UKC

I've recently moved to NZ where they use a different way of grading routes, plus trad and sport are all graded the same. I keep trying to compare the system I know in the UK but nothing adds up.

For instance. Tonight I've just climbed a 23 trad route.

So the comparison chart says 6c+/7a sport, which sounds about right but it was trad. Trad equivalent is E4/E5 6b ish. I've never climbed anywhere near this in my life! In reality it felt E1 ish.

Has anyone else tried to convert the grades over and what is a true comparison?

In reply to floss_81:

Are you sure you're not just climbing well
e1's would rarely have 6c/7a ish moves, no matter what the gear.

In reply to floss_81:

It is easier to just forget the old grades and work with the local stuff. I have found that it is almost impossible to convert one grading system to another with any accuracy. I have climbed in Australia, America and all over Europe. Even French sport grading is different in different part of Europe, even different parts of France.
Go with the local system, learn your levels in that system and stick with it, and don't try to convert.

In reply to floss_81:

Also, different people supply different conversion charts.

The one here: http://www.thecrag.com/article/Grades would suggest about E3 5c for a Ewbanks 23. (But agrees with the 6c+/7a French grade.)

As others have said, even within a grading system grades are not consistent, especially from one crag to another. Across grading systems it gets even worse -- things don't line up directly, you're almost always talking different crags, and sometimes they talk about different things. Especially converting into/out of the UK trad system -- it is different from most any other rating system in the world.

In reply to floss_81:

Cheers.

You are all right in what you say. You can never get two crags to line up, one is slightly softer or the other bold. So how can I expect to be able to compare different countries 15000 miles apart.

I'll just have to get used to it.

It will be interesting to see what I'll be able to climb when Im back in UK. Have I got better without noticing or is it all same same as I think.

In reply to floss_81:

Conversely, I recall doing a grade 17 that felt like E1! I think taken with a pinch of salt, 18 is E1, 19/20 for E2, 22 for E3

In reply to Cardi:


You've got to be so careful here. That is why the uk system is so good. You have an idea of what your getting yourself into before you leave the deck. The system here doesn't allow for protection. So there are easy climbs that scare the crap out of you and then technically hard climbs with bags of protection.

In reply to floss_81:

Check out the UKClimbing article on Mt Arapiles. Written by a Brit, it lists a bunch of arapiles trad classics with their Ewbank grades and UK equivalents. As others have said, there'll probably be a difference from crag to crag even within the same grading system.

In reply to floss_81:

YDS is the weirdest because not even guide book authors can agree on a definition.

Consequently, the bell curve over which I might convert say a 5.11b to is pretty wide (E1 to E5?). Can't say I've done a 23 that felt like E1 though, that sounds like a proper outlier.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I'd put money on some JT slab 11b X being E7. I've climbed 5.9s there on TR that would be tough E5, harder than Hairless Heart for instance.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't suppose anyone here has bouldered at Dos Cabezas, near San Diego? There's a V1 slab there called Tai Chi which would be E3 here I think. I backed off halfway given I had no mats and I was on my own, out in the desert, a mile from the car and 5 miles from the nearest road!

On the other hand, the classic V4 (maybe V5) Forca seemed about right (in that I could do the moves but couldn't link the sections on a first visit). It was clear that there at least the V grade was purely technical. However, I guess it's fair enough that for boulders you can see exactly what you are getting into before you start.

In reply to floss_81:




Yep

And not only that, the conversions have changed over time. I'm in Australia, have only climbed a little rock in the UK and none really in the US. But what constitutes '5.9' in the USD has ranged from 17 to 21 at various times in the 20 years I've been climbing! So I'm very wary of any mountain rock graded 5.9 as I can always grunt my way up a 17 but might easily fail totally on a 21.

When I climbed in N Wales years ago I concurred with opinion of the time that HVS 5b was around 17/18 and E1 was more like 19/20. Below that was a bit fuzzy (I remember thinking VS was around 16) and above that I haven't done enough to know.

In reply to Damo:



In reply to Jonny2vests:


YDS has some interesting historical artifacts that can make grades strange, especially in the above-mentioned 5.9 range.

Originally, YDS was a closed system from 5.0 to 5.9 -- so 5.9 was the hardest climb that someone could do. Of course, it took a fair bit of ego to climb something and then say it was the "hardest possible" so a lot of tough stuff would get graded 5.8 or 5.8+ as well. So routes that were done and graded in the early days could be far harder than one might expect and still be graded in the 5.8 - 5.9 range. And, as we all know, once a route has been given a grade it takes a LOT to change the historical grade of a route, even if it has become quite a sandbag.

Also, originally YDS was a "single hardest move" grading system. (Comparable to the technical grade of a UK trad grade). Over the last 15-20 years, this has generally evolved to being a "overall difficulty of the climb" type grade, taking into account hardest move, sustained series of moves, rests available, overall sustained work needed for the climb, etc. This can, also, make comparing grades in YDS across generations of climbs (and climbers) tricky.

(I expect there was probably a similar situation with HVS/Extreme before Extreme got extended into E1, E2, etc. But I don't know the history of UK grading as well as I do North America.)

But, if you are climbing in North America, and you are climbing a route that was first climbed before (about 1990) and the grading is in the 5.8+ to 5.9+ range, take a good look at it before getting on it. There's a local 5.8+ route that I went after with a few friends... a couple of them on-sight in the low 11s and project low 12s, but could only get the crux by pulling on a draw. (The route is very well protected, with a bolt at the crux, and only the one very hard move -- the rest is a bit stiff for the grade, but ok. So... maybe a VS 6A climb.

In reply to johncook:
.... Even French sport grading is different in different part of Europe, even different parts of France.

Even UK grades are different in different parts of the UK!!!

Sound advice, though

In reply to floss_81:

It felt 6c+/7a and yet E1? I can't help thinking you should worry about mastering the UK systems before you worry about the Australian one (which in any case is shit, obviously).

jcm

In reply to dagibbs:

Yeah, all that.

Greetings from Squamish.

J2V

In reply to floss_81:

whilst in NZ check out Mt.Cook village (sabastapol bluff). your have trouble beating the views from that crag

In reply to floss_81:

I've never believed grade charts one bit... A VDiff is something like a 3 indoors... I could dance up a indoor 3 blindfolded with an arm behind my back (as I am sure we all could) but I've climbed some hard VDiffs that actually require total concentration and with a few hardish moves.

Likewise... I climb 6b very confidently indoor but that's like an E1 or something and I've certainly done VSs that are harder than the 6b routes.

In reply to crayefish:

Maybe some indoor grades are way too soft rather than the conversions being that wrong.

In reply to Offwidth:

Quite possibly. But consistently soft I'd say

In reply to turtlespit:

Cheers for the heads up. I seen what the author said about the grades, but more to the point what a great place it looks. A must to try and visit while im in this part of the world.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Johh.

First don't get arsey. The point of the forums is to yap not to use it as an opportunity to knock people down.

Also just because a system is different it doesn't make it SHIT as you put it.

My question was so I might be able to try and understand a system Im not familiar with, not just disregard it as shit.

I fully admit that with only half a dozen years climbing under my belt I'm probably not the best at making a fair assessment of the difficulty of a climb and also it always feels different if its at your threshold while on it and looking back. All I can say is how it felt.

I said it felt 6c+/7a sport. Which yeah it did. I pushed as hard as I ever have on sport routes of that grade. So in this case the conversion is true.

The protection was good when you needed it and It didn't put you in any serious situation. So when looking at it from a UK trad side, E1 ish. Yeah you would grade it low.

The other reason I said that, is while in the UK the hardest I ever climbed was E1 and a few E2 and that was really pushing the boat out. And It didn't feel anything like that.

Also my climbing ability hasn't magically improved just by taking a flight, so there is no way its E4/E5 as the table suggests.

I know this route was graded as it should, as I've climbed various others of similar grades and they all feel like this.

In reply to floss_81:

Definitely find time to get to Arapiles… I think I've read some New Zealanders saying that Mt Arapiles is New Zealands best crag Also met a few Kiwi's at Arapiles, so I assume you'll be able to find a group to join in with.

There's also the nearby Grampians (though the northern part is currently fire affected - should be ok once you organise a trip over).

In reply to turtlespit:



Chatted to a kiwi climbing friend at work today and he also said its NZ's best crag. Flights are under 500 bucks so could be a winner later in the year.

So much to do here first before flying around. Plus the snow is on its way in a few months so the mountains are ready to play in soon.

In reply to floss_81:


Well, the system certainly allows for protection. You're quite right an easy scary climb may be graded the same as a hard not-scary climb, but that'll should be obvious from the description.

Ewbank's own words:
...Grading takes the following into consideration. Technical difficulty, exposure, length, quality of rock, protection and other smaller factors. As these are more or less all related to each other, I have rejected the idea of 3 or 4 grades, i.e. one for exposure, one for technical difficulty, one for protection etc. Instead the climb is given its one general grading, and if any of the other factors is outstanding, this is stated verbally in the short introduction to that climb, e.g. 'Freds Frolic’ 17. 302’-6”

A fine climb, marred by poor rock at (crux) and poor protection on 4th pitch. etc, etc.

I feel that this system will soon be accepted, and the Americans seem to be thinking of something along similar lines.

As far as protection goes, the general terms “good”, “fair”, “poor” are used.... -- http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=Display&ForumID=1&...


I think its a good system. Certainly cleaner and simpler than many others.

In reply to needvert:

Once i get used to it i'm sure it will be a good system to use. And your right it certainly does seem simpler.

I did a bit of a google search last night and found a pdf of the first guide book using the ewbank and it had that explanation at the beginning.

Its the same as everything when you move somewhere you must forget the old and except the new. Im forever converting thing back to pounds in my head when shopping. This is the same,I should stop trying to convert and just except it.

In reply to floss_81:


I think it's a good system and I like its simplicity. Interesting to note there is not nearly anything like the endless grade debates in Aust climbing as there is in UK climbing - consensus seems much more easily reached and kept.

The UK system is a nice idea but possibly gives too much latitude to overdo it. The Ewbank system is a subjective blend, like all grades are a subjective blend, it's just that others pretend to greater objective accuracy.

Note though that the Ewbank system has been interpreted and used slightly differently in different places over the years, with regard to grading the climb as a whole and grading it based on its hardest move. In theory it should be the former but in some cases you find the latter.

Of course John never foresaw the proliferation of bolts as there has been, which I find influences the grade. He was climbing mostly ground up trad, often multi-pitch whereas most new climbs now are short and bolted, so factoring exposure and protection alters the blend.

I assumed johncoxmysteriously's comment was just a windup. His comments usually aren't that stupid.

In reply to Damo:

I'm afraid I disagree with you both. For every complex problem, there is a simple solution, and it's wrong.

Ewbank is as bad as YDS, I've used them both plenty. Calling yourself an HVS climber is so much better defined than calling yourself a grade 17 or 5.10 climber.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


How so? Not that I go around calling myself by the grade I climb, but if I said 'I'm a grade 17 climber' to me that means that I would lead any grade 17 in Australia/NZ ground up on lead placing pro, no falls.

But if I had only climbed in that way up to HVS 5a and never quite managed a HVS 5c I could technically call myself 'a HVS climber' but really, I wouldn't quite be one.

No?

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Ha! I think you mean HVS onsight leader otherwise adjectival grading is meaningless.

In reply to Offwidth:
This is a really interesting article on the evolution of UK climbing grades

http://bobwightman.co.uk/climb/article.php?p=uk-grades

And here is an extract about Ed Drummonds , perhaps, overly refine system.

"During the 1970s as a more athletic and fitter climber emerged on the scene, it became apparent that further extension to the grading system was needed: the Extreme grade was becoming too broad. Note that Exceptionally Severe never really caught on. With Pete Livesey’s ascents of Footless Crow in the Lake District and Right Wall in North Wales the pressure on the Extreme grade became too much: both Cenotaph Corner and Right Wall were given the same grade!

There had been one notable attempt to break the deadlock - Ed Drummond in his privately published 1967 guide to Avon Gorge [7] introduced a multi-numerical system that had a numerical grade similar to, but slightly different from, the Crew–Wilson numerical grade, (it went 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b as opposed to 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 5c etc) but for the adjectival part, replaced it with four numbers representing:

The number of hard moves.
Protection.
Quality of rock.
Style of climbing.
In that specific order. Within each category, zero equated to “good” and three to “bad”.

It didn’t catch on."

In reply to Al Evans:

I've got that guide somewhere. I could never remember the order of the numbers and ended up taping a piece of paper to the guide. Got myself into some odd situations when I mixed up the number sequence! Frequently mixed up pro and quality of rock!

In reply to Offwidth:

I mean onsight in all cases.

In reply to floss_81:


E1 is around sport 6a/6a+ so one of your assessments is way, way out. 6c+/7a is equivalent to a well protected E4, say something a little bit harder than Bitterfingers at Stoney.

In reply to floss_81:

The Ewbank system is a bit tricky to get used to - you can only do a best guess.

Good luck down there in NZ and say hello to Bryce for me. I loved my time climbing there.

In reply to a lakeland climber:
>say something a little bit harder than Bitterfingers at Stoney.

I don't know about that!!

The Australian system is obviously shit because it uses the same grades for sport and trad climbing, which is nonsense.

In reply to the OP:

I'm afraid I can't understand a word you say, but anyone who knows anything about anything knows that no E1 route is F6c+/7a.

jcm

In reply to Rampikino:



That Bryce chap is a bit of a local legend. I haven't met him yet, will ave to pop in the cafe for a yap. But routes are constantly being put up and his name seems to be on a lot of them. Good going for an old boy.

What did you climb when you where here?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It could be. Except that over the last 30 years or so we've had a large number of climbs use both bolts and natural placements together, so we, and the system, are used to taking that into account. We don't try to have a detailed little system that pretends to do the thinking for us, but which is still ultimately a subjective blend.

When looking at an Australian climb you simply look at the grade, take into account whether it's all bolts, some bolts or no bolts and, looking at the terrain itself, come to a judgement about how difficult the actual physical climbing will be. It relies on a climber, not a system.

In reply to floss_81:

Plenty in Wharepapa - have a look at our new routes in Sheridan, Froggatt, Waipapa and especially Bailey Road.

In reply to floss_81:
Stop thinking in the old system.

In the U.S think 5.11 or whatever, P.G X-rated or whatever.

Austrailia just think a 23.

Forget where you came from and just embrace the 'new' grading system. You have not climbed a E3 you have climbed a 23.


I know this is pretty unhelpful to a simple curiosity but it's best not thinking about it, you either over inflate your own climbing prowess or feel like a failure, even particular climbing areas have inconsistencies, Yorkshire or gunks grades etc. Best way is to try make sense of the system you are using in isolation, don't think it felt E1, just try a 24 and see if you get spanked, or a few more 23's to see where it falls in the grade.

In reply to Damo:




Ok, so maybe I should have said HVS 5a instead of HVS. Lazy of me.

How can you capture all the aspects of a climb that separate 'difficulty' in a single variable? You can't. The British system has two variables, and while there are still ambiguities, it's also constrained by onsight leads, so its hard to imagine how Ewbank could better that.

So take your onsight limit, in both systems, and look at the spread of success & failure. The curve you come up with is bound to wider with Ewbank, as long as you have a good sample size of course.

With YDS its a no brainer, they make no account of boldness, so for that alone, the noise in the system is overwhelming. Does Ewbank try to incorporate boldness?

In reply to Jonny2vests:


The YDS uses additiona R or X suffixes for boldness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System#YDS_protection_rating

>Does Ewbank try to incorporate boldness?

Yes, as needvert posted above with the quote from the original description - protection, length of pitch and quality of rock are all taken into account, which should give some idea of 'boldness', which will of course vary widely between climbers. A friend of mine climbs 32, so warms up by free soloing 23s :-/

In reply to Jonny2vests:

No account of boldness: what is X, R and PG for then?

Its a different but equally applicable 2 value system to the UK one, only they grade slabs harder. I quite like it and have led harder on holiday there than I normally do on home ground.

YDS is still all rubbish though as Robert says so.

In reply to Offwidth:



That is an informal addition not adopted by many guides / areas in North America.


Which is why you like it. Try getting married to it.

In reply to Damo:

As above.



How can it possibly do that? To have an idea of boldness you would need the three inputs you described, which are also entangled amongst the other inputs. You can't reverse engineer boldness alone from the result.

In reply to floss_81:

After climbing in the bottom of south island for the last 18 months all I can take away from it is that NZ grades need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Grades dont convert easily to the UK system and they can vary massviely between areas and rock type. The grade rarely seems to take into account danger and protection. There also seems to be an odd habit of mixing bolts and protection into a lot of climbs so you can sometimes be surprised by some desperate runouts that you were not expecting because you didnt have trad gear (or the person who put up the route deemed it unneccesary to have bolts in that area).
There can be a large variation in grade inconsistencies even in a local areas between nearby crags as some places dont get a huge amount of traffic so it can take a while to get a consensus on the grade. Ive just noticed this in the last few months in Dunedin as a lot of the routes on climbnz have had their grades modified - i.e long beach. I think a lot of this is due to a smaller climbing population and the routes getting a lot less traffic. Admittedly as a strong E1/E2 climber in the UK I wish I found a trad 23 as easy as an E1.

In reply to B_Mark_W:


Why would you? A trad 23 is somewhere around E3 5c / E4 6a.

In reply to Damo:

I wouldn't I was just referencing the original post.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I don't really understand, why is that obvious?

I climb some low numbered sport grade, and a far lower numbered trad grade. I accept this and it makes sense to me. I have a sport leading grade and a trad leading grade. (I attribute most of the difference to an increased fear of falling when on natural pro).

This sounds not so dissimilar to the UK (I gather from Wikipedia) where you have French grades for sport climbs and your traditional grading system, except we use the same scale for both.


From a user perspective, I haven't ran into any problems. Guidebooks mark climbs as trad, sport, or mixed, with a grade and the short description that'll mention any outstanding factors or important details. That's about all the information I need.

In reply to needvert:





Don´t worry about it, most of the world gets on perfectly well using the same grade system for sport and trad.

In reply to jimtitt:

I think they put up with it because they have no choice. I don't think you can beat the Brit for trad, French for sport combo though.

In reply to Jonny2vests:



What, do "they" live in some kind of dictatorship? The majority of the world just seems to get on with climbing using whatever system they want and don´t get anal about grades, there again they don´t usually scrabble around on 8m high grit routes either.

In reply to jimtitt:


Word

However I thought grit had settled down to either Font or V grades.

In reply to jimtitt:

Yeah. In the sense that they don't have a choice.


Mostly they use whatever the guide uses surely?

Plenty of people here whinge about YDS. There's a growing trend towards quoting French grades for sport. Vive la révolution I say.

In reply to Jonny2vests:


But you can from E2 5c?

Nope, from my understanding E2 5c can be anything from a highly sustained but well protected route to a nasty hard (but safe) boulder problem followed by an easy solo. Or something completely different.

So can you reverse engineerd boldness from E2 5c? nope, not without more info (see the route or more detailed route description).

In reply to Jonny2vests:



Climbers decide for themselves what grading system they want by a process of evolution, there is no edict handed down from above saying guide writers must use any system. People think of new grading systems and the population in general either accept them or ignore them. It´s just numbers ot letters telling the climber something about how hard it is to get up, which symbols one uses is irrelevant.
About the only thing that is internationally agreed on are that closed-end systems ultimately fail (V grades start too high because it is a closed system at the bottom).

In reply to HeMa:

E2 5c(P1)and E2 5c (P2/3) ?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Sadly abandoned. P grades were almost made for Yorkshire grit

In reply to HeMa:




Well obviously 2 variables trying to describe something like 5 parameters still leaves ambiguity, but much less ambiguity than a 1 variable system. I'd have thought that was obvious. Often, ambiguity can be resolved by simply looking at the route, or by guessing. Will an E2 5a be bold? Probably. Reverse engineering complete. Will an E2 5c be bold, probably not.

In reply to jimtitt:

Yes, but that occurs on evolutionary time scales. In the mean time, they use what's in front of them.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Except on yorkshire grit it might even be more than likley it will be bold. I gave up counting the number of VS 5a P2/3 routes up there yet on peak grit there are very few indeeed.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think you can probably finish most sentences with "except on Yorkshire grit".

In reply to Jonny2vests:

So what´s your suggestion, that each purchaser of a guide book gets to choose (or invent) the grading system they like?

In reply to jimtitt:


No. That seemed to be your suggestion. I'm merely stating that climbers in the short term at least, will use what is available because they have to, rather than some other potentially more optimum solution.