UKC

Grade given according to style of ascent

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014

So being a total punter my recent small victory got me thinking - does the style of ascent change the routes grade ??
Surely beta doesn't really change how hard it is ?? If you do it from bottom to top, first go and without actually looking at the route or practicing the moves or placing gear then it's the grade given in the book ?
If you actually try it, or have say seconded it b4 then not quite the same ????
Your views and advice please ........
Post edited at 15:55
 tom84 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

too many question marks. but to answer your question, it really doesn't make too much difference below (insert arbitrary grade here)
 JoshOvki 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

My view is that a route should be done bottom to top, rather than top to bottom.
 whenry 10 Jul 2014
In reply to JoshOvki: If you're doing it from top to bottom, then it probably should get a different grade than from bottom to top.
 JoshOvki 10 Jul 2014
In reply to whenry:

ffidv instead of vdiff?
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

The route is always the grade given in the book, except when the grade given in the book is wrong.

You can make a route significantly easier by practising it first, but you've then changed the experience so much that you couldn't give it a different grade. Climbing an E2 after practice is climbing an E2 after practice - it isn't HVS or any other grade.

Having seconded a route before makes a route slightly easier - it's usually a while between seconding and leading so it doesn't feel like practice to me. Again, it doesn't change the grade, just makes it easier in a different, subjective way, depending on whether the difficulty of the route is about pump factor, trick moves, hidden holds, etc. Certainly makes a significant psychological difference knowing how hard you found the route before, but it's a different experience to actual pre-practice where you actually know the moves.

Personally, at the punter level I operate at, I don't give a stuff about "beta". It rarely makes much difference, often turns our to be duff, and doesn't change the experience or difficulty much for me. Chalk is way more helpful than beta IMO, but again it's no change in grade, just a different experience.

The grade of the route is the grade in the book. The best style of ascent is never been on it, no chalk on the route, no beta, no sneaky peek on abseil, etc. But lots of ascents that aren't quite perfect onsight style (chalk for example you can't realistically do much about) are still really satisfying and the slight deviation from perfect style makes no difference. I also don't care if a fellow punter says they climbed something "onsight" when in fact they'd got loads of beta and all the rest of it. They just mean: "first go, didn't fall off or rest".
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to tom84:

Sorry yeh doing it the right way up would help
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Jon - so if you're a punter then that makes me an uber punter and I duly claim my punter onsight
And I didn't use chalk
 Ramblin dave 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> Having seconded a route before makes a route slightly easier - it's usually a while between seconding and leading so it doesn't feel like practice to me. Again, it doesn't change the grade, just makes it easier in a different, subjective way, depending on whether the difficulty of the route is about pump factor, trick moves, hidden holds, etc. Certainly makes a significant psychological difference knowing how hard you found the route before, but it's a different experience to actual pre-practice where you actually know the moves.

I find that psychological aspect makes quite a difference, actually. A lot of my nerves about getting on a route near my limit come from worrying that it might be a massive sandbag or totally not my style and that I might end up in a dodgy position unable to do the next move. Knowing that I've basically done the moves before and not found them too harrowing is a big boost.

> Personally, at the punter level I operate at, I don't give a stuff about "beta".

Agreed there (although I'm more of a bumbly than a punter). About the only exception being "hidden" holds, where part of the fun is groping around wondering where they are an the relief if and when they unexpectedly show up.
Post edited at 16:05
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

Using chalk yourself doesn't "dilute the onsight", but when a route is plastered in chalk already so you don't have to find the holds yourself, that does. Wouldn't make much difference on FBD as finding the holds isn't really the key difficulty of the route...although I've heard of a few people getting lost and going straight up from the lip instead of traversing left. Maybe a bit more chalk on it would have helped them.
 andrewmc 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
What sort of grade?

A bouldering grade or a sport grade is unaffected by the method of ascent of the route. The route is the route. The only thing that can change the grade is an alteration of the route e.g. rockfall. If you climb an eliminate, avoiding certain holds, you have not climbed the same route; the grade may then be different.

The same is basically true of a trad grade. Arguably, if you wanted to quibble, you could claim that leaving some critical gear behind meant that for _you_ (and you only) changed the grade - a kind of 'gear eliminate'. It would however be daft.

If you are climbing the route in the same fashion (using the same holds and gear), the grade is the same whether you have never seen it before or climbed it a thousand times. The grade is about the route, not about you, and how difficult it is for you to climb on that day is not relevant.
Post edited at 16:08
 Offwidth 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

The adjectival grade depends on everything that makes an onsight harder. However some routes feel easier by 'cheat' tactics more than others (with beta, practiced moves or whatever). Something like a pure parallel jamming crack for instance will for someone who can jam will be as hard to second clean as lead. This also applies at all grades despite what some might tell you.

In the end the grade is just a label and its always OK to claim it as long as you are honest with your style of approach.
 whenry 10 Jul 2014
In reply to JoshOvki:

> ffidv instead of vdiff?

I was thinking diffv, but ffidv is good.
 whenry 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Ciderslider)
>
> Using chalk yourself doesn't "dilute the onsight", but when a route is plastered in chalk already so you don't have to find the holds yourself, that does.

... until so much of the route is covered in chalk by others trying to find the holds that it makes no difference at all.

 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
So if you asked for all the beta you could get on UKC before leading your first E1 which includes all the major moves, what gear goes where and how to place it (as well as studying video's online) as CiderSlider did, would you now consider your self to have actually properly lead E1?

IMO UK trad grades are for the onsight not for Beta Flashes so you can't really claim a grade brake through on one of these style of ascents.

So in CiderSliders case I would consider myself to have lead FBD and also to have cleanly lead an E1 (as a Beta Flash) but I wouldn't claim it as my best onsight on my profile page (as it's not an onsight) and I wouldn't consider myself to have truely lead a climb at the E1 grade as knowing all the moves and where the protection goes does make climbs easier (especially something pumpy where if you fluff the moves / gear you'll end up on the rope - like FBD)
Post edited at 17:38
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

That's not correct uk trad climbs are graded for the onsight. Beta and climbing the routes before both effect the grade. At the upper limits this becomes more acceptable as climbs become near impossible without some kind of cheating. However people operating at this level generally don't claim the onsight if they get Beta or have practiced the climb before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(climbing)
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> So if you asked for all the beta you could get on UKC before leading your first E1 (as well as studying video's online) as CiderSlider did, would you now consider your self to have actually properly lead E1?

Never actually claimed I did mate - takes nothing away from the fact that a lot of people with far more experience than me haven't got on it (FBD that is). It's a route that most climbers would want on their CV's - but for whatever reason don't
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
> "does the style of ascent change the routes grade ??"
No ofcourse it doesn't E1 onsight and E1 beta flash are different propositions but the climb is E1 either way. That said I've heard headpointing a route makes it feel about 2 grades easier. Also I find I can quite often talk people up routes that are harder than they can currently climb as long as pumpyness is not the limiting factor.

> "Surely beta doesn't really change how hard it is ??"
Of course it does that's why you asked despite knowing it's not really in the spirit of the UK trad climbing game. Ofcourse how much depends, but given the relatively short nature of the crux sequence of FBD and the fact it goes in the easiest way with a very specific set of moves and gear placement and that the pumpy nature of the climb means making mistakes here could easily cost the onsight then I would imagine it made the climb somewhat easier. What do you think?

> "If you actually try it, or have say seconded it b4 then not quite the same"
Different yes, but easier than beta? Um depends on a load of stuff - how long before, how many times you seconded it, if you got it first go etc and how much Beta you recieved and what quality it was, the route in question and ofcourse on the individual and their strengths / weaknesses.
Post edited at 17:58
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
> Never actually claimed I did mate - takes nothing away from the fact that a lot of people with far more experience than me haven't got on it (FBD that is). It's a route that most climbers would want on their CV's - but for whatever reason don't

My question was directed at Jon Stweart, I wasn't suggesting you had or would. I was asking hypothetically. However I do think this is the answer your thread is really trying to gleen right? (can you consider yourself to have truely lead E1 rather than clean lead a climb graded E1)
Post edited at 17:51
 The Ivanator 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

If you have gathered all the Beta known to mankind through years of online discussion before attempting a route then it is definitely at least 3 grades easier!
 GridNorth 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

Just to complicate matters further there ar many routes that I have done for a second or even third time and found them harder than the first time. Sometimes you just seem to get well motivated and everything falls into place and you cruise a route. You memory is of the route perhaps being easy for the grade so if you return and are not "in the zone" it can come as quite a shock. That's happened to me many times so beta is not always an advantage IMO.
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> However I do think this is the answer your thread is really trying to gleen right? (can you consider yourself to have truely lead E1 rather than clean lead a climb graded E1)

Nah, you've missed the point of my thread entirely mate

I don't in any way consider I've led an E1 (although it will happen very soon) - I've just led an iconic route which is a bit intimidating and probably a lot harder than a lot of E1's - so if I was purely after the E1 tick don't you think I 'd go for something a bit easier?
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to The Ivanator:

Cheers Ivan, Although even with all that beta it was a lot tougher than most HS's I've got on
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
This thread has already achieved it's goal

Bet none of you can guess what it was
Post edited at 18:11
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to GridNorth:

Are you comparing like with like? What if you compared having Beta when you are in the zone with not having Beta, we all have off days (and the opposite)
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to GridNorth:

This has happened to me on a route on boulder ruckle - led it and thought it was a path - then seconded it and thought how did i ever lead this ?
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> we all have off days (and the opposite)

Really ???
 tom84 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

something around e1 won't feel that much easier with or without beta, lets face it- for most climbers the difference between having info on a 5+/6a sport route is minimal, why should it be different on trad, especially fbd where the holds are obvious and so is the gear.
 Nick Russell 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
> Bet none of you can guess what it was

More than 20 replies?
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to tom84:

doesn't that depend on how close to your limit E1 is?
 CurlyStevo 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
> This has happened to me on a route on boulder ruckle - led it and thought it was a path - then seconded it and thought how did i ever lead this ?

Which route was that out of interest?

I do think on second I tend to be a bit more sloppy which can make routes feel harder.
Post edited at 18:38
 Bulls Crack 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The route is always the grade given in the book, except when the grade given in the book is wrong.

> You can make a route significantly easier by practising it first, but you've then changed the experience so much that you couldn't give it a different grade. Climbing an E2 after practice is climbing an E2 after practice - it isn't HVS or any other grade.

I'd disagree somewhat - the onsight adjectival grade can - indeed must - subjectively change to some degree.
 Ramblin dave 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> I'd disagree somewhat - the onsight adjectival grade can - indeed must - subjectively change to some degree.

Not sure I follow you there - could you elaborate / give an example?
 tom84 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

nope, because we're talking about a specific route.
 Michael Gordon 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

Agree with Jon Stewart and andrewmcleod. While most routes are graded assuming they will be attempted onsight, the grade is for the route, not how you climb it. If the route is E3 and you onsight it, then you've onsighted an E3. If the route is E3 and you headpoint it, then you've headpointed an E3. If the route is... etc etc, you get the idea.
 Goucho 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

The grade given is for an onsight ascent using the route description.

Anything else is just variations on a theme.
 GridNorth 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

The most extreme example I have of this is with Last Slip at Avon. It had a reputation but one day I decided that I could not avoid doing it any longer as it was one of the few routes I hadn't done. Me and a mate had been to Devon but were rained off. As the sun re-appeared as we approached Bristol my mate said that I went very quite (some might say that I was entering the "zone")and he knew what I had in mind. I hardly spoke a word until I topped out. Without trying to sound too boastful, I cruised it. My mate said I cruised it and people watching said I cruised it. I was very focused. I have been back several times and done it again and again as a second and on a shunt and never found it as easy as that first time on sight, no beta, and on the lead. In fact on some of those occasions I wondered how I had ever managed to lead it.
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

surely the route description is beta, sorry couldn't resist
 CMcBain 10 Jul 2014
In reply to GridNorth:

I think seconding routes you've led before, or routes around your normal O/S grade can be pretty demoralising. When seconding I often find myself thinking 'wow that move was pretty hard' or 'wow this was a pretty bold section'. In reality, when leading you're in 'the zone' and the conscious part of your mind thats often active when seconding, is turned off when leading. The solution for me was just to appreciate leading and seconding as 2 different experiences entirely, rather than worrying about how I would of found a route to lead when I second up it.

To the OP, I would probably still take an O/S if i'd seen/watched someone do a route before or even if i'd got a little bit of beta, purely because I often find beta useless and end up doing routes in a completely different way. Obviously it's a bit different if the route is hard because of a specific hidden hold or essential bit of gear, likewise receiving large amounts of beta or looking at someone climbing a route with binoculars ....
 Goucho 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

Ha Ha.

OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CMcBain:

yep totally - i know that the e1 onsight is out there somewhere - hopefully this year
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

> So if you asked for all the beta you could get on UKC before leading your first E1 which includes all the major moves, what gear goes where and how to place it (as well as studying video's online) as CiderSlider did, would you now consider your self to have actually properly lead E1?

Yes.

> IMO UK trad grades are for the onsight not for Beta Flashes so you can't really claim a grade brake through on one of these style of ascents.

Climbing a route of the next grade is never a breakthrough. The bottom chunk of one grade is easier than the top chunk of the grade below. As to whether or not you get a beta on an E1 (or HVS or E4) I don't think it makes the route that much easier. IME if I try a route that's hard for the grade with stacks of beta, it feels really hard; whereas if I try a route that's easy for the grade totally onsight, then it feels piss. The change in difficulty created by the beta is much much smaller than the intra-grade variability, so I don't think it matters.

> So in CiderSliders case I would consider myself to have lead FBD and also to have cleanly lead an E1 (as a Beta Flash) but I wouldn't claim it as my best onsight on my profile page (as it's not an onsight) and I wouldn't consider myself to have truely lead a climb at the E1 grade as knowing all the moves and where the protection goes does make climbs easier (especially something pumpy where if you fluff the moves / gear you'll end up on the rope - like FBD)

I think it's all bloody obvious on FBD. It's not exactly a tour-de-force of subtle route finding and ingenious gear is it?
 tom84 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

do strapiombante or whatever its called, its piss as long as your hands don't freeze and you fall off the last move (the warm up should have warned me off its bigger brother to the right....
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

I think when you edit your profile, it says something like 'best onsight or flash'.
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

I personally compensate for any beta with my inability to learn from it and general stupidity. So no, it doen't make routes easier for me. For example, I have watched people climbing FBD many times, and know about the gear, but I still can't do it, even on the top rope. It's just too steep, and no amount of beta is going to change it. If one day I manage it I will take the E1 tick with no qualms.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

But if you didn't know there was good gear, you might not even get on it.
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I was seconding, so would still get on it But still could not climb it
 Bulls Crack 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Imagine an intimidating E2 5b, lets say, that feels committing/blind and thus bold. practice it and it becomes not blind and thus not that committing
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

I thought we were generally talking about leading. You definitely aren't climbing E1 if you just second it!
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

How do you mean I am not climbing it? I was climbing it - as a second, all be it didn't get to the top.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

You were climbing the route. The grade is for the lead.
OP Ciderslider 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

But Krill you've done loads of much harder stuff m8
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Yes, I see your point. I was just giving it as example of the fact that beta did not help me climb it, even as a second. I doubt it could help me if I was leading. The route would remain just as hard.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

It might be physically harder, not knowing what to expect when you onsight a route can lead to lots of up and down climbing, which obviously can tire you out. Knowing there's good gear at certain place on the route can help you to commit more quickly.
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Sounds reasonable in theory, but in my personal experience makes little difference, there's just too many factors. And as some of the posters above indicated it's not just me.
 Kirill 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

No, I haven't I have done loads of easier stuff.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Kirill:

I never believe anybody who tells me that.
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> It might be physically harder, not knowing what to expect when you onsight a route can lead to lots of up and down climbing, which obviously can tire you out. Knowing there's good gear at certain place on the route can help you to commit more quickly.

Up-and-downing can result from lots of different reasons one lacks the conviction to get on with it. Even with stacks of beta, if the moves are super-hard, I'll still up-and-down beneath the crux for hours.

A few years ago I had a nightmare on the crux of Bow Wall, I'd just watched my mate fail on it and all the gear was in place. I ended up resting on the rope, because the moves were too hard. I went back and did the route again the other week and even knowing everything about it, and with a grade in hand I still found it really hard. Because it's really hard! That's what makes it hard. It would have been a different experience if I'd been doing it onsight, but it wouldn't have been loads harder. There was no mystery to the gear, and it's pretty obvious what holds you've got when you get there, the difficulty of the route is just how hard it is, regardless of what you know.

There's the odd bit of crucial beta that can make a route significantly easier, but they're few and far between, I guess...but I can't think of a single one!
Post edited at 22:59
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You are implying beta has made a difference, and has made routes easier?
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I'm implying that the difference it makes is very rarely crucial, or even significant.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

You can't know that, you're just as deluded as the others.
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

What I can know is as follows:

Let's say I've done 200 E2s, some of them onsight, some of them with loads of beta, some of them having been on them before.

I can compare all 200 experiences, all within the same grade, and compare my experience of how hard I found the routes with experience of E1s and E3s and with what everyone else says about the routes (e.g. votes on UKC).

With those comparisons, I can judge whether the beta made my experience of the routes significantly different to what I'd expect without beta.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

No you can't. You need to look at the same route. When you flash a route (with beta) you can try to envisage how you would climb it without the beta, but you'll never ever know that for sure.

Off to bed now. Do I win?
 Jon Stewart 10 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> No you can't. You need to look at the same route. When you flash a route (with beta) you can try to envisage how you would climb it without the beta, but you'll never ever know that for sure.

You're right in that I can't know that beta didn't make any difference on a specific route. Which is fine, because that's not what I'm saying.

> Off to bed now. Do I win?

No. Because I'm saying that the difference isn't significant. If it was significant, then pure onsights would feel closer to E3s and routes with stacks of beta would feel closer to E1s, but in fact the routes all stay about the same, i.e. hard E2s done with beta still feel like hard E2s, etc. So yes, there's a difference, but no, it's not significant,
Post edited at 23:48
 dr evil 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:
The grade applies to the easiest sequence. Anything else is bullshit
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Imagine an intimidating E2 5b, lets say, that feels committing/blind and thus bold. practice it and it becomes not blind and thus not that committing

yes, that's a good example of a route where headpoint practice will make a very significant difference to how hard the route feels (compared to other routes of the same grade).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Ciderslider)
>
> Using chalk yourself doesn't "dilute the onsight", but when a route is plastered in chalk already so you don't have to find the holds yourself, that does. Wouldn't make much difference on FBD as finding the holds isn't really the key difficulty of the route...although I've heard of a few people getting lost and going straight up from the lip instead of traversing left. Maybe a bit more chalk on it would have helped them.

I find chalk marks on a route are often less than helpful as the holds with most chalk on can be the ones that people have tried a lot before realising they are the wrong ones.
 DaCat 11 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:

The part in Wiki that you are refering to was written by Bob Wightman but when you look back at Bob Wightmans original writing (linked by Wiki) you can clearly see that words have been changed and things added on the Wiki page. On reading Bobs original paper I can't find anything that says 'UK trad clibs are graded for the onsight and Beta lowers the grade of that climb?

Maybe I'm being dumb here but what other sources (apart from this section in Wiki, that was edited on the 4th July 2014) can we read about a fixed grade not being a fixed grade if it includes Beta?

If what you say is right, why did they start adding E grades to high grade sport climbs and why are those E11's allowed to headpoint the route and keep the grade? how come some of these sponsored 'headpointers' are claiming E11? They don't claim to onsight an E11... they can't but they still rightly claim along with all the camera footage to of climbed an E11.

You can't have one rule for an E1 and a different rule for an E7. Why would it be more acceptable to keep the grade at upper limits?
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> yes, that's a good example of a route where headpoint practice will make a very significant difference to how hard the route feels (compared to other routes of the same grade).

I think there's a big difference between beta and pre-practice. Pre-practice dramatically changes the experience (i.e. makes a route feel loads easier, although I maintain it would be daft to assign a grade); beta doesn't have much effect at all.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to DaCat:

> You can't have one rule for an E1 and a different rule for an E7. Why would it be more acceptable to keep the grade at upper limits?

At the high grades where there hasn't been an onsight, the E grade is hypothetical, so some people think you can't give give E grades to headpointed routes...
 Baron Weasel 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

Chalkstorm is E4 for an onsight without protection in adjacent routes. The grade goes down for other styles of ascent.
 DaCat 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> At the high grades where there hasn't been an onsight, the E grade is hypothetical, so some people think you can't give give E grades to headpointed routes...

Personally I don't think they should be giving E grades to these routes.... its just a nonsense that sadly takes away the real value from those who can onsight an E7
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to DaCat:

> Personally I don't think they should be giving E grades to these routes.... its just a nonsense that sadly takes away the real value from those who can onsight an E7

I'm not really bothered 'cause I'll never climb them. Perhaps you should join Franco's campaign for the H grade?
 Goucho 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Baron Weasel:
> Chalkstorm is E4 for an onsight without protection in adjacent routes. The grade goes down for other styles of ascent.

If you climb this route without protection in adjacent routes (side runners) it's E4 - it's not E4 really, but that's a different argument

Whether you are climbing it onsight, or for the fifth time, the adjective grade is E4 - your own personal experience of a route doesn't actually alter that.

The adjective grade only changes for the lead if you use side runners/mats etc.

The route will of course feel easier on the fifth time, than it did on the first, but all that's changed is your personal experience of the difficulty of the route, it doesn't actually change the grade.

And of course, the technical grade, is the technical grade irrespective of the style of ascent.
Post edited at 12:34
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

^^^Sense.
 andrewmc 11 Jul 2014
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> That's not correct uk trad climbs are graded for the onsight.

True, forgot about that for the adjectival grade (which is what I assume you mean), although the actual effect (like all things to do with the multiple elements involved in trad adjectival grades) is confusing, poorly defined and hard to quantify - but I will concede that on a route where blindness contributes to the adjectival grade (presumably only ever one grade bump at most?), the grade is not purely reflective of the route.

Personally if I could change all UK grading overnight, I would dump the adjectival grade and use a combination of sports grading (for the route), Font grading or a modified English tech system for the hardest move and the US PG/17/R 'danger' grade system (but appropriately anglicized to U/PG/15/18). Most climbs would not need a danger grade. You could probably even drop the hardest move information; sports routes seem to do OK without it. You lose the information about the 'onsight', but given that the hardest routes are never onsighted this is probably a good thing.
Post edited at 12:48
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It makes sense because the grade is given for the onsight, no other grade is given (unless maybe a variation exists with siderunners).

If you want to climb E4, onsight it.

If you want to climb an E4, do whatever you like.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I agree that the grade is for onsighting the route, and that pre-practising a route makes a big difference to the experience and difficulty. I just think distinguishing between a 'beta flash' and 'onsight' in punter climbing is silly, as it hardly makes any difference, and I have absolutely no interest in what someone knew about a route before they climbed it.

It's perhaps a bit different in elite climbing where someone's making money and getting relative kudos compared to other elite climbers, so it might be legitimate to question if someone's "onsight" was really more like a "flash" (although I personally couldn't give a toss). But for punters, it sounds a lot like pretending it matters because that lends an air of greater importance to the minutia of their run-of-the-mill ascent. In punter climbing, ascents are not "reported" so the issue of "was it a flash or an onsight?" just doesn't apply.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I do agree to a large extent. Especially where money is concerned. It's nice to be involved in an activity which is relatively uncorrupted, compared to say elite cycling or football.

Now I've left behind the days of being a punter, and I am among the elite climbing E grades, I'll take my logbook more seriously.
 Lord_ash2000 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Agree with Jon Stewart and andrewmcleod. While most routes are graded assuming they will be attempted onsight, the grade is for the route, not how you climb it. If the route is E3 and you onsight it, then you've onsighted an E3. If the route is E3 and you headpoint it, then you've headpointed an E3. If the route is... etc etc, you get the idea.

Exactly correct. The route is the grade it is, as long as you mention your style of accent then you've climbed E whatever in such and such style. You and your peers can make what they want of that.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

The grade isn't just for the route though is it? It's for a particular style of ascent of a route.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> I'll take my logbook more seriously.

I hope by that you mean including video footage of every ascent, and some kind of fMRI evidence that you knew nothing about the route except the guidebook description.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There I many photos on Flickr of my true onsight ascent of Illegitimate Crack (VS 4c) in Ilkley Rocky Valley yesterday (a really underrated crag!).
 andrewmc 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> ... and some kind of fMRI evidence that you knew nothing about the route except the guidebook description.

Perhaps this is why different guidebooks have different grades - the grade depends on the amount of beta in the guidebook description?
 Ramblin dave 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I agree that the grade is for onsighting the route, and that pre-practising a route makes a big difference to the experience and difficulty. I just think distinguishing between a 'beta flash' and 'onsight' in punter climbing is silly, as it hardly makes any difference, and I have absolutely no interest in what someone knew about a route before they climbed it.

I'm not sure about this. It's more about my satisfaction than about anyone else being interested, but I find that having loads and loads of beta does take away a bit from something that I've done that's near my limit.

Maybe this is just me - I am a fairly nervous climber - but I find that a lot of the difficulty of climbing a route that I expect to find hard is actually committing to it in the face of the various unknowns - eg will the obvious break turn out to be too flared to take gear, if I pull through the overhang will I get to a good rest and gear or will it be run out and pumpy, will the holds suddenly run out after you're committed to the bold section, is there gear that I can't see on the slab or is it really as bold as it looks, does the upper crack have loads of positive holds that are hard to see or is it all on iffy finger locks - basically, is the whole thing actually a massive scary sandbag. If I remove the doubts by talking to someone who's just done the route and finding out that there's a rest there and gear there and that section is a bit bold but the holds are positive so you just have to keep going to the bomber hex at the end then I find it a lot easier psychologically to commit to the route, and consequently less satisfying to get up it.
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> The grade isn't just for the route though is it? It's for a particular style of ascent of a route.

No, the grade is for the route. What grade you decide to claim for doing an E5 after practise is up to you, but you have still climbed a route graded E5.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> If I remove the doubts by talking to someone who's just done the route and finding out that there's a rest there and gear there and that section is a bit bold but the holds are positive so you just have to keep going to the bomber hex at the end then I find it a lot easier psychologically to commit to the route, and consequently less satisfying to get up it.

Trouble is that everyone's full of shit, no matter how helpful they think they're being. I remember my first E3 attempt. My mate, a much better climber than me said, knowing that I was usually best at bold, balancy stuff, "it's E2 really, the crux is well protected and not even hard, then the bold top bit is easy, you'll cruise it". I proceeded to fall off the crux, get back on and then call for a top-rope, stranded on the bold finish, which to me, had no holds.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

So why does the grade take account of how well protected the route is, or how hard the gear is to place, etc...?
 Ramblin dave 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Evidently you've got rubbish mates, then, because I've definitely had beta that's made routes significantly psychologically easier. Often to do with gear rather than moves - because moves are different for different people, but a solid nut placement that you can't see from the ground is either there or it isn't.
Post edited at 14:52
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I've been scratching my head for beta that's had a significant effect on a route for me. The best I could come up with was this:

http://www.planetfear.com/articles/The_Beta_Cheater_Guide_to_Five_Finger_Ex...

It meant that I did the first crux with the heel-toe jam quickly - but of course it doesn't actually go exactly as they say and once I'd got into the sequence I had to improvise my way out of it. Then I got totally stuck on the actual crux, getting into the final flake, about which Mr Berry managed to omit what for me is the crucial beta for the route: traverse as far left along the break as you can and get a left hand jam before reaching up with the right. Sorry if that's just blown someone's onsight! But they probably won't do that anyway and just boldly/dynamically commit to the flake...

 Ramblin dave 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

As I say, it's not normally about moves or sequences (with the possible exception of someone at the top of the route directing you when you're groping blindly for the one positive top-out hold) but gear - being told that yes, the gear is as good as it looks can make a big psychological difference if you're nervous about a lead and (like me) you're inclined to expect the worst.
 Bob 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There are some routes where there's a hidden hold that makes things a lot easier if you know about them. These holds tend to be out of character with the surrounding rock so even if you are reading the rock you wouldn't know they were there unless you happened to know about them or just happened to land your hand in to them.

There's one on Astra for example: it's a huge hole that's big enough to get two hands in which is totally unlike anything else on the pitch but not everyone finds it, even if it's chalked you wouldn't know it was there until you've moved past it and it's of no further use. (trying not to give beta away here!) Another Lakes example would be Gates of Delerium where everything runs out and you have to apply a bit of lateral thinking.

There's an F6c on Giggleswick south where you simply can't see the next hold even though it's no more than a couple of feet from your face and in plain sight! The first time I got on the route it was "up a bit, left a bit" type instructions from someone who was to the side and could see it, all the while I'm thinking "why am I moving over here? There's nothing!"
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yeah I know some people find that. I just find it's OK to trust the grade and sufficient gear turns up. If there's not sufficient gear for moves I think I'm going to fall off having checked out the holds, then I back off the route, having assessed all the info and concluded that it's a sandbag, or I'm just not up for it that day.

After climbing a lot of routes, I've come to realise that even at E3/4 at the top of my grade, cruxes don't go on that long. If there was a load of hard moves, and no gear, and then a load more hard moves, it'd be E5 and I wouldn't be trying it!
 DaCat 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

> And of course, the technical grade, is the technical grade irrespective of the style of ascent.

^
This

 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bob:

On Astra, the guidebook mentions the hidden hold. It still took me ages to find it... Then there's another similar crux higher up with another hold that nobody mentioned! Ace route.

Very few and far between these routes, though I do accept they exist.
 Ramblin dave 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bob:
I love the guidebook beta in the description of Parallel Cracks at Brimham: "one of the finishes has a secret hold". So feel free to hang around trying to find it, but be aware that you might just be wasting your time and energy...
 Bob 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's the upper one that I was thinking about. Don't remember anything hidden lower down but it's a few years (ten?) since I've done it.

Re your comment about cruxes not going on for that long. I think that's the distinction between older trad routes and the newer ones: something like Holocaust on Dow has two hard moves with a slightly easier move or two between them, the rest of the route would probably be E2. So - steady climbing then gear, hard move, two moves with gear in between then hard move right then steady climbing. Tumble just to the right isn't that much different and is a good bet for a first Lakes E4 as it's well protected - more like a Welsh E4 in fact.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bob:

I guess a good example where the 'crux' does go on forever is Roaring Silence (brilliant name!). But my point is that I know it's E3 5c, so when I've done an unprotected little 5c traverse into a crack, I can be fairly sure that there'll be gear there. And there is. And then there's a bit more 5c and some more gear and then another little unprotected traverse...and then another crack, and guess what, there's gear. I know that I can expect a whole load of 5c, and that the run-outs aren't going to get really silly - if it did, it would be a well-known horror show, or possibly even graded E4 5c (OK, unlikely in the Lakes, it would just be a horror show E3).

This only really goes for popular routes...go on something obscure and likely as not the grade will be completely wrong and you'll get horrifically and dangerously sandbagged of course.
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> So why does the grade take account of how well protected the route is, or how hard the gear is to place, etc...?

Because those affect how hard the route is.
 Bob 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Roaring Silence is one of the routes I've yet to do - someone described it to me as "do the crux of Ichabod. Now repeat that move, and again, and again".

The UK grading system works brilliantly for traditional trad routes that aren't particularly sustained, i.e. pretty well everything up to mid grade E5. It does become stretched when you get very sustained routes at about E6 and above but that's hardly a reason to get rid of it.
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>
> After climbing a lot of routes, I've come to realise that... cruxes don't go on that long.

By definition, surely?
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Toprope is a style of ascent.
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bob:

> The UK grading system works brilliantly for traditional trad routes that aren't particularly sustained, i.e. pretty well everything up to mid grade E5. It does become stretched when you get very sustained routes at about E6 and above but that's hardly a reason to get rid of it.

I won't have to worry about that then. I don't think it makes much sense below HS, but between VS and E5 it seems to work a treat, which is totally fine by me.
 Lord_ash2000 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> The grade isn't just for the route though is it? It's for a particular style of ascent of a route.

Well Yes, an E3 for example is E3 for a clean onsight lead as everyone knows. But if you then start saying if you had preplaced gear do you take E2? or for that matter if you solo'ed it can you take E4? If you solo it, on-sight with a weight belt on can you claim to climb E5,E6,E7 etc, etc?

I would just start getting absurd, Next you'd have people claiming harder grades if it was a bit damp or to sweaty or they had a late night and weren't feeling up to it.

We all know climbing an E3 having top roped it to death first, tick marked every hold and pre placed all the gear is a lesser achievement than an on-sight of the same route, just as solo would be a greater one. There is no need to start assigning grades to things like that.


 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> By definition, surely?

Yeah, so if you're not going to fall off the easy rest of the route, there's not actually that much worrying about gear you need to do.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I'm not really bothered what other people claim, unless they're trying to sell me a new pair of fancy climbing trousers on the back of what they've done.
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
In the same way that routes are usually graded assuming they will be attempted onsight, they are graded assuming they will be attempted on lead. The grade is still assigned to the route, not how you climb it.

If you climb an E4 onsight, you've onsighted an E4.

If you do an E4 on toprope, you've toproped an E4.

If you do an E4 pulling on gear and sitting in slings, you've aided an E4.

etc etc etc

edit - standing in slings might be a better idea!
Post edited at 16:03
 Jon Stewart 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I've lost track of what you're saying; but then I've lost track of what I'm saying too...
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Now you're contradicting yourself within the same post.
 1poundSOCKS 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm always doing that. Hard work these threads.
 Michael Gordon 11 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

nope
 Mick Ward 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Bob:

> It's the upper one that I was thinking about. Don't remember anything hidden lower down but it's a few years (ten?) since I've done it.

As you < coughs discreetly > go across the rib on the main pitch. Crucial hold. I missed it totally, kept blindly reaching past. In the end, did it without. Looked back at my pathetic chalk marks on... not a lot. 6a - maybe hard 6a - if you miss it??

Mick
 Bulls Crack 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> If you climb an E4 onsight, you've onsighted an E4.

> If you do an E4 on toprope, you've toproped an E4.

> If you do an E4 pulling on gear and sitting in slings, you've aided an E4.

Onsighted yes E4
Top-roped - fairly irrelevant unless the E = effort
A1/2

The onsight grade is about the about how you lead it
 Baron Weasel 11 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

Good answer. I climbed it on-sight without side runners and it felt like E4 to me. I went to match hand and foot near the top and realised I was only just flexible to do what I was trying to do. A route I was glad to top out on for sure.
abseil 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> edit - standing in slings might be a better idea!

Absolutely right. But I have a conundrum. I've just led Three Pebble Slab, placing 2 bolts for aid and 2 for protection (hope no-one minds; after all I didn't chip any holds). WHAT GRADE IS IT?
OP Ciderslider 12 Jul 2014
In reply to abseil:

well with that lot and the holds I cleaned with my club hammer and chisel I'd give it 4B
abseil 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Ciderslider:

OK, thanks, and let's call it VS 4b. I'll tell Joe Brown, I think he'll be pleased?
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Bulls Crack:

While in relation to top-roping and aiding the overall grade may sometimes be fairly meaningless, technically I'm still correct. The grade of the route doesn't change for half an hour just because someone hops on and does it differently.
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

How about if you use a siderunner?
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> How about if you use a siderunner?

You reduce the adjective grade for the style of your ascent.
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I will change my stance here slightly, as Goucho is of course correct regarding side runners.

The trouble with them is it's sometimes hard to grade a route with side runners in a nearby crack, for example, as it depends how high you go for the runner. So really the grade of the route has to be without them with just a note to say that it will be lower if you use them.
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> I will change my stance here slightly, as Goucho is of course correct regarding side runners.

> The trouble with them is it's sometimes hard to grade a route with side runners in a nearby crack, for example, as it depends how high you go for the runner. So really the grade of the route has to be without them with just a note to say that it will be lower if you use them.

Where you put the side runner also affects the adjective grade further. In the mid to late 70's, I think most people used a side runner in Heartless Hare and how high you put it, definitely had a bearing.

The general consensus was that putting it just below, or level with the crux was ok, but any higher was cheating!

But that was pre- E grades, so with or without, the grade was still XS.

Personally, especially on grit, I reckon a 'fairly placed' side runner knocks about 2 E grades off, but if you get silly, you can relegate it to virtually a top rope.

At the end of the day, all you are doing is altering the grade of your ascent, not the grade of the route.
Post edited at 11:10
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

But what does 'grade of the route' mean?
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> But what does 'grade of the route' mean?

The grade the route is given in the guidebook/route description, which is for an onsight lead.

Personally speaking, whether it's onsight, or headpointed, or whether you've done it twenty times before, the grade is the grade.

To be perfectly frank, there is so much bollocks spouted about what constitutes an onsight, that life is just to short to get sucked into it.

As far as I'm concerned, an onsight is when you start at the bottom and finish at the top in one push, with no falls, having had no prior 'physical' experience of the route - e.g, you haven't done it before.

Whether you've seen someone else do it, whether you've been given forensic beta on every move and placement by your mate or UKC, whether you've spent 16 hours watching YouTube videos of it, whether there are chalk marks on it , or whether your mum has knitted you a sweater with a topo on it, if it's your first time on the route, it's an onsight.

But according to some folk, onsight means being taken blindfold to the crag after taking a Polygraph to prove you know nothing about the route, or haven't taken a sneaky peek at the guidebook beforehand, and that the route has been cleaned of chalk beforehand etc etc.

Seriously, unless you are putting up ground breaking new routes, it doesn't matter!!! It's a hobby for gods sake
Post edited at 12:04
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

But surely the grade is just an indication of how difficult it is to lead the route (onsight, with cams, etc...), relative to other routes.

Saying the grade of the route doesn't change is like saying the difficulty of leading the route doesn't change if you change how it is climbed. Obviously it does though.

Or are you saying the guidebook grade shouldn't change? Obviously I agree with that. The guide is a just a tool to enable most people to assess the difficulty of routes, and most people will climb onsight, with cams, etc..., so it makes sense to grade in the guidebook based on these assumptions.
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Saying the grade of the route doesn't change is like saying the difficulty of leading the route doesn't change if you change how it is climbed. Obviously it does though.

No it doesn't.

It changes the grade for the style of your ascent, but it doesn't change the grade of the route.

You could climb London Wall using pre-placed gear and five points of aid, but it wouldn't change the grade of the route. The grade of your ascent would no longer be E5 6a, but the 'route' still is.



 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

You still haven't explained what you mean by grade of the route?

Maybe...

1) Relative difficulty of leading the route (onsight, with cams, etc...)
2) The grade given in the guidebook
3) Something else?
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> You still haven't explained what you mean by grade of the route?

> Maybe...

> 1) Relative difficulty of leading the route (onsight, with cams, etc...)

> 2) The grade given in the guidebook

> 3) Something else?

The grade in the guidebook - obviously!

 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

So you're saying, climbing the route in a different style doesn't change the grade in the guidebook. Well, yes, obviously I agree, how could it? The re-printing costs would be enormous.

But that leaves the question, is the grade of your ascent always the grade given in the guidebook?
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> So you're saying, climbing the route in a different style doesn't change the grade in the guidebook. Well, yes, obviously I agree, how could it? The re-printing costs would be enormous.

> But that leaves the question, is the grade of your ascent always the grade given in the guidebook?

Bangs head against wall, and accepts defeat!
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

Ha ha, got something better to do? These forums aren't fun any more.
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

'The grade of the route'? Surely this doesn't need defined any further?!

I think you know what 'grade' means, I hope you know what 'route' means, and the same goes for 'of' and 'the'.
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

>
> At the end of the day, all you are doing is altering the grade of your ascent, not the grade of the route.

Exactly.
 Jon Stewart 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> But that leaves the question, is the grade of your ascent always the grade given in the guidebook?

I'll play*

Ascents aren't graded, routes are. In a parallel universe in which ascents are graded as well as (or instead of?) routes, if I cruise a route, is that a different grade to if I struggle up it on the cusp of falling off every move?


*God only knows why. Actually, it's called procrastination, I'm sat at the computer because I'm supposed to be reading stuff for work(!!) on Monday.
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

So if I write down a combination of words, if you know the meaning of every word given, you will also know the meaning of what my combination of words mean?
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Not necessarily, but in this case I'll let you work it out for yourself
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

If you cruise a route, you might suggest a different grade. If enough people do that, the grade given in guidebooks might change.

The grade is just an estimate of difficulty, relative to other routes. I would take you to mean, the difficulty to lead it, onsight, with cams, etc..., because that is the norm for guidebooks, but it still has to be qualified (whether implicitly or explicitly) with the style of ascent. Otherwise it makes no sense.
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

>
> But that leaves the question, is the grade of your ascent always the grade given in the guidebook?

Depends if the guidebook is right or not!
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

If you can't even explain what you mean, do you question what you're actually saying? Imagine explaining grades and routes to a non-climber, or somebody as daft as me.

Sorry, off to take some kids to an indoor bouldering venue. I'll be back and I'm sure you'll be waiting!!!
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I'll try one last time, using a different analogy.

My garage, is situated approximately 30 yards from the back of my house.

Route 1) I go out of the french doors at the back of my house, walk across the patio, down some steps onto the driveway, and so reach the garage.

Route 2) I go out of the front of my house, walk a mile to the village, jump in a taxi to Antibes, walk round the Town square three times, jump back in the taxi, go back to the village, walk a mile back to my house, go in the front door, walk through the house, out of the french doors at the back of my house, walk across the patio, down some steps onto the driveway, and so reach my garage.

By taking route 2, have I altered where my garage is located in relation to my house?
Post edited at 13:48
 Jon Stewart 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> If you cruise a route, you might suggest a different grade. If enough people do that, the grade given in guidebooks might change.

True. But there's now a concept of "the grade of an ascent" which I believe is meaningless and unnecessary, but you seem to think is relevant or useful or something. Does how easy I find the route change the grade of my ascent?

> The grade is just an estimate of difficulty, relative to other routes. I would take you to mean, the difficulty to lead it, onsight, with cams, etc..., because that is the norm for guidebooks, but it still has to be qualified (whether implicitly or explicitly) with the style of ascent. Otherwise it makes no sense.

The grade is not qualified with the style of ascent. The grade is for an onsight as we know, and if you don't onsight it, then what you've done hasn't been graded. You could make a comment like "I top roped it and I think the climbing's about f6b" or "Although I did it after abseiling and checking the holds and gear the grade seemed about right" or "I dogged the f^cker to death no way it's HVSs - it's a massive sandbag, at least E2*". But none of these deviations from an onsight attract a grade for that ascent, the whole concept is pointless.


*I have never ever said this.
 tom84 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

haha this has got ridiculous, chill out- it really doesnt matter that much. it is only climbing after all. who cares.
 Goucho 12 Jul 2014
In reply to tom84:

I've just explained this to both my dogs, and my next door neighbours gardener, who doesn't speak a word of English and my French is lousy, all three got it straight away

Anyway, suns breaking through the drizzle, 29 degrees on its way, and I'm off for some DWS at Cap d' Antibes.

Gouch
 tom84 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Goucho:

doing it right. stay dry and dont let go.
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

OK then.

Grade - classification of difficulty, often in numerical form
Route - known (recorded) way of going up a piece of rock

hence 'the grade of the route'
 Bob 12 Jul 2014
In reply to DaCat:

> The part in Wiki that you are refering to was written by Bob Wightman but when you look back at Bob Wightmans original writing (linked by Wiki) you can clearly see that words have been changed and things added on the Wiki page. On reading Bobs original paper I can't find anything that says 'UK trad clibs are graded for the onsight and Beta lowers the grade of that climb?

The piece I originally wrote was on these forums - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=61210 and some of the subsequent comments are interesting in themselves. I can't remember writing/updating the Wikipedia page but it's quite possible (I haven't been through the history to check). As for the current edition on my website - http://bobwightman.co.uk/climb/article.php?p=uk-grades - it's been through several iterations as I've found things out and as people (like Gordon Stainforth) have provided information to fill in the gaps.

What we should be careful of doing is applying current terminology and ethics to ascents fifty or more years ago. Back then you simply climbed, if you placed a peg then it was usually counted as a point of aid, otherwise every ascent was, in modern terms, "on sight" or you failed.

UK grades were given to the first sports routes on these shores, e.g. the Catwalk at Malham. I suppose it was thought better that there was one grading system for all rock climbs throughout the country. I argued back then that they were better graded as on the Continent which of course they now are. So 'E' grades were added to high grade sports climbs.

For routes which haven't (yet) had an on-sight ascent, the grade is given as a best guess at what it would be for an on-sight ascent. Usually those operating at those grades aren't too far out in their estimate. Even if the first ascensionist has only cleaned the route and not top-roped or pre-practiced it they are going to know the whereabouts of the good holds and gear placements.

Guidebooks used to have what was called the "dagger" symbol to indicate routes that hadn't been checked or had a second ascent. This could be used to indicate routes that at the time of writing hadn't had an on-sight ascent. Given the number of threads titled "X X makes first on-sight of YYYYY" it seems important to some people.
 Bulls Crack 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:
t. The grade of the route doesn't change for half an hour just because someone hops on and does it differently.

The tech grade doesn't I agree
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm talking about the grade of the style of ascent, not any one particular ascent.
 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

But you don't know how difficult a route will be, unless you also specify the style in which it will be climbed, do you?
 Michael Gordon 12 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Of course you do. As I and many others have said many times, the grade is the grade irrespective of how you want to climb it yourself.
 Bulls Crack 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Of course you do. As I and many others have said many times, the grade is the grade irrespective of how you want to climb it yourself.

Unless its given for the onsight and you don't onsight it - but we've been through this!

 1poundSOCKS 12 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

So if you place a high siderunner, the grade is unchanged?
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

See my reply above when you asked the same thing
 Offwidth 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:
What you say is true but fairly irrelevant. Sure a top-rope of an E2 doesnt change the grade label and yes you, have top roped an E2 but that grade was designed to tell you about the onsight. So as an example taking two routes of similar style, one bold one safe, the top-rope experience of the two will vary enormously. Its simply not especially useful information unless you childishly want to claim an inappropriate label from a tr of a bold route.

I think the UK system is great but it is sadly beset by bad grading through inexperience, lack of feel (stars measuringthe pathness of paths), and sometimes plain meaness. Even good grades aimed at a leaders of that level are slippery as we have relative skill differences and physiological issues like reach (individual grades may well even exist but its surely a pointless ego adventure to track them). In this I think one of the hardest things in guidebook work is an honest attempt to remove the "me me" effect from grading. Its key to apply a fudge factor to those comparative skills to try and grade for a nominal average and never forget the particular importance of that for climbs a good bit below your level which may well give completely different relative experiences to leaders operating at their limit (get input from wise heads who lead at those grades).

Some people just dont seem to get it. The inexperinced VS leader voting Inverted V as mid grade is most forgivable (albeit a distortion of forum votes) but aside from the "me me" factor I've met many experienced climbers who link adjectival difficulty way too closely to the technical difficulty of moves, almost irrespective of protection (Sunset slab is HS, 3PS is VS, etc) or those who cling to skill levels from the 70s (of course its VS: learn to jam properly). Good grading isnt trivial.

Finally we give grades in books as guidance. In the end that is to aid climbers select the experience of movement on rock they desire. Being obsessive about what exactly constitutes an onsight is daft in this respect, unless that is your particular climbing game. Other games are fine as well as long as the climber is honest.
Post edited at 11:42
 Goucho 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

The biggest problem with any grading system, is that too many people interpret it as though it's etched in stone by Moses.

It can only be a 'guide' based on a number of factors, and the experience and knowledge of guidebook writers.

One mans E1, is another mans HVS, that is the very nature of the subjectivity of grades. Physicality (reach) can make a big difference to a tall persons opinion of a grade to that of a short persons.

Likewise, someone bought up with grit jamming cracks, will have a different perspective than a wall bred climber.

At the end of the day, the grade of a route, is a consensus of opinion, and there will always be some people who disagree with that consensus.

As you said, you have to grade for a nominal average - how else can you do it?
 1poundSOCKS 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

But if you say the grade is the grade, it doesn't change, then I explain how the grade can change if you use a siderunner, aren't you left with two options?

1) Retract the comment about the grade is the grade, it can't change
2) Explain why a siderunner can't change the grade

You're comment about it being hard to grade with a siderunner, because a siderunner might be placed in different place, doesn't help. That's the only comment I could see, from yourself, about siderunners.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

When side runners are used, I agree that this will usually lower the grade of the route. Ideally the route would be graded for without them, with a note to say that the grade would go down if you do use them (if relevant).

In this respect I think it's one of the few things that would change the grade; other examples might be for routes where there's 2 different ways you can go, or when specialist gear is concerned. Everything else I'd argue wouldn't affect the grade, though for seconding or ascents using aid I admit the trad grade may be fairly meaningless anyway.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

I agree my argument is technically correct but often irrelevant for non-leads. When pre-practice is concerned, it's just the best way to describe an ascent. It's much more useful to say someone headpointed an E3 than to either change the trad grade or just use the tech grade.
 andrewmc 13 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
A trad route includes the gear in my opinion; the trad grade for that route accounts for that gear.

If you use a side-runner, then you have climbed a different route (for these purposes), just as if you were climbing an eliminate variation. Hence (for these purposes) there is a different grade - because it is a different route. There are of course an extremely large number of potential eliminate/side-runner type variations (e.g. HS, VS if you choose not to use the bomber nut) but nearly all will be trivial/stupid and so will not be recorded in guidebooks.

My favourite approach to these things was the person who said if you climb an E4 onsight, you have onsighted E4, but if you redpoint/dog/top rope an E4 you have redpointed/dogged/top roped _an_ E4. Since (as was pointed out to me earlier) trad grades are for the difficulty of onsighting, then in theory at least you can have a higher-graded trad route which is easier to top-rope/redpoint than a another lower-graded route.

Ignore the fact my conversions are probably completely wrong, but you could have for instance:
E2 5c with a sport grade of 6b
E3 5c with a sport grade of 6a+
if the E3 is technically easier but much harder to onsight.
Post edited at 14:27
 GridNorth 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

There is a route at the Roaches, Chalkstorm I think it's called, that was graded according to where you placed a runner. If you follow the line directly it's E4, 5c but it is possible to place runners in an adjacent crack so depending on how high you place said runner it could be as low as HVS. It is an eliminate and for me placing a runner at head height while standing in the break a little to the left seems reasonable and probably makes the route about E2. Climbing part way up the crack, placing a runner and climbing back down just seems wrong, you might as well top rope it.
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2014
In reply to GridNorth:

Yes it's certainly something you often see in guidebooks, particularly for eliminate lines where there's often a note that using gear in an adjacent route will lower the overall grade. Which way makes the official grade for the route obviously depends which makes the most sense on a case by case basis. There are side runners and side runners of course. Stuff where you've got to climb halfway up the next route along, then back down to the ground and walk along before you start the route, do seem a bit silly!
 Michael Gordon 13 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

>
> Ignore the fact my conversions are probably completely wrong, but you could have for instance:
> E2 5c with a sport grade of 6b
> E3 5c with a sport grade of 6a+
>

That sort of thing is quite common, though usually because of the gear. The E2 could have two well protected 5c sections, while the E3 may just have one 5c move where you really don't want to fall!

Obviously the E2 will be harder to toprope, but the E3 would likely still be harder to headpoint as you've still got the gear worries.
 1poundSOCKS 13 Jul 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

So you've got your own definition of route, that pretty much nobody else uses.
 wbo 13 Jul 2014

In reply to 1poundsocks - how so - it is patently obvious that if a trad route has fiddly , non obvious protection to arrange in a strenuous position that will affect the grade for the onsight, and that is what the E, the overall difficulty grade will reflected , independtly of the technical grade. You know that, so the adding of siderunners can greatly affect the feel, character of a route.
Probably not worth a new name tho'


It is also possible for pre prep to affect he technical grade - one of my hardest onsights was down to pure luck as i climbed a pocketed wall and got the 'good' pocketed first time tho' they were unobvious.

Also the technical grade should reflect doing routes correctly. If a route is a jamming route, but you can't or don't choose to jam it, then your bad style does not up the grade.

This is not really very hard
Post edited at 19:28
 andrewmc 13 Jul 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Not trying to redefine the word route for general purposes! Just that when a grade is being discussed, that grade refers to a certain combination of parts-of-the-rock-you-are-allowed-to-touch (usually everything on a certain line) and parts-of-the-rock-you-are-allowed-to-place-gear (again, usually everything on a certain line).

Instead of the word 'route', lets say the grade applies to a 'line and gear'. I only said 'route' because that is easier, and people say the 'grade' of a 'route'...

The grade is for the line and the gear, whatever you call it. It doesn't make sense to ask 'what if you change the gear' any more than if you say 'what happens to the grade of that E2 if you actually climb 4 foot to the right up the easy crack'. It isn't that the grade changes, just that it is a different 'line and gear' which will have its own grade. If you use a siderunner, it is a different 'line and gear' (albeit not very different) and that has a different grade.

This is really just a way of thinking about it that makes sense to me; there are probably other ways of thinking about it that are equally (or more) valid.

This is a semantic argument, after all?
Post edited at 19:38
 Bulls Crack 13 Jul 2014
In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's much more useful to say someone headpointed an E3 than to either change the trad grade or just use the tech grade.

I agree - not exactly 'useful' but I take your point! - but only in so far as it's less hassle...the grade still changes!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...