This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Will Atkinson has made the first ascent of the direct finish to Charlotte Rampling on the gritstone outcrop of Gardoms in the Peak District, naming his new route Hired Goons.
He has estimated a grade of E8 6c for this short but unprotected route that features a long dyno / slap as the finishing move. The original route Charlotte Rampling is a classic E6 first climbed by Johnny Dawes.
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68017
In reply to UKC News:
Props to Will on the ascent and video.
<tangent>
Strange reportage by UKC stating that "Will told UKC" suggesting you put some effort in to interview him. In reality though all you've done is copy and paste the text Will posted to accompany his video (which was posted three days prior to the news item).
Perhaps a more honest/straight-forward way of phrasing it would be "Will wrote of the ascent..."</tangent>
Props to Will on the ascent and video.
<tangent>
Strange reportage by UKC stating that "Will told UKC" suggesting you put some effort in to interview him. In reality though all you've done is copy and paste the text Will posted to accompany his video (which was posted three days prior to the news item).
Perhaps a more honest/straight-forward way of phrasing it would be "Will wrote of the ascent..."</tangent>
In reply to UKC News: Good effort.
"I've given it a grade of E8 6c, there is no gear, and even with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem."
If that makes sense to anyone please explain, or is this that no man's land of soloing with bouldering mats beneath us..?
"I've given it a grade of E8 6c, there is no gear, and even with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem."
If that makes sense to anyone please explain, or is this that no man's land of soloing with bouldering mats beneath us..?
In reply to Martin1978:
I think that's the point - he's basically saying "if you protect it with mats then the difficulty of the crux plus the potential for hurting yourself if you fluff it make it feel about E8 6c."
For my part I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight - I can't imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly where their hand lands...
Good effort, in any case!
I think that's the point - he's basically saying "if you protect it with mats then the difficulty of the crux plus the potential for hurting yourself if you fluff it make it feel about E8 6c."
For my part I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight - I can't imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly where their hand lands...
Good effort, in any case!
In reply to Martin1978:
Bingo. The mats may help but it's not 'bouldering'.
jk
> If that makes sense to anyone please explain, or is this that no man's land of soloing with bouldering mats beneath us..?
Bingo. The mats may help but it's not 'bouldering'.
jk
In reply to Ramblin dave:
H8 anyone?
> I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight - I can't imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly where their hand lands...
H8 anyone?
In reply to Martin1978:
What doesn't make sense is either trad grades or bouldering grades for these little things that lie perfectly on the cusp. I'm not suggesting that there should be a separate system (I don't really give a monkeys what routes I'll never climb are graded), just that the inevitable blah about the justification of the grade is, well, inevitable.
> (In reply to UKC News) Good effort.
>
> "I've given it a grade of E8 6c, there is no gear, and even with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem."
>
> If that makes sense to anyone please explain, or is this that no man's land of soloing with bouldering mats beneath us..?
>
> "I've given it a grade of E8 6c, there is no gear, and even with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem."
>
> If that makes sense to anyone please explain, or is this that no man's land of soloing with bouldering mats beneath us..?
What doesn't make sense is either trad grades or bouldering grades for these little things that lie perfectly on the cusp. I'm not suggesting that there should be a separate system (I don't really give a monkeys what routes I'll never climb are graded), just that the inevitable blah about the justification of the grade is, well, inevitable.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
You don't do the same moves on an onsight as you do on a redpoint in most cases. The moves you find on the onsight would be harder and generally more static. There are two holds for the right hand higher than that left hand undercut. It seems logical to assume that if you were a lot stronger and trying for an onsight, you would use one of these and reach up more statically with your left hand instead.
It's only a guestimate grade till the route is on-sighted anyways and I doubt it's any less accurate as a guesstimate than all the other E8, 9, 10, 11s out there that have never seen an onsight either.
> For my part I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight - I can't imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly where their hand lands...
You don't do the same moves on an onsight as you do on a redpoint in most cases. The moves you find on the onsight would be harder and generally more static. There are two holds for the right hand higher than that left hand undercut. It seems logical to assume that if you were a lot stronger and trying for an onsight, you would use one of these and reach up more statically with your left hand instead.
It's only a guestimate grade till the route is on-sighted anyways and I doubt it's any less accurate as a guesstimate than all the other E8, 9, 10, 11s out there that have never seen an onsight either.
In reply to UKC News: What's the music with this video?
In reply to Martin1978:
Hi Martin,
I used a couple of pads on my ascent, if I'd have fallen from the top moves the pads wouldn't have done a great deal to help. In my opinion it's too high to be classed as a boulder problem so I gave it a route grade. I think E8 6c is appropriate.
Does that make sense?
Regardless of the grade, it's a great route and I would like to see some people repeat it.
Cheers
Hi Martin,
I used a couple of pads on my ascent, if I'd have fallen from the top moves the pads wouldn't have done a great deal to help. In my opinion it's too high to be classed as a boulder problem so I gave it a route grade. I think E8 6c is appropriate.
Does that make sense?
Regardless of the grade, it's a great route and I would like to see some people repeat it.
Cheers
In reply to aln:
Boards of Canada - In a beautiful place out in the Country
> (In reply to UKC News) What's the music with this video?
Boards of Canada - In a beautiful place out in the Country
In reply to willackers:
NINJA!
> (In reply to aln)
>
> Boards of Canada - A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
>
> Boards of Canada - A Beautiful Place Out In The Country
NINJA!
In reply to willackers: Hi Will,
I can see where you are coming from. I did bring up a similar point regarding grades changing from trad to bouldering in the logbooks a while ago. There is a gray area I guess, as discussed above.
Regardless of the grade, I won't be one of the people who would be able to repeat it
As I said above, good effort.
Cheers, Martin
I can see where you are coming from. I did bring up a similar point regarding grades changing from trad to bouldering in the logbooks a while ago. There is a gray area I guess, as discussed above.
Regardless of the grade, I won't be one of the people who would be able to repeat it
As I said above, good effort.
Cheers, Martin
In reply to slacky: Love it!
I didn't know you were monitoring my emails! And also my clip board.
Have you been reading all the ones about Viagra too?
Jack
Well done Will, cheers.
I didn't know you were monitoring my emails! And also my clip board.
Have you been reading all the ones about Viagra too?
Jack
Well done Will, cheers.
In reply to henwardian:
''There are two holds for the right hand higher than that left hand undercut''
The 'holds' you refer to are shallow pockets. The first one is just about usable, the other one isn't really a hold. I messed around with this sequence, maybe in better conditions that would be the way to go, but I'm not so sure.
''There are two holds for the right hand higher than that left hand undercut''
The 'holds' you refer to are shallow pockets. The first one is just about usable, the other one isn't really a hold. I messed around with this sequence, maybe in better conditions that would be the way to go, but I'm not so sure.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Word. Everyone's seen the video
> (In reply to Martin1978)
> For my part I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight
Word. Everyone's seen the video
In reply to UKC News:
Why dont we change the definition of the grading system to represent a succesful ascent rather than an onsight attempt? So Will gets an E8 tick rather than Will creates something that if onsighted would be E8. Is this not really how we use the grades anyway?
Of course i may be missing soething
Why dont we change the definition of the grading system to represent a succesful ascent rather than an onsight attempt? So Will gets an E8 tick rather than Will creates something that if onsighted would be E8. Is this not really how we use the grades anyway?
Of course i may be missing soething
In reply to slapperv6: They had a go with H grades but it didn't catch on.
In reply to slapperv6:
Such as rewriting British climbing history? If it's not fixed, break it
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Why dont we change the definition of the grading system to represent a succesful ascent rather than an onsight attempt? So Will gets an E8 tick rather than Will creates something that if onsighted would be E8. Is this not really how we use the grades anyway?
>
>
> Of course i may be missing soething
>
> Why dont we change the definition of the grading system to represent a succesful ascent rather than an onsight attempt? So Will gets an E8 tick rather than Will creates something that if onsighted would be E8. Is this not really how we use the grades anyway?
>
>
> Of course i may be missing soething
Such as rewriting British climbing history? If it's not fixed, break it
In Reply To Slapperv6:
That is exactly how hard E grades are already used. Anyone who claims that trad grades are "for the onsight" (which admittedly is the vast majority of people) hasn't thought about it very much.
The fact is that in 99.99% of cases, E grades work perfectly well whether you're talking about onsighting, flashing or headpointing. In the very small number of cases where a headpoint is RELATIVELY easier in comparison to other routes than onsighting relative to those other routes - then in those cases, the route is graded for the best sequence and the best use of gear. It's the only sane and logical way for a grading system to work regardless of whoever says otherwise.
Think about a classic route like Masters Edge. If you didn't know about the gear in the shotholes and just set off with a normal rack you'd just be soloing. i.e for the onsight it would be at least E8. But of course it isn't graded for the onsight - it's graded for the best use of gear.
Think about a case like The Indian Face where route finding on a genuine onsight would be utterly horrendous. You can't grade a route based on how far off route people are likely to go when they cock the sequence up. You just grade it for the best sequence and best use of gear.
However... Other than the very occasional wierd route with very wierd gear, this is all completely irrelevant to pretty much everyone climbing under E7. As I said above, E grades up to there in pretty much all cases work perfectly well whichever style you're talking about. Above there, the routes (with a couple of exceptions) haven't been onsighted, so anyone even attempting to "grade for the onsight" (whatever that's supposed to mean - how on earth are you supposed to guess how much people are likely to cock the sequence up by!!!) is pissing in the wind.
The SKILL in onsighting, is managing to climb something with as close to the optimum sequence and use of gear possible. But the only way to grade a route is for that optimum situation (assuming the FA wasn't onsight - in that case they just have to have a guess, but those routes tend to not be over E7 and as such this isn't an issue).
In Reply To Jon Stewart:
As for the supposed "difficulty" in grading highballs, I've never really seen the problem. You pick a style - say "flash". And compare the difficulty of climbing this route in comparison to other routes in and around this grade. So at a guess, this route would be harder to flash than Gaia, and easier than Meshuga - hence it's E8. If you want to be sure that flashing this route isn't an unusual case, then pick another style - say "headpoint" - and you'll probably also come to the same conclusion (but as said above, for a small number of top end routes, you're likely to come to very different and utterly irrelevant conclusion when thinking about potential onsights...)
The only issue is around the use of pads, but usually it isn't going to make more than one E grade of difference whether you're using zero or ten. Given their widespread use now, I think most grades are given for a few pads...
(Of course the "problem" with grading highballs is that some people don't use E grades in the above way. They think that unless something is dangerous it can't have a high E grade. The only response to that is... Whatever...)
That is exactly how hard E grades are already used. Anyone who claims that trad grades are "for the onsight" (which admittedly is the vast majority of people) hasn't thought about it very much.
The fact is that in 99.99% of cases, E grades work perfectly well whether you're talking about onsighting, flashing or headpointing. In the very small number of cases where a headpoint is RELATIVELY easier in comparison to other routes than onsighting relative to those other routes - then in those cases, the route is graded for the best sequence and the best use of gear. It's the only sane and logical way for a grading system to work regardless of whoever says otherwise.
Think about a classic route like Masters Edge. If you didn't know about the gear in the shotholes and just set off with a normal rack you'd just be soloing. i.e for the onsight it would be at least E8. But of course it isn't graded for the onsight - it's graded for the best use of gear.
Think about a case like The Indian Face where route finding on a genuine onsight would be utterly horrendous. You can't grade a route based on how far off route people are likely to go when they cock the sequence up. You just grade it for the best sequence and best use of gear.
However... Other than the very occasional wierd route with very wierd gear, this is all completely irrelevant to pretty much everyone climbing under E7. As I said above, E grades up to there in pretty much all cases work perfectly well whichever style you're talking about. Above there, the routes (with a couple of exceptions) haven't been onsighted, so anyone even attempting to "grade for the onsight" (whatever that's supposed to mean - how on earth are you supposed to guess how much people are likely to cock the sequence up by!!!) is pissing in the wind.
The SKILL in onsighting, is managing to climb something with as close to the optimum sequence and use of gear possible. But the only way to grade a route is for that optimum situation (assuming the FA wasn't onsight - in that case they just have to have a guess, but those routes tend to not be over E7 and as such this isn't an issue).
In Reply To Jon Stewart:
As for the supposed "difficulty" in grading highballs, I've never really seen the problem. You pick a style - say "flash". And compare the difficulty of climbing this route in comparison to other routes in and around this grade. So at a guess, this route would be harder to flash than Gaia, and easier than Meshuga - hence it's E8. If you want to be sure that flashing this route isn't an unusual case, then pick another style - say "headpoint" - and you'll probably also come to the same conclusion (but as said above, for a small number of top end routes, you're likely to come to very different and utterly irrelevant conclusion when thinking about potential onsights...)
The only issue is around the use of pads, but usually it isn't going to make more than one E grade of difference whether you're using zero or ten. Given their widespread use now, I think most grades are given for a few pads...
(Of course the "problem" with grading highballs is that some people don't use E grades in the above way. They think that unless something is dangerous it can't have a high E grade. The only response to that is... Whatever...)
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Except that inspection from the top or sides -- or anything not involving a rope -- doesn't blow the onsight (at least IMO).
> For my part I can't see how it's even possible to grade something like this for the onsight - I can't
> imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly
> where their hand lands...
> imagine anyone ever just trying the top dyno on the off chance that there might be a hidden hold exactly
> where their hand lands...
Except that inspection from the top or sides -- or anything not involving a rope -- doesn't blow the onsight (at least IMO).
In reply to UKC News:
"I was alone when I climbed it"
Did you take three cameras to record it, or climb it three times filming with the same camera?
"I was alone when I climbed it"
Did you take three cameras to record it, or climb it three times filming with the same camera?
In reply to Nemo: Is it possible that E7 is the limit of onsighting? Has anyone onsighted E8? Is E9 actually no harder than E7 as anything of that grade will have been pre-practiced? I think the H grade does have merit - if people bother to use it then it'll be fine.
I think routes like Masters edge should have unusual/crucial gear requirements listed in the guidebook description and the grade chosen assuming those gear requirements are met.
I think routes like Masters edge should have unusual/crucial gear requirements listed in the guidebook description and the grade chosen assuming those gear requirements are met.
In reply to Toerag:
E8 has been onsighted quite a few times. E9 is only a matter of time, but will probably be something at the harder, well protected end of the spectrum.
E8 has been onsighted quite a few times. E9 is only a matter of time, but will probably be something at the harder, well protected end of the spectrum.
In Reply To Toerag:
As Michael said - No, E7 very definitely isn't the limit of onsighting and yes, people have onsighted E8 and will onsight much harder.
No, IMO the H grade doesn't have much merit - for 99.99% of routes, it's just the same number following a different letter - ie: it's entirely pointless. For those routes, the only new info it conveys is the fact that no one has onsighted it yet (which can easily be said in the description).
For the few routes where the H number would be different to the "onsight grade", then those are the routes which have very hard to read sequences and / or very wierd gear. In those cases, either the guidebook writers (as you rightly say) decide to give the game away (in which case, you're grading for all styles - you've just made "onsighting" it be much easier to achieve the optimum sequence and gear. Or if the sequences are too complex to bother trying to explain, you just have to grade it for the optimal sequence and explain in the guide that onsighting it would be utterly desperate and that no one has as yet even bothered to try.
It's the only way it can logically work. You can't start trying to guess by how much people are going to mess sequences up by.
And it really isn't an issue at all (I'm just mildy amused every time I read about "grading for the onsight"). Everyone who's likely to attempt these things knows that onsighting Muy Caliente is going to be a trillion miles easier than onsighting DangerMouse or Gerty Berwick. Everyone knows that trying to onsight The Indian Face (unchalked) is going to be a way bigger deal than onsighting Mission Impossible or Chicama (assuming the pegs are newish) etc. Doesn't mean they're the wrong grades (although of course, some might be, but that's a completely different issue). It just means that some routes of a given grade are vastly more onsightable than others.
Essentially, long / safeish / easy to read are going to be more onsightable. Short / dangerous / hard to read less so. (And of course, it's very similar in sport climbing - some long 9a's in Spain are much more onsightable than some short 8c's in the Frankenjura - again the grades are just for the best sequence - it's the only way they can work.)
As Michael said - No, E7 very definitely isn't the limit of onsighting and yes, people have onsighted E8 and will onsight much harder.
No, IMO the H grade doesn't have much merit - for 99.99% of routes, it's just the same number following a different letter - ie: it's entirely pointless. For those routes, the only new info it conveys is the fact that no one has onsighted it yet (which can easily be said in the description).
For the few routes where the H number would be different to the "onsight grade", then those are the routes which have very hard to read sequences and / or very wierd gear. In those cases, either the guidebook writers (as you rightly say) decide to give the game away (in which case, you're grading for all styles - you've just made "onsighting" it be much easier to achieve the optimum sequence and gear. Or if the sequences are too complex to bother trying to explain, you just have to grade it for the optimal sequence and explain in the guide that onsighting it would be utterly desperate and that no one has as yet even bothered to try.
It's the only way it can logically work. You can't start trying to guess by how much people are going to mess sequences up by.
And it really isn't an issue at all (I'm just mildy amused every time I read about "grading for the onsight"). Everyone who's likely to attempt these things knows that onsighting Muy Caliente is going to be a trillion miles easier than onsighting DangerMouse or Gerty Berwick. Everyone knows that trying to onsight The Indian Face (unchalked) is going to be a way bigger deal than onsighting Mission Impossible or Chicama (assuming the pegs are newish) etc. Doesn't mean they're the wrong grades (although of course, some might be, but that's a completely different issue). It just means that some routes of a given grade are vastly more onsightable than others.
Essentially, long / safeish / easy to read are going to be more onsightable. Short / dangerous / hard to read less so. (And of course, it's very similar in sport climbing - some long 9a's in Spain are much more onsightable than some short 8c's in the Frankenjura - again the grades are just for the best sequence - it's the only way they can work.)
In reply to UKC News:
"with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem"
As opposed to, say, Ambrosia? Jus' sayin...
"with pads it feels a little bit too high to be a boulder problem"
As opposed to, say, Ambrosia? Jus' sayin...
In reply to andybenham:
Ambrosia?? I don't really understand the point you are making, mainly because I don't know what "Ambrosia" is. Could you clarify please?
Nice one Will, a stand out line that has been a obvious project for a long time. Keep 'em coming...
These grade debates are also awesome...
Ambrosia?? I don't really understand the point you are making, mainly because I don't know what "Ambrosia" is. Could you clarify please?
Nice one Will, a stand out line that has been a obvious project for a long time. Keep 'em coming...
These grade debates are also awesome...
In reply to Nik Jennings: Ambrosia is that big highball thing Kevin Jorgenson does at the end of Progression.
Agree with what the previous poster said, I dont think you'll find many people whod jump off the top of ambrosia so I dont think its a boulder problem in the normal sense of the term.
Agree with what the previous poster said, I dont think you'll find many people whod jump off the top of ambrosia so I dont think its a boulder problem in the normal sense of the term.
In reply to Jack Geldard - UKC Chief Editor:
What a mature and responsible way of responding to critique from readers of the site (who after all are the ones who generate income for UKC). I would have hoped for a more nuanced explanation as to why the text on the UKC news item matches exactly that in the video, the later of which predates the UKC report by three days.
Try using a spam filter if you get a lot of emails about Viagra.
> (In reply to slacky) Love it!
>
> I didn't know you were monitoring my emails! And also my clip board.
>
> Have you been reading all the ones about Viagra too?
>
> Jack
>
> I didn't know you were monitoring my emails! And also my clip board.
>
> Have you been reading all the ones about Viagra too?
>
> Jack
What a mature and responsible way of responding to critique from readers of the site (who after all are the ones who generate income for UKC). I would have hoped for a more nuanced explanation as to why the text on the UKC news item matches exactly that in the video, the later of which predates the UKC report by three days.
Try using a spam filter if you get a lot of emails about Viagra.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...