UKC

Recently I completed a first recorded ascent of a route that had a very distinct and well protected 4c crux move (pulling through a roof on good holds). I graded the climb VS 4c but wondered whether HS 4c might have been more appropriate, there was a short section of hard to protect 4a/b climbing above the crux too.
Which got me thinking that there are not that many HS 4c routes around - yes, I know it is used, but it seems far rarer than VS 5a, HVS 5b or E1 5c for example (grades with a tech rating one above the norm for the grade). Amongst the 60+ HS routes I've climbed there is not a single HS 4c amongst them - though there is one HS 5a!
Anyone have any idea why? Perhaps because HS is a more recently added grade?
Any other grades similarly underused?
(I'm sure there will now be a torrent of examples of HS 4c, but certainly in the areas I have climb most frequently it is a rare beast).

In reply to The Ivanator:

HS, like HD and HVD and MVS, is not a real grade in its own right, but is just a low- or high-in-the-grade addition to the real grades, which are M, D, VD, S, VS, HVS, E1, etc. That's why there are fewer of them.

In reply to The Ivanator:

If is has a hard to protect 4b move, doesn't that make it VS 4b, which then becomes 4c for the actual crux?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect this is the main explanation, but HS has been a widely used/accepted grade for a good while now and it's usage is not on the wane or restricted to certain areas like MVS for example.

In reply to Nutkey:

Well the hard to protect stuff was not unprotectable - just a fiddly and less than bomber cam, but no groundfall potential (just a big lob if the cam failed) and the moves were barely 4b.

In reply to The Ivanator:

Couldn't comment on your new route, but on checking my logbook, I've found 20 HS 4C routes, 18 in the Peak, so I guess fairly common around there, maybe just not so in other areas.

I'd generally expect HS 4c to have a well protected crux and easier climbing before and after, but if you then have further unprotected climbing It could well be VS!..

Probably no help there whatsoever. If possible get a few others to climb your route if you can and then build a consensus from that.

In reply to The Ivanator:
VD 4a
E1 4c

In reply to The Ivanator:

Sounds VS to me. I think HS 4c is for HS with a hard start or similar move off a good ledge or a well protected 4c crux in say otherwise much easier climbing. I might be responsible for a few of those Peak entries!

In reply to The Ivanator:

I think HS is a totally underused grade. At this level the adjectival grade and associated mid band technical grade should go 1:1 (S 4a, HS 4b, VS 4c, HVS 5a) but far too many HSs get given VS 4b by default. So I don't think the grading anomolly is just at HS 4c - it is HS in general. Cornwall is the only place I can think where it is used more or less correctly.

In reply to The Ivanator: Do you think HS 4c (for example) is an underused grade? I'm not so sure.

Unusual, certainly. Can't think of many routes that are graded otherwise that should be HS 4c instead.

T.

In reply to GrahamD:

Logbooks indicate otherwise. All all areas are a problem. Cornwall and the Peak are maybe the least problematic and I'd add the Lakes with their MVS (which is usually the same thing).

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Argualby quite a few cruxy softer eastern edge VS climbs that get voted by UKC as mid VS.

In reply to The Ivanator:

To answer the question, I think it is partly because tech grades for lower grade routes were less common in the past. While most VS+ routes have had tech grades for a long time now, 'Hard Severe 4b' is a fairly recent thing; these routes used to just get given 'Hard Severe'. So HS 4c may be partly quite rare because up until not long ago HS 4b was too.

In reply to The Ivanator:

Someone with more time than me should plot the frequency distribution of all grades in the database, then we'll really see the weird ones, and if HS 4c is underused.

In reply to Offwidth:

Logbooks are a somewhat self selecting group !

I think lower grades would make a lot more sense if well protected 4b climbs like inverted V in the Peak were given HS 4b - surely its a lot easier than something like Demo Route which is pretty definitive HS 4b.

As you say, if you took MVS to be pretty much synomous with HS then Lakes are OK but most people think MVS is synonomous with VS.

In reply to GrahamD:

I meant the grades from logbooks which record a reasonable approximation of current guidebook grades. Anyway we have done this before and probably pretty much agree about VS climbs that are easier than classic HS lines and are more than a full grade easier than tough VS classics, even if we are a minority.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Here you are! Just scroll down to "Climbs by Grade" and then to Trad http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html

In reply to The Ivanator:

Nobody quibbles about HVS and I quite like the lyrical quality of the intermediate grades - plus MVS is my 'getting back into proper climbing' grade after any sort of long lay-off.

In reply to scott titt:


Yeah, I thought of that Scott, but it only gives the adjectival grade.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

You can open the public logs of prolific climbers and sort by grade, which then orders adjectival grades by the tech element and gives some idea of frequency of various tech/adj combinations - from browsing a few I'd say that HS 4c is somewhat under-represented statistically, but this is not a very scientific measure!

In reply to Coel Hellier: By your criteria



By your criteria HVS is not a real grade in its own right, just a high-in-the-grade addition to the real grade of VS - just look in old enough guide books.

The real problem is when you have HVD & MS or HS & MVS. I think MVD is a bit rarer so very few HD/MVD conflicts.

I always used to think that HS was a Severe with a harder crux but good pro, whereas MVS was more likely to be sustained with poor pro but not worth VS. This was clearer before technical grades came along.

In reply to The Ivanator:

The reason is because HS 4c is MVS. But if MVS doesn't exist in your area there is an issue. I think the point here is that unlike MS, MVS does actually exist.

In reply to Michael Hood:


My criteria are width of the grade and numbers of climbs in the grade. There isn't enough distance between S and VS to fit in a whole "full" grade. On the other hand HVS is a full grade.

In reply to The Ivanator:

I'm intrigued as to the HS 5a you've climbed, unless you mean the Cracks on Dinas Mot (which is 4c IMO)?

Anyway, HS is an underused grade - and in my eyes, isn't really necessary. I don't think Severe and VS are different enough to warrant it. I believe the technical term for MVS is "soft touch" VS. However, the gap between VS and E1 is big enough to warrant a grade, hence HVS. Its also rather historical no?

To add to the logbook debate, if it wasn't for HS and HVD my grades would form an almost perfect bell curve around HVS.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I reckon there is enough width between HVS and E1 for another grade.

In reply to The Pylon King:


Has the book got beyond a cover mock-up yet?

In reply to The Pylon King:


I believe its called "classic" or "traditional" HVS, or if you vote on this site/write rockfax guides, easy E1.

In reply to Coel Hellier & ianstevens:

I'd say there is a big difference between Severe and VS.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

But is there really a two-grade leap from mid-grade Severe to mid-grade VS?

In reply to The Ivanator:

Hi Ivan

FWIW I think HS is one of the "proper" grades (unlike MVS, HVD etc) and should be retained.

Sounds like you have good reasons for wanting to give the route HS 4c. The thing to worry about is not that the HS 4c grade is unusual per se, but whether by using that grade you are (potentially dangerously) misleading people about the nature of the route - for the time being that's your call, until the route gets some repeats and a consensus is established.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is there really a requirement to have a linear scale? In some respects it would make sense to have something more logarithmically based for the punters. Also look at the compression evident in eng 6c - not that I would have a clue on that specific topic.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I respect your opinion, as you're an experienced climber, but IMO there's a full bandwidth for the HS grade.

In reply to Removed User:


Well no, but it makes sense if the width of each jump to the next grade is roughly comparable.


But that's accepted as a disaster, sufficiently so that the top climbers no longer use the technical grade and instead use grades with a sensible grade width, namely French grades.

In reply to Removed User:


This is a new route, so I assume you're not familiar with it. Why can't it be a straight-ahead HS which happens to have a 4c (but well-protected) move?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Because according to his description it has some less well protected 4b on it? You are right however - sometimes Hs 4c is Hs 4c. It is interesting that Lakes MVS tends to be 4b in general.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I would say so, yes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

When i was learning to climb and slowly working up the grades from my first VDiffs, i really do remember a big jump to Severe, then Hard Severe, then VS. I never noticed HVD, MS or MVS.
I reckon HS is a full grade.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Still waiting for Fiend to stump up the cash, the tight bastard.

In reply to The Pylon King:



Can you give some examples of routes at those grades? And what's the book Fiend's paying for?

In reply to The Pylon King:

Ta. Like your next album, that book is long overdue.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

>> But is there really a two-grade leap from mid-grade Severe to mid-grade VS?


To me this new perception of some of the old grade subdivisions like HS is very odd. AFAIK, no one used to have any trouble understanding it. I never had any problem with it, almost from the first day I started rock climbing in 1966. Coel seems to be one of the few people on this thread who understands it and has got it absolutely right.

Of course there's not a two-grade leap from mid Severe to mid VS.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

... Of course, HVS always was a separate grade. Just one of the quirks of our delightfully eccentric old adjectival grading system. That's just the way it is, and was. There are roughly similar gaps between the E grades too.

In reply to ianstevens:


http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10003. A tricky but well-protected move in the middle of a Severe romp.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Yes there is:

4a - 4c

the same as VS to E1: 4c - 5b

In reply to The Pylon King:

Certainly feels like two grades to me!!

In reply to The Pylon King:

I agree. Of course its better if it steals part of the bottom (most MVS) of the very wide VS grade but so what? When good gear started arriving in the 60s grades of the newly protectable crack routes didnt go down nor did the remaining unprotectable grades go up. There was no golden age of understanding. Also on grade widths HVS like VS is wider than any of the low extreme bands. If you look at climbs with established HVS labels the easiest ones are arguably 4 grades below the real tough ones like Masochism. Long live HS, bring on E0, lets stop pretending we are breaking something good when in fact HS makes the trad game easier to understand. Stupid grades and sandbags put people off and if we want trad to thrive it needs to make better sense not hark back to some fictional good old days.

In reply to Offwidth:


+1

In reply to The Pylon King:

I wasn't talking about technical grades. You can expect a range of several technical grades for every adjectival grade.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yes but standard 4a is Severe and standard 4c is VS so standard 4b is HS. That seems totally logical to me.

In reply to Offwidth:


But if your argument is valid then it needs to be valid without resorting to pointing at clearly mis-graded sandbags of the "way too hard to be E1" variety.

As I see it, the grades S, VS and HVS are indeed pretty wide (compared to French grades). HVS, for example, going from Knight's Move at the VS/HVS border to Suicide Wall (Cratcliffe) or Delstree (namely, actual HVSs, not sandbags).

Of course the commonest leading limit is around S to VS, so many people will be most sensitive to graduations around there, so many might want the finer distinction of a sub-grade.

But, if you did promote HS to a full grade in its own right then it would be a very narrow grade, far narrower than, say, HVS, which makes less sense.

In reply to The Ivanator:

HS and MVS have been here for years and should remain.

MVS was easy end VS

HS was often something different - there always seemed to be a silly awkward move or something special about it. It did not warrent VS (or MVS) - but was a bit harder than Severe.

With having written a few guides the HS was often that special grade to put against these awkward routes.

When you are climbing at that grade these gradations are important. When you are climbing at HVS, E1 etc it does not matter.

In the new Scafell guide we did away with D, HD, VD and HVD as so difficult to split but retained the MS and HS

In reply to The Pylon King:


I would actually say Severe is about 3b-4a, and VS is about 4b-4c, and HVS is about 5a-5b, and E1 is about 5b-5c. (That's assuming well to very well protected; the technical grade will be lower if poorly protected and/or very sustained).

In reply to The Pylon King:

Actually, slight refinement to the above: I would concede that VS is arguably slightly wider than the other grades, viz. 4b-4c-5a.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I can think off the top of my head of a number of quite brilliant HSs - Right Angle, Creag Dhu Wall, Main Wall, Diedre Sud, Bow Shaped Slab, Tophet Wall, Direct Route on Glyder Fach. Each of them too hard for Severe, too easy for VS.

In reply to John2:


I'd still regard all those as top-end Severes. As I saw it (and never had a problem with it) each grade was divided into three: a bottom end (mild), standard, and top end (hard). So we had Mild Severe, Severe and Hard Severe; Mild VS, VS and VS(hard) - latter actually used in quite a few guidebooks; and though people rarely said or say it: Mild HVS, HVS and Hard HVS ! Coel's examples of the bottom and top end of HVS (Knight's Move and Suicide Wall or Delstree) are v good.

In reply to The Ivanator:

To me, HS 4c suggests an upper-end Severe with one hard but well-protected move, which is pretty much as the OP described the route.

Someone suggested that poorly-protected 4b should be VS and perhaps they have a point, but you can't ignore that 4c move which means it would have to be graded VS 4c. I would expect a climb at that grade to be more sustained at 4c. This doesn't sound like a VS to me, it sounds to me like HS 4c is spot-on.

This is an example of how the nuanced British grading system can get across a lot of information and can make fine but important distinctions. It is all very well for those climbing significantly harder to say that there is not much difference between Severe and VS, but at the margin the differences between S. HS and VS are very real.

In reply to Howard J:

But as somebody climbing around HVS, the difference between the easiest and hardest I've tried feels huge. I think that maybe the case whatever grade you climb at. I don't think it always means there needs to be an intermediate grade.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I really like this classification as it chimes with where I'm at in the development of my climbing. It helps me to pick out easy VS (which is where I'm now at after a year of trad. Lead a couple of lovely MVSs at Wallowbarrow yesterday) and avoid the brutes at the top end of the grade.

However, I feel times have changed and, with the success of Rockfax, HS is here to stay. I certainly know what to expect with HS, especially starter grit jamming cracks!

In reply to Howard J:




Yes, all other grading systems would fall flat on their face.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm not suggesting HVS should be 4 grades wide Im just pointing out the reality of our wonderful nuanced UK grading system as it exists in real guidebooks. I actually think grades now are as good as they have been since protection for cracks arrived on the scene (and the grades sadly didnt change to suit) yet we could do a lot better and HS/MVS really helps as it cuts the width of the grades keen climbers hit quite quickly as they improve (and which stops all too many progressing into extreme). If we want trad to survive we need people to buy into the system and yet we are still sorting out anomalies today from that failure of the climbing book editors in the early 70s. Masochism is E2 and Knights Move is VS if you use grades properly.

Climbing in Yorkshire over the bank holiday weekend and in perfect conditions for grit we were the only trad climbers at Bailden, Widdop and Rylstone, big crags with major classics for the average performer. I talks to people in indoor walls and they are 3 grades better than me at bouldering and yet nervous about severes.


Another problem issue from the golden years is that tech grades came from font via southern sandstone and in the lower grades you can see the grade creep is a whole number grade (ie what was 3a and still is in Font we now think of as 4a). These days despite complaints of grade creep things are holding steadier and tech grades are being included as a norm where appropriate on sub VS climbs.

In reply to Offwidth:


Any particular reason why writers of "real guidebooks" can't "use grades properly"?

In reply to Offwidth:

I think we've all got a different idea of what route should be what grade, if used 'properly'.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Lack of sensitivity at the grade and historic attachment as much as anything. I push for sensible grading but have always been part of teams of mainly much better climbers. I only tended to try and force issues on sub VS stuff (especially that which was minor). Moff and I have a website that makes our views clear.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You are free, of course, to regard grades any way you want! However, if grades are to be useful we need to look for as much of a consensus as possible. HS may have been a subdivision in the past, but it's been so widely used in recent years that it has "jostled for room" and is clearly now a full grade in its own right. In this respect HS (used liberally in just about every guidebook) is a completely different case to grades like HVD, MVS (limited use in some areas, but not used at all in a large number of guidebooks).

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

For instance? Lets start with Knights Move I could list a series of VS climbs at Burbage that the average climber will find harder. Then to the other end. Can you name a harder classic HVS than Masochism? I can again give lists of E1s that are easier. Adjectival grades are likelihoods of onsight success taking risk into account. Its dumb to have climbs so far out of the band.

In reply to Offwidth:

Who's tracking the success rate?

In reply to Offwidth:


Go on then.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Who tracks? Plenty of people. You only need to watch

Then there is simple logic. The start of KM is shared with a VS and the crux is a protectable easy 5a move from a good half rest, no more than middling VS for that bit. Sure its a little reachy but less so than many VS routes and still remains protectable 5a.

For something as sustained as Masochism at HVS the moves should be 4c. Zeus gets into the E2 grade for sustained protectable (if strong enough) 5b moves.

In reply to Offwidth:

So you obviously noticed all those people who decide not to bother, without even tying on.

Do you think tech grades are based on the same chance of success of the average climber, based on a single move?

In reply to EarlyBird:

From the current Burb infinity:

The Chant, The Curse, Lost in France, Little White Jug, The Busker, Green Slab, Side Order Chaos, Sunlight Caller, Boogle Boothroyd, Great Crack, The Happy Slapper, Jimmy Riddle, Always Another One, Obscenity, The Artist, Spider Crack.

Everyone will have their own strengths and weaknesses (and nervous but strong boulderers would delete all the microroutes) but for a nominal average VS leader I'd back all those.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
No but I watch many, I talk to many, I climb with quite a few and I have my own experience from climbing everything at the grade I can so I can judge wider than most. Im not sure what not bothering contributes anyhow. Its the success of those who do bother that counts surely?

As for tech its the average view of people who have reasonable experience of the technique required at that grade. Getting views on 4c jamming from people who cant jam is pretty much useless information and things like this show why Inverted V ends up voted as a mid VS on UKC.

Almost forgot. Someone gave Sneezy as a good example of HS, 5a. Despite my encouragement to downgrade many an easy grit VS I think that route should be VS 5a.

In reply to Offwidth:

What your list highlights first of all is that I haven't done as many of the Burbage VSs as I thought I had!

In reply to EarlyBird:

Take care, some of those are boldish sandbags I'd give hvs. Great Crack is the best safe example and its right next door. Obscenity is famous, safe, and not much further.

In reply to Offwidth:

I need you come to the Bristol/Mendips area and help me sort some grades

In reply to Offwidth:

Do you think most failures on trad routes are mainly physical, or mainly psychological?

In reply to Offwidth:


Under the "BnB" system Sneezy can't possibly be a real VS because I climbed it without much fuss at a time when HS was a big deal for me. Okay, I hesitated at the crux, but the choice of eye-level cam placements from a secure ledge made it feel pretty safe.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Depends on the route. The odd thing is I see more psychological failures on safe routes these days than when I started in the 80s.

In reply to BnB:

I felt that about many climbs but then realised I was sometimes being mean. Goliaths Groove being VS for instance. Im not saying Im right about Sneezy as Ive not seen enough traffic just that it has solid 5a move and is not much easier except that (which would be me criteria for such a HS 5a)

In reply to The Ivanator:

Used to be plenty of HS 4cs in Northumberland - usually with some 5b move in them somewhere

In reply to The Ivanator:

On the HS question, how about Mutiny Crack. S 4b, if HS didn't exist? A good example of sandbag or over-graded soft touch. HS has a distinct habitat in my opinion.

In reply to ianstevens:

The HS 5a I've climbed is Jeffcoat's Buttress at the Roaches (hard start above a safe grassy landing) definitely 5a and probably right at HS.

In reply to The Ivanator:
I reckon HVS 4b is another rare, but totally valid grade conjunction. I think it describes perfectly a certain type of climb, such as Sunset Slab and the arête on the left of Gingerbread slab at Lawrencefield.

On the grade width issue, I think the widest grade is the one which you are just trying (or in my case just given up trying) to make into your standard on-a-good-day grade.

I think HS has established itself as a discrete grade rather than being Severe (hard), which should be something else and probably the same as S+, and I would support Ron Kenyon's comments above. As a discrete grade I think it has a perfect right to have 4a, 4b, or 4c attached to it, depending on gear or lack of it. But if a route is given HS 4c it had better just have one hard and very safe move or it is a VS (or maybe a MVS!), and I am rather doubtful about HS 5a.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Have you climbed Jeffcoats? On Gingerbread you can protect it halfway and in cracks above on the right without leaving the arete so its VS and I'd say top half but not top end. Its also 4c these days thanks to polish from some of the incompetant top-rope traffic.

In reply to Offwidth:

Of the routes on your list of the ones I've done I'd agree with you on The Chant; Obscenity seemed ok at VS to me and not harder than KM; only done Little White Jug as a second and it did seem hard; and Spider Crack is a mutant - a boulder problem with gear rather than a VS.

In reply to EarlyBird:

Not harder overall or not harder on the HVS bit. I always find the VS bit of TKM, shared with Great Peter, the crux (and similar in grade for VS as Obscenity but obviously very different in style).

In reply to Offwidth:


I have but so long ago - it was severe in those days.

>On Gingerbread you can protect it halfway and in cracks above on the right without leaving the arête

Halfway still always seemed quite a bit above the level I'd be happy to jump from.

In reply to Offwidth:

I just think standing at the bottom of a route and saying to yourself "I don't fancy it" isn't any different than starting up the route and backing off because you think the same. Both psychological failures.

In reply to Offwidth:

That's the thing - I think that cumulatively TKM is an HVS experience. I can't compare it to Great Peter as I've not done that route - well, apart from the bit shared with TKM. And for me the crux is above where GP goes right - maybe it's a reach thing.

In reply to EarlyBird:

I'd agree. The first bit of TKM/Peter's Progress is top-end VS IMO. Peter's Progress is then relatively easy, making it upper-VS overall. Knight's Move's continuation is harder than that of PP, so putting it on the VS/HVS border is fair enough.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Of course, Peter's Progress ... Great Peter is definitely harder than Knight's Move!

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Mainly psychological, for the majority of climbers, I reckon.

In reply to The Pylon King:

Courtesy of the madmen of Devon I give you... E1 4b (sadly it has apparently fallen down and the alternative finish is 5b though).

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=34878

In reply to The Pylon King:



That's exactly how I found it starting out. If, as some say, there may be slightly under 2 grades difference between Severe and VS, it's still MUCH closer to 2 grades than 1. Surely makes more sense to have two slightly narrower grade bands than one enormous one!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I think HS is a legitimate grade as well. I think the problem is a lot of people who climb much higher grades find the difference hard to distinguish. I remember when HS was my limit and VS a grade I aspired to. It definately felt a grade higher.

In reply to Mr. Lee:


I don't think any debate for this is required most the climbs in the UK have been balanced and regraded accordingly for the HS grade.

MVS which was only really used in some areas is not now of any use IMO and should be dropped.

It would be nice if our grading system worked with one normal tech grade for each adj grade (ie VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and I can see some peoples argument for extending this down and using grades such as HD, HVD so this works on everything above a grade III scramble however seeing as the grading system above about E3 also doesn't really support this I'm not sure it's required and perhaps we'd be better with unifying the sysem across the uk and dropping anything except M , D, VD , S, HS, VS, HVS, E1 etc