This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I was wondering if people through it was really a positive step in the right direction using ladders and a 'load' of mats to construct a platform below a potentially dangerous route?
Many of these top end trad routes have high grades BECAUSE they are dangerous, so to remove a large part of that danger is essentially degrading (literally) the route, bringing the route down to your level - you may have the physical ability, but not the mental (bravery/control) ability to do it.
If we use the Promise as an example (since its all the rage right now), then lets postulate that for JP with no matts its an E9. If subsequent ascentionists then construct a 'patio' under it, it seems pretty obvious their ascent will only warrant an E7 give or take. But the point is they didn't step up to the mark. The first ascentionist laid down the gauntlet, and the standard to be judged by. If subsequent ascentinists don't have the ability to climb at that standard, then is there any merit in bringing the route down to their level? or is that not just a step back in standards, a blurring of ethics and on a personal level, a rather hollow ascent.
Many of these top end trad routes have high grades BECAUSE they are dangerous, so to remove a large part of that danger is essentially degrading (literally) the route, bringing the route down to your level - you may have the physical ability, but not the mental (bravery/control) ability to do it.
If we use the Promise as an example (since its all the rage right now), then lets postulate that for JP with no matts its an E9. If subsequent ascentionists then construct a 'patio' under it, it seems pretty obvious their ascent will only warrant an E7 give or take. But the point is they didn't step up to the mark. The first ascentionist laid down the gauntlet, and the standard to be judged by. If subsequent ascentinists don't have the ability to climb at that standard, then is there any merit in bringing the route down to their level? or is that not just a step back in standards, a blurring of ethics and on a personal level, a rather hollow ascent.
In reply to MattDTC: If routes are short enough that they can be partially protected by mats, then I say go for it.
Remember, these issues are very peak-centric....most of us don't give a toss if a route can be "mat-protected".
Trad climbing is about going up to a route, climbing it, and leaving no trace. Bolts bring routes down to our level, mats do a little, but as long as you are honest....does it really matter?
The only reason these routes get E grades is for willy waving....highball Fb7b+ doesn't sound half as impressive as E10, does it?
Remember, these issues are very peak-centric....most of us don't give a toss if a route can be "mat-protected".
Trad climbing is about going up to a route, climbing it, and leaving no trace. Bolts bring routes down to our level, mats do a little, but as long as you are honest....does it really matter?
The only reason these routes get E grades is for willy waving....highball Fb7b+ doesn't sound half as impressive as E10, does it?
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
Yeah, its not so much the mat element, as the Ladder....what next?
Yeah, its not so much the mat element, as the Ladder....what next?
In reply to MattDTC: But on the other hand, as long as they're honest about use of ladder, mats, patio etc, what's the big deal, does it matter? Personally I'm here to enjoy the climbing, not to risk death on pointy rocks for the sake of it. If that's the challenge you want then good for you but we each choose our own acceptable level of risk in this game.
In reply to MattDTC:
Hi Matt,
In principle I agree with you on many of your points, but my understanding about The Promise is that the route has been regraded by climbers who consider the runner to be bombproof, and the mats don't come into it. If the runner was poor or not there, I'm pretty sure these lads would have given it a highball font grade (or a reduced E grade. As Kevin Jorgeson (one of the recent American visitors)said, its often E for experience.
Graham
Hi Matt,
In principle I agree with you on many of your points, but my understanding about The Promise is that the route has been regraded by climbers who consider the runner to be bombproof, and the mats don't come into it. If the runner was poor or not there, I'm pretty sure these lads would have given it a highball font grade (or a reduced E grade. As Kevin Jorgeson (one of the recent American visitors)said, its often E for experience.
Graham
In reply to chris j:
I agree with you, yet....theres something that irks about this way of bringing a route to your level
I agree with you, yet....theres something that irks about this way of bringing a route to your level
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
It'd be interesting to see how many of these Fb7b+ problems/routes you'd be willing to jump straight on as boulder problems, above mats, if you were ever down this way.
> The only reason these routes get E grades is for willy waving....highball Fb7b+ doesn't sound half as impressive as E10, does it?
It'd be interesting to see how many of these Fb7b+ problems/routes you'd be willing to jump straight on as boulder problems, above mats, if you were ever down this way.
In reply to MattDTC: urmmm, you still have to be good enough and strong enough to climb it? guess if you used the ladder to actually climb it that may be bringing it down to YOUR level, but using it to flatten out the landing isn't in my opinion.
In reply to MattDTC:
Isn't that what headpointing does too?
> I agree with you, yet....theres something that irks about this way of bringing a route to your level
Isn't that what headpointing does too?
In reply to Jon Redshaw:
I disagree, there is a very large mental element to these routes, and to remove it is to remove part of the route.
I disagree, there is a very large mental element to these routes, and to remove it is to remove part of the route.
In reply to 1234None: Not many, I like the use of my ankles!
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
Yeah, me too. That comment strikes a very strong cord with me right now, sat here with my leg up in the air trying to reduce swelling after a highball accident...ouch!
Yeah, me too. That comment strikes a very strong cord with me right now, sat here with my leg up in the air trying to reduce swelling after a highball accident...ouch!
In reply to MattDTC: Depends what you climb for, sometimes its nice to climb for the mental side, sometimes the moves. As long as you state what you did it dosen't matter.
In reply to Jon Redshaw:
Yeah, I suppose I would suggest going and doing a less mentally challenging route on those days, instead of downgrading the route to you. Especially when we're talking about the top end / media spotlight end of the sport.
Yeah, I suppose I would suggest going and doing a less mentally challenging route on those days, instead of downgrading the route to you. Especially when we're talking about the top end / media spotlight end of the sport.
In reply to 1234None: Ouch! hope you fix that soon.
In reply to MattDTC: Why choose another route, they are just as entitled to climb it as anyone else and in the style they choose. Am not going to get drawn into the downgrading side of it.
In reply to MattDTC:
What's wrong with climbing for the sake of enjoying the moves ? If you accept that you are highly likely to fall then it makes sense to pad out the landing as best you can. Yes it means you can't easily pigeonhole it as a trad route or a highball boulder problem, but does that really matter ?
The use of the ladder, pads etc don't damage the rock, therefore no problem
What's wrong with climbing for the sake of enjoying the moves ? If you accept that you are highly likely to fall then it makes sense to pad out the landing as best you can. Yes it means you can't easily pigeonhole it as a trad route or a highball boulder problem, but does that really matter ?
The use of the ladder, pads etc don't damage the rock, therefore no problem
In reply to MattDTC: So the E grade should include the use of mats? In the same way that Goliath at Burbage south is graded E4 now because of giant cams but most people do not own giant cams so probably find it harder.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
There's nothing wrong with 'enjoying the moves', and its a personal choice, so long as your not causing damage etc. But beyond that, top end trad in the UK is deeply routed in risk. The danger element is a big part of it (obviously there are exceptions). To try and remove this is to miss the point of these routes. If it wasn't then top roping these routes would be a perfectly acceptable claim to an ascent. Its much easier to water a challenge down, than to put yourself on the line and take it.
> (In reply to MattDTC)
> What's wrong with climbing for the sake of enjoying the moves ? If you accept that you are highly likely to fall then it makes sense to pad out the landing as best you can.
> What's wrong with climbing for the sake of enjoying the moves ? If you accept that you are highly likely to fall then it makes sense to pad out the landing as best you can.
There's nothing wrong with 'enjoying the moves', and its a personal choice, so long as your not causing damage etc. But beyond that, top end trad in the UK is deeply routed in risk. The danger element is a big part of it (obviously there are exceptions). To try and remove this is to miss the point of these routes. If it wasn't then top roping these routes would be a perfectly acceptable claim to an ascent. Its much easier to water a challenge down, than to put yourself on the line and take it.
In reply to MattDTC: Yeah, but not using mats is artifiacially increasing the risks...is it not?
Why not put a spike under the landing?
Why not put a spike under the landing?
In reply to MattDTC:
The level of risk you undertake should always be a personal decision, not subject to debate by armchair critics.
The level of risk you undertake should always be a personal decision, not subject to debate by armchair critics.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Now an armchair would be ideal I woud have thought. With a ladder on it.
I agree its personal choice, see my earlier post;
The question is, is it an erosion of UK trad ethics, and if you don't feel it is, then at what point would you stand up and say you thought it was?
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
> [...]
>
> There's nothing wrong with 'enjoying the moves', and its a personal choice, so long as your not causing damage etc.
> [...]
>
> There's nothing wrong with 'enjoying the moves', and its a personal choice, so long as your not causing damage etc.
The question is, is it an erosion of UK trad ethics, and if you don't feel it is, then at what point would you stand up and say you thought it was?
In reply to MattDTC: The peak may be in the UK, but it isn't The UK
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
True.
I suppose its more of an issue on Grit because of what is considered a route or a highball, plus the blurring of different ethics associated with each style.
True.
I suppose its more of an issue on Grit because of what is considered a route or a highball, plus the blurring of different ethics associated with each style.
In reply to MattDTC:
It's a evolution.
I would stand up and say something if the rock was being damaged
I would also stand up and say something if I felt people are trying to induce others to take unneccessary risks through peer pressure, back-biting etc.
(Actually I stand up and say what I think far too often. It gets me into trouble, and BMC committees....)
It's a evolution.
I would stand up and say something if the rock was being damaged
I would also stand up and say something if I felt people are trying to induce others to take unneccessary risks through peer pressure, back-biting etc.
(Actually I stand up and say what I think far too often. It gets me into trouble, and BMC committees....)
In reply to MattDTC:
It applies equally to County sandstone, half the routes I've done there get trad grades but are effectively highballs.
It applies equally to County sandstone, half the routes I've done there get trad grades but are effectively highballs.
In reply to MattDTC: Ive not really been following the whole promise thing but I find all these downgrades odd as no one has accepted the challenge JP set. Theres nothing wrong with climbing the route for the sake of the climbing but dont downgrade it if you haven't matched or bettered the style of the FA. Same with the groove. If someone has repeated it without pads then fair enough.
In reply to AMo: Nah, the county has been "bouldering" for years
In reply to MattDTC:
Can't people just go out and climb stuff as they see fit without getting a note from the ethics police beforehand. I don't hear people questioning Katy Whittaker after she headpointed Master's Edge even though it had already been onsighted.
> I agree its personal choice, see my earlier post;
>
> [...]
>
>
> The question is, is it an erosion of UK trad ethics, and if you don't feel it is, then at what point would you stand up and say you thought it was?
>
> [...]
>
>
> The question is, is it an erosion of UK trad ethics, and if you don't feel it is, then at what point would you stand up and say you thought it was?
Can't people just go out and climb stuff as they see fit without getting a note from the ethics police beforehand. I don't hear people questioning Katy Whittaker after she headpointed Master's Edge even though it had already been onsighted.
In reply to JoeL 90:
It could be argued that The Promise has yet to have a second ascent, but thats getting into murky waters!
It could be argued that The Promise has yet to have a second ascent, but thats getting into murky waters!
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Cos no one sees an issue with that (I presume?)
> (In reply to MattDTC)
> [...]
>
> I don't hear people questioning Katy Whittaker after she headpointed Master's Edge even though it had already been onsighted.
> [...]
>
> I don't hear people questioning Katy Whittaker after she headpointed Master's Edge even though it had already been onsighted.
Cos no one sees an issue with that (I presume?)
In reply to JoeL 90:
"Theres nothing wrong with climbing the route for the sake of the climbing but dont downgrade it if you haven't matched or bettered the style of the FA"
True, but isn't ground up a better form of ascent than headpointed?
"Theres nothing wrong with climbing the route for the sake of the climbing but dont downgrade it if you haven't matched or bettered the style of the FA"
True, but isn't ground up a better form of ascent than headpointed?
In reply to Morgan Woods: I assume she didn't downgrade it though? I dont think anyone on here is suggesting people should be banned from climbing climbs in worse style than the original ascentionist.
In reply to james oswald: Dunno really there seemed to be a bit of discussion on the matter further up the thread. I think people seem to be suggesting with pads a boulder grade is more appropriate anyway.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
This thread is tedious...are people really that bothered? Climb what you want with pads, without pads, headpointing, onsighting, whatever.
So long as the individual is happy with the style in which they've climbed a route, and they've enjoyed the experience to the full, then what des it matter.
I like and respect the "trad" ethic in the UK, but sometimes I wonder if we are occasionally a bit too tied up in ethical consideration/discussion (i.e. threads such as this - they used a ladder - so f*cking what?!), rather than just going out there, being as safe as reasonably possible, climbing hard and having fun.
I'm sure those operating at the top level are keen to preserve their ankles/legs to protect their livelihoods. So they flatten landings and use mats sometimes when they consider it appropriate/necessary. Why should that generate so much discussion?
This thread is tedious...are people really that bothered? Climb what you want with pads, without pads, headpointing, onsighting, whatever.
So long as the individual is happy with the style in which they've climbed a route, and they've enjoyed the experience to the full, then what des it matter.
I like and respect the "trad" ethic in the UK, but sometimes I wonder if we are occasionally a bit too tied up in ethical consideration/discussion (i.e. threads such as this - they used a ladder - so f*cking what?!), rather than just going out there, being as safe as reasonably possible, climbing hard and having fun.
I'm sure those operating at the top level are keen to preserve their ankles/legs to protect their livelihoods. So they flatten landings and use mats sometimes when they consider it appropriate/necessary. Why should that generate so much discussion?
In reply to Morgan Woods:
They can, and do.
But the point is, as climbers we all adhere to ethics, as individuals and as a collective.
At what point are you going to say an ascent is unethical?
> (In reply to MattDTC)
> [...]
>
> Can't people just go out and climb stuff as they see fit without getting a note from the ethics police beforehand.
> [...]
>
> Can't people just go out and climb stuff as they see fit without getting a note from the ethics police beforehand.
They can, and do.
But the point is, as climbers we all adhere to ethics, as individuals and as a collective.
At what point are you going to say an ascent is unethical?
In reply to MattDTC: Why does the style of ascent bother you if it doesn't damage the rock. It's about personal acheivement, not about merit.
People like you bring down UKC.
People like you bring down UKC.
In reply to MattDTC:
uummm pass....ok when you squash some vegetarians in your 4x4 on your way to the crag.
i don't think i've seen anything unethical in all the grit ascents that have been reported lately.....just several different styles.
> (In reply to Morgan Woods)
> [...]
>
> > At what point are you going to say an ascent is unethical?
> [...]
>
> > At what point are you going to say an ascent is unethical?
uummm pass....ok when you squash some vegetarians in your 4x4 on your way to the crag.
i don't think i've seen anything unethical in all the grit ascents that have been reported lately.....just several different styles.
In reply to MattDTC:
Nothing wrong with making a route safer with pads - who has a deathwish?
Half dozen mats below Great Slab doesn't make it an E3, but it'll be just as good an experience to solo for most.
Using a bouncy castle but claiming E3 is another matter.
Same applies to the promise. Ben, Pete and friends would rather ground up than headpoint, but don't want broken legs for their troubles. What is wrong with them using pads? Honest prevailed, grade dropped a notch and tibia remained intact.
Nothing wrong with making a route safer with pads - who has a deathwish?
Half dozen mats below Great Slab doesn't make it an E3, but it'll be just as good an experience to solo for most.
Using a bouncy castle but claiming E3 is another matter.
Same applies to the promise. Ben, Pete and friends would rather ground up than headpoint, but don't want broken legs for their troubles. What is wrong with them using pads? Honest prevailed, grade dropped a notch and tibia remained intact.
In reply to Owen W-G:
Same applies to the promise. Ben, Pete and friends would rather ground up than headpoint, but don't want broken legs for their troubles. What is wrong with them using pads? Honest prevailed, grade dropped a notch and tibia remained intact.
There's nothing wrong with them doing this, except that they rather publicly downgraded the route when they hadn't actually repeated it. Strong boulderers and sports climbers have always been able to climb well on gritstone, but very few have actually been willing to accept the real challenge.
Same applies to the promise. Ben, Pete and friends would rather ground up than headpoint, but don't want broken legs for their troubles. What is wrong with them using pads? Honest prevailed, grade dropped a notch and tibia remained intact.
There's nothing wrong with them doing this, except that they rather publicly downgraded the route when they hadn't actually repeated it. Strong boulderers and sports climbers have always been able to climb well on gritstone, but very few have actually been willing to accept the real challenge.
In reply to gallam1:
I agree. They should forgo all these filthy modern cheating techniques and climb solo in homemade hobnail boots.
> the real challenge.
I agree. They should forgo all these filthy modern cheating techniques and climb solo in homemade hobnail boots.
In reply to MattDTC: You've got a very good point. I've repeatedly watched the video and noticed that they also used chalk which helps their grip and they used some special climbing shoes. Upon further research I learnt that these are made of sticky rubber, so sticky that they can literally walk up walls!
Inbetween pulling fluff from my navel and cleaning my toes I investigated further, now that I knew they were cheating. Firstly, they waited for cold dry weather, apparently to improve friction. Wearing clothes conveys a certain advantage, in that it stops their testicles from freezing and dropping off, but the worst crime of all is that they've been practising climbing for years, in the case of Mr Bransby 20years! The route never stood a chance. A sad day.
Inbetween pulling fluff from my navel and cleaning my toes I investigated further, now that I knew they were cheating. Firstly, they waited for cold dry weather, apparently to improve friction. Wearing clothes conveys a certain advantage, in that it stops their testicles from freezing and dropping off, but the worst crime of all is that they've been practising climbing for years, in the case of Mr Bransby 20years! The route never stood a chance. A sad day.
In reply to MattDTC:
This is a non-issue. I was there, I saw the ladder and the four mats spread thinly over a few blocks.
The lads could have top-rope practised the route and despatched it in an hour or so, probably with no mats or a single mat over the main boulder, in the confidence that they were extremely unlikely to fall. Instead they decided to go for the ground-up which meant that they knew they were committing themselves to falls. They didn't know how good the runner was so they padded the fall zone out a bit - nothing much wrong with this. They then found that the runner was bomber but didn't bother moving the mats since they had become a bit irrelevant. On the actual ascent the padding wasn't an issue and wouldn't be for anyone who had tested that runner properly.
To me this route looked very much like E7 with a good runner. I would also suspect that there are a few John Allen routes in the Peak graded E5 6c that are of comparable difficulty, protection and fall zone.
Alan
This is a non-issue. I was there, I saw the ladder and the four mats spread thinly over a few blocks.
The lads could have top-rope practised the route and despatched it in an hour or so, probably with no mats or a single mat over the main boulder, in the confidence that they were extremely unlikely to fall. Instead they decided to go for the ground-up which meant that they knew they were committing themselves to falls. They didn't know how good the runner was so they padded the fall zone out a bit - nothing much wrong with this. They then found that the runner was bomber but didn't bother moving the mats since they had become a bit irrelevant. On the actual ascent the padding wasn't an issue and wouldn't be for anyone who had tested that runner properly.
To me this route looked very much like E7 with a good runner. I would also suspect that there are a few John Allen routes in the Peak graded E5 6c that are of comparable difficulty, protection and fall zone.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Did anonymous delete their post or was it pulled? It seemed a fair enough question, from a point of view of curiosity.
Did anonymous delete their post or was it pulled? It seemed a fair enough question, from a point of view of curiosity.
In reply to Oli:
Yes the question was fair, he asked which JA routes. Not sure why he felt the need to hide his identity though.
I was just looking into it. Things like Wall of Sound have easier moves but probably dodgier gear. The Rivelin desperates tend to stop most people in their tracks - really hard moves above a runner or two. Shirley's Shining Temple - again, not technically as hard, and relatively safe slither-off-able, but much more precarious. Grace and Danger... all really hard routes.
My point is more that these JA routes tend to be underestimated these days and many could be found to be worth E6 or more nowadays. I am not saying that they are equivalent to The Promise, but there probably isn't that much between them, certainly not 5 E grades. That would be equivalent to the difference between a HVS and an E5.
Alan
Yes the question was fair, he asked which JA routes. Not sure why he felt the need to hide his identity though.
I was just looking into it. Things like Wall of Sound have easier moves but probably dodgier gear. The Rivelin desperates tend to stop most people in their tracks - really hard moves above a runner or two. Shirley's Shining Temple - again, not technically as hard, and relatively safe slither-off-able, but much more precarious. Grace and Danger... all really hard routes.
My point is more that these JA routes tend to be underestimated these days and many could be found to be worth E6 or more nowadays. I am not saying that they are equivalent to The Promise, but there probably isn't that much between them, certainly not 5 E grades. That would be equivalent to the difference between a HVS and an E5.
Alan
In reply to MattDTC:
There's a lot of talk about "bringing routes down to [whoever's] level" flying about lately.
To be honest I dont care if someone uses a bouldering pad or not. If the nature of the route is that a bouldering pad would be useful (so the shorter grit routes then, this is a very peak-centric argument really) then why wouldn't you put it down?!
People seem to be forgetting that the basic principle of good trad is to arrive at the bottom. Climb to the top, bring up a second and leave no trace. Obviously the sheer number of climbers out there now has made that last step a bit of a misnomer with many popular routes having the gear placements "flagged up" because they've eroded so much they're now a different colour! However, so long as you dont get the drill out then things are pretty cool.
So, on a route like Acme Wall at Brimham, for example, a pad makes the route much safer (but not completely, remember what happened to poor Julie recently!). This may well affect the grade but at the end of the day so long as a climber is honest about what they did and is having fun (lest we forget that this is the whole point of climbing!) without damaging the rock for others then its all gravy.
I think the main issue that comes in is how big a mat is too big? Imagine an inflatable air bag the size of a house! Indian Face might become safe and it would be a pretty cheeky ascent and not really the Indian Face in its nature. This ambiguity is why JP doesn't use pads.
In my opinion the answer to the question is simply to enjoy yourself, be honest, don't damage the rock and if you're thinking of going for a bold route and fancy having a bit of paddage try not to take the piss! The aforementioned house pad is taking the piss. 40 odd pads at the base of Acme wall would be taking the piss. A Phud at the bottom of Kayak is not.
I think the way to tell the difference is that if a bold route still feels bold with the pad down then you've not overdone it.
Part of my climbing is grade chasing and for that reason I tend not to use pads on bold routes as I feel I would have cheated for the grade. However, if the grade is unimportant to you then this isn't really an issue.
There's a lot of talk about "bringing routes down to [whoever's] level" flying about lately.
To be honest I dont care if someone uses a bouldering pad or not. If the nature of the route is that a bouldering pad would be useful (so the shorter grit routes then, this is a very peak-centric argument really) then why wouldn't you put it down?!
People seem to be forgetting that the basic principle of good trad is to arrive at the bottom. Climb to the top, bring up a second and leave no trace. Obviously the sheer number of climbers out there now has made that last step a bit of a misnomer with many popular routes having the gear placements "flagged up" because they've eroded so much they're now a different colour! However, so long as you dont get the drill out then things are pretty cool.
So, on a route like Acme Wall at Brimham, for example, a pad makes the route much safer (but not completely, remember what happened to poor Julie recently!). This may well affect the grade but at the end of the day so long as a climber is honest about what they did and is having fun (lest we forget that this is the whole point of climbing!) without damaging the rock for others then its all gravy.
I think the main issue that comes in is how big a mat is too big? Imagine an inflatable air bag the size of a house! Indian Face might become safe and it would be a pretty cheeky ascent and not really the Indian Face in its nature. This ambiguity is why JP doesn't use pads.
In my opinion the answer to the question is simply to enjoy yourself, be honest, don't damage the rock and if you're thinking of going for a bold route and fancy having a bit of paddage try not to take the piss! The aforementioned house pad is taking the piss. 40 odd pads at the base of Acme wall would be taking the piss. A Phud at the bottom of Kayak is not.
I think the way to tell the difference is that if a bold route still feels bold with the pad down then you've not overdone it.
Part of my climbing is grade chasing and for that reason I tend not to use pads on bold routes as I feel I would have cheated for the grade. However, if the grade is unimportant to you then this isn't really an issue.
I forgot to mention that the reason I think we're having this discussion is that bouldering mats are a pretty new development. If we'd had UKC during the first introduction of cams I think we would be seeing the same arguments. Over time pads may well come to be as accepted as cams are today.
Here I go again.
I also think that people overestimate the effect that pads will have on anything where the landing isn't already pretty good. If its flat ground with maybe a couple of lumps and small rocks then the pad will make a nice difference. When you get to a full on boulder field as it looks like there is at the bottom of The Promise then the help that a few pads can give you becomes much less, especially if you don't know exactly where you're going to fall.
I also think that people overestimate the effect that pads will have on anything where the landing isn't already pretty good. If its flat ground with maybe a couple of lumps and small rocks then the pad will make a nice difference. When you get to a full on boulder field as it looks like there is at the bottom of The Promise then the help that a few pads can give you becomes much less, especially if you don't know exactly where you're going to fall.
In reply to MattDTC: I can't stand red pointing ,head pointing ,and ground up sounds bollocks to!Its all the same working a route into submission.2 or 3 goes OK but any more, come on!
In reply to Will Hunt:
There's only a limited number of cams you can use on a route, but (depending on budget) an unlimited number of mats / safe landing techniques. In theory, anything under 12m could be safe.
> I forgot to mention that the reason I think we're having this discussion is that bouldering mats are a pretty new development. If we'd had UKC during the first introduction of cams I think we would be seeing the same arguments. Over time pads may well come to be as accepted as cams are today.
There's only a limited number of cams you can use on a route, but (depending on budget) an unlimited number of mats / safe landing techniques. In theory, anything under 12m could be safe.
In reply to silo:
Well don't do it then, no-one is forcing you.
> (In reply to MattDTC) I can't stand red pointing ,head pointing ,and ground up
Well don't do it then, no-one is forcing you.
In reply to Chris All I'm saying if you can't do a route do more climbing and return later.working a route into submission is for what kudos?
In reply to silo: all the same working a route into submission. 2 or 3 goes OK but any more, come on!
2/3 goes = Ground-up
3/8 goes = Grind down
8+ goes = Go home
2/3 goes = Ground-up
3/8 goes = Grind down
8+ goes = Go home
In reply to silo:
For the challenge of seeing if you can improve enough to do moves that seem totally out of reach when you first try it? To learn from working that route and transfer the learned skills to other routes you might be able to onsight/ground-up? For the buzz of climbing something perfectly in control that is much harder than the routes you normally lead?
> In reply to Chris All I'm saying if you can't do a route do more climbing and return later.working a route into submission is for what kudos?
For the challenge of seeing if you can improve enough to do moves that seem totally out of reach when you first try it? To learn from working that route and transfer the learned skills to other routes you might be able to onsight/ground-up? For the buzz of climbing something perfectly in control that is much harder than the routes you normally lead?
In reply to Simon Lee:
Agreed.
> (In reply to silo) all the same working a route into submission. 2 or 3 goes OK but any more, come on!
>
>
> 2/3 goes = Ground-up
> 3/8 goes = Grind down
> 8+ goes = Go home
>
>
> 2/3 goes = Ground-up
> 3/8 goes = Grind down
> 8+ goes = Go home
Agreed.
In reply to silo:
It's not for kudos, it's for personal enjoyment. Personally it doen't float my boat anymore, but if it floats someone elses, then let them get on with it.
> In reply to Chris All I'm saying if you can't do a route do more climbing and return later.working a route into submission is for what kudos?
It's not for kudos, it's for personal enjoyment. Personally it doen't float my boat anymore, but if it floats someone elses, then let them get on with it.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I didn't feel any need, I was on someone else's computer. And how do you know I'm a 'he'?
In relation to your earlier post about the Promise ascents, what they did was analagous to turning up at the Roaches, leading Chalkstorm with a side runner and then declaring that the route cannot possibly be E4 to solo. Whilst there is nothing wrong with doing Chalkstorm with a side runner its not generally something to shout about. And it only ever feels like E4 if you solo it without mats.
In relation to the general point about the mat technology being there so why not use it and then downgrade everything, how about using vacuum clamps to protect slate? 10 clamps at the crux of My Halo would make it safe, along with a steel reinforced mat over the razor blade waiting at the bottom. It would then 'only' be E5. The technology is available, so why not use it? We could then loudly accuse Nick Dixon of over-grading.
It is quite ironic that the Yorkshire term for all of the various cheating antics that used to go on (top-roping, abseil inspections, pre-placed gear, hanging top-ropes, yo-yoing with a friend etc.) was "upholstery". It seems that everyone now owns a chuncky piece of upholstery and cannot for the life of them see what the problem is with using it.
> (In reply to Oli)
>
> Yes the question was fair, he asked which JA routes. Not sure why he felt the need to hide his identity though.
>
> Yes the question was fair, he asked which JA routes. Not sure why he felt the need to hide his identity though.
I didn't feel any need, I was on someone else's computer. And how do you know I'm a 'he'?
> I was just looking into it. Things like Wall of Sound have easier moves but probably dodgier gear. The Rivelin desperates tend to stop most people in their tracks - really hard moves above a runner or two. Shirley's Shining Temple - again, not technically as hard, and relatively safe slither-off-able, but much more precarious. Grace and Danger... all really hard routes.
> My point is more that these JA routes tend to be underestimated these days and many could be found to be worth E6 or more nowadays. I am not saying that they are equivalent to The Promise, but there probably isn't that much between them, certainly not 5 E grades. That would be equivalent to the difference between a HVS and an E5.
>
Grace and Danger and Boys Will Be Boys should probably be easy E7 and Terminator E6. The Promise could easily be E9 given that it seems to be 8a/8a+ and the landing is bad, so there isn't 5 grades worth of difference between these.>
In relation to your earlier post about the Promise ascents, what they did was analagous to turning up at the Roaches, leading Chalkstorm with a side runner and then declaring that the route cannot possibly be E4 to solo. Whilst there is nothing wrong with doing Chalkstorm with a side runner its not generally something to shout about. And it only ever feels like E4 if you solo it without mats.
In relation to the general point about the mat technology being there so why not use it and then downgrade everything, how about using vacuum clamps to protect slate? 10 clamps at the crux of My Halo would make it safe, along with a steel reinforced mat over the razor blade waiting at the bottom. It would then 'only' be E5. The technology is available, so why not use it? We could then loudly accuse Nick Dixon of over-grading.
It is quite ironic that the Yorkshire term for all of the various cheating antics that used to go on (top-roping, abseil inspections, pre-placed gear, hanging top-ropes, yo-yoing with a friend etc.) was "upholstery". It seems that everyone now owns a chuncky piece of upholstery and cannot for the life of them see what the problem is with using it.
In reply to gallam1:
I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
No it isn't. JP lead the route with the same runner which he also bounced tested (it didn't fail). The runner was placed from the ground on all ascents (AFAIK - but definitely for this weekend's ascents).
The mats didn't make any difference to these repeats, in fact in all the (20+ falls) no-one touched a mat. This is a route protected by a runner, not a solo, or route with a side-runner, or a high-ball boulder problem.
Alan
> Grace and Danger and Boys Will Be Boys should probably be easy E7 and Terminator E6. The Promise could easily be E9 given that it seems to be 8a/8a+
I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
> In relation to your earlier post about the Promise ascents, what they did was analagous to turning up at the Roaches, leading Chalkstorm with a side runner and then declaring that the route cannot possibly be E4 to solo. Whilst there is nothing wrong with doing Chalkstorm with a side runner its not generally something to shout about. And it only ever feels like E4 if you solo it without mats.
No it isn't. JP lead the route with the same runner which he also bounced tested (it didn't fail). The runner was placed from the ground on all ascents (AFAIK - but definitely for this weekend's ascents).
The mats didn't make any difference to these repeats, in fact in all the (20+ falls) no-one touched a mat. This is a route protected by a runner, not a solo, or route with a side-runner, or a high-ball boulder problem.
Alan
In reply to gallam1:
The major downgrade of The Promise is not the E-grade - which is most certainly style dependent.
Make up your own minds - mats/ground up, mats/with top rope rehearsal, without mats/with top rope rehearsal, kicking the runner out/with top rehearsal......
It's the Font grade ---- it's jumped from Font 8A down to Font 7B+. That is a major downgrade.
Now that is bizarre. How did James get it wrong or did he? All ascensionists have used the same sequence - so there is no get out close there.
It is doubly bizarre when you consider James' bouldering ascents are very hard and his repeats of The Zone E9 6C and Knocking on Heavens Door E9 6C and the third ascent of Equilibrium E10 7a.
There is another conundrum which relates to the E grade as well.
If headpoint routes are graded for the onsight, none of the headpoint ascents can claim the E10 initial grade, as they top roped the route before the lead..... that includes Pearson, Honnold, Jorgeson and Roberts.
Only Robins and Bransby can claim the E10. But they aren't, Robins says E7 and Bransby E8.
Very very odd indeed.
Mick
The major downgrade of The Promise is not the E-grade - which is most certainly style dependent.
Make up your own minds - mats/ground up, mats/with top rope rehearsal, without mats/with top rope rehearsal, kicking the runner out/with top rehearsal......
It's the Font grade ---- it's jumped from Font 8A down to Font 7B+. That is a major downgrade.
Now that is bizarre. How did James get it wrong or did he? All ascensionists have used the same sequence - so there is no get out close there.
It is doubly bizarre when you consider James' bouldering ascents are very hard and his repeats of The Zone E9 6C and Knocking on Heavens Door E9 6C and the third ascent of Equilibrium E10 7a.
There is another conundrum which relates to the E grade as well.
If headpoint routes are graded for the onsight, none of the headpoint ascents can claim the E10 initial grade, as they top roped the route before the lead..... that includes Pearson, Honnold, Jorgeson and Roberts.
Only Robins and Bransby can claim the E10. But they aren't, Robins says E7 and Bransby E8.
Very very odd indeed.
Mick
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Font 7b+ and 8a are not inconsistent. I think the Americans thought it was 5.13b/c.
It looked like Ben Bransby hit the mat in the video. The angle could have been deceptive. If the mats didn't make any difference they wouldn't have taken them; see JR's post about his ascent in another thread. If you go sport climbing at Buoux the mats "don't make any difference".
> (In reply to gallam1)
> [...]
>
> I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
> [...]
>
> I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
Font 7b+ and 8a are not inconsistent. I think the Americans thought it was 5.13b/c.
>
> [...]
>
> The mats didn't make any difference to these repeats, in fact in all the (20+ falls) no-one touched a mat. This is a route protected by a runner, not a solo, or route with a side-runner, or a high-ball boulder problem.
> [...]
>
> The mats didn't make any difference to these repeats, in fact in all the (20+ falls) no-one touched a mat. This is a route protected by a runner, not a solo, or route with a side-runner, or a high-ball boulder problem.
It looked like Ben Bransby hit the mat in the video. The angle could have been deceptive. If the mats didn't make any difference they wouldn't have taken them; see JR's post about his ascent in another thread. If you go sport climbing at Buoux the mats "don't make any difference".
In reply to gallam1:
Well I have already answered this elsewhere - the mats were their through their choice to do it ground-up, committing themselves to falls. They didn't trust the runner initially, but later they did.
Pre-practised headpoint above no mats, or the ground-up approach above 4 scattered mats - I know which one involves more commitment!
Alan
> It looked like Ben Bransby hit the mat in the video. The angle could have been deceptive. If the mats didn't make any difference they wouldn't have taken them; see JR's post about his ascent in another thread. If you go sport climbing at Buoux the mats "don't make any difference".
Well I have already answered this elsewhere - the mats were their through their choice to do it ground-up, committing themselves to falls. They didn't trust the runner initially, but later they did.
Pre-practised headpoint above no mats, or the ground-up approach above 4 scattered mats - I know which one involves more commitment!
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Actually all 3 of the are about Fr7b, not Font 7b+, which is obviously a big difference.
> (In reply to gallam1)
> [...]
>
> I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
> [...]
>
> I think you'll find it is Font 7b+ so probably about as hard as the two you mention.
Actually all 3 of the are about Fr7b, not Font 7b+, which is obviously a big difference.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
just out of interest, did he hit the mat or not?
> (In reply to gallam1)
> [...]
>
> Well I have already answered this elsewhere - the mats were their through their choice to do it ground-up, committing themselves to falls. They didn't trust the runner initially, but later they did.
>
> Pre-practised headpoint above no mats, or the ground-up approach above 4 scattered mats - I know which one involves more commitment!
> Alan
> [...]
>
> Well I have already answered this elsewhere - the mats were their through their choice to do it ground-up, committing themselves to falls. They didn't trust the runner initially, but later they did.
>
> Pre-practised headpoint above no mats, or the ground-up approach above 4 scattered mats - I know which one involves more commitment!
> Alan
just out of interest, did he hit the mat or not?
In reply to gallam1:
I don't think he did.
I don't think he did.
In reply to gallam1:
I didn't notice to be honest. I think Jack hit it once.
Before you make up your mind about this one, go and watch someone climb it (there will be a few ascents next weekend if the conditions are good).
Alan
I didn't notice to be honest. I think Jack hit it once.
Before you make up your mind about this one, go and watch someone climb it (there will be a few ascents next weekend if the conditions are good).
Alan
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Didn't the Americans report that they couldn't repeat the original sequence? I haven't seen the video of JP's original ascent so this could be a complete red herring.
If you do a route without any of your peers it is very easy to get a sub-optimal sequence and/or the grade completely wrong.
> (In reply to gallam1)
>
> It's the Font grade ---- it's jumped from Font 8A down to Font 7B+. That is a major downgrade.
>
> Now that is bizarre. How did James get it wrong or did he? All ascensionists have used the same sequence - so there is no get out close there.
>
> It's the Font grade ---- it's jumped from Font 8A down to Font 7B+. That is a major downgrade.
>
> Now that is bizarre. How did James get it wrong or did he? All ascensionists have used the same sequence - so there is no get out close there.
Didn't the Americans report that they couldn't repeat the original sequence? I haven't seen the video of JP's original ascent so this could be a complete red herring.
If you do a route without any of your peers it is very easy to get a sub-optimal sequence and/or the grade completely wrong.
In reply to gallam1:
Agreed. That is probably what JP did. He did climb it a while ago and could easily have made a mistake. Not a big deal as far as I am concerned and I should know since I have got grades wrong more than most!!
Alan
> If you do a route without any of your peers it is very easy to get a sub-optimal sequence and/or the grade completely wrong.
Agreed. That is probably what JP did. He did climb it a while ago and could easily have made a mistake. Not a big deal as far as I am concerned and I should know since I have got grades wrong more than most!!
Alan
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I was laughing about this - it sounded like Arsene Wenger.
> (In reply to gallam1)
>
> I didn't notice to be honest. I think Jack hit it once.
>
> I didn't notice to be honest. I think Jack hit it once.
I was laughing about this - it sounded like Arsene Wenger.
In reply to gallam1:
It's a 25ft route with a small number of holds.
Yes I've seen the videos - they all use the same sequence.
Most say Font 7b+ not Font 8a as originally stated.
That is a major down grade as regards the actual technical difficulty. Think English tech 6a to English tech 5a. I've done Font 7b+ to put that in perspective and I know what Font 8a is - nails.
The top climbers are supposed to be highly technical climbers. Their strength is working out sequences and executing them efficiently.
As I said before, the danger grade, depends on the style - James' ascent was practised on a top rope over several days, then led without pads. Other ascents have used mats and vary from top rope practice (those bloody Yanks) to no top rope practice (Robins and Bransby). The Yanks did it in an hour.
Something is amiss here as regards the original technical difficulty grade...... and to be quite honest, I don't think we will get an answer.
One thing is perfectly clear, James' claim that it is the "hardest route on grit" as he publicly claimed is clearly wrong.
Mick
It's a 25ft route with a small number of holds.
Yes I've seen the videos - they all use the same sequence.
Most say Font 7b+ not Font 8a as originally stated.
That is a major down grade as regards the actual technical difficulty. Think English tech 6a to English tech 5a. I've done Font 7b+ to put that in perspective and I know what Font 8a is - nails.
The top climbers are supposed to be highly technical climbers. Their strength is working out sequences and executing them efficiently.
As I said before, the danger grade, depends on the style - James' ascent was practised on a top rope over several days, then led without pads. Other ascents have used mats and vary from top rope practice (those bloody Yanks) to no top rope practice (Robins and Bransby). The Yanks did it in an hour.
Something is amiss here as regards the original technical difficulty grade...... and to be quite honest, I don't think we will get an answer.
One thing is perfectly clear, James' claim that it is the "hardest route on grit" as he publicly claimed is clearly wrong.
Mick
In reply to gallam1:
The difference here being that both Jack and the bouldering mat would give you the same answer as me.
Alan
> I was laughing about this - it sounded like Arsene Wenger.
The difference here being that both Jack and the bouldering mat would give you the same answer as me.
Alan
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I agree that is a bit odd, but maybe he just found it really difficult. I'd prefer that as a default position compared to a suggestion (which I'm not implying you're making) that it was somehow media related.
> (In reply to gallam1)
>
> Yes I've seen the videos - they all use the same sequence.
>
> Most say Font 7b+ not Font 8a as originally stated.
>
> That is a major down grade as regards the actual technical difficulty. Think English tech 6a to English tech 5a. I've done Font 7b+ to put that in perspective and I know what Font 8a is - nails.
>
> Yes I've seen the videos - they all use the same sequence.
>
> Most say Font 7b+ not Font 8a as originally stated.
>
> That is a major down grade as regards the actual technical difficulty. Think English tech 6a to English tech 5a. I've done Font 7b+ to put that in perspective and I know what Font 8a is - nails.
I agree that is a bit odd, but maybe he just found it really difficult. I'd prefer that as a default position compared to a suggestion (which I'm not implying you're making) that it was somehow media related.
In reply to gallam1:
The other important question to be asked here is regards kudos and the danger element.
Which is the bolder ascent of the same route?
1. You top rope a route and practice all the moves. You know all the holds and you know all the moves and know you can do them. Then lead the route.
2. You don't top rope the route and practice all the moves but start from the ground and work upwards, each hold and move new to you, you aren't sure if you can do the moves - but you have some mats at the base of the route.
You tell me.
The other important question to be asked here is regards kudos and the danger element.
Which is the bolder ascent of the same route?
1. You top rope a route and practice all the moves. You know all the holds and you know all the moves and know you can do them. Then lead the route.
2. You don't top rope the route and practice all the moves but start from the ground and work upwards, each hold and move new to you, you aren't sure if you can do the moves - but you have some mats at the base of the route.
You tell me.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
That depends entirely on the landing and the use of mats. Benign Lives is the archetype. A top-rope then solo with no mats and spotters is a far better ascent than ground up with 40 bouldering mats and 5 spotters.
How about 1 onsight top-rope ascent and then solo, versus grind up with 30 falls spread over 4 weeks?
> (In reply to gallam1)
>
> The other important question to be asked here is regards kudos and the danger element.
>
> Which is the bolder ascent of the same route?
>
> 1. You top rope a route and practice all the moves. You know all the holds and you know all the moves and know you can do them. Then lead the route.
>
> 2. You don't top rope the route and practice all the moves but start from the ground and work upwards, each hold and move new to you, you aren't sure if you can do the moves - but you have some mats at the base of the route.
>
> You tell me.
>
> The other important question to be asked here is regards kudos and the danger element.
>
> Which is the bolder ascent of the same route?
>
> 1. You top rope a route and practice all the moves. You know all the holds and you know all the moves and know you can do them. Then lead the route.
>
> 2. You don't top rope the route and practice all the moves but start from the ground and work upwards, each hold and move new to you, you aren't sure if you can do the moves - but you have some mats at the base of the route.
>
> You tell me.
That depends entirely on the landing and the use of mats. Benign Lives is the archetype. A top-rope then solo with no mats and spotters is a far better ascent than ground up with 40 bouldering mats and 5 spotters.
How about 1 onsight top-rope ascent and then solo, versus grind up with 30 falls spread over 4 weeks?
In reply to gallam1:
Trying to grab media attention and indirect pressure from sponsors (usually self-imposed) is another factor that influences some of the world's top climbers when both claiming routes and grading them.
This pressure is increased these days by the dramatic effect created by film-makers who film climbers and their ascents. They have a product to sell and will over-hype routes.
Dave MacLeod has been quite clear and honest about this on these very forums. The grading of the top routes, especially where our E-grade is concerned is a mixture of honest assessment and hype.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
> I agree that is a bit odd, but maybe he just found it really difficult. I'd prefer that as a default position compared to a suggestion (which I'm not implying you're making) that it was somehow media related.
> [...]
>
> I agree that is a bit odd, but maybe he just found it really difficult. I'd prefer that as a default position compared to a suggestion (which I'm not implying you're making) that it was somehow media related.
Trying to grab media attention and indirect pressure from sponsors (usually self-imposed) is another factor that influences some of the world's top climbers when both claiming routes and grading them.
This pressure is increased these days by the dramatic effect created by film-makers who film climbers and their ascents. They have a product to sell and will over-hype routes.
Dave MacLeod has been quite clear and honest about this on these very forums. The grading of the top routes, especially where our E-grade is concerned is a mixture of honest assessment and hype.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
and don't forget that on death routes there are only 3 choices; ground up first try, top rope and solo, or death. In this case the order is as written.
and don't forget that on death routes there are only 3 choices; ground up first try, top rope and solo, or death. In this case the order is as written.
In reply to gallam1:
I agree gallam1. Depends on the route. It isn't clear at all.
I reckon though, with all the attention The Promise has got, that we will see a ground-up ascent of The Promise without mats before long.
Maybe even a ground-up solo with mats as well.
There are plenty capable of doing that for sure. The top climbers are competitive between each other.
That will be the best style possible - but there again, the darn videos are everywhere so the moves are well publicised.
I agree gallam1. Depends on the route. It isn't clear at all.
I reckon though, with all the attention The Promise has got, that we will see a ground-up ascent of The Promise without mats before long.
Maybe even a ground-up solo with mats as well.
There are plenty capable of doing that for sure. The top climbers are competitive between each other.
That will be the best style possible - but there again, the darn videos are everywhere so the moves are well publicised.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Someone mentions JP bounce testing the runner and it held. That doesn't necessarily mean he thought it was bomber. I can think of a couple of instances where runners have been bounce-tested, then ripped or failed in a fall.
If JP led the route, not thinking the runner would hol dif he fell from the top moves, and with no mats to safeguard him if he did fall from said moves, he surely had a different experience on the route than anyone else. And subsequently proposed a higher grade.
Now we "know" the runner is good, as it has held falls, people are proposing a downgrade. If it rips during the next ground-up ascent and someone gets hurt will that justify an upgrade from the jack's proposed E7? surely, there is an element of "luck" here i.e. whether the runner holds 100% of falls, whether the falling climber hits the mats or cracks their head on a boulder. How does one grade for that?
I guess my point is different people have different experiences of routes. I have led - for example - E2s and thought they felt more like E4. My mates have then run up the same route saying it felt like E1.
I think in the case of the Promise it's probably nothing sinister,, and isn't connected to wanting media attention etc, but it's more likely those who have climbed the route had wildly different experiences, for various reasons.
Someone mentions JP bounce testing the runner and it held. That doesn't necessarily mean he thought it was bomber. I can think of a couple of instances where runners have been bounce-tested, then ripped or failed in a fall.
If JP led the route, not thinking the runner would hol dif he fell from the top moves, and with no mats to safeguard him if he did fall from said moves, he surely had a different experience on the route than anyone else. And subsequently proposed a higher grade.
Now we "know" the runner is good, as it has held falls, people are proposing a downgrade. If it rips during the next ground-up ascent and someone gets hurt will that justify an upgrade from the jack's proposed E7? surely, there is an element of "luck" here i.e. whether the runner holds 100% of falls, whether the falling climber hits the mats or cracks their head on a boulder. How does one grade for that?
I guess my point is different people have different experiences of routes. I have led - for example - E2s and thought they felt more like E4. My mates have then run up the same route saying it felt like E1.
I think in the case of the Promise it's probably nothing sinister,, and isn't connected to wanting media attention etc, but it's more likely those who have climbed the route had wildly different experiences, for various reasons.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
What about ground up solo above no mats? How come that doesn't get a mention? I was thinking about what would be required to do this; basically you need to be able to onsight Font7b+ up and down 100% of the time. It might even be easier to start by reversing down from the top, but then the cries of cheating would start.
> (In reply to gallam1)
>
> Maybe even a ground-up solo with mats as well.
>
>
> Maybe even a ground-up solo with mats as well.
>
What about ground up solo above no mats? How come that doesn't get a mention? I was thinking about what would be required to do this; basically you need to be able to onsight Font7b+ up and down 100% of the time. It might even be easier to start by reversing down from the top, but then the cries of cheating would start.
In reply to 1234None:
So if someone else was to do The Promise on sight, with no mats, they would have no knowledge of how bomber that nut was or not. Right? So if JP gave The Promise E10 as an on sight grade, then we don't know whether or not it's E10 to on sight until someone has done it on sight. Right?
It seems quite obvious to me that if you *aren't* doing it onsight, then there is no way you're going to agree with a grade which is given *for* the onsight. Jack et al. didn't do it on sight so it's no surprise that they think it's easier than E10.
So if someone else was to do The Promise on sight, with no mats, they would have no knowledge of how bomber that nut was or not. Right? So if JP gave The Promise E10 as an on sight grade, then we don't know whether or not it's E10 to on sight until someone has done it on sight. Right?
It seems quite obvious to me that if you *aren't* doing it onsight, then there is no way you're going to agree with a grade which is given *for* the onsight. Jack et al. didn't do it on sight so it's no surprise that they think it's easier than E10.
In reply to button:
oh please. are you saying that the route can only be onsighted by people who don't know how good the gear is??
some of the notions posted on these boards as to what exactly constitutes an onsight are getting a bit silly. And not to mention tedious.
oh please. are you saying that the route can only be onsighted by people who don't know how good the gear is??
some of the notions posted on these boards as to what exactly constitutes an onsight are getting a bit silly. And not to mention tedious.
In reply to button:
Exactly, if grades are given for an onsight ascent then anyone who has done The Promise can't award themselves E10.
And no one has climbed E11 or E12.... in fact the top grade in the UK is E8..... all the rest are hypothetical .... that is if the E-grades are for an onsight ascent.
There is the nub. The E-grade system for headpointed first ascents is broken and has been for a while.
But there again, if E-grades are for a lead after a top rope then everything is honky dory and no one needs to change their climbing CV's.
> (In reply to PeakDJ)
>
> So if JP gave The Promise E10 as an on sight grade, then we don't know whether or not it's E10 to on sight until someone has done it on sight. Right?
>
> So if JP gave The Promise E10 as an on sight grade, then we don't know whether or not it's E10 to on sight until someone has done it on sight. Right?
Exactly, if grades are given for an onsight ascent then anyone who has done The Promise can't award themselves E10.
And no one has climbed E11 or E12.... in fact the top grade in the UK is E8..... all the rest are hypothetical .... that is if the E-grades are for an onsight ascent.
There is the nub. The E-grade system for headpointed first ascents is broken and has been for a while.
But there again, if E-grades are for a lead after a top rope then everything is honky dory and no one needs to change their climbing CV's.
In reply to MattDTC: Hey all,
Before everyone gets too heated about all this I thought I would post up some of my thoughts for y'all:
I think it is fair to say the JPs initial grade for the Promise was a bit high. This doesn't mean he overgraded deliberately to gain glory/sponsorship etc. I have spoken to him since we did the route (and have known him for a fair few years) and he honestly found it harder than Equilibrium (confirmed at E10) and hence the grade he gave it. It seems he found the climbing harder than we did (JP thought Font 8a, Pete Font 7b+ and I think perhaps Font 7c) I generally climb at a similar level to Pete yet found the Promise a lot harder than him, why? because we are different sizes and have different strengths, JP found it harder again but thats the way it can be.
Regarding the quality of the slider I think James maybe showed a bit of inexperience here, he had the chance, whilst top ropeing or on ab, to look at closely, bounce test, take test falls etc onto the slider he either didn't do this much or judged it was still poor.(at a similar age to him I did my first E9 (a new route) and completely missed out a runner (a rock 8? not even a funny slider or anything) which reduces the route to E8)
Earlier today I repeated Groove is in the Heart (E7 7a) at stanage and for me The Promise is at least as hard technically (maybe a little harder) and bolder so to me felt about E8 7a - but this was only once we were relatively happy about the gear (note: we were using an 8mm rope and dynamic belaying to reduce the force on the gear (hence why I was very close to the mat on the block at the bottom) it is not bomber like a big fat rock 10 but it is ok)
If I had thought the slider was rubbish (I wouldn't have done the route!) it would have been at least an E grade harder so E9 (or more?) and if the clibing had felt harder for me, say font 8a, along with thinking the gear was poor I would think E10 could be right.
To answer some of the things mentioned above (and in other posts):
Myself and Pete have done the closest (so far) to an onsight ascent so are better able to grade for this however it is true that we also used Pads. On the first day the pads were definitly needed, I was the first person to take a fall onto the slider (I jumped onto it from just above it) and this was probably the scariest thing for me, a fall can put very different forces onto gear than bounce testing it. I have a wife and young daughter, climb because I enjoy it not just for big numbers, want to go climbing again this winter and to be honest don't see the point of hurting myself on a little piece of grit when we have the gear (ie pads) there to help prevent it (note: you can still hurt yourself falling onto pads!). Once the slider had held a few falls the pads didn't really seem needed (I took 1 fall from the last move on the saturday before I felt it got too warm and had a few 'takes' after from close to the slider, but Pete was still getting to the last move in the sun) For returning on Sunday I commented that we didn't really need the ladder and so many mats (the ladder and majority of mats are off to the left, where we felt we might land/roll if the gear ripped). As my daughter was ill on sunday morning I arrived late and ladder and mats were in place and Pete had already climbed the route. I had carried my mat but we left that down by my dog, folded up. I fell off another 3 or 4 times? and then did it, Pete also climbed the route again (he did make it look about E5!) and Jack got close. I then left to go help clear up sick! I think JR also lead the route after (Headpoint) and used fewer pads than us - he had 2 on the block and 1 behind it - we only had 1 here, I guess the reason for the different arrangement in the pads is that he wasn't worried about the gear ripping and falling off down leftwards but was more worried about hitting the block.
The use of the pads did affect the way we climbed on the first day (when no one did it) but not my behaviour on the second day.
I agree with some of the other posts about ground up ascents with 20 odd falls not being much/any better than a quick headpoint. This is the main reason I haven't been back on Parthian Shot (probably fallen off 15 times from the slap) I think I took about 5 falls (and a few takes) off the Promise, and shortly before I did it I said to Jack (after falling off the last move 3/4 times in a row) that I could see a similar thing happening (to Parthian) and either said or thought about giving up.
In both the cases of Parthian and the Promise I don't think the placements are going to suffer too much. On Parthian the flake does flex but I think if all the runners rip they will pull through the flake rather than pull it off. On the promise the quality of the rock in the placement is good - hence the fact a very small slider 1 holds - so it will show signs of use over time but no more than many other placements on grit (we did't criticise people for falling off Profit of Doom ground up back in the 70s/80s, but now that placement is getting worse)I looked at the placement a little today (whilst watching some puns try it ground up above mats as a highball!) and there were marks on the rock where the biner was rubbing.
I think Pete is one of the nicest people in the British climbing scene, liked and respected by many people. He/we has/have not downgraded the Promise in an attempt to make him/us look good or to try and dis James it is just what grade we felt the climb was.
ps was Supersonic ever confirmed as Britians first 6c? Or did it turn out Ron had overgraded a little?
Before everyone gets too heated about all this I thought I would post up some of my thoughts for y'all:
I think it is fair to say the JPs initial grade for the Promise was a bit high. This doesn't mean he overgraded deliberately to gain glory/sponsorship etc. I have spoken to him since we did the route (and have known him for a fair few years) and he honestly found it harder than Equilibrium (confirmed at E10) and hence the grade he gave it. It seems he found the climbing harder than we did (JP thought Font 8a, Pete Font 7b+ and I think perhaps Font 7c) I generally climb at a similar level to Pete yet found the Promise a lot harder than him, why? because we are different sizes and have different strengths, JP found it harder again but thats the way it can be.
Regarding the quality of the slider I think James maybe showed a bit of inexperience here, he had the chance, whilst top ropeing or on ab, to look at closely, bounce test, take test falls etc onto the slider he either didn't do this much or judged it was still poor.(at a similar age to him I did my first E9 (a new route) and completely missed out a runner (a rock 8? not even a funny slider or anything) which reduces the route to E8)
Earlier today I repeated Groove is in the Heart (E7 7a) at stanage and for me The Promise is at least as hard technically (maybe a little harder) and bolder so to me felt about E8 7a - but this was only once we were relatively happy about the gear (note: we were using an 8mm rope and dynamic belaying to reduce the force on the gear (hence why I was very close to the mat on the block at the bottom) it is not bomber like a big fat rock 10 but it is ok)
If I had thought the slider was rubbish (I wouldn't have done the route!) it would have been at least an E grade harder so E9 (or more?) and if the clibing had felt harder for me, say font 8a, along with thinking the gear was poor I would think E10 could be right.
To answer some of the things mentioned above (and in other posts):
Myself and Pete have done the closest (so far) to an onsight ascent so are better able to grade for this however it is true that we also used Pads. On the first day the pads were definitly needed, I was the first person to take a fall onto the slider (I jumped onto it from just above it) and this was probably the scariest thing for me, a fall can put very different forces onto gear than bounce testing it. I have a wife and young daughter, climb because I enjoy it not just for big numbers, want to go climbing again this winter and to be honest don't see the point of hurting myself on a little piece of grit when we have the gear (ie pads) there to help prevent it (note: you can still hurt yourself falling onto pads!). Once the slider had held a few falls the pads didn't really seem needed (I took 1 fall from the last move on the saturday before I felt it got too warm and had a few 'takes' after from close to the slider, but Pete was still getting to the last move in the sun) For returning on Sunday I commented that we didn't really need the ladder and so many mats (the ladder and majority of mats are off to the left, where we felt we might land/roll if the gear ripped). As my daughter was ill on sunday morning I arrived late and ladder and mats were in place and Pete had already climbed the route. I had carried my mat but we left that down by my dog, folded up. I fell off another 3 or 4 times? and then did it, Pete also climbed the route again (he did make it look about E5!) and Jack got close. I then left to go help clear up sick! I think JR also lead the route after (Headpoint) and used fewer pads than us - he had 2 on the block and 1 behind it - we only had 1 here, I guess the reason for the different arrangement in the pads is that he wasn't worried about the gear ripping and falling off down leftwards but was more worried about hitting the block.
The use of the pads did affect the way we climbed on the first day (when no one did it) but not my behaviour on the second day.
I agree with some of the other posts about ground up ascents with 20 odd falls not being much/any better than a quick headpoint. This is the main reason I haven't been back on Parthian Shot (probably fallen off 15 times from the slap) I think I took about 5 falls (and a few takes) off the Promise, and shortly before I did it I said to Jack (after falling off the last move 3/4 times in a row) that I could see a similar thing happening (to Parthian) and either said or thought about giving up.
In both the cases of Parthian and the Promise I don't think the placements are going to suffer too much. On Parthian the flake does flex but I think if all the runners rip they will pull through the flake rather than pull it off. On the promise the quality of the rock in the placement is good - hence the fact a very small slider 1 holds - so it will show signs of use over time but no more than many other placements on grit (we did't criticise people for falling off Profit of Doom ground up back in the 70s/80s, but now that placement is getting worse)I looked at the placement a little today (whilst watching some puns try it ground up above mats as a highball!) and there were marks on the rock where the biner was rubbing.
I think Pete is one of the nicest people in the British climbing scene, liked and respected by many people. He/we has/have not downgraded the Promise in an attempt to make him/us look good or to try and dis James it is just what grade we felt the climb was.
ps was Supersonic ever confirmed as Britians first 6c? Or did it turn out Ron had overgraded a little?
In reply to Ben Bransby: Agree with Mick, great post but, please, the runner in question isn't a slider, it's a CAMP Ballnut, or certainly is in Jack's original report.
In reply to S11: which are one and the same.
In reply to Ben Bransby:
Hi Ben,
Good effort. Good ascent. Total honesty. Where's the issue?
Cheers
Graham
p.s for the record, Ron didn't grade Supersonic 6c, one or both of the seconds did, Al Evans will know!
Hi Ben,
Good effort. Good ascent. Total honesty. Where's the issue?
Cheers
Graham
p.s for the record, Ron didn't grade Supersonic 6c, one or both of the seconds did, Al Evans will know!
In reply to twigulus: No they're not, the Slider is a device that is no longer made and cosisted of two brass wedges linked by triangular grooves, one was pulled by a wire and slid over the the other one. If you go to this link http://www.needlesports.com/nutsmuseum/camsstory.htm and scroll nearly half way down you'll see a photo that includes the Slider (extreme left, Ballnut fourth in from left). The Ballnut is half a ball that is pulled by a wire over a dish-shaped depression in a wedge.
In reply to S11:
yes.
i understand, but camp ballnuts are commonly referred to as sliders, as they work on a similar principal
i guess its (almost) on a par with calling all cams friends.
yes.
i understand, but camp ballnuts are commonly referred to as sliders, as they work on a similar principal
i guess its (almost) on a par with calling all cams friends.
In reply to Jus:
That's exactly what I'm saying. But I'm only going on the definition of "onsight" as it is postulated on these forums. I agree it's tedious, but from what I read here, "onsight" implies no previous knowledge of anything about the route including how good the gear is.
> (In reply to button)
>
> oh please. are you saying that the route can only be onsighted by people who don't know how good the gear is??
>
> some of the notions posted on these boards as to what exactly constitutes an onsight are getting a bit silly. And not to mention tedious.
>
> oh please. are you saying that the route can only be onsighted by people who don't know how good the gear is??
>
> some of the notions posted on these boards as to what exactly constitutes an onsight are getting a bit silly. And not to mention tedious.
That's exactly what I'm saying. But I'm only going on the definition of "onsight" as it is postulated on these forums. I agree it's tedious, but from what I read here, "onsight" implies no previous knowledge of anything about the route including how good the gear is.
In reply to MattDTC:
I couldn't give a toss what other people do. I would protect myself as well as I could, others may choose to make a bolder statement when they climb. Who cares, it's only a hobby.
Guess it depends if you're climbing the route/problem or the grade. Personally I plan to climb what I like and have functional unbroken limbs in my later years. Others may choose to risk theirs. Good for them.
Feel free to judge others however you like.
jk
> I was wondering if people through it was really a positive step in the right direction using ladders and a 'load' of mats to construct a platform below a potentially dangerous route?
I couldn't give a toss what other people do. I would protect myself as well as I could, others may choose to make a bolder statement when they climb. Who cares, it's only a hobby.
> Many of these top end trad routes have high grades BECAUSE they are dangerous, so to remove a large part of that danger is essentially degrading (literally) the route, bringing the route down to your level - you may have the physical ability, but not the mental (bravery/control) ability to do it.
Guess it depends if you're climbing the route/problem or the grade. Personally I plan to climb what I like and have functional unbroken limbs in my later years. Others may choose to risk theirs. Good for them.
> If we use the Promise as an example... blah blah grade nonsense blah... a rather hollow ascent.
Feel free to judge others however you like.
jk
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...