This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Over the last few weeks I've done the FA of a couple of routes which are much steeper than the Slabby contributions I usually bolt up mainly in the Slate Quarries, so I can't really make any direct comparisons which is my usual approach.
I always find it difficult to grade new routes anyway, and was wondering if other first ascentionists follow the following 'Rock Fax' advice re grading for the Red Point above 6c? So the question is what's the trend in the UK with grading new Sport Routes at the moment?
Rock Fax:-
‘So for easier routes below about 6b+ the grade is almost invariably an on-sight grade. For routes above about 7b it is almost always given a redpoint grade. In between is a bit of a grey area and the practice can vary from location to location.’
‘Rockfax guidebooks cover routes in areas of mixed sport and trad climbing so we tend to go for the redpoint grade in the 6c to 7a region’
If anyone's keen to repeat the following would be great to see if they are under or over graded? Please let me know what you think either way.
http://news.v12outdoor.com/2014/11/22/sico4-f7a7b-%E2%80%93-new-sport-pitch...
http://news.v12outdoor.com/2014/12/08/the-ceaseless-roar-f7a-%e2%80%93-anot...
I always find it difficult to grade new routes anyway, and was wondering if other first ascentionists follow the following 'Rock Fax' advice re grading for the Red Point above 6c? So the question is what's the trend in the UK with grading new Sport Routes at the moment?
Rock Fax:-
‘So for easier routes below about 6b+ the grade is almost invariably an on-sight grade. For routes above about 7b it is almost always given a redpoint grade. In between is a bit of a grey area and the practice can vary from location to location.’
‘Rockfax guidebooks cover routes in areas of mixed sport and trad climbing so we tend to go for the redpoint grade in the 6c to 7a region’
If anyone's keen to repeat the following would be great to see if they are under or over graded? Please let me know what you think either way.
http://news.v12outdoor.com/2014/11/22/sico4-f7a7b-%E2%80%93-new-sport-pitch...
http://news.v12outdoor.com/2014/12/08/the-ceaseless-roar-f7a-%e2%80%93-anot...
In reply to Sl@te Head:
RockFax grade established routes so their comments are meaningless for sport FA´s which are almost inevitably either beta-onsight or redpoint/worked. We just give them what they MIGHT feel like for an average climber at the grade and let the concensus thrash out the details. For RockFax don´t forget to add a couple of grades as well
RockFax grade established routes so their comments are meaningless for sport FA´s which are almost inevitably either beta-onsight or redpoint/worked. We just give them what they MIGHT feel like for an average climber at the grade and let the concensus thrash out the details. For RockFax don´t forget to add a couple of grades as well
In reply to jimtitt:
Often I find that when you abb a new line and play with the moves for the first time they can feel nails and only just possible, then on the lead everything turns easy and straightforward. This may be a reflection on how well I work the moves, but surely any climber redpointing would suss the moves in a similar way. So it comes back to grading, is the route easy and straight forward and therefore deserving of a much lower grade than would be given for the onsight? I don't think that guidebooks will ever go down the road of twin grades for the same route depending on the style of ascent, but there is a significant difference in my opinion.
Often I find that when you abb a new line and play with the moves for the first time they can feel nails and only just possible, then on the lead everything turns easy and straightforward. This may be a reflection on how well I work the moves, but surely any climber redpointing would suss the moves in a similar way. So it comes back to grading, is the route easy and straight forward and therefore deserving of a much lower grade than would be given for the onsight? I don't think that guidebooks will ever go down the road of twin grades for the same route depending on the style of ascent, but there is a significant difference in my opinion.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
A lot comes down to hard hard the route is to onsight relative to how hard the moves are in themselves. We normally grade each others routes so they get the concencus of the bolter (worked) and a (beta) onsight and guess from there. Since they´ll always be someone who disagrees anyway I don´t worry that much!
A lot comes down to hard hard the route is to onsight relative to how hard the moves are in themselves. We normally grade each others routes so they get the concencus of the bolter (worked) and a (beta) onsight and guess from there. Since they´ll always be someone who disagrees anyway I don´t worry that much!
In reply to Sl@te Head:
French sport grades are by defacto for the easiest sequence to complete the route.
So the grade *should* never be for OS, but for red point. Of course on easier and easy to read routes, it ain't much of a difference.
But for cruxy or sneaky routes, it can be quite a bit of difference (ie. critical but hard to see crystals/feet holds, hidden hand holds that are not that obvious and so on).
French sport grades are by defacto for the easiest sequence to complete the route.
So the grade *should* never be for OS, but for red point. Of course on easier and easy to read routes, it ain't much of a difference.
But for cruxy or sneaky routes, it can be quite a bit of difference (ie. critical but hard to see crystals/feet holds, hidden hand holds that are not that obvious and so on).
In reply to jimtitt:
Am I right to think that no one applies the Rock Fax guidance and therefore it should be ignored? I haven't come across anyone who's aware of it yet, so maybe stick to an onsight grade at all grades for new routes?
Am I right to think that no one applies the Rock Fax guidance and therefore it should be ignored? I haven't come across anyone who's aware of it yet, so maybe stick to an onsight grade at all grades for new routes?
1
You cannot possibly be serious here.
I can't emphasise enough how ridiculous that distinction is.
Any given route has one and only one grade at any given time (might change for number of reasons). Full stop.
I can't emphasise enough how ridiculous that distinction is.
Any given route has one and only one grade at any given time (might change for number of reasons). Full stop.
In reply to alibaba:
Yes I'm serious.....desperate on sight / easy read point definitely a big distinction / difference.
Yes I'm serious.....desperate on sight / easy read point definitely a big distinction / difference.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Perhaps that's the reason why one's onsight best is almost always at lower grade than redpoint?
Route has a grade. The style you are climbing it does not change grade at all. It changes your perception of it, nothing more.
Perhaps that's the reason why one's onsight best is almost always at lower grade than redpoint?
Route has a grade. The style you are climbing it does not change grade at all. It changes your perception of it, nothing more.
In reply to alibaba:
I disagree, and certainly disagree when referring to sequency / technical routes whos mysteries can be unravelled for a straight forward redpoint. Looking at your profile you haven't been climbing that long but sooner or later you will come across routes that are a gift as a redpoint which will possibly change your perception.
I disagree, and certainly disagree when referring to sequency / technical routes whos mysteries can be unravelled for a straight forward redpoint. Looking at your profile you haven't been climbing that long but sooner or later you will come across routes that are a gift as a redpoint which will possibly change your perception.
Post edited at 14:57
In reply to alibaba:
No, routes don´t intrinsically have grades. We give them grades and the question is what style of climbing is used when giving the grade. Since people bolting routes have considerable knowledge of the route before they climb them their grades can never be onsight.
No, routes don´t intrinsically have grades. We give them grades and the question is what style of climbing is used when giving the grade. Since people bolting routes have considerable knowledge of the route before they climb them their grades can never be onsight.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Are we possibly sailing into 'H' grading waters here? (A similar discussion at least)
I'm no sport authority but I know of trad routes that are 'tricky' (read nails) to onsight due to hidden holds/wandering lines/footery gear but aren't given inflated grades (for the onsight) due to this.
That being said the bolted routes at Blantyre towers (old railway pillars) are graded for readpoints.
Are we possibly sailing into 'H' grading waters here? (A similar discussion at least)
I'm no sport authority but I know of trad routes that are 'tricky' (read nails) to onsight due to hidden holds/wandering lines/footery gear but aren't given inflated grades (for the onsight) due to this.
That being said the bolted routes at Blantyre towers (old railway pillars) are graded for readpoints.
Post edited at 14:53
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Well I don´t even own a RockFax guide nor have I ever used one so follow the general pattern used worldwide, not some "guidance" from a niche guidebook publisher
> Am I right to think that no one applies the Rock Fax guidance and therefore it should be ignored? I haven't come across anyone who's aware of it yet, so maybe stick to an onsight grade at all grades for new routes?
Well I don´t even own a RockFax guide nor have I ever used one so follow the general pattern used worldwide, not some "guidance" from a niche guidebook publisher
In reply to jimtitt:
and then....
Hmmm. You don't want to tarnish your opinions with experience then Jim!
Alan
> For RockFax don´t forget to add a couple of grades as well
and then....
> Well I don´t even own a RockFax guide nor have I ever used one so follow the general pattern used worldwide, not some "guidance" from a niche guidebook publisher
Hmmm. You don't want to tarnish your opinions with experience then Jim!
Alan
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Well it isn't so much our guidance as what we built up through years of climbing on sport routes across Europe. This is the way we have found people grade in the areas we have covered (on the whole, with some excepetions).
The full passage is below. This contains some useful context.
An onsight grade assumes that you turn up at the base of the route and climb it with no prior knowledge; a red-point grade assumes that you have practiced every move on the route until you know it intimately before your ascent and the redpoint grade is the grade of the route on the final clean ascent. Some sport routes can become significantly easier once you know a trick or a sequence, and others barely change in grade at all no matter how familiar they are. For example two routes could both be given 6c+ for the onsight ascent, yet one of them becomes dead easy once you figure out the sequence. This presents a grading problem since, in reality, one of the routes is a lot easier than the other and it is conceivable that someone could hit the correct sequence on their onsight.
What generally tends to happen with grades across the world is that routes are graded in the style that they are usually climbed. So for easier routes below about 6b+ the grade is almost invariably an on-sight grade. For routes above about 7b it is almost always given a redpoint grade. In between is a bit of a grey area and the practice can vary from location to location. The best advice if unsure and you wish to onsight a route is to read the signs:
Read the rock to see if there is an obvious difficult section.
A hard crux may have a lot of chalk at one point and not much above.
A route which is hard to onsight may have the word ‘bloc’ or ‘cruxy’ in its description.
Rockfax guidebooks cover routes in areas of mixed sport and trad climbing so we tend to go for the redpoint grade in the 6c to 7a region however we do make a slight qualification of the Rockfax ‘onsight’ grade; we use the ‘first try – easiest method’ grade. This basically assumes that you are climbing onsight, but you do use the correct holds and sequence.
> Am I right to think that no one applies the Rock Fax guidance and therefore it should be ignored? I haven't come across anyone who's aware of it yet, so maybe stick to an onsight grade at all grades for new routes?
Well it isn't so much our guidance as what we built up through years of climbing on sport routes across Europe. This is the way we have found people grade in the areas we have covered (on the whole, with some excepetions).
The full passage is below. This contains some useful context.
An onsight grade assumes that you turn up at the base of the route and climb it with no prior knowledge; a red-point grade assumes that you have practiced every move on the route until you know it intimately before your ascent and the redpoint grade is the grade of the route on the final clean ascent. Some sport routes can become significantly easier once you know a trick or a sequence, and others barely change in grade at all no matter how familiar they are. For example two routes could both be given 6c+ for the onsight ascent, yet one of them becomes dead easy once you figure out the sequence. This presents a grading problem since, in reality, one of the routes is a lot easier than the other and it is conceivable that someone could hit the correct sequence on their onsight.
What generally tends to happen with grades across the world is that routes are graded in the style that they are usually climbed. So for easier routes below about 6b+ the grade is almost invariably an on-sight grade. For routes above about 7b it is almost always given a redpoint grade. In between is a bit of a grey area and the practice can vary from location to location. The best advice if unsure and you wish to onsight a route is to read the signs:
Read the rock to see if there is an obvious difficult section.
A hard crux may have a lot of chalk at one point and not much above.
A route which is hard to onsight may have the word ‘bloc’ or ‘cruxy’ in its description.
Rockfax guidebooks cover routes in areas of mixed sport and trad climbing so we tend to go for the redpoint grade in the 6c to 7a region however we do make a slight qualification of the Rockfax ‘onsight’ grade; we use the ‘first try – easiest method’ grade. This basically assumes that you are climbing onsight, but you do use the correct holds and sequence.
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I had read that before posting and was aware of it previous to posting. The problem with grading my latest new routes is that I have no real benchmark to compare them with as I usually bolt and climb slabs. The other issue highlighted in your guidance is that my 2 latest additions fall into that grey area between 6c and 7b
I had read that before posting and was aware of it previous to posting. The problem with grading my latest new routes is that I have no real benchmark to compare them with as I usually bolt and climb slabs. The other issue highlighted in your guidance is that my 2 latest additions fall into that grey area between 6c and 7b
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Well slabs, and slate slabs in particular, are a category apart.
I would probably aim for the 'first try, easiest method' grade with the proviso that the person grading isn't a slab meister, nor a slab dunce.
Obviously, as you have already said, the FA can't really the person to do this since it can't usually be onsight for the FA. In which case you just need to do the best you can, get a few other opinions and start the ball rolling with a grade we can debate and vote on.
Alan
> I had read that before posting and was aware of it previous to posting. The problem with grading my latest new routes is that I have no real benchmark to compare them with as I usually bolt and climb slabs. The other issue highlighted in your guidance is that my 2 latest additions fall into that grey area between 6c and 7b
Well slabs, and slate slabs in particular, are a category apart.
I would probably aim for the 'first try, easiest method' grade with the proviso that the person grading isn't a slab meister, nor a slab dunce.
Obviously, as you have already said, the FA can't really the person to do this since it can't usually be onsight for the FA. In which case you just need to do the best you can, get a few other opinions and start the ball rolling with a grade we can debate and vote on.
Alan
In reply to Sl@te Head:
FWIW, assuming you worked them before leading, I'd probably give the grade for the redpoint. Everything can feel desperate until you've invested some time, and I'd argue "most" people who climb between 6c and 7b are redpointing rather than onsighting- if I could onsight 7b I'd be focusing on redpointing harder stuff!
FWIW, assuming you worked them before leading, I'd probably give the grade for the redpoint. Everything can feel desperate until you've invested some time, and I'd argue "most" people who climb between 6c and 7b are redpointing rather than onsighting- if I could onsight 7b I'd be focusing on redpointing harder stuff!
Post edited at 15:29
1
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
The grade voting range on here is'nt wide enough to deal with how far I may be off the mark in either direction!
The problem is wider than my latest additions, as clearly no one's following any particular guidance.
The grade voting range on here is'nt wide enough to deal with how far I may be off the mark in either direction!
The problem is wider than my latest additions, as clearly no one's following any particular guidance.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
27crags on the other hand is a lot better for that .
> The grade voting range on here is'nt wide enough to deal with how far I may be off the mark in either direction!
27crags on the other hand is a lot better for that .
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Well it would still be useful information even if there was a wide range of opinions.
- Votes wedged up at one end of the grade voting would show that it needs changing.
- Votes with a bell curve indicate a reasonable consensus.
- Votes wedged at both ends would show something very strange that no grade voting system could deal with (but also one that I can't recall ever happening).
Alan
> The grade voting range on here is'nt wide enough to deal with how far I may be off the mark in either direction!
Well it would still be useful information even if there was a wide range of opinions.
- Votes wedged up at one end of the grade voting would show that it needs changing.
- Votes with a bell curve indicate a reasonable consensus.
- Votes wedged at both ends would show something very strange that no grade voting system could deal with (but also one that I can't recall ever happening).
Alan
In reply to Sl@te Head:
I'd be interested in examples of routes where the 'o/s' and 'rp' grade are different by more than a half grade (e.g route x feels like 7a to rp but 7b to os). I've climbed lots of the obvious decent low to mid 7 sport routes in peak/yorkshire/north wales and can't think of any. Admittedly mostly limestone, is slate really that different?
I'd be interested in examples of routes where the 'o/s' and 'rp' grade are different by more than a half grade (e.g route x feels like 7a to rp but 7b to os). I've climbed lots of the obvious decent low to mid 7 sport routes in peak/yorkshire/north wales and can't think of any. Admittedly mostly limestone, is slate really that different?
In reply to Ian Patterson:
Slate's different for sure, but any route on any rock where there's a technical sequence, hidden hold, trick move etc. becomes easier by well over a grade in my opinion, once the sequence is sorted and holds found. On steeper routes the redpoint is much easier as you can climb it more efficiently and take advantage of all the rests and shakeouts you've identified while working it. With any redpoint there are significant gains to be had with your confidence levels not to mention the motivational drive to get it done so that you can move on with your life!
The 2 new routes I mention above are on limestone and steep.
Slate slab routes are generally technical and thin often eliminating the need for power and endurance so it's all about the move, the sequence and trusting small holds for both your hands (nails!) and feet. Once the Trick / sequence is sorted it's all about trusting the holds and getting it done, I never get pumped on slate and I never train so it's very minimalist climbing which is great if you like thin technical moves. Slate grades are interesting and can appear to be anything from very soft to near impossible!
Slate's different for sure, but any route on any rock where there's a technical sequence, hidden hold, trick move etc. becomes easier by well over a grade in my opinion, once the sequence is sorted and holds found. On steeper routes the redpoint is much easier as you can climb it more efficiently and take advantage of all the rests and shakeouts you've identified while working it. With any redpoint there are significant gains to be had with your confidence levels not to mention the motivational drive to get it done so that you can move on with your life!
The 2 new routes I mention above are on limestone and steep.
Slate slab routes are generally technical and thin often eliminating the need for power and endurance so it's all about the move, the sequence and trusting small holds for both your hands (nails!) and feet. Once the Trick / sequence is sorted it's all about trusting the holds and getting it done, I never get pumped on slate and I never train so it's very minimalist climbing which is great if you like thin technical moves. Slate grades are interesting and can appear to be anything from very soft to near impossible!
In reply to Ian Patterson:
Also worth mentioning that I've sussed a sequence out on a 7a whilst on school climbing trips (Ariege granite) with 14 year olds got them to watch the sequence, a quick top rope followed by a successful red point by a few of them. So in that process of working the sequence have I not reduced the grade to a point where a 6a climber can succeed, so is the grade still 7a?
Also worth mentioning that I've sussed a sequence out on a 7a whilst on school climbing trips (Ariege granite) with 14 year olds got them to watch the sequence, a quick top rope followed by a successful red point by a few of them. So in that process of working the sequence have I not reduced the grade to a point where a 6a climber can succeed, so is the grade still 7a?
In reply to Sl@te Head:
But when answering your question you have to compare how difficult a route is to rp with how difficult other routes are to rp of the same grade and do a similar thing with os i.e. if you say a route is 7a to rp but 7b to os you're saying that it feels as hard as rp other routes that are graded 7a but as hard to os as other routes graded 7b.
For a real example take the classic routes on Mayfair Wall - King Krank (7a+), Axle Attack (7a+), Bloodsports (7b), The Bloods (7a+), Mayfair(7a+). I onsighted 3, rp'd 2, they all felt about the right grade (maybe a bit soft north wales style!) and certainly didn't feel like they needed a different grade for the style of climbing.
> (In reply to Ian Patterson)
> Slate's different for sure, but any route on any rock where there's a technical sequence, hidden hold, trick move etc. becomes easier by well over a grade in my opinion, once the sequence is sorted and holds found. On steeper routes the redpoint is much easier as you can climb it more efficiently and take advantage of all the rests and shakeouts you've identified while working it. With any redpoint there are significant gains to be had with your confidence levels not to mention the motivational drive to get it done so that you can move on with your life!
>
> The 2 new routes I mention above are on limestone and steep.
>
We maybe be talking about different things. Obviously a route is easier to rp with practice than it is to OS that's why we rp harder grades than we os. > Slate's different for sure, but any route on any rock where there's a technical sequence, hidden hold, trick move etc. becomes easier by well over a grade in my opinion, once the sequence is sorted and holds found. On steeper routes the redpoint is much easier as you can climb it more efficiently and take advantage of all the rests and shakeouts you've identified while working it. With any redpoint there are significant gains to be had with your confidence levels not to mention the motivational drive to get it done so that you can move on with your life!
>
> The 2 new routes I mention above are on limestone and steep.
>
But when answering your question you have to compare how difficult a route is to rp with how difficult other routes are to rp of the same grade and do a similar thing with os i.e. if you say a route is 7a to rp but 7b to os you're saying that it feels as hard as rp other routes that are graded 7a but as hard to os as other routes graded 7b.
For a real example take the classic routes on Mayfair Wall - King Krank (7a+), Axle Attack (7a+), Bloodsports (7b), The Bloods (7a+), Mayfair(7a+). I onsighted 3, rp'd 2, they all felt about the right grade (maybe a bit soft north wales style!) and certainly didn't feel like they needed a different grade for the style of climbing.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
But much of what you have mentioned there is nothing to do with the grade. Resting, trusting footholds, confidence levels etc. are just learning the route when of course it feels easier for you. That is what red-pointing is all about. That doesn't make a 7a into a 6c though.
Trick moves and hidden holds are different. They can be missed by the majority of onsight attempts, but actually change a move and make it physically easier. i.e. turn the 7a into a 6c which would feel 6c onsight if you spotted the trick move. That's what the 'first try, easiest method' is all about. So really that route should be given 6c despite the fact that most people will find it 7a onsight.
You often hear of super-hard routes being downgraded after an "easier sequence is found". This is a clear example of the top climbers grading in the style most of the ascents are made in - redpoint.
Alan
But much of what you have mentioned there is nothing to do with the grade. Resting, trusting footholds, confidence levels etc. are just learning the route when of course it feels easier for you. That is what red-pointing is all about. That doesn't make a 7a into a 6c though.
Trick moves and hidden holds are different. They can be missed by the majority of onsight attempts, but actually change a move and make it physically easier. i.e. turn the 7a into a 6c which would feel 6c onsight if you spotted the trick move. That's what the 'first try, easiest method' is all about. So really that route should be given 6c despite the fact that most people will find it 7a onsight.
You often hear of super-hard routes being downgraded after an "easier sequence is found". This is a clear example of the top climbers grading in the style most of the ascents are made in - redpoint.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
But in my own experience I feel that there is a huge difference in a new route on first encounter and once all of the above is taken into consideration I walk away feeling that the first ascent was way, way easier than I'd expected, and therefore struggle to give an accurate grade.
My next project gave the impression of it being at least 7c but I have no doubt that it will feel like a 7a/7a+ to climb on the First Ascent, so what is it?
When I redpoint established routes I often find that I / the route don't deserve the grade given even if that grade follow's the Rock fax guidance for being graded for the redpoint.
> But much of what you have mentioned there is nothing to do with the grade. Resting, trusting footholds, confidence levels etc. are just learning the route when of course it feels easier for you. That is what red-pointing is all about. That doesn't make a 7a into a 6c though.
But in my own experience I feel that there is a huge difference in a new route on first encounter and once all of the above is taken into consideration I walk away feeling that the first ascent was way, way easier than I'd expected, and therefore struggle to give an accurate grade.
My next project gave the impression of it being at least 7c but I have no doubt that it will feel like a 7a/7a+ to climb on the First Ascent, so what is it?
When I redpoint established routes I often find that I / the route don't deserve the grade given even if that grade follow's the Rock fax guidance for being graded for the redpoint.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
But I think that all you are describing here is that it is difficult for one person to be sure of what grade a route is with any degree of certainty. What you describe could easily also be applied to a route that you aren't making a first ascent of.
Just grade it the easier grade that you found when you climbed it, with a small allowance for the fact it was a redpoint. This doesn't seem to be such a big problem to be honest.
New routes are often downgraded by most people in the end.
Then vote for the lower grade on the UKC Logbooks.
Alan
But I think that all you are describing here is that it is difficult for one person to be sure of what grade a route is with any degree of certainty. What you describe could easily also be applied to a route that you aren't making a first ascent of.
> But in my own experience I feel that there is a huge difference in a new route on first encounter and once all of the above is taken into consideration I walk away feeling that the first ascent was way, way easier than I'd expected, and therefore struggle to give an accurate grade.
Just grade it the easier grade that you found when you climbed it, with a small allowance for the fact it was a redpoint. This doesn't seem to be such a big problem to be honest.
> My next project gave the impression of it being at least 7c but I have no doubt that it will feel like a 7a/7a+ to climb on the First Ascent, so what is it?
New routes are often downgraded by most people in the end.
> When I redpoint established routes I often find that I / the route don't deserve the grade given even if that grade follow's the Rock fax guidance for being graded for the redpoint.
Then vote for the lower grade on the UKC Logbooks.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
My thread does highlight a flaw (and a lack of understanding (mine and others)) in the Sport grades above 6c for the difference between the OS & Redpoint, you have to agree with that as you or a colleague have written guidance for it for your guidebooks which may or may not be widely accepted!
I fully understand that grades are just numbers with many factors making them, at best just a guide and guesstimate. We are all guilty of getting caught up in it and sometimes focus on the numbers rather than the enjoyment of making some cool moves on rock.
My thread does highlight a flaw (and a lack of understanding (mine and others)) in the Sport grades above 6c for the difference between the OS & Redpoint, you have to agree with that as you or a colleague have written guidance for it for your guidebooks which may or may not be widely accepted!
I fully understand that grades are just numbers with many factors making them, at best just a guide and guesstimate. We are all guilty of getting caught up in it and sometimes focus on the numbers rather than the enjoyment of making some cool moves on rock.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Sport routes aren't graded for a particular style. You either redpoint the 7a or you onsight it. It's still 7a. It will nearly always feel easier to redpoint it - this is obvious. Grade it in comparison to other routes you've done.
Sport routes aren't graded for a particular style. You either redpoint the 7a or you onsight it. It's still 7a. It will nearly always feel easier to redpoint it - this is obvious. Grade it in comparison to other routes you've done.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
But is it possible to have 2 routes, which you would grade equally for the redpoint, but different for an onsight?
> Sport routes aren't graded for a particular style
But is it possible to have 2 routes, which you would grade equally for the redpoint, but different for an onsight?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
>> Sport routes aren't graded for a particular style
Routes are NOT graded for a particular style.
>> Sport routes aren't graded for a particular style
> But is it possible to have 2 routes, which you would grade equally for the redpoint, but different for an onsight?
Routes are NOT graded for a particular style.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
As other stated - there is no distinction between grades for different styles. BTW, why would you miss Flash? It is well establish climbing style.
And no, I am not climbing as long as you do — maybe that's why I am not making up so nonsense theories…
> What point is that?
As other stated - there is no distinction between grades for different styles. BTW, why would you miss Flash? It is well establish climbing style.
And no, I am not climbing as long as you do — maybe that's why I am not making up so nonsense theories…
In reply to alibaba:
But there is evidence to the contrary I think, and you don't seem to be providing any for your point of view.
People, including Steve McClure I believe, talk about Malham routes being hard to onsight, due to the nature of the rock. I don't think they mean hard for grade, or surely they'd say that. I think they're implying the routes are graded for redpoint.
> Routes are NOT graded for a particular style.
But there is evidence to the contrary I think, and you don't seem to be providing any for your point of view.
People, including Steve McClure I believe, talk about Malham routes being hard to onsight, due to the nature of the rock. I don't think they mean hard for grade, or surely they'd say that. I think they're implying the routes are graded for redpoint.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
I would say that the route is graded for the best method of doing it - so whatever you think the route is with your complete knowledge of it. Giving something an onsight grade seems implausible based on the massive variation between different climbers, who may have very different skill sets.
At the end of the day, it's just a number. Give it your best shot and move on?
I would say that the route is graded for the best method of doing it - so whatever you think the route is with your complete knowledge of it. Giving something an onsight grade seems implausible based on the massive variation between different climbers, who may have very different skill sets.
At the end of the day, it's just a number. Give it your best shot and move on?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Well, the evidence is that sport routes get one grade only in a guidebook, and that grade applies however you approach the route.
What evidence to the contrary? That something is difficult to onsight? That just means it's difficult to onsight.
Well, the evidence is that sport routes get one grade only in a guidebook, and that grade applies however you approach the route.
What evidence to the contrary? That something is difficult to onsight? That just means it's difficult to onsight.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Somebody already told you that Rockfax includes information about the grade, and how it applies to style of ascent didn't they?
If style doesn't apply, why would Malham be considered hard to onsight? If the grades are stiff, wouldn't you just say that. My interpretation is that it means an 8a at Malham is of similar difficulty to your average 8a if redpointed, but would feel harder to onsight than an average 8a. As I understand it, the streaky coloured limestone makes it harder to read the rock, harder to spot handholds and footholds, compared to what you might find at some other crags. When you redpoint, this doesn't affect the difficulty because you have it wired. If you try to onsight, it might feel more like an 8a+ at another crag.
> Well, the evidence is that sport routes get one grade only in a guidebook
Somebody already told you that Rockfax includes information about the grade, and how it applies to style of ascent didn't they?
> What evidence to the contrary? That something is difficult to onsight? That just means it's difficult to onsight.
If style doesn't apply, why would Malham be considered hard to onsight? If the grades are stiff, wouldn't you just say that. My interpretation is that it means an 8a at Malham is of similar difficulty to your average 8a if redpointed, but would feel harder to onsight than an average 8a. As I understand it, the streaky coloured limestone makes it harder to read the rock, harder to spot handholds and footholds, compared to what you might find at some other crags. When you redpoint, this doesn't affect the difficulty because you have it wired. If you try to onsight, it might feel more like an 8a+ at another crag.
Post edited at 21:33
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Examples?
BTW I'm not surprised that new routes end up easier than initial impressions. Just not knowing the grade must make a difference particularly on British rock where sequences aren't always obvious.
> When I redpoint established routes I often find that I / the route don't deserve the grade given even if that grade follow's the Rock fax guidance for being graded for the redpoint.
Examples?
BTW I'm not surprised that new routes end up easier than initial impressions. Just not knowing the grade must make a difference particularly on British rock where sequences aren't always obvious.
In reply to alibaba:
>— maybe that's why I am not making up so nonsense theories…
There seems to be agreement by some including the Rock Fax guidance notes (above) that somewhere along the grade range lets say F3 to F9b+ that a point is reached where the grade is given for the Redpoint and not the Onsight. I fail to see that this is my theory or indeed nonsense, I'm just questioning how it's being applied by first ascensionist and how climbers interpret these grades for harder routes from 6c and above.
>— maybe that's why I am not making up so nonsense theories…
There seems to be agreement by some including the Rock Fax guidance notes (above) that somewhere along the grade range lets say F3 to F9b+ that a point is reached where the grade is given for the Redpoint and not the Onsight. I fail to see that this is my theory or indeed nonsense, I'm just questioning how it's being applied by first ascensionist and how climbers interpret these grades for harder routes from 6c and above.
Post edited at 21:46
In reply to Ian Patterson:
Good point.
> Examples?
Scroll through my Logbook if you want both at home and overseas when I redpoint I often find that once a route is dialled it is substantially easier to achieve a successful redpoint and therefore feels easier than the grade given.> BTW I'm not surprised that new routes end up easier than initial impressions. Just not knowing the grade must make a difference particularly on British rock where sequences aren't always obvious.
Good point.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
I always though that routes were always, unless otherwise stated, graded for a (hypothetical) onsight.
I always though that routes were always, unless otherwise stated, graded for a (hypothetical) onsight.
In reply to Stevie989:
Again a good point.
> Are we possibly sailing into 'H' grading waters here? (A similar discussion at least)
> I'm no sport authority but I know of trad routes that are 'tricky' (read nails) to onsight due to hidden holds/wandering lines/footery gear but aren't given inflated grades (for the onsight) due to this.
Again a good point.
1
In reply to Sl@te Head:
I always find routes easier when dialled! I was really asking for an examples of (preferably relatively well known) routes which you think they are substantially easier to red point than other routes of the same grade.
> Scroll through my Logbook if you want both at home and overseas when I redpoint I often find that once a route is dialled it is substantially easier to achieve a successful redpoint and therefore feels easier than the grade given.
I always find routes easier when dialled! I was really asking for an examples of (preferably relatively well known) routes which you think they are substantially easier to red point than other routes of the same grade.
In reply to Ian Patterson:
How about this El Chorro Classic with its hidden hold?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=112686
How about this El Chorro Classic with its hidden hold?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=112686
Post edited at 22:13
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Not seen the guide in question so can't comment. Every book I've seen just has one grade next to each route.
Well argued! Perhaps I shall have to change my thinking...
> Somebody already told you that Rockfax includes information about the grade, and how it applies to style of ascent didn't they?
Not seen the guide in question so can't comment. Every book I've seen just has one grade next to each route.
> If style doesn't apply, why would Malham be considered hard to onsight? If the grades are stiff, wouldn't you just say that. My interpretation is that it means an 8a at Malham is of similar difficulty to your average 8a if redpointed, but would feel harder to onsight than an average 8a. As I understand it, the streaky coloured limestone makes it harder to read the rock, harder to spot handholds and footholds, compared to what you might find at some other crags. When you redpoint, this doesn't affect the difficulty because you have it wired. If you try to onsight, it might feel more like an 8a+ at another crag.
Well argued! Perhaps I shall have to change my thinking...
In reply to Stevie989:
Mainly trad routes, and even this is debatable. I guess my thinking is that routes are generally graded for the way they will usually be attempted (however that is).
> I always thought that routes were always, unless otherwise stated, graded for a (hypothetical) onsight.
Mainly trad routes, and even this is debatable. I guess my thinking is that routes are generally graded for the way they will usually be attempted (however that is).
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Splitting grades for different styles of climb is nonsense.
The very reason for working (redpointing) routes is to get to know them. Get to know the sequence, hidden holds or whatever else. It does not make it any easier though. It makes execution of known movements more likely to go as intended.
Onsighting is considered to be the cleanest style of climbing for that very reason. It tests one's ability to read the route, find right holds, sometimes forces to downclimb and redo section using different holds or sequences. This is why it always feels more difficult than consecutive attempts. But does not change the grade at all.
I struggle to understand why this has to be explained. So… no such thing as RP/FL/OS grades. There is one grade.
Also, why would you establish 6c as a starting point anyway?
Splitting grades for different styles of climb is nonsense.
The very reason for working (redpointing) routes is to get to know them. Get to know the sequence, hidden holds or whatever else. It does not make it any easier though. It makes execution of known movements more likely to go as intended.
Onsighting is considered to be the cleanest style of climbing for that very reason. It tests one's ability to read the route, find right holds, sometimes forces to downclimb and redo section using different holds or sequences. This is why it always feels more difficult than consecutive attempts. But does not change the grade at all.
I struggle to understand why this has to be explained. So… no such thing as RP/FL/OS grades. There is one grade.
Also, why would you establish 6c as a starting point anyway?
In reply to alibaba:
Let me clear this up once and for all this is not my (nonsense) Theory, this is what Rock Fax say in their guidebooks. Read my original post!
> Also, why would you establish 6c as a starting point anyway?
Let me clear this up once and for all this is not my (nonsense) Theory, this is what Rock Fax say in their guidebooks. Read my original post!
In reply to alibaba:
You may think that there is only one grade, but all that we are doing as red point climbers is dragging the route (grade) down to our own level....which luckily has a positive effect of improving our onsight grade in the long term
You may think that there is only one grade, but all that we are doing as red point climbers is dragging the route (grade) down to our own level....which luckily has a positive effect of improving our onsight grade in the long term
In reply to Sl@te Head:
In principle the quoted Rockfax approach to grading cannot work properly (i.e. without ambiguity and confusion) as shown by the following hypothetical examples.
If the rule is that routes of 6b+ and below are given an onsight grade and harder routes are given an RP grade then a typical slightly harder route that was 6c to onsight might be 6b+ or even easier RP and would be given the lower grade which would lead to the false assumption that it is an onsight grade.
Inserting a gap to 7b before the general use of RP grades probably aims to overcome this ambiguity because if a route given 7b was known to be graded for the RP the onsight would clearly be harder so this form of ambiguous overlap is eliminated for 6b+ and below and 7b and above. However the user then has no idea of the basis for grading any route with a given grade between 6b+ and 7b so either way there is inevitably a high degree of ambiguity.
For grading a first ascent I think the only reasonable approach is to explicitly state the basis for grading as o/s or RP. I think everyone would realise that when the first ascentionist offers an o/s grade for a sport route it can only be an estimate. Ideally this would also apply to Rockfax grades at least over the transitional band.
In principle the quoted Rockfax approach to grading cannot work properly (i.e. without ambiguity and confusion) as shown by the following hypothetical examples.
If the rule is that routes of 6b+ and below are given an onsight grade and harder routes are given an RP grade then a typical slightly harder route that was 6c to onsight might be 6b+ or even easier RP and would be given the lower grade which would lead to the false assumption that it is an onsight grade.
Inserting a gap to 7b before the general use of RP grades probably aims to overcome this ambiguity because if a route given 7b was known to be graded for the RP the onsight would clearly be harder so this form of ambiguous overlap is eliminated for 6b+ and below and 7b and above. However the user then has no idea of the basis for grading any route with a given grade between 6b+ and 7b so either way there is inevitably a high degree of ambiguity.
For grading a first ascent I think the only reasonable approach is to explicitly state the basis for grading as o/s or RP. I think everyone would realise that when the first ascentionist offers an o/s grade for a sport route it can only be an estimate. Ideally this would also apply to Rockfax grades at least over the transitional band.
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Indeed, and then it can only be the easiest/optimal (ie. redpoint) grade. Because, you can always make things harder by skipping or neglecting to use certain holds. Just take a 10m vertical F5 and eliminate all holds except from start holds and the top jug... hey, it's impossible now (as the world record in dynoing is around 3 m).
And then depending on what holds you use, it can be anything in between (from F5 to impossible).
> You may think that there is only one grade,
Indeed, and then it can only be the easiest/optimal (ie. redpoint) grade. Because, you can always make things harder by skipping or neglecting to use certain holds. Just take a 10m vertical F5 and eliminate all holds except from start holds and the top jug... hey, it's impossible now (as the world record in dynoing is around 3 m).
And then depending on what holds you use, it can be anything in between (from F5 to impossible).
In reply to harold walmsley:
Can I point out again, this is not something Rockfax have decreed, it is something we have observed. It happens across Europe and is the way people tend to grade routes in many different areas from Spain to Greece.
I can't really see how people can dispute the fact that routes at the top level are graded for redpoint. This is obvious since the first ascents are almost always redpoint, and the majority of repeats are redpoint. Grades change when people find easier sequences.
Equally how can you grade a sport 5 route for redpoint? How many people actually redpoint 5s and if they do redpoint, are they actually redpointing or are they just having another go?
Somewhere in-between these two limits there must be a change over. There is also the factor that one the things redpointing makes easier about an ascent is that you don't get as tired because you climb more quickly and spend less energy figuring out routes. On easier routes though you can rest all the way up them usually hence the benefits of redpointing become less pronounced.
Yes, there is some ambiguity, and this ambiguity spreads across the entire grade spectrum from 3 to 9b. It is a grading system not an exact science.
Alan
> In principle the quoted Rockfax approach...
Can I point out again, this is not something Rockfax have decreed, it is something we have observed. It happens across Europe and is the way people tend to grade routes in many different areas from Spain to Greece.
I can't really see how people can dispute the fact that routes at the top level are graded for redpoint. This is obvious since the first ascents are almost always redpoint, and the majority of repeats are redpoint. Grades change when people find easier sequences.
Equally how can you grade a sport 5 route for redpoint? How many people actually redpoint 5s and if they do redpoint, are they actually redpointing or are they just having another go?
Somewhere in-between these two limits there must be a change over. There is also the factor that one the things redpointing makes easier about an ascent is that you don't get as tired because you climb more quickly and spend less energy figuring out routes. On easier routes though you can rest all the way up them usually hence the benefits of redpointing become less pronounced.
Yes, there is some ambiguity, and this ambiguity spreads across the entire grade spectrum from 3 to 9b. It is a grading system not an exact science.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
To some extent I guess it's just a historical quirk, and not a system that anybody really designed. If I was producing the new Northern Limestone guidebook for example, I'd have a bunch of hard routes at Malham that have achieved some consensus of grade almost exclusively through redpoint ascents. I'd also have a bunch of easy routes at Giggleswick that have achieved some consensus of grade almost exclusively through onsight ascents. I'd just put the single grade achieved by consensus in my guidebook. Somewhere in between is the grey area. For example F7b might be 50% from redpoint, 50% from onsight.
Obviously if you don't believe style of ascent can affect the relative difficulty of two routes, then all this will seem like nonsense.
> Can I point out again, this is not something Rockfax have decreed, it is something we have observed. It happens across Europe and is the way people tend to grade routes in many different areas from Spain to Greece.
> Somewhere in-between these two limits there must be a change over
To some extent I guess it's just a historical quirk, and not a system that anybody really designed. If I was producing the new Northern Limestone guidebook for example, I'd have a bunch of hard routes at Malham that have achieved some consensus of grade almost exclusively through redpoint ascents. I'd also have a bunch of easy routes at Giggleswick that have achieved some consensus of grade almost exclusively through onsight ascents. I'd just put the single grade achieved by consensus in my guidebook. Somewhere in between is the grey area. For example F7b might be 50% from redpoint, 50% from onsight.
Obviously if you don't believe style of ascent can affect the relative difficulty of two routes, then all this will seem like nonsense.
In reply to alibaba:
I agree, there should only be one grade. I am not sure anyone has suggested actually having two grades, it is the basis on which the initial grade is awarded that is being discussed.
Alan
> Splitting grades for different styles of climb is nonsense.
> I struggle to understand why this has to be explained. So… no such thing as RP/FL/OS grades. There is one grade.
I agree, there should only be one grade. I am not sure anyone has suggested actually having two grades, it is the basis on which the initial grade is awarded that is being discussed.
Alan
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
That sounds about right.
Actually I think it will be 7b for all ascents it is just that there are some 7b's that are hard to onsight (as in the Malham routes described above).
Alan
That sounds about right.
> For example F7b might be 50% from redpoint, 50% from onsight.
Actually I think it will be 7b for all ascents it is just that there are some 7b's that are hard to onsight (as in the Malham routes described above).
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Certainly not anybody producing a guidebook! I'd like two please, and maybe a third for shorties?
> I am not sure anyone has suggested actually having two grades
Certainly not anybody producing a guidebook! I'd like two please, and maybe a third for shorties?
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Never been to El Chorro, but sounds like the sort of exception route that might be feel easier on the rp - do you think that it's similar difficulty to 6cs in El Chorro as a rp? Interestingly the grade votes are consistently 7a despite there being a mix of os / rp ascents.
> (In reply to Ian Patterson) How about this El Chorro Classic with its hidden hold?
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=112686
>
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=112686
Never been to El Chorro, but sounds like the sort of exception route that might be feel easier on the rp - do you think that it's similar difficulty to 6cs in El Chorro as a rp? Interestingly the grade votes are consistently 7a despite there being a mix of os / rp ascents.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
If don't believe it makes no difference at all, just for the majority of routes very little difference. Everybody seems to talk in abstracts, if this is a major issue then there should be loads of examples where the os and rp grade would be different.
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> Obviously if you don't believe style of ascent can affect the relative difficulty of two routes, then all this will seem like nonsense.
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> Obviously if you don't believe style of ascent can affect the relative difficulty of two routes, then all this will seem like nonsense.
If don't believe it makes no difference at all, just for the majority of routes very little difference. Everybody seems to talk in abstracts, if this is a major issue then there should be loads of examples where the os and rp grade would be different.
In reply to Ian Patterson:
Precisely. And there aren't loads of examples, there are a few, and they may well have 'hard to onsight' in their description.
Alan
> If don't believe it makes no difference at all, just for the majority of routes very little difference. Everybody seems to talk in abstracts, if this is a major issue then there should be loads of examples where the os and rp grade would be different.
Precisely. And there aren't loads of examples, there are a few, and they may well have 'hard to onsight' in their description.
Alan
1
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Ha!
Dave Atchinson-Jones did sort of try this in his Avignon Soleil book (and maybe others). A brave approach I thought but I don't think it worked very well and in the end it did look a little confusing. Each route had three grades, overall grade, hardest move grade and endurance grade.
Alan
> Certainly not anybody producing a guidebook! I'd like two please, and maybe a third for shorties?
Ha!
Dave Atchinson-Jones did sort of try this in his Avignon Soleil book (and maybe others). A brave approach I thought but I don't think it worked very well and in the end it did look a little confusing. Each route had three grades, overall grade, hardest move grade and endurance grade.
Alan
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
So kind of like giving a route E3 5b and a 'pumpy' symbol?
http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=4366
:p
> Each route had three grades, overall grade, hardest move grade and endurance grade.
So kind of like giving a route E3 5b and a 'pumpy' symbol?
http://www.rockfax.com/databases/r.php?i=4366
:p
Post edited at 10:00
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
An attempt to introduce some (possibly false) logic here from someone whose sport climbing experience is admittedly limited - I much prefer trad.
Isn't it possible to rationalise both arguments put forward above: A climb should only have one grade, even though there are two possible grading approaches - grading for "on-sight" or for "red-point".
Take an established climb graded 7a (for example - any grade would do). It will almost certainly be easier to red-point than to on-sight (ie more people could red-point it than could on-sight it). It's still 7a either way, but an individual climber will find it tougher to on-sight than to red-point, and won't find that surprising.
Now take a new route. The first ascensionist will normally be red-pointing it. So he or she grades it by comparing it to other climbs they have red-pointed of about the same difficulty. A second ascensionist comes along who hasn't any beta and on-sights it. He or she grades it by comparing it to other climbs they have on-sighted of about the same difficulty. Other things being equal, they will come up with the same grade, even though they used a "different" method.
Sometimes other things are not equal. The climb might be more than averagely difficult to "read" for the on-sighter who might give it a harder grade as a result. Or it might be more than averagely easy to read as an on-sight and might therefore be given an easier grade by the on-sighter, but this should average out over a large number of climbs. We shouldn't systematically find that the grade arrived at by a red-pointer comparing with other red-points is higher or lower than the grade arrived at by an on-sighter comparing with other on-sights.
So it should be possible to apply the "RockFax" system (which Alan is at some pains to disown) without any problem at the boundary. Grade up to, say, 6c, by comparing on-sight with on-sight (because that's the way these grades are approached by most climbers) and grade from 7a upwards by comparing red-point with red-point. No serious discontinuity should occur because a climb graded, say, 6c+ will, on average, be given 6c+ whether graded by either method.
Martin
An attempt to introduce some (possibly false) logic here from someone whose sport climbing experience is admittedly limited - I much prefer trad.
Isn't it possible to rationalise both arguments put forward above: A climb should only have one grade, even though there are two possible grading approaches - grading for "on-sight" or for "red-point".
Take an established climb graded 7a (for example - any grade would do). It will almost certainly be easier to red-point than to on-sight (ie more people could red-point it than could on-sight it). It's still 7a either way, but an individual climber will find it tougher to on-sight than to red-point, and won't find that surprising.
Now take a new route. The first ascensionist will normally be red-pointing it. So he or she grades it by comparing it to other climbs they have red-pointed of about the same difficulty. A second ascensionist comes along who hasn't any beta and on-sights it. He or she grades it by comparing it to other climbs they have on-sighted of about the same difficulty. Other things being equal, they will come up with the same grade, even though they used a "different" method.
Sometimes other things are not equal. The climb might be more than averagely difficult to "read" for the on-sighter who might give it a harder grade as a result. Or it might be more than averagely easy to read as an on-sight and might therefore be given an easier grade by the on-sighter, but this should average out over a large number of climbs. We shouldn't systematically find that the grade arrived at by a red-pointer comparing with other red-points is higher or lower than the grade arrived at by an on-sighter comparing with other on-sights.
So it should be possible to apply the "RockFax" system (which Alan is at some pains to disown) without any problem at the boundary. Grade up to, say, 6c, by comparing on-sight with on-sight (because that's the way these grades are approached by most climbers) and grade from 7a upwards by comparing red-point with red-point. No serious discontinuity should occur because a climb graded, say, 6c+ will, on average, be given 6c+ whether graded by either method.
Martin
Post edited at 10:55
In reply to Sl@te Head:
In my view there is only one grade - the grade for the best sequence. This is essentially always the grade for the redpoint once the best sequence has been discovered.
In my experience, the difference between climbs around 7aish and climbs below that grade is that below 7a there are many more handholds/footholds that are viable, so you can get up the route at a similar grade to say 6b+ish even without finding the optimal sequence.
Once you get to rock giving a 7aish climb, there are less holds that could get you up the route at 7a, so you have to get the right ones. A 7a that is easy to onsight is maybe big pockets or obvious tufa holds - a 7a that is hard to onsight might have more blind sidepulls or undercuts. The holds are still decent and put you in relative balance (because it's a 7a to climb) - but they're harder to find. The moves are the same relative difficulty. The 7a that's easier to onsight has similar difficulty moves, they're just easier to see first time - it shouldn't mean they're easier or harder to actually execute.
Put it this way - once you've wired the redpoint 7a, it should feel roughly the same difficulty as if you repeated the 7a you onsighted (maybe after a couple of goes).
In my view there is only one grade - the grade for the best sequence. This is essentially always the grade for the redpoint once the best sequence has been discovered.
In my experience, the difference between climbs around 7aish and climbs below that grade is that below 7a there are many more handholds/footholds that are viable, so you can get up the route at a similar grade to say 6b+ish even without finding the optimal sequence.
Once you get to rock giving a 7aish climb, there are less holds that could get you up the route at 7a, so you have to get the right ones. A 7a that is easy to onsight is maybe big pockets or obvious tufa holds - a 7a that is hard to onsight might have more blind sidepulls or undercuts. The holds are still decent and put you in relative balance (because it's a 7a to climb) - but they're harder to find. The moves are the same relative difficulty. The 7a that's easier to onsight has similar difficulty moves, they're just easier to see first time - it shouldn't mean they're easier or harder to actually execute.
Put it this way - once you've wired the redpoint 7a, it should feel roughly the same difficulty as if you repeated the 7a you onsighted (maybe after a couple of goes).
In reply to RockSteady:
> (In reply to ian Ll-J)
>
>
>
> In my experience, the difference between climbs around 7aish and climbs below that grade is that below 7a there are many more handholds/footholds that are viable, so you can get up the route at a similar grade to say 6b+ish even without finding the optimal sequence.
>
depends on the cliff - Malaham for isntance often has many 'viable' holds on climbs at 7a and above! > In my experience, the difference between climbs around 7aish and climbs below that grade is that below 7a there are many more handholds/footholds that are viable, so you can get up the route at a similar grade to say 6b+ish even without finding the optimal sequence.
>
If you think of a route's grade in terms of how hard it is to climb then clearly some types of climb will be relatively harder to onsight or redpoint compared to others, so defining how the grade is arrived at would seem necessary.
However if you think of the route's grade in terms of what proportion of suitors succeed on it then this distinction may get blurred to the point of irrelevance, since the nature of the attempt is implicit in the chance of success. I believe this is at the heart of where the RockFax grading logic originates, since at lower grades very few potential suitors attempt a route expecting to headpoint (so an onsight fall is a failure) whereas at higher grades most suitors will have a redpoint approach (so a fall is simply part of the road to success).
It's fair to say that this avenue is full of potential conundrums when analysed too closely but at a first approximation to route grading I think it can be quite intuitive and dare I say pretty close to the heuristic way that grades are actually arrived at in practice. It isn't an exact science but it seems to work for many people a lot of the time.
However if you think of the route's grade in terms of what proportion of suitors succeed on it then this distinction may get blurred to the point of irrelevance, since the nature of the attempt is implicit in the chance of success. I believe this is at the heart of where the RockFax grading logic originates, since at lower grades very few potential suitors attempt a route expecting to headpoint (so an onsight fall is a failure) whereas at higher grades most suitors will have a redpoint approach (so a fall is simply part of the road to success).
It's fair to say that this avenue is full of potential conundrums when analysed too closely but at a first approximation to route grading I think it can be quite intuitive and dare I say pretty close to the heuristic way that grades are actually arrived at in practice. It isn't an exact science but it seems to work for many people a lot of the time.
1
In reply to Ian Patterson:
It doesn't really bother me at all (like most people I suspect), and I don't redpoint so I wouldn't know what the real world difference can be. I just like to discuss the theory and logic of giving a piece of rock a number and a letter (to paraphrase Jack Geldard).
> If don't believe it makes no difference at all, just for the majority of routes very little difference. Everybody seems to talk in abstracts, if this is a major issue then there should be loads of examples where the os and rp grade would be different.
It doesn't really bother me at all (like most people I suspect), and I don't redpoint so I wouldn't know what the real world difference can be. I just like to discuss the theory and logic of giving a piece of rock a number and a letter (to paraphrase Jack Geldard).
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
That's one way to put it (I have the guide and have used it in anger). Information overload!!!
> A brave approach
That's one way to put it (I have the guide and have used it in anger). Information overload!!!
In reply to Sl@te Head:
Hi ian
Remove the crux sequence and rebuild it again at ground level and I'll give it a font grade for you!
Hi ian
Remove the crux sequence and rebuild it again at ground level and I'll give it a font grade for you!
In reply to string arms:
Hi Phil
And then add at least another 2 grades !!!
> Hi ian
> Remove the crux sequence and rebuild it again at ground level and I'll give it a font grade for you!
Hi Phil
And then add at least another 2 grades !!!
The Trouble with grading a route for a red point is the varying amount of work that goes into it before the actual "send"
Most people will be familiar with working a route briefly, knowing you should work it more but having an RP attempt anyway. On occasion you can pull it out of the bag, sketch your way through and get it by the skin of your teeth.
The route feels desperate but you know with more work the actual ascent could have been done with a lot less desperation. Thus the amount of work changes your perception of the grade.
For example my mate Iain and I are climbers of equal ability working the same route X together. We have been on it the same length of time, but I get impatient and decide to go for the red point. I get up it by the skin of my teeth finding it brick hard. He works it for another day and sends it fairly smoothly.
We then discuss it later, comparing it's grade to route Y a route we have both done and agree on the grade of.
Because I wasn't so well prepped I declare X is way harder than Y. He on the other hand reckons I am talking out my arse and states it's the other way round.
Thus two climbers of equal ability can't agree on a grade.
In my opinion the only way to grade consistently between routes and climbers is for the on sight.
It's the only level playing field we ever get on a route.
Thus as a first ascentionist with a considerable number of new routes climbed I have always tried to grade with on sight in mind. Once others have either on sighted or attempted an onsight I have been happy to adjust grade accordingly. Most of the time!
Most people will be familiar with working a route briefly, knowing you should work it more but having an RP attempt anyway. On occasion you can pull it out of the bag, sketch your way through and get it by the skin of your teeth.
The route feels desperate but you know with more work the actual ascent could have been done with a lot less desperation. Thus the amount of work changes your perception of the grade.
For example my mate Iain and I are climbers of equal ability working the same route X together. We have been on it the same length of time, but I get impatient and decide to go for the red point. I get up it by the skin of my teeth finding it brick hard. He works it for another day and sends it fairly smoothly.
We then discuss it later, comparing it's grade to route Y a route we have both done and agree on the grade of.
Because I wasn't so well prepped I declare X is way harder than Y. He on the other hand reckons I am talking out my arse and states it's the other way round.
Thus two climbers of equal ability can't agree on a grade.
In my opinion the only way to grade consistently between routes and climbers is for the on sight.
It's the only level playing field we ever get on a route.
Thus as a first ascentionist with a considerable number of new routes climbed I have always tried to grade with on sight in mind. Once others have either on sighted or attempted an onsight I have been happy to adjust grade accordingly. Most of the time!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...