is all about who is the greatest, and adding a physical difficulty bit helps people to compare, and by golly don't they lurv to do just that.

In reply to Wrongfoot:


It is is it?

Like to explain? Who grades routes then?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's probably a result of spec creep with all the new headpoint routes. Ignore that and think of the service that a grading system should offer to an average climber turning up at the crag.

Does he think...

"E3 is it rehearsed headpoint E3 or onsight E3?"
"I'm an E£ leader, should I just go at the route or should I rehearse it to be on the safe side?"

Or does he think...

"E3 = onsight grade for me to pick and go straight at"

It's obvious that the system is for onsight attempts apart from when Steve and his ilk have perforce changed the interpretation to suit their headpoint styles. So fix it at their grade call headpoint grades H grades.

I'd hope that you and your peers would consider the service that the system should provide to all climbers not the issues with the minority elite.

In reply to jkarran:

I don't think we should have or need the extra info for grades below about E5 but I can see a need for the sustained pitches that modern fitness is able to climb.

ALC

In reply to Simon Lee: but it's not just knowing the easiest sequence, it's seeing trick moves and holds you'd never find on the onsight, and knowing stuff about gear, this effects how hard the route feels- this changes if you onsight it. Therefor two sytems needed.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Anyone can grade a route, they may not be listened to...

Can I ask you what use a grade is to a climber unless it means something on his 1st attempt at the route?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

exactly, isn't that how it is at present? just that in bygone days the bouldering grade given was UK tech and not font or whatever?

i suspect that the top guys would agree that any 'willy waving' would be between the sponsors and not the climbers themselves, the climbers are the first to praise eachothers achievements, but the sponsors want to know they have a better climber than the next sponsor

In reply to Wrongfoot:


That's it, it does mean something. A grade is a rough guide to the difficulty of the route compared to others.

That's how routes are graded. Someone climbs a new route and they give it a grade compared to others they have climbed. Others may agree or disagree.

But grades now have a life of their own......they are out of our control. Everyone has their own definition and 8a.nu use them as currency.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

In fact after rehearsing the route a cimber doesn't "need" to know the grade at all. It's within his capability on lead or it isn't... any subsequent grading is only trying to assess the difficulty in terms of his prior experience. In this case the grade is a means of awarding yourself a badge at worst or a means of informing other climbers at best.

This is what our best do. They try new lines with no idea whether they are achievable on a top rope. They go in gradeless. If they can then lead them they try to grade them to fit the system. But that's not what a grade is for unless you are seeking publicity/approval...

Subsequent climbers are the users of a grade. It's for them not the FA's. I infer the onsight definition from this.

Do you see grades as a service/tool for climbers or as a badge of honour?

In reply to the inspiral carpet:



Not so. There is intense competition at the top end, it goes unspoken however. Not always the case, but in some instances.


Yes. It's good PR to praise, especially publically. But what are they actually thinking?

In reply to Franco Cookson: but it's not just knowing the easiest sequence, it's seeing trick moves and holds you'd never find on the onsight, and knowing stuff about gear, this effects how hard the route feels- this changes if you onsight it. Therefor two sytems needed.


No-one doubts that onsighting trad or sport is trickier or more challenging than red/headpointing. What the rest of the world grades for (trad routes exist elsewhere)is how hard the route is. That has to be based on the easiest sequence - a perfect onsight if you like. The style you apply to this route ie all forms of beta and the tactics/pro you use will affect how hard/risky it feels to you. This risk is variable but the E grade isnt. I guess you would be happy if the grading system continued to only apply to trad routes climbed in onsight style without mats because that is selfishly useful to you and to your prefrered approach to climbing. Not everyone climbs in just this way so the system is becoming increasing less relevant to other approaches to climbing.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

This H vs E grade thing. Can you tell me which is used if the FA is ground up? Or do we invent a G grade too.

What about an S grade for solos?

Etc.

In reply to Calder: This H vs E grade thing. Can you tell me which is used if the FA is ground up? Or do we invent a G grade too.


Quite. One grade required. Different styles possible.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Now this is nuts.... at 8a.nu .... you don't even have to have done a route to grade it....

"Some climbers do think that it is only the repeaters that can comment on a grade. 8a do think that upgrades can be suggested by climbers who have tried but failed to do it. In the near future it will be possible to add "failures" to your scorecard "

http://www.8a.nu/

In reply to Calder:

I'm objective, there's really only a percieved problem at the higher grades with headpoint ascents. The H system might address this.

I'm not aware of similar confusion and debate over S and G's as you describe them and see no need for them.

It just seems to me that the E grade is waaay to opaque. What I need to know about a route is a) how hard it is and b) will I hurt myself climbing it.

With the R/X system I can easily avoid routes which might put me in hospital. With the E grade system I'm left wondering is it E for endurance, exposure or endangerment.

Out here in Japan, the few trad climbs I've seen/been on have all been well protected and I can concentrate on the grade - and where trad routes are slightly dangerous the Japanese have a nice habit of placing a bolt (but that's another topic...)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Well its not 'that' nuts. If I dogged a route at unknown grade I would have an opinion on what grade it is likely to be. If a 7a onsighter is unable to redpoint a route graded 7a it is not unreasonable for them to suggest that an upgrade might be in order.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Fair point. But remember 8a.nu is the biggest bragging site in the climbing universe.... I see further abuse.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Rather than carry on bludgeoning each other like a couple of cartoon characters, here's one or two thoughts.

The UK tech grad. Broken? Almost certainly.
Why? Ego and oneupmanship in the 1970s and 1980s lead to grades at about 6b onwards being very wide in difficulty - the 6b grade is probably about as wide as the whole of the 5x grades put together, no idea what 6c covers!
Why pt2? The tech grade is a bouldering grade and so is suited to single moves or short sequences rather than whole pitches.
How to Fix? Phew! Either replace with V-grade but this has a problem in that V-grades don't drop below the equivalent of UK 5b/c so all routes lower than this would either have no grade or just get V0. Or. Leave as is on routes up to E5 and use V grades for E6 and above. However I'm not a fan of discontinuities but effectively you have two UK tech grades at the moment for the top end trad routes - 6c & 7a. Hardly fine grained is it?

Not sure where the "Trad grades are for the onsight" has come from. Possibly with the majority of climbers operating in the sub-extreme category and climbing in this manner the assumption has spread. As Mick has said - prepractice of routes has a long history. My preference is to forget giving a route Hxx and continue with the E-grade but use the dagger symbol as in days of yore to indicate that the route hasn't reached a consensus grade.

ALC

In reply to Simon Lee:

>>Sport routes aren't graded for the redpoint or the onsight. They are graded for the route. This is the axiomatic distinction I refered to.

Not true. Sport grades are for the redpoint, ie the easiest sequence even if it involves 'trick' moves. Likewise font grades. Whereas E grades include 'readability', although the uk tech grade should not.

I find it hard to see how you can grade difficulty without a presumption of either knowledge or no knowledge. All grading systems make this presumption, unfortunately you typically only find this out by asking locals operating at the top end. The grade is an average of climbers experiences, it can't exist outside that as you suggest.

>>Of all the grades English tech grades are by far the most meaningless to the extent I couldnt bring myself to address them in the article.

How can they be meaningless? Its just a linear scale like any other. The only difference is the width of the bands, which may make it less precise but at the same time more accurate.

In reply to a lakeland climber: good, considered post. i didnt realise the tech grade was a bouldering grade - in the context of how trad leads can often feel this makes sense i.e. easy ground followed by a crux section.

In reply to ksjs:

I think Mark Edwards is a good answer, the best we have is UK trad grades with a sport grade as a side issue. There is still no better system!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Funny this Mick, I haven't met any.

[i]Some[/i] are complaining about the publicity given to headpointing, and are suggesting 'H' grades to balance this. I don't know anyone who think the grading system doesn't work, just that it gets misused by the media.

In reply to Wrongfoot:


Which is exactly how I feel about H grades.

And also how I feel about sport or bouldering grades tagged onto trad grades for that matter - although that may have something to do with how little sport climbing and bouldering I've done and thus how I struggle to relate my ability (or lack of!) to sport and bouldering grades.

In reply to ksjs:

And a French one to boot! Introduced to the UK by Nea Morin and friends from Fontainbleau.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber: 'Why? Ego and oneupmanship in the 1970s and 1980s lead to grades at about 6b onwards being very wide in difficulty - the 6b grade is probably about as wide as the whole of the 5x grades put together, no idea what 6c covers!'

Was this really due to ego and oneupmanship, rather than English diffidence and reluctance to be the first to claim a grade harder than 6B?

In reply to ksjs:

This have anything to do with the fact you agree, by any chance?

You don't think that maybe there's a limit in what the human body is capable of for individual moves (like for many sports)?

And that it's just routes

- getting more sustained
- getting more bold
- having more strenuous pitches
- being more insane

that makes them feel that much harder?

All of which is taken into account in the E grade and is why the spread is more broad at such levels.

*All of this is conjecture, from someone of quite humble capabilities. I fully expect to get flamed...

In reply to Franco Cookson:


There are some pretty dumb comments in this thread but this really is a standout. So much xenophobia and ignorance encapsulated in one brief sentence. Congratulations!

In reply to Adam L: Not true. Sport grades are for the redpoint

Source ? The redpoint is the perfect onsight. Hypothetical? yes - but only as hypothetical as the avregare of climbers experiences. Keep style separate from the grade as much as you can. The rest of the climbing world somehow manages to muddle along in this way - with less debate?.

Re tech grades they are the most meaningless of the grades and yes as you imply for bandwidth reasons and for being distorted a technical move feeling more technical because you are abopve gear or a route getting a higher technical grade because it is pumpy and to make it commensurate with the E grade.

In reply to Calder:

Quite, but I'd sooner see H grades at the top and a working E system left well alone, than a complete replacement to the excellent E system.

I'm offering a working solution to Simon rather than simply telling him to shove off and leave the system alone, even if I might prefer that :oP

In reply to Wrongfoot: i disagree that this is a problem limited to headpointing. i am always seeking to push my grade but the adjectival system makes me wary and cautious (at E5 and above); E5 or E6 whatever simply doesnt give me enough info to know how realistic an onsight, for me, is and how safe the route will feel. the grade should inform, not serve to create and perpetuate mystique or, worse, mis-information.

i posted this http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=315050&v=1#x4654534 earlier this year. as a result i will have a go at some of these as soon as weather permits whereas without this extra info i would have further postponed leads that i should have done this year. this is an indictment of the E grade, it shouldnt take these translations to allow me to knowledgeably get on stuff.

the problem is not limited to headpoint and hard onsights, the problem is more widespread.

In reply to Simon Lee:

The technical grade attempts to assess only the technical climbing difficulty of the hardest move or moves on the route without regard to the danger of the move or the stamina required if there are several such moves in a row. Technical grades are open-ended, starting at 1 and subdivided into "a", "b" and "c", but you are unlikely to see any mention of them below 4a. As of 2004, the hardest climbs are around 7b.

source http://www.reddo10.com/web/climbinggrading


The technical grade attempts to assess only the technical climbing difficulty of the hardest move or moves on the route, without regard to the danger of the move or the stamina required if there are several such moves in a row. Technical grades are open-ended, starting at 1 and subdivided into "a", "b" and "c", but are rarely used below 3c. The hardest recorded climbs are around 7b.

Usually the technical grade increases with the adjectival grade, but a hard technical move very near the ground (that is, notionally safe) may not raise the standard of the adjectival grade very much. VS 4c might be a typical grade for a route. VS 4a would usually indicate very poor protection (easy moves, but no gear), while VS 5b would usually indicate the crux move was the first move or very well protected. On multi-pitch routes it is usual to give the overall climb an adjectival grade and each pitch a separate technical grade (such as HS 4b, 4a).

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_grades#Technical_grade

The technical grade indicates how hard the hardest move on the route is, and is difficult to describe, except by saying that, for instance, a 5c climber will almost always manage a single 5c move

source http://www.ukclimbing.com/databases/crags/grades.html

i could go on but think you get the picture

In reply to Wrongfoot:

Fair enough, I'll leave you be then, as considering the level at which H would apply I think I could easily ignore their existence.

In reply to Calder:

Good eh? Shuts up the top end folks and leaves the rest of us alone!

In reply to the inspiral carpet:

Thanks for the lecture. If the tech grade is so brilliant at doing all this why was it superceded by font and V grades ? Answer. Its no good at quantifying the difficulty of moves or short sections. Let go - move on.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

>
How to fix

Well, rather than abandoning it for something inferior why not sytematically correct and extend it?

In reply to Simon Lee:

was it? forgoing short routes that could be seen as highballs, give me an example where it was superceded by a font or V grade

In reply to John2:

Yes there was that, but there was a lot of failure to use the system properly before they got to 6c.

"It's only 5c eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

Who said the above and about what route?

ALC

In reply to Simon Lee:

Even if it was (which I'm not sure) I can come up with 2 other possiblilities with little thought at all.

Answer - familiarity with font and V grades. Of course people can identify with the difficulty of single moves in those systems. Boulder problems are often practically single moves anyway...

Answer - fashion with the rise in bouldering...

You'll need to do better than that unsupported statement Mr Lee!

In reply to Wrongfoot:

I think Simon Panton is using a combo of Font, V-grades and UK tech for his next bouldering guidebook.

Which makes sense to me as all three are used by climbers who go bouldering in the UK.

So you would have

Simon Lee Can't Climb Diffs V10, Font 7C+ (UK tech 6c)

In reply to Simon Lee:

Sorry you need to explain this further, don't get it.

>Hypothetical? yes - but only as hypothetical as the avregare of climbers experiences.

... except that climbers experiences are not hypothetical, they are empirical. Have a look at a few hard, classic problems on bleau.info, opinions vary just as sizes, shapes and skills do. It doesn't make for simplicity unfortunately, but that is what a grade is and all it can ever be - the average of people's experiences. Suggesting it can be some philosophical construct seperate from that is nonsense.

>Keep style separate from the grade as much as you can.

Not possible unfortunately, see above. It can only be based on experiences, and all experiences are coloured by style. Hence why style needs to be included, and is in all grade systems if you ask the right people.

>The rest of the climbing world somehow manages to muddle along in this way - with less debate?.

Do you mean world as in other countries, or as in lower grade climbers? Either way, its not true, either you aren't aware of other countries' grade issues, or lower-grade climbers are less bothered/ more likely to blame themselves before the guide.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

i remember back in the day, when Simon lived here in Huddersfield, we went to Greetland Quarry (simon on the back of my AR 125)to do some grade checking for the first yorkshire grit bouldering guide, it was new years eve/day, can't remember which, we didn't use any other grades that the UK Tech

In reply to Simon Lee:

How can it possibly be 'no good'? They are both just linear scales. As I said, the only difference are uk tech use bigger bands. V grades and font grades have become more popular for bouldering because the bands are smaller, hence offering greater precision, and quicker progress up the bands. Unfortunately for climbing greater precision only leads to less accuracy, as the real difficulty for the whole gamut of climbers becomes spread over several. Again, look at bleau.info if you want to see what a grade looks like.

The breadth of uk grades is good because it gives us greater accuracy on routes where the moves will be worked over less than on boulders.

In reply to the inspiral carpet:


Times move on.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Although not always for the better.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Interesting. Although actually I'm suprised to see the uk tech grades at all - I wouldn't have expected them in a bouldering guide anyway.

In reply to Wrongfoot:

It makes sense.

Some only boulder a little, V/Font grades aren't that familiar to them (they aren't obsessive beanies), they are very familiar with UK tech.

In reply to Adam L: Again, look at bleau.info if you want to see what a grade looks like.

I have had a look not sure what you are refering to - is there a specific article you are referencing ?

As for having a broad range to improve accuracy then perhaps we should go with Easy, Medium and Hard - then it is only possible to be inaccurate in four ways assuming that no one would mistake a Hard for an Easy or vice versa.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:


Well, the article did my swede in to be honest, more pictures would have been nice.

anyway i think the uk grading system is fine in the mid and lower grades- just use the french grade above E5 and be done with it.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: A nice effort Simon and one of the better thought out articles in recent years. However (you just knew that was coming) your system (and any other) is predicated in someone with experience judging the grade - this adjusts over time as people die, shout 'too easy' and so forth. We then have a system that the average Joe can understand (sort of). On that basis it does not matter whether it is V6, Font 5 or E something 5c - it is harder than a lower number and easier than a higher number. Is this too hard to understand?

I suspect that 'new' systems were brought to the UK by keen young men anxious to distance themselves from their elders (betters?) and to show themselves masters of international mountaineering. That said, the USA has a multiple system (and most of us understand 5.9 is easier than 5.10 on paper) and bouldering grades can vary with size of climbers arm (see Peak Bouldering etc). All of which makes me suspect that this is an intellectual exercise that does not move climbing forward. The system has not really been bettered since E grades were introduced - maybe we need to give a route the tech grade only until it has had an onsight lead - then it gets the E as well. But to suggest that such a degree of certainty can be applied to a piece of rock is to misunderstand the ingenuity of the 'average' british climber. V, F, E - who cares. It should be the responsibility of the climber to look at the rock and suss out the challenge - then accept or walk away (or headpoint or whatever). Now, where's me fag packet?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Good article mate...not surprised it's put a few noses out of joint but all the better for that!

For what it's worth I'm with you on scrapping E grades. Would make more sense to keep difficulty, style and danger separate i.e. French grade, plus danger rating and just say how you climbed it (top rope, redpoint solo, whatever). That's all you need to know isn't it?

In reply to Simon Lee:

'Whilst grading is based on average all-round ability at different levels let's not forget that the route itself has an inherent grade independent of the climber i.e. the grade of the route – the climber measures up to the route not the other way around.'

Where on earth does this come from? Simon, do you have access to some rock Moses who hands you grades on stone tablets? The guidebook committee would like to speak to you if so.

In reply to Adam L:

and it's total rot! What use is a grade to a rock? I think Simon is pursueing some sort of ideal or dream where every route and rock is perfectly graded within a universal system simply because it's beautiful to see the world so ordered...

The next logical step will be to grade unclimbed lines because "the route has an inherent grade without the climber". We can see what E12 will be now, today, whether climbed or not.

In reply to Adam L:Simon, do you have access to some rock Moses who hands you grades on stone tablets

Your going all ad hominem again - but at least you are re-reading the article!. You were the one talking about asking the 'right people'. WTF ! Your in-crowd presumably if we are going to make it personal.

No its commonsense. Forget the sophistry and nuances of style. Cut the crap - a route has a certain difficulty. The simplest way to grade/encapsulate it is the best - Ossams razor n'all that.

In reply to Simon Lee:

It's not straightforward or commonsense. As Adam points out, among other things people's experiences will be different, sometimes very different, depending on how the route is approached. The obvious background difference is that Adam is prioritising the onsight ethic and you are not. Tricky to read moves, exposure, difficult to find gear placements will affect the overall difficulty more on Adam's scale than yours. It is no good saying the route has an objective difficulty but that it can be climbed in different styles: we know that some routes with the same redpoint / headpoint grade are easier to onsight than other of the same grade. Adding an R or an X after a grade doesn't cover everything.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Ossam's Cave or Occam's Razor?


Chris

;=)

In reply to John Gillott:

I never said it was straightforward. Complexification is often easier. If you are prioritising the onsight ethic then you are defining how a route 'should' be climbed. If you are defining how a route 'should' be climbed then you are grading it judged in terms of that style alone when other styles exist. You then have to define what should or shouldnt be agreed for that style. People disagree with what onsight means. Does it mean video beta. You also have define acceptable tactics. Mats ?. So many rules, so many climbs, so unnecessary.

If you choose difficulty as-if-on-top-rope that has meaning across styles in marking the difficulty of a route. Is that not a commonsense driver of grade ? Choosing to climb the route and an appropriate style is then more a personal choice.

In reply to Chris Craggs:Ossam's Cave or Occam's Razor?


Banged to rights - isn't that another name for Reynards Cave ? - a shocking ommission from the Northern Limestone Rockfax, Mr Craggs - it contains the best 7c in Derbyshire as well as a forgotten addition of mine at the same grade

In reply to Simon Lee: and pray tell mr lee how do we arrive at that grade is it not the concensus of the people who have climbed it all slightly varying(height,width, hand size etc etc) and therefore a more versatile tech grade ie broader spectrum will actually give a more acurate mean grade, occums razor are you saying that the simplest way to do a sequence of moves is the same for people of all shapes and sizes...

In reply to Simon Lee:

Not sure if the two caves are one and the same - wouldn't want to commit without checking - you know what internet forums are!

Might be nice to sneak the crag in the next Northern Limestone - when we eventually start work on it.

Chris

In reply to the flash:

Yes. Consensus is good - although tends towards grade creep. I addressed the issue of the average climber and varying morphology in the article. No system will be perfect. Some systems less perfect than others. G'night.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
This may have been mentioned but if not give it a read....
http://www.climber.co.uk/categories/articleitem.asp?cate=1&topic=15&...

In reply to Simon Lee: sleep well with your opinion!

Two caveats before my comments.
(1) I'm just procrastinating and haven't had the patience to read every comment in this thread.
(2) I'm American and, while I've climbed in the UK, I don't pretend to have a good grasp of the E grades.

A few folks seem to think that adopting an American R/X system would be useful. Perhaps it would, but I can tell you that these modifiers are used in wildly disparate ways in different places, and on different routes in the same area. I've climbed R-rated routes that would simply mean a rather big fall (or just a standard old school fall, as sport climbers have become used to bolts every body length), and I've climbed other routes with much more serious fall potential with no R-rating, and yet other R-rated routes where, in my opinion, a fall could be fatal. Likewise, I've been on a few X-rated routes that seemed, to me, to be more R-rated.

Like all grading, the risk associated with a route is so subjective. For example, imagine a 5.11 crack that takes reasonable protection, but which is capped by seriously runout 5.9 climbing. Should it receive an R rating? Some folks would say yes, because a fall could put you in the hospital. Others say no, because the real "meat" of the climb is protectable and the runout should be trivial for anyone who is able to get up to that point.

Not sure is any of this is helpful for you. Feel free to ignore it. I will note that, climbing only into the E4/E5 range myself, I think your system works reasonably well. Perhaps it is another story when you get to E8 and higher. But, after all, people always bitch about grades, especially at the higher end where there have not been enough repeats to consolidate things. When Sharma calls something 15b, or MacLeod or Pearson say E10 or E12, it's all really just a suggestion. I don't think grades mean much until quite a few people have climbed a route and a consensus develops.

Brian

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

IF a route has been on sighted give it an E Grade If a route has been top roped first just put a symbol and invite the Yanks to come and climb it!

In reply to Jake Shaw:
For what it's worth I'm with you on scrapping E grades. Would make more sense to keep difficulty, style and danger separate i.e. French grade, plus danger rating and just say how you climbed it (top rope, redpoint solo, whatever). That's all you need to know isn't it?

Isn't that exactly what E grades do? Or should if used properly!

In reply to Simon Lee:

Can I hazard a guess you have never been involved in writing a guide? Perhaps if you had, you'd understand that a grade is just an average of opinions, not something that exists as an independent truth. That is my background to this discussion [and what I mean by the right people], not my onsight ethic. I have seen grades 'created' first hand, and it is not simple and almost always upsets someone. Because people's experiences are different. Your system suggests it makes them wrong.

'If you choose difficulty as-if-on-top-rope that has meaning across styles in marking the difficulty of a route. Is that not a commonsense driver of grade?'

Only in the context of protection [although I can imagine a few routes that would be terrifying on top rope]. Readability still comes in to play, do you include that or not? Have you never seconded a pitch and still been affected by the exposure? Hence why it makes sense to grade from either of two perspectives - having worked the route and being in possession of 'the knowledge', or having only the guide and what you can see from the floor. One of these is always used when grading, the latter for E grades, although you might not know it without digging a little.

In reply to Al Evans: Isn't that exactly what E grades do? Or should if used properly!

No. E grades amalgamate danger and difficulty - they don't separate them. This much at least is blatantly obvious.

In reply to Adam L:

I may well be supporting Simon after that one!

I'd suggest getting hold of some of the 1980s Peak Limestone guides ...

ALC

In reply to Al Evans:

I imagine that the text indicates that or should do in a vaguely intelligible guidebook

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Well there's no mention of him on the guidebook team in the ones I've got...

I find it very hard to imagine anyone could sit through a graded list discussion clinging to a belief that grades exist independent of the climber...

In reply to Jake Shaw:

I don't care less how someone else climbed it - I'm chiefly interested in onsighting a route therefore I prefer an onsight grade, which, combined with the guide description, I've found more than adequate for the past 20 odd years!

In reply to Adam L:

Clearly I have to bow to your knowledge as both an HSE expert and guidebook expert.

Even with my amateur opinion I do understand that a grade is practically speaking an average of opinions. That also needs to take into account what in the article I called talents (could include imperviousness to exposure) and weaknesses which by implication are deviations from the average at a certain grade level. Factoring in readability is a fudge and IMO worth sacrificing. No one complains that certain E2s are easier to solo than HVS's - why bleat on about some routes being less easy to read than others for a given grade or requiring crack skills or whatever. Grading as if on-top-rope coupled with using a guidebook and possible Risk grade gives even the purist onsighter a huge ampunt of info but still caters for other styles of climbing. The more versatile a system in its applications the better.

Like I said E grades arent going to go away just yet - it is too popular. Its shortcomings don't need to be highlighted by me - the increasing use and demand for additional gradings is testament to its failings already as was it being dropped for Sport and DWS.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Can someone explain to me how routes are graded for the onsight?

First off I'd like to know how to do it.... and yes I've put up over 100 new routes in the USA, UK and Spain, and over 500 new boulder problems around Bishop.

I've never graded for the onsight.

I just don't see it: I think the grade tells you how difficult the climb is compared to others.

Then you know that if you onsight it it's a harder experience than if you flashed it, and the easiest style is redpoint/headpoint.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Well for boulders you don't - even if it took months to figure the trick sequence that finally made it feel easy. If a trad route features a blind dyno to a hidden hold you might conside factoring that in, or mentioning it in the text? Extremes obviously, but you get the jist...

In reply to Adam L:

You have not answered the question Adam.

Can someone explain to me how routes are graded for the onsight?

I'd like to know the secret. You're an expert, a guidebook guy, an onsight guru.

How do you do it?

You establish a route..... you have an idea how hard it was compared to other routes you have done, then you give it a grade. That's how I've always done it. Others repeat it, they give an opinion again based on their past experiences.

Should I do that, then add a grade or two for the onsight?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Rather than all this running round in circles, could you provide an example or two of your proposed grading system on well known routes and explain why it is better than either the existing UK system or the UK system plus sports grades.

ALC

In reply to Adam L:

If a key background issue isn't an onsight ethic versus a hypothetical 'how hard is this to climb assuming the use of the perfect sequence' which in practice is quite similar to a redpoint / headpoint / grade, then it seem to me at least that the differences between you and Simon are not so great, at the empirical level at any rate. Sure, philosophically speaking I agree that the intersubjective view of a relevant climbing community, or the best stab it, as to the grade of a climb is different from the claim that a climb has an 'objective' grade. We can see this is especially true when comparing different generations' views on the same climb. Were the Rock and Ice generation good at Offwidths but crap at campus-style slappy problems and to a lesser extent anything involving finger strength? Or is it that the current crop of teenagers are, relatively speaking, over-developed in the latter set of skills? But for a given generation, for a given moment in time, it might make no difference to the actual grade to make the step from the tortuous intersubjective discussion to the claim that the grade they arrive at is the 'objective' grade of the climb.

But are you sure the main point isn't an onsight ethic versus Simon's 'how hard is this to toprope using the perfect sequence' approach? You say: 'Hence why it makes sense to grade from either of two perspectives - having worked the route and being in possession of 'the knowledge', or having only the guide and what you can see from the floor. One of these is always used when grading, the latter for E grades, although you might not know it without digging a little.' For sure, the latter might also cover the difficulty of getting a route clean first go on toprope, but I'll be more than a little surprised if I see a 'my best toprope onsight' grade on your profile page.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

"the grade tells you how difficult the climb is compared to others"

That should say it all. However, a (guidebook) committe might persuade you that a camel is a horse because that's the way they've designed it.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

All a bit academic as the new improved UK risk grade hasnt been invented and agreed yet ! Secret experiments are currently being undertaken at esoteric quarries in the Peak District.

I'm sure you can trawl the forums for examples of French and V/Font grades for trad routes.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

You get a bunch of folk together who have onsighted the route, and discuss the grade. If its a new route, and you can't do that, the grade will be less accurate, being either based on only one experience, or a different [ie not onsight] experience, and therefore liable to change.

Whats difficult about that? And this is what actually happens, isn't it?

In reply to jkarran: i too dont want to perpetuate this thread as i doubt anybody will convince someone of the opposite view to change their mind. i am however compelled to post again.

you ask why do we need this additional info. you also say that the system is a little flawed and a number-pair can cover a wide range of experiences. IS THIS NOT THE PROBLEM? with a large degree of certainty i can say that i will virtually always onsight a given sport grade (close to my onsight limit). for the reasons you give i dont have this with adjectival grades. thus they do not serve their purpose.

In reply to John Gillott:

No, and if that's what he means, though I'm not sure he does, we're in agreement. As we are all aware, there are lots of factors to confuse style, so rather than choosing an arbitrary point in the middle, you go for one or other of the extremes.

One being grading for the perfect worked sequence in safety, which is what should be used for bouldering and sport routes, which are normally approached in this manner, and one for getting up the route with your eyes and the guidebook, which should be used for trad routes which are normally approached in this manner.

Simon's approach of grading for a situation the climber is unlikely to be in seems like obfuscation, and certainly not the simplification we should get from applying Occam's razor.

In reply to Adam L:

OK. So the first ascensionist who has usually not onsighted the route is not really qualified to grade the route for an onsight.

What you do is is gather some people who have, and they grade it for an onsight....compared to what though?


Well first off, it makes no sense at all.



Actually Adam, I don't believe that actually does happen.

The first ascensionist proposes a grade, others who have done the route add their opinion - all of them are suggesting a grade on previous experiences. Like you say, if the route has only had one ascent you only have one opinion.

I don't believe routes are graded for the onsight.....I'm in the McClure camp on that one. I think it is nigh on impossible, and pointless.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What differentiates an ascent of a climb into an order of difficulty is the style of the ascent. The top rope grade, physical difficulty, always remains the same, it is the style that makes an experience more taxing - the E grade doesn't account for style, you have to add it in words.

E7 6b onsight
E7 6b flash
E7 6b redpoint/headpoint

In reply to ksjs:

Well looking at your onsight grades on your profile, there is a big difference between your trad and sports grades, either two full E grades or three sports grades depending on how you look at things. It might just be that you've worked more on your sports grade, but if you can onsight F7b+ then you should be onsighting E6.

I've climbed extensively and the only major grading system that I haven't had direct use of is the Ewbank (Australian) scale. The worst of any system I've used is the American YDS (with or without the risk rating). The best for sport is the French system and the best for trad (up to E5) is the UK dual system. Add the sports grade to trad routes of E6 and above and you are improving an already good system. I do concede (and have suggested several times) that the upper end of the UK tech grade should be sorted out as it is just too vague at the moment.

ALC

In reply to Calder: possibly yes, but the post is also coherent and reasoned. too many of the posts on here are of the "youre wrong and youre wrong because i say so" type - not that constructive.

i think, contrary to what you suggest, the E grade does not reflect the many variables involved well; yes, it gives a feel for overall difficulty but what causes that difficulty and will you, onsight, be able to overcome this? too often i am left guessing...

In reply to Adam L: Simon's approach of grading for a situation the climber is unlikely to be in seems like obfuscation,


Given the choice I and I suspect ksjs above would prefer to guesstimate our chances of success and consequent decision to try a route on a French grade with a separate indication of risk which strive to be objective than an E grade with who knows what amagamtion of factors and assumptions and lets not forget its wide bandwith.

Championing the E grade is championing obfuscation. Its not simple. If it was then highly experienced visiting climbers would grasp and apply it quickly and confidently. That was not the case recently, to say the least.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Good idea. Lets look at some of the most poular ones in the country at grades climbed by the majority in the country and pretty standard for their grades: Grooved Arete (HVD); Central Groove (HS 4b); The File (VS 4C); Tactician (HVS 5a); Coronation Street E1 (4c, 5a, 5b, 4c, 5b from memory). I would love to know what additional insight I am likely to gain from the improved system.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Nice one Mick, ignore the line that explains what you want to argue against.

Grades for new routes are always guesses and subject to change, if that's what this is about its pointless. That's why unrepeated routes get daggers. What matters is routes that actually get climbed, which get graded exactly as I described.

In reply to a lakeland climber: i am capable of onsighting E6 and, i hope, harder but i feel the need to tread carefully with trad. this attitude is partly due to perception (of what these grades mean and would feel like on lead) and my lack of experience at E5 and above. the situation certainly isnt helped by a less than transparent grading system.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: From another thread:
Back in the day the E grade covered 2 (sometimes 3) French grades. They still do for totally safe climbs, so:

E5 = 7a+/7b
E6 = 7b+/7c/7c+
E7 = 8a/8a+
E8 = 8b/8b+
E9 = 8c/8c+
E10 = 9a/9a+

Totally safe climbing fit's the above system.
If it's scary but safe add 1 E grade
If it's scary and serious add 2 E grades
If it's death add 3 E grades.

So for example:
Captain Invincible which is 8b but safe gets E8.
Indian Face, which is 7b+/7c climbing, i.e. E6 if safe, get's E9 as it's death.
Hell's Wall, which is 8a+ i.e. E7 if safe, get's E10 as it's death.
Rhapsody, which is 8c/8c+ i.e. E9 if safe, get's E11 as it's scary and serious.

Add to that Font grades for the short highball grit routes e.g. The Promise E8 Font7b+
New Statesman E9 font 7c
Equilibrium E10 font 7c+

Problem solved.... possibly.

Andy F

In reply to ksjs:


Can you onsight 6a+, easily enough to take on a 6a+ X?

I haven't done the following route, but assuming what I've heard is true it might cast some light on this. I've read that a proposed grade for Hairless Heart under this new system might be 6a+ X. Now, I can nearly always onsight 6a+ and in fact when I'm in anything like reasonable shape I don't think I've ever failed to. I'm reasonable at gritstone, though a not great at slabs. But all in all I think that if I've been doing a bit of climbing I'd feel happy to onsight solo 6a+ on gritstone.

However, when I see the grade E5 I'm a lot more cautious. I've seen on other threads that Hairless Heart is supposed to fit the new scheme - add three grades for risk - but I can't help thinking that something else is involved. I recall a discussion some time ago on here where it was mentioned that there is an eminently fluffable move high up on the route. Now of course assuming the perfect squence I wouldn't fluff it, but hey, what if I don't get it first time? That for me is important to know, and I'm guessing it's part of the reason it's given E5 (ie E5 is not the result of a mathematical calculation: 6a+ = safe E2 then add three for risk).

All in all I'm glad that it is given E5 rather than 6a+ X as in fact E5 tells me more. Simon thinks it's a bit odd that it's given the same E grade as Moon Crack (7a+ apparently), but from a trad onsight point of view E5 appears to have them both quite right whereas 6a+ X vs 7a+ doesn't.

In reply to Adam L:

Point the line out Adam.

I'm just not convinced about this conventional wisdom that a route's grade is a measure of the difficulty of an onsight.

BTW - isn't the UK grading system brilliant?

There's no other quite like it - so much confusion, a mix of interpretations - but it actually works - mostly.

In reply to ksjs:

This is bit that makes climbing special though, isn't it.

In reply to Simon Lee:

That's just it Simon, each E grade doesn't have a high bandwidth unless you look at it from the blinkered view of simple technical difficulty. Pretty well each adjectival grade matches one letter grade in the French system (nearly said French letter there, fnar, fnar).

Below E5 there is no real need for extra info, the adjectival grade and the tech grade suffice. Above, the extra info of the sports grade would give an extra dimension.

I suspect that many visiting climbers are mistakenly told that the E grade is a danger grade (a view often erroneously expressed on here as well) whereas if they were told it's just how hard the route feels to lead, the same as any other grading system then they'd get it much quicker.

Again adding the sports grade, a top-rope grade as you'd have it, gives another dimension so the relationship between the two gives an idea of risk as expounded so well by Andy Farnell in a recent thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=330151&v=1#x4874216

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Bu**er! Andy reposted it while I was looking for the link

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Sorry.

Andy F

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

If we add a French grade for longer routes and a V grade for shorter routes, isn't the problem solved?

That way we have:

(1) the E grade for the risk/experience, factoring the availability and nature of protection (including strenuousness of placing), the risk of a bad fall (higher E grade = worse fall) and the blindness of moves (the whole thing will perhaps reflect a measure of the experience of onsighting the route);

(2) the English tech grade for the technical difficulty of the hardest move;

(3) the French grade for the overall technical difficulty of the route - or a V grade for short and bouldery routes.

I think the E and the tech grades should be pretty much totally independent though, so you could have a low E-grade for well-protected routes with high technical difficulty (essentially a sport route), and conversely a high E-grade for routes with a relatively low technical difficulty but a death fall (like Indian Face).

This might mean some routes have their E-grade adjusted to reflect pure danger rather than difficulty aspects.

In reply to John Gillott: I've seen on other threads that Hairless Heart is supposed to fit the new scheme - add three grades for risk - but I can't help thinking that something else is involved.....Simon thinks it's a bit odd that it's given the same E grade as Moon Crack

I don't think its odd - it is a function of how the E system works and was a good illustration of the potential variance of difficulty; highlighting one of its shortcomings.

More specifically re HH I think the key factor is that it is a slab. Personally I wouldnt touch it with a barge pole for that reason. I have discussed this previously on another thread (cant find link)and that fluffability/slippage factor was not deemed as significant by others JCM/Chris the Tall so bowing to consensus equivalence works here - personally I would be happier on pumpier unprotected terrain with positive finger holds. The grade reveals our strengths and weaknesses. E holds a greater sway on our imaginations than X because of familiarity. 6a+ friction slab with disabling consequences would have me walking on by as well.

In reply to RockSteady: Again the error is made in thinking the E = extinction, well it also means effort. It's an overall grade.

Andy F

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's fine - your choice, but the routes I've done, and do in this country are usually graded for the onsight ascent and the system has never given me any cause for major complaint - and seems to fit the styles of our climbing. I don't mind ditching traditional things in favour of something better but I don't see that there is anything better around and I don't want to climb a route described by a souless series of numbers.

Simon thinks that E grades (and thus all adj grades) are here to stay for the moment because they're so popular........ so that tells you something I think

In reply to andy farnell:

precisley(sp?), the info it gives me is the overall difficulty, how well protected, where the crux is likely to be, how sustained etc.

In reply to Simon Lee: I think the example of HH and MC (or London Wall) having the same grade show the beauty and flexibility of the E grade. It (the E grade) tell's you (or should anyway) overall how difficult a climb is, including seriousness (or lack of it), protection (or lack of it) and sustained nature (or lack of it).

For the routes above E5, look at previous posts. But you knew that anyway. Grandmother and eggs. Or should I say re-inventing the wheel.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell: Again the error is made in thinking the E = extinction, well it also means effort. It's an overall grade

Don't forget Ego.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Ah, but that Ego can often be rapidly deflated...

Andy F

In reply to Bulls Crack: and I don't want to climb a route described by a souless series of numbers. Simon thinks that E grades (and thus all adj grades) are here to stay for the moment because they're so popular........ so that tells you something I think


I suspect it tells you that it is a superior system and me that people don't like change.

Remember E1,2,3 etc will have been a souless series of numbers when first introduced.

Routes, lines, position, history are primarily what fire our imaginations not grades.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Yes, sorry if I put that too strongly. For you then the comparison illustrates a shortcoming of the E system. I'm not sure that it does really - for me it illustrates the usefulness of it as a marker of equivalence across styles from an onsighting point of view.

6a+ X and a visual inspection would be pretty off putting in itself to me as well - I have different preferences (bouldery rather than pumpy) but share an aversion to onsight soloing 6a+ smeary slabs. But E5 does sound worse - and rightly so? Maybe I should be more worried by 6a+ X than I am

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:A Suggestion of how a guide book and grade should work in unison...

Route name E7 6b 20m ***
A very bold route where a fall from the crux could have dire consequences. Brilliant climbing on compact solid rock.
Start: Below the steep wall between X and Y.
1. 6b. 20m. Climb the easier lower wall to the overlap (gear in break) Climb above to increasingly difficult moves and a hard move right (crux) to a good jug. Continue boldly but more easily to the top via a direct line (run-out). Belays well back.
FA. Jimmy Bloggs (after top-rope practice "head-point")12.6.2012
Sally Hardcore (on-sight solo) 13.6.2012

We can instantly see Sally Hardcore took advantage of the chalked up holds on this route!

Now forgive me... but that wasn't to difficult to get a "feel" for this route was it? Even without looking at the line too! We seem to be forgetting... the "grade" is not the whole picture in the UK system... it relies on the description too... We have the best system in the world by far, you know in your heart I am right. Mark

In reply to Simon Lee:

But we all know that E means Extreme and, however tenuous the connection sometimes, that's what we want.

In reply to M. Edwards:

Let's try it like this

Jimmy Blogs Can't Climb For Toffee E7 6b (7b+) 20m ***

A very bold route where a fall from the crux could have dire consequences. Brilliant climbing on compact solid rock.

Start: Below the steep wall between X and Y.

1. 6b. 20m. Climb the easier lower wall to the overlap (gear in break) Climb above to increasingly difficult moves and a hard move right (crux) to a good jug. Continue boldly but more easily to the top via a direct line (run-out). Belays well back.

FA. Jimmy Bloggs (after top-rope practice "head-point")12.6.2012
Sally Hardcore (on-sight solo) 13.6.2012

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Or how about this...

Jimmy no balls E7 6b 20m ***

A very safe route with good protection, although sustained climbing and no definite crux. A stamina fest!

Start: Below the obvious finger crack between X and Y.
1. 20m. Pull into the overhanging finger crack and follow to the top. Belay off huge block on ledge.

FA Sally Hardcore and Jimmy Bloggs (on-sight) 14.6.2012

In reply to andy farnell:



I like this system. It makes a lot of sense.

However, I can think of a resulting couple of routes which should be bumped up a few grades though, which would be controversial.

e.g Caution - currently E8 6c but first pro is at 12m and is probably death up to there, combined with f8b climbing would make it E11!!

Similarly, If Six Was Nine E9 6c - f8b and death from the top moves makes for E11 too.

Even if you only counted both routes as serious and scary they would still both be E10...

Hasn't Dave MacLeod been on both and confirmed the grades as they are?

Anyway regardless of this idle chit chat I am definitely in favour of keeping the E+tech grade and including a french or font grade. I know it would help me assess my potential for getting on certain routes a bit more accurately.

I don't really care whether the grade is for onsight or not, I just want it to convey enough information to know whether or not I could climb the route.

In reply to andy farnell:

I understand what it *does" do now, but I think that it is trying to do too many things at once which makes it less useful. I'm proposing that it would be better to have it as the equivalent of the American R/X system and keep the tech side separate. At the moment it seems to be causing difficulties by trying to amalgamate too many 'feelings' into one integer.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
I like the fact that you often adapt economic concepts and use them in your articles. E.g. barrier to entry in your "A few thoughts about risk". Did you take the "risk multiplier" idea from economics too?

James

Adam L: > Source ? The redpoint is the perfect onsight.

>Sorry you need to explain this further, don't get it.

Just been re-reading some of your posts and didnt answer this. By a perfect onsight I mean a perfectly executed onsight ie you read and execute the moves perfectly.

It also occurs to me that there is a certain tension in a demand for a grade to be perfectly aligned to the need of the onsighter. Is not the whole point of onsighting to tackle a route with minimal prior information. Onsighting is having an adventure with a level of uncertainty of the challenges you will face and applying your resources to overcome them. Surely knowing the difficulty as-if-on-top rope is enough info for the aspirant onsighter with a description or grade of risk. You could say any more might constitute beta !

In reply to Simon Lee: helps if you know where the line goes, there's some big crags out there, you might aswell just go without a guidebook which persay is no bad thing but i dont think its what everybody's lookin for.... it sounds like you want to dispence with the whole trad climbing history(romance aside), mountain routes, big sea cliffs the whole point of such endevers is to do the whole thing ground up on-site as one big objective as it is with begining at v.diff and progressing thru the grades, onsighting and trad climbing have always gone hand in hand so its no surprise that the trad grade should not only be "aligned" but developed and grown with trad climbing as an onsight grade. Head pointing the upper grades is an essential tool for pushing physical and exposed limits which in turn gives goals for future climbers to on-site. I'm amazed that a climber of your experience has such a problem with using the british grading system

In reply to the flash:

Oddly enough my bestest ever onsight sport grade came from forgetting the guidebook this summer

In reply to the flash:

Its not just onsight or headpoint though is it - there is ground-up leading and highball bouldering too.

I can, have and no doubt will continue use the british grading system, but it has flaws - lots of them. The increased use of V/Font/French grades gives the additional info I would like. An improved separate risk grade would be the icing on the cake. Can't see it happening just yet though.

As for headpointing pushing the limits of trad onsighting I would say that sport climbing and bouldering are often at least as helpful in preparing a climber in this respect.

In reply to woolsack:

Grades can create mental barriers as well as goals. I managed to lead my first HVS on my first day of leading. I only found that out relatively recently. I wouldnt have attempted it if it had been graded HVS at the time - it was given MildVS then.

In reply to Simon Lee:


Not really. The point of grades is to tell you whether you can do the route. Since most trad routes are climbed onsight (so not headpointed) that's what we need the grade for. That's what the grades we've got do. The way you get it? As Adam L says, by getting a consensus from a bunch of people who've done this.

This obviously means that where routes aren't generally onsighted (at the top end) then the grading system may well have problems. This doesn't mean the system should be changed entirely, nor that it doesn't work for what most people need it for. Grading for some theoretical perfect onsight is meaningless.

In reply to Simon Lee: yes but the dicussion is about trad grades, high balls with mats are some thing different if a trad route is bold effectivly a solo and done sans mats in a trad style then the trad grade is sufficient with mats its a different beast altogether and is a boulder problem give it a boulder grade that doesn't mean you have to dispence with the trad grade and further thru out the uk the amount of routes that fit both profiles is minimal compared to the amount of pure trad routes so why does it undermine the trad grade, as for flaws the only point of repeated discusion is that trad grades can cover a large spectrum within one grade, its bold at one end and sustained n safe at the other and all the colours in between. a good head and fitness/strength are attributes equally needed for a trad climber so if a route is weighted more to one attribute than the other the balance is adjusted but the weight stays the same, as does the Egrade the current system is not cumbersome when understood its actually more versatile when coupled with the view of the route and additional guide book info its more than enough info and if you do really understand the trad grade the french grade is apparent if you really need to translate. Its just like different languages when you can speak both tongues its easy to translate and move from one to the other and the french grade no longer really an insite its more of a comparison. As for bouldering grades a font 7a could be one brit 6c move or a link of 6as & a 6b so where is the clarity. Finally sport and bouldering do prepare the climber but they don't prepare the route for pushing the onsight limits cos trust me onsight new routing is a whole different barrel of monkeys

In reply to Simon Lee:

The point that really needs answering is where your proposed grades come from?

The status quo, which I suggest should remain, simply takes a consensus of folk who've climbed the route. There is no need to 'grade for the onsight' as such, you just get opinions from those who've climbed the route in this style. The style most folk climb the route likewise dictates the most appropriate grade system.

Your system of french grades for 'the perfect sequence' as if on top rope will have a rather smaller demographic to draw opinions from. So who does the grading? Would seconding count as top-roping? What if you get it wrong? [I find I climb worse on second as a rule - less engaged I think] What if you get tired struggling with gear? Will the second's opinion of the grade trump the leaders? Won't you have to select a group of standard climbers and have them top-rope everything?

Still strikes me that the original flaw in this argument is your assertion that grades are somehow inherent in the climb. They are not. They are just an attempt to quantify difficulty that is never quite the same for two people. All grades are just a consensus of some people's opinions. That is all they are and ever can be.

In reply to the flash: Finally sport and bouldering do prepare the climber but they don't prepare the route for pushing the onsight limits cos trust me onsight new routing is a whole different barrel of monkeys


Rubbish. I've done it. It has an extra frisson because you are guessing at how hard its going to be and where the line is likely to take you but other than that it is not so very different from repeating existing routes.

Can you format your posts? Its indigestable: "trad grades..sans mats..diffrent beast..boulder problemm..boulder grade...colours in between..balance is adjusted..not cumbersome..more than enough info..trad grade..french grade..diffrent languages" You get the picture

In reply to Adam L:

Like you say proposed grades come from people who climb the route in whatever style but usually onsight or onsight attempts. In striving to be a objective as you can be, grading should be based on quantifying difficulty rather than articulating 'feel', readability whatever. A lot of people like that the E grade does this ie that it attempts to embrace the subjective as well but this also binds itself up with style.

To strive to be objective if you grade as-if-on top rope you then tend to reduce the influence of the subjective feelie factors. You also provide a lot of info and don't dictate a style which makes that sort of grade more versatile in its applications.

We shouldnt get too precious about what style led us to reach that conclusion. An experienced climber can calibrate how much easier or harder different styles will impact on reaching that conclusion as well as factoring a range of other things such as their own strengths and weaknesses, morphology, conditions, comparison with similar routes etc etc and out of this melting pot they can arrive at their opinion of the grade.

A consensus of these opinions will lead to a generally more accurate agreed upon grade. We are not disagreeing here at least. I am endevouring to argue that seperating the grade of a climb from the range of styles available as far as you can is a better approach. The less bearing one has on the other the better for reasons I hoped I articulated adequately in the article.

(By the way thank you for engaging on this one)

In reply to Simon Lee:

So you are proposing climbing a route in a certain style, then getting to the top and imagining it had been in an entirely different style, and then base the grade on that?

Why not just base the grade on the experience you've had? Which is likely to be the most similar to the experience of those following. I can't see how this grading-by-imagination can hope to offer better accuracy.

Grades can never be objective, I think you have to accept that. In which case allowing for subjectivity in the grade makes sense.

I suspect what we both want from a grade is dictated by our strengths. You've said you don't mind running it out on positive holds on overhanging terrain, but would balk at an easy but bold slab. So for those types of routes you like, a french grade plus danger factor makes sense.

I'm quite the opposite, I'm not bothered by too much by hard individual moves or boldness but I get pumped easily on sustained, steep terrain and then go to pieces. So on bold, slabby ground a low french grade tells me bugger all about how it will feel up there, it just tells me on that it would be easy on top-rope! I knew that!
On steep gound I'm after some guide as to how sustained the route is. An overall grade plus a crux grade tells me whether to expect easy ground with a crux or sustained climbing. French grades are much less use for that.

In reply to Adam L:

Adam. Aren't you off today? Have you looked out the window?!

In reply to Simon Lee:

Excellent article and interesting posts.

I like the E grade system. I think mainly because it breeds good all round climbers by rewarding those who excel at many different climbing skills, strength, stamina, ability to read routes onsight, ability to place gear well and fast, ability to deal with dangerous situations etc.

I agree with lakeland climber / simon that a French grade is a very useful addition once the British tech grade gets up 6a an above, simple because the British tech grades get so wide higher up the scale.

In reply to Simon Lee:

In reply to Simon Lee:

Simon, I'm a yank and what the E grade system seeks to do is not that particularly hard to understand. I rather like the idea of a system that combines danger and difficulty. Since I don't buy the distinction you make between danger and difficulty as things that are subjective and objective respectively, it seems perfectly possible and appropriate to me for us climbers to make a special kind of statement (as in, "That's E7") about the combined mental/physical challenge a given rock climb presents.

Mind you, I've never applied the E system, but prior to your article, I wasn't particularly confused over the issue. In fact, Occam's razor might very well be applied to your rather unwieldy essay (as it well may my own).

That said, it's pretty apparent some folks are having a some trouble with the E system (it's very interesting that this trouble is at the top-end, though). You're obviously having lots of trouble with it. It should be said that others are not and are using it just fine it would seem.

Your desire to trim the complexity and subjectivity of the E system, to replace it with a system that is, in a sense, without style and therefore somehow objective just won't work. Replacing it with a 'grade as-if-on toprope' (TR is its own style, no?) or something of the like will not ultimately relieve your agitation.

Why? Well because Adam L. is right. There is not an 'objective' grade and there never will be. Grades, unfortunately for you at the moment anyway, are what we climbers say they are.

All I mean to say is that grades are consensus-based. You agree I think. Whether by an informal or formal process, grades are the result of us climbers getting together in whatever fashion and talking about climbs, comparing the in terms of what we each (subjectively) thought about their difficulty, and coming to an agreement over a grade. As this very UKC forum suggests, these "agreements" are not set in stone as you suggest (pun intended), but are subject to discussion, re-discussion and so on--until folks, on the whole, reach a point where the issue is somewhat settled.

Whether or not grades are inherent to a rock, as you stated, seems about the least relevant question to pursue. I mean, ask a rock and let's see how far that gets us. If it was true, I can see how that would be the best basis for an objective system whose representations of a rock's difficulty got closer and closer to representing the inherent difficulty. But again, the only way to create grades that are of some use is to ask a climber not a rock, and that throws us back into our subjective group.

So, I'm afraid I have to disagree with your whole basic position. Rather than measuring up to the rock, we measure the rock up to us. You're going to do back flips when I say this, but the grade is always a style in that it will always be subject to what we climbers agree it is or is not. Don't be precious about the notion of an objective system. If I come across an cold to the prospect of such a system, I make no apologies. It just won't work.

In reply to zachary lesch-huie:

Wow! You should visit UKC more often.

In reply to zachary lesch-huie:

Wise words Zach.

Tom, fear not, I was online briefly over a late breakfast after a dawn photo outing, before setting off for The Roaches. Not a day wasted online by any means...

In reply to Simon Lee: Rubbish..... is that my grammar or my opinion.

Firstly in "my experience" of onsight new routing knowing if a line actually goes (especially if its a big sea cliff or hard to back off mountain line), or if that crack you are depending on is flared or just a seam, or whether you'll actually be able to find and climb a sequence of moves. As opposed to that route is 200m long takes this line, has good gear, and the hardest move will be 6c(wether it be hard 6c, easy or just middleing).

All of these factors make it a massively different monkey barrel(notice you didn't attack that particular metaphore last time)

Was it the content or the style that was not to your particular taste?

I noticed you changed the spelling of some words too was that to discredit me or was your formatter not funtioning properly.

your picture i get but do not want.....

In reply to zachary lesch-huie:


At last some sense! I've followed all the various grade debates with an increasing sense of 'if it ain't broke why fix it?' As I'm (together with Andy March) currently ploughing through over 400 new routes in Devon and Cornwall put up since the last definitive guides for a CC Supplement to the region due out next year, the answer seems obvious. In many guides these days one symbol next to a route's grade/length etc., warns all to take the grade with a pinch of salt; it is the humble dagger.

Two examples: JP's latest creation at Dyer's Lookout will go in at E12 and whatever tech grade James decides upon, whilst a couple of hundred yards along the beach there is a recent pleasant little V Diff. Both will get the same stiletto treatment. Hopefully by the time the next definitive guide appears they will have been repeated so many times that a consensus has been achieved and it will disappear.

One further point: CC guides always include the date of the FA and where necessary the FFA. Seems to me that nowadays, aid points having become an endangered species, headpoints et al could easily replace them. Grades will always be subjective, thank goodness. Let's keep our system. It is no more flawed than any other and is entirely appropriate for the incredibly varied rocks that make British crags and climbing so unique.

In reply to Iain Peters: Great stuff, sense at long last. I think the head-point idea in the first ascents list is a good one, also the first on-sight (but it has to be truthful, no chalked up holds etc.). I'm looking forward to the supplement too.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: This was a well written article but its downfall to me is it seeks to place too much emphasis on the grade as being an absolute. Its like trying to find the unifying theory of the universe which has eluded scientists for a century.

E grades are generally regarded as being for an onsight lead, are climbers really wrong to believe this when this is what some guidebooks actually say? Quote from the 1996 BMC Chatsworth guide "...adjectival grade which describes the overall difficulty of the route for AN ONSIGHT ASCENT."
I don't see how you can divorce how hard a route "is" from how hard it "feels". When you're onsighting a route its surely how hard it feels that matters and that is afterall how the vast majority of routes are climbed.

E grades don't have a problem until the very highest levels of difficulty at which point routes are almost never onsighted. It seems therefore that it wouldn't matter whether you gave them any grade, let alone a more precise grade. Once you've toproped it you know exactly how hard it is!
The only purpose of a grade for a headpointed route is too indicate how hard it might be to onsight for future climbers.
One day when climbers get better we'll get accurate onsight grades for these routes, by then of course we'll be arguing that tha E grade doesn't work for E13's E14's etc

Its interesting that 2 of the post which defend the E system most eloqently are by American climbers. Our system works very well for most people, most of the time. Stick on V,F or H grades as an addtion to headpointed only routes for now if you want but don't change the whole system.

In reply to pec:

My apologies for the incorrect use of "too" here. I don't want to start another spelling thread!

In reply to pec: Quote from the 1996 BMC Chatsworth guide "...adjectival grade which describes the overall difficulty of the route for AN ONSIGHT ASCENT."


So what are we to make of other styles of acsent ? Ground up? Beta? They don't get a grade or they don't count ?

The E grade being bound up with style more than other systems is focussed on a predetermined style and set of tactics. French grading by comparison isnt because ir is an if-on-top-rope assesment. I find the French grade information offers a more objective and more precise assessment on how hard a route is. It is also widely applicable to a range of styles.

I liked zachary lesch-huie's post too which similarly accords with John Cox's articulate defence of the adjectival system - probably better articulated than mine. But for me knowing accurately how hard (with one grade) and risky (with another) a route is, is better info to consider an attempt at a route and in what style rather than the all embracing adjectival grade which often doesnt. And of course you use your eyes as well. However, that is me, ZLH's and JCM's view almost certainly represents the current prevailing view for out-and-out trad climbers. I have said more than enough - I'm even boring myself now !

In reply to Simon Lee:

Sorry to bore you further but you state that you would like to see the E grade confined to the dustbin of history. I accept your point that it has limitations at the top end but surely ditching it altogether is overkill. It works perfectly well for the vast majority on the vast majority of routes and no other system is without its faults.

Even at the top end it surely has some relevance, we've had E6 and E7's for 30 years and E8 and E9's for 20 yet its only very recently this furore has erupted (though I'm not saying nobdy's ever complained!). Its only because such a large number of hard routes feature a risk of death that it becomes harder to factor this in without overloading the E grade for danger.
The 2000 Borrowdale guide gives French grades for harder routes as well as UK grades, surely this is a better compromise than ditching the E grade altogether. You could use V grades for shorter gritstone routes if that was felt more relevant.
A final point, if UK tech grades are too wide above 6a why not just subdivide them? 6a-,6a,6a+, etc as long as we always stick an F in front of French grades to avoid confusion wouldn't that help?

In reply to pec:


Your not boring me. Its just me - Im suffering from grade faitigue - Im sure others are as well.

Like I said a French for tall and Font grade for short routes with some sort of risk assessment would hit the spot for me but as I accept Im in a minority (currently) in disppensing with it altogether.

The addition of French and Font grades will fill the gap and go some way to demytstifying and untangling how each E grade is made up. Time will tell whether they supercede them altogether. Re tech grades a tongue-in-cheek suggestion on the UKB board was to take the best bits of the UK tech grade, V grade and Font grade: ...4a,4b,4c,5a,5b,5c,V3,V4,V5,7a,7a+,7b,7b+,7c,7c+,8a...

Makes you think though...

In reply to pec:

>The 2000 Borrowdale guide gives French grades for harder routes as well as UK grades, surely this is a better compromise...

Since it's additional info, is it not classed as beta?

In reply to zachary lesch-huie:

This post is absolutely spot on (the Americans are teaching us about our climbing again!). This is what I was trying to say somewhere else:


If you replaced the E grade with e.g. French plus a danger grade, all you get is a new grade system that climbers have to learn to feel. E.g. if a guidebook says a trad route is 7a R, you would have to think back to the last 7a R you did to get a rough idea of what's to come. It's no good remembering the 7a sport route you did the other day cause it definitely won't feel like that. The E grade does all this already in one hit and even if we don't all understand it perfectly, we definitely have a rough feeling for the grade range in which we operate and this is extremely useful for trad climbing.

The problem with the upper grades, if there is one, is that not enough people are operating there so nobody knows what the latest set of hard routes will settle down at. But given time they will settle down to some consensus grades based on the feelings of the climbers that do them.

Using the E grade plus French or V is a good idea but getting rid of the E grade isn't, IMO.

In reply to Simon Lee:

The E grade (and UK tech grade) don't need demytstifying and untangling, it's not difficult to work out the risk factor from the "difference" between the E grade and UK tech grade - e.g low UK tech for E grade will be sustained or bold/loose, should be possible to see which from a look at the route (or guidebook), etc.

I think the problem is that E and UK tech grades have been badly applied by allowing the upper grade bands (E5 & above, 6b & above - way above me anyway) to become too wide. Once a consensus of climbers (say 80%) agree that route X is harder than route Y, then they should probably have different grades - this hasn't happened with the upper grades.

The problem is that having got the UK grading system into this mess, how to get out of it. The most reasonable suggestion I've seen above seems to me to be to subdivide grades (E or UK tech) using +/-. This has already been done with FRCC guides.

I haven't got a problem with adding a sport or bouldering grade (as appropriate), this would definitely help people to transfer across the different climbing games but I think your viewpoint that sport grades (+ a risk factor) are inherently superior is wrong. I can see that it would be preferable for someone who's predominantly a sport climber, but trad climbers like me find sports grades difficult becuase we have to translate E+tech to sport which doesn't tell us how sustained or cruxy the pitch is.

In reply to Simon Lee: One further problem of French + danger grade only can be imagined in the following scenario:
2 routes of very similar style and difficulty (if on a top rope or hyperthetically bolted), and both equally safe/dangerous would get exactly the same grade.
However if one had easy to place gear at good rests it will FEEL considerably easier to lead than the other if the gear has to be placed in mid move and is fiddly to arrange, though equally secure once placed making it no more dangerous.
The E grade could of course reflect this.
No system is without shortcomings no matter how scientifically objective you try to make it.

In reply to pec: if the gear has to be placed in mid move and is fiddly to arrange, though equally secure once placed making it no more dangerous.
The E grade could of course reflect this.

Its a fair point and a difficulty not just confined to trad climbing. The crux of some sport routes is clipping a bolt. A solution in both cases can be to skip the gear.

I am going OffTopic here but the applixcation of the risk grade as I envisage it would go some way to covering this aspect by having a proprtional relationship to the french grade. It would take into account a notion of the average-climber-at-the-grade such that as an example an unprotected 6a might got the top risk rating but a well protected 7c with an unprotected 6a section would get a lower risk rating. Because a 7c climber would be well within their ability on the 6a section the risk is lower. Similar difficulties regarding disproprtional difficulty in placing the gear would be reflected in the risk grade rather than the French grade.

General discussion here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=319830&v=1#x4720595 though it didnt extend to this I think.