UKC

We are working on the new edition of Eastern Grit at the moment. One of the questions that is cropping up is what grading system to use for routes which are now almost always highballed. There are a lot of routes which only see ascents above a stack of mats with many spotters, in fact they now see many more ascents than they ever used to and there is a resurgence in bold gritstone climbing afforded by modern bouldering techniques.

Our maxim at Rockfax has been to grade routes in the style that most people climb them, hence we are currently planning to switch some grades from trad grades to Font/V grades for the routes mostly climbed in this style.

Some examples (there are many more, and we are happy to take suggestions):

Ulysses' Bow - V7 7A+ instead of E6
The Promise - V9 7C instead of E8
Nicotine Stain - V4 6B instead of E2
Narcissus - V7 7A+ instead of E6
Oedipus - V4 6B instead of E4
Toy Boy - V10 7C+ instead of E7

We will also mention the E grade in the description for those contemplating it without mats. Conversely, for routes that have actual runners we will usually give the Trad grade - ie. Screaming Dream E7 with V11 8A mentioned in the description.

The consequence of this grade change though is that it will knock on through the system and on to UKC Logbooks. Each route can only have one grade in the databases and we very much want to avoid having duplicate listings for the same route with two different grades. The Rockfax print guidebook, App guidebook and RF database will only list a route with the new grade for its main grade (with any alternative only noted in the description). This route will then be linked to a single UKC Logbook entry. It would be possible to create a second UKC Logbook entry (for example 'Ulysses' Bow (without mats)') for those who wanted to tick the route in this style, but we wouldn't do this and it wouldn't be linked to through the RF book/app system.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Feel free to use this thread to make suggestions for grades for routes that aren't boulder problems, but are now climbed in a bouldering style.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Case by case basis, my opinions above

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sounds like a good compromise, but bare in mind that a lot of the stuff that gets done predominantly in a bouldering style is due to 'snowballing', three blind mice is a good example. Someone turning up to try it in June Is going to get a bit of a sunrise (even if it is just a wasted walk in).
Realistically people climbing the Hard trad grades in a bouldering style are doing the conversions in there heads anyway but obviously English tech grades are very imprecise, particularly in the higher grades.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Why not include both as the Yorkshire gritstone guide does?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

This is a great step forward Alan. Routes under 10m with no gear make much more sense with a bouldering grade unless the landing is so awful that pads can't tame it (pretty rare in my experience as a big psyched team can now mean 15 pads!)

when done with pads these routes just dont feel anything like as committing or scary as I imagine big E grade routes are.

White Wand is about font 6B to the break and an absolutely brilliant highball above pads. Might be worth adding that in to the description?

Dunc

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I don't think either system works well on their own.

Stood at the bottom I think you get more information from the trad grade, as the tech grade will remain the same but you lose an E-point or two.

If you use font grades you need an additional danger qualifier like the ! in the Font 7 & 8s guide. To confuse things further, highballs in font are typically softer grades than normal problems. Or, to put it another way, some of the danger is absorbed into the grade. Are you planning to follow that trend?

In reply to lumu_tit:


As stated above, each route needs a single main grade for the system to work throughout the book/app/RF database/UKC database system. Other grades will be mentioned in the text description.

Alan

In reply to Adam Long:


Well they won't be completely on their own since we will mention the other grade in the description.


For me the problem with the trad grade is that, while the E grade does give you information, the UK tech grade has become pretty useless these days with 6b spanning anything from Font 6A+ to Font 7B+ or maybe even higher, which is precisely why most boulderers talk in Font grades when discussing highballs.


Well we have the flutter symbol and the word 'highball' so I doubt people will accidentally stray onto highball route/boulder problems.

I wasn't planning on grading things for danger unless this already happens with the current established grades (which I suspect it might to some extent).

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I don't think it should be so hard to introduce an AlternativeGrade field in your route database, then if people wanted to to a search on one of the grades it could query a view and/or union of the two grade fields. I'm sure you've thought of that already but I'd be surprised if using descriptions for the alternative grade would be more effective.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
>the UK tech grade has become pretty useless these days with 6b spanning anything from Font 6A+ to Font 7B+ or maybe even higher

Not in my experience - this was bashed out it in UKB discussions years ago (e.g. from 2004 here: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,3409.0.html, http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6922.0.html )

Despite the protestations of the School/ Crag X types on those threads (they're too busy training to contribute to guides) all the guides I've been involved in over the last ten years (BMC peak definitive series/ VG bouldering guides) have used a sensible conversion along the following lines (can't find the jpeg table).

UK 6b - 6B+ - 6C+
UK 6c - 7A- 7b+
UK 7a - 7C - 8A
UK 7b - 8A+ upwards

Obviously some variation at the boundaries depending on how long/short problems are.

>Well we have the flutter symbol and the word 'highball' so I doubt people will accidentally stray onto highball route/boulder problems.

Ah yes, forgot that. An additional broken legs symbol might be ideal for stuff like the Promise.

Should work okay then with bouldering grades, with the caveat that I think when you throw danger into the mix Font grades become overly precise, and it's more difficult to achieve a consensus.

In reply to Adam Long:

I agree with Adam on this.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Just don't use V grades - Font if that's okay.

In reply to mrchewy:


Well we use both in tandem, as in Peak Bouldering. This is because many walls still use V grades and they are better understood by many climbers even though most keen boulderers tend to use Font exclusively nowadays.

Alan

In reply to mrchewy and Alan James:

I would echo the call for font grades- just better! I think for a lot of stuff the boulder grade works well, if you put the trad grade in the description. As long as theres a workaround so people who do Ulysses without mats can log it as an E6, I reckon its a good idea.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Just saw this, sorry. Better understood is an interesting assumption- once people start bouldering outside I think what they think they know about V grades disappears.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I suggested this over four years ago http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3068

On the one hand you have routes like London Wall that are substantial climbs and are suited to using the existing system. On the other hand you have routes that are effectively highball boulder problems, albeit ones that have some gear and usually attempted roped that maybe could be better described using V-grades along with (H) to indicate highball.

OK, people don't seem to like v grades these days so use Font grades instead.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I appreciate you have used both before but indoor walls and how they use grades shouldn't really matter - my local wall is V grades, in fact everywhere nearby is but Font grades just feel right outdoors. I know I'm not alone in this. If V grades are kept, then we'll have the E grade, the Eng tech grade, the V grade and the Font grade - if you're trying to simplify things, then dumping the V grade would go a long way.

Gritstone problems have far more in common with the forest than they do plastic pulling indoors... maybe that's a bit of a romantic notion but I'm pretty sure if you tried dumping the Font grade, you'd have way more complaints than if you dumped the V grade, despite many indoors walls using the V grade. And surely one of them being dumped has to help?

Cheers for the reply anyways.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Bringing the discussion closer to my level, what about routes such as DIY, Daydreamer, Nightmare Slab, and Canoe?

These are pretty highball, and if you did use the "big psyched team can now mean 15 pads!" approach then I guess they are boulder problems. But, being more lowly graded, it's more likely that people will do them with 1 or 2 pads, rather than rounding up a team of 15.

Above 1 or 2 pads these do feel "E grade", so a pure bouldering grade is not going to convey the experience. A mixed grade, bouldering and an E grade, would be more informative. (Ok, so the E grade might be in the text, but why not put it in the headline?)

In reply to spidermonkey09:


I've never seen much resemblance between indoor-wall V grades and outdoors V grades, though for that matter I've rarely seen much resemblance between V grades at different walls 50 miles apart.

In reply to mrchewy:

As mentioned, this is the system we used in Peak Bouldering whereby we mapped V grades to Font grades above Font 6A and to UK tech grades at 5c and below. In essence you are actually just getting one grade here anyway and we have constructed the Logbook system in such a way that we could change it to just Font (or V) at a later date if required.

I still think the reasons for us using UK tech grades for lower grade problems are relevant here and we have had no negative feedback about the grading system in Peak Bouldering, hence I think it ok for the time being. It is really aimed at lower grade climbers who fully understand tech grades, but Font 4 and Font 5 means little to. At this point in time, having the dual V Font grade isn't an issue for us.

What we can't do is give a route a grade of 7A E6 or something like that since I think that would be very confusing especially since it may have originally been E6 6b, and E6 6b 7A is too long a string for the various places it has to appear.

Alan

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Well we discussed these in another thread a week or two ago. I still can't see how the grade E2 6b for Daydreamer tells you anything other than it has a 6b move on it. The E2 is meaningless here. It certainly gives no more information than Font 6A+ which gives a better idea of how hard it actually is.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Hmm, it would seem a fairly neat solution to me.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

E2 6b tells you that the 6b bit is low down and that it gets much easier (no more than 5a/5b) with height. Font 6a+ does not.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Except that in this case, if you are soloing, you will hit the ledge and fall three times the length of the climb.

Anyway, we have done this route and I think it is a fairly unique case hence not one you can establish a proper policy with.

Alan

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Actually it could work. Just looking at the logistics here. I'd probably just use it as E6 7A as opposed to E6 7a which would be something different, also would people then expect a font grade on all trad routes?

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Why not put (Font 7A) in brackets after the E grade and possibly tech grade? This would be much clearer than e.g. E6 7A which could be viewed as a typo.

Plenty hard trad routes nowadays have the sport grade in brackets afterwards, so this system would tie in nicely with that but for highballs.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


One of us is getting mixed up (it could be me!), but I thought that Daydreamer had a flat landing, with a jump-offable 6b bit, followed by an E3/E2 5b/5a solo?

Nightmare Slab has always seemed an oddity and pretty dangerous to me.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


If it were, say, E6/7A then it would not get confused so easily with E6 7a.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


We are working with fairly well set layouts and there isn't nearly enough room for a text string as long as that. Also, there are many more considerations with regard to making the various databases work. A database needs much tighter definitions for its main grade. A listing is either a boulder problem which is then automatically assigned a boulder grade as the main grade, or a route which has a trad grade assigned. It is awkward to have both on one kind of route and makes things very complicated to work with. We do have a tech grade field which we might be able to work Font grades into but it isn't making the system simpler for sure.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm going to join others in favour of a (fairly major but probably not unmanageable) restructuring of the database, to include not just a single 'grade' field, but a set of fields such as (trad grade, sport grade, boulder grade, winter grade). I expect you have the 'route type' in your database (or in the UK at least, could deduce it from the type of grade currently recorded), so could switch existing routes over quite easily. (Give me a bit more info and I'll send a sql file to do it

This system would also be flexible enough to accommodate the modern practice of E grade + French grade for hard trad routes, avoiding having this discussion again further down the line.

One of the grades could be marked as the 'default', which everyone sees in the logbook/app/rockfax site, with the option of viewing all if present. Irrelevant ones can just be null, and therefore never appear. In terms of logging the routes, the grade that appears in a user's logbook and graphs could then depend on the style of ascent.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Try 5000 miles apart: V5 in Stoke-on-Trent = V0+ in Eugene, Oregon!

In reply to Nick Russell:

That sounds like a long term workable solution for the Logbooks system but is a bit too much work for a short term fix.

I think we have drifted away a little from the fundamental question of what is it that people who climb these routes want. Most that I speak to tell me that they exclusively use Font grades, however I am aware that there will be people who buy guidebooks to tick routes they have done. In this case seeing their bold E6 solo changed to a Font 7A above mats might not be what they want to read.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



I have read the thread through and don't get any feeling of a consensus. Personally I would like to see trad routes with the trad grades they have always had with a comment "usually done as a V6 (or 7A?) above a stack of mats nowadays" BUT I am well aware that I am a dinosaur!

Chris

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I can't answer for the E6s and E7s, but at the level of DIY and Daydreamer -- and being primarily a trad climber -- I definitely think of these as E-grade routes, so would want them described as such. If I wanted to tick an f6A or f6B I'd pick ones that are much lower and safer!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


...... and of course it is a trad book for trad climbers


Chris

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Fair enough. I'd be careful of accumulating too many short-term fixes... they may become a long-term problem.


I haven't climbed any of the routes in question, but for what it's worth I'd be most likely to consider doing them above a stack of pads and wouldn't care about whether I got E points or not for my highball.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sounds like a table normalization problem. And one worth solving. This would also allow you to inclued winter ascents in the sam listing if so desired.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

How about simply E7 (F7C+) for the grade... it should fit.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Hi,
I agree with Chris's comments. Leave them as trad grades with a comment about possible V grade.

In reply to HeMa:

We have just been discussing this and it does look like we can come up with something here that will work. Whether it is a short term fix, or a long term solution like Nick suggest, I am not sure.

So for routes normally done as highballs we can use an E grade and a Font grade, for genuine boulder problems, just a Font grade, and for genuine routes a UK tech grade.

ie.
Daydreamer E2 6A+
Not to be Taken Away 6C
Ulysses' Bow - E6 7A+
The Promise - E8 7C
Narcissus - V7 7A+
London Wall - E5 6a

and the Font grades will be in blue italics as in the Peak Bouldering guide.

This fits the space in the books, we can accommodate it in the logbook and RF database.

Almost seems obvious now.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sounds like a good solution!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think Narcissus might be E6 7A+


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:


Correct

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

"Each route can only have one grade in the database"

I suggest changing the database to admit both grades - at the very least stick both grades in the book.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Looks sensible to me.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

It sounds like a great idea to me! If I were to throw my £2 in the ring I'd suggest that the trad grade doesn't really apply anymore to these routes and should only be used as a footnote in the route description as a nod of respect to the FA style and an indicator of what you are getting yourself in for. Obviously genuine routes like Downhill Racer which usually require pads shouldn't be given a bouldering grade as it wouldn't reflect the seriousness of the situation and would be very misleading and dangerous.

Cheers!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
>"So for routes normally done as highballs we can use an E grade and a Font grade, for genuine boulder problems, >just a Font grade, and for genuine routes an E grade and UK tech grade."

Yippee! Definitely the way to go IMO. Sane grading system at last...

Except for the UK tech grade bit, which even on proper routes, for things over E6 would be better replaced or supplemented by either French or Font grades depending on length. (e.g I want to know that Parthian Shot is E9/10 Fr8b, not tech 6c which tells you pretty much nothing...)

In reply to Nemo:


Yes, I think you are right but that may be a step too far for the moment. The UK tech grade functions in the 4c to 6a range and is pretty useless outside that. This may be the way it goes in the future though.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

There are not many people out of the total population of peak grit climbers who will go around with 15 or even 10 pads available, it is far more common that people will attempt routes like DIY daydreamer, shock horror with 2 to 4 pads. DIY for example, felt like a route with 3 pads rather than a boulder problem, albeit a bit safer than with no pads, therefore I'd give such routes an e grade and maybe a highball symbol or icon, which denotes they are reasonably commonly high balled. A straight font grade for these 6 to 10 m routes isn't really an accurate reflection of what it's like to climb them with 0 to 4 pads, which is the number the majority of people will do them with.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



Well, Daydreamer's got a flat landing... until you bounce! And then you may bounce into eternity.

Aeons ago, I belayed a < coughs discreetly > gritstone hero on this. I ran a rope from one side of the buttress to the other and clipped in, so I could spot him (decades before the term was invented), stop him bouncing and, most importantly, make bloody sure he couldn't get past the rope and me into oblivion.

He blithely assumed it was just a 6b move or two and then rambling to the top. Suffice to say, his rambling to the top was a fraught affair.

Armed with this knowledge, when I soloed it some time afterwards, although alone (no spotter, rope, etc) I knew to take my time on the top moves.

As I recall (caveat: a long time ago) Daydreamer seemed to be much more dangerous than Nightmare.

As Alan rightly says, these routes are pretty anomalous. With my little belay system, a spotter and pads, would think Daydreamer would be bouldering fun. With sod all, a very different story.

mick

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think some grades are probably wrong in the low F6's and arguably in the place likely to create the most common risk for the unwary. Following Adam's line why would Daydeamer be 6A+ highball and UK 6b? On a similar topic lines with worrying landings that are hard to pad, like Nightmare Slab are routes commonly soloed and should not be listed as boulder problems first: such routes if given a bouldering grade first need a new symbol beyond the fluttery heart.

In reply to Nemo:

I second Partian shot being E10 F8b, braille trail E7 F7c, Trout E6 F7a+ and Ulysses being E6 f6C etc

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Too many grades make things pointlessly confusing. is it not easy enough to leave as it is. As soon as you start adding V grades people will prefer a change to Font grades and before long you have a V11 8A/E7 7a/ Font 7b.... and so on and so on.
I think for historical significance alone it should be grade in the grade it was originally printed in. Make a RockFax Highball grade conversion chart if you need.

In reply to Lukem6:

Generally yeah, when routes were routes before pads this makes sense. It's nice to keep the tradition of 'this is a route, and you're bringing it down to your level if you stack the pads up and fall off it all day'. Though if you take this literally you end up with Sulky Little Boys HVS 6c 4m, so some common sense is needed.


No such thing is possible. The E-grade depends heavily on where the crux is and the landing so HVS 6b and E4 6b are both feasible for V5. The best solution I think is similar to the BMC guides. Give preference to the (historical) route grade but include a boulder grade in the text. A symbol for 'highballable' in Rockfax style would do it.

Take Oedipus. E4 6a (highballable) gives good info. V4 tells nowt - it isn't a boulder problem, it's really high (8m?) and you have to solo HVS to get off it. Similarly with Daydreamer, E2 6b (highballable) tells you the difficulty. It's a V3/4 low crux and then soloing at about HVS, giving E2-ish highballing. Whilst you might want a stack of pads for Oedipus and a pad or two for Daydreamer, you can't fall off these once you're committed - they're not boulder problems but you can protect them to a degree with pads.

I often think that with a few pads, highballs often feel like they're 1 E-grade below the route grade. Although this is usually because they're massive sandbags, so you're actually knocking 2 E-points off with the pads. e.g. Finger Distance - that's damn pokey as an E3 solo, 6b at ankle-breaking height.

I think for many Peak highballs, we're better off seeing pads as a way of protecting the route, rather than as turning the route into a boulder problem. So the route grade should be 'main grade' with info to highlight where highballing is popular. The boulder grade doesn't add any information, and if you use it instead of the route grade then you've thrown away the info about how hard the route is.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Interesting discussion here.

Adam; I don't believe what you're saying with your UK tech grade to Font conversion Narcissus gets 6b and is given 7A+ (prob 7A in reality) I think the UK tech grade is a bit broken regarding grit (but I'm not good on the brown rock)

To all of those who think the Font grade alone doesn't give enough info: I'd say this is rubbish. It's bouldering you rock up, have a gander and can see from the landing/height of the problem how scary it is going to be with the amount of pads you have. This is not as clear when trad climbing (not on gritstone) as you cannot necessarily see from the ground what the nature of the route will be.

To all of those who think E2 6b means low crux into steady climbing try the runnel at black rocks! E grade is broken on grit

Plus, pads are standard nowadays. We don't keep the original grade for routes done without friends/sticky rubber/good ropes etc. grades move with the times...

Nice interesting discussion on UKC again!

In reply to Duncan Campbell:


it doesn't tell you where the crux is. I'm not saying that's vital info, just that the route grade gives a much better idea of difficulty. A note on highballing, "reduces the grade and the buzz" takes care of "claiming an e4" or whatever.


not really, that's just the wrong grade.


owning a pad may be standard, but going out with 20 mates each armed with 2 to spend all day falling off a previously bold route isn't. I think it's a shame to assume this is how grit is climbed now.

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

Yes, there have been some great points on this thread. Chris and I are actually very happy with the solution we have come up with - E grade and Font grade for the highballs, just Font grade for the lowballs. This will give the matless ascent the E grade they want, plus a more accurate indicator of actual difficulty.

It may be one step on the process to remove the UK tech grade from all hard trad routes but it is too early yet to make that step. Also, it is the sport grade that many look for when attempting hard trad routes with gear.

With regard to the UKC logbooks this will keep the highballs as actual trad routes, just with a tech Font grade.

Alan

In reply to Chris Craggs:

This makes pretty good sense

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
That sounds like a sensible solution to me.

In reply to LakesWinter:

Agree - and a good discussion.

Mick

In reply to ashtond6:
And London Wall should be A1 (E5/f6B/F7A+) on your outlook, ability, style, snow level and availability of gear...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Agree with all of Jon's points here. I think the norm is to have two or three pads in a team - this is sensible additional protection on many routes but doesn't mean you can immediately start lobbing off with abandon. If big teams with ten pads do occasionally reduce things to that level then fine, but the guide shouldn't assume that.

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

Pads may be 'standard', but as above, what is the standard number then? Certainly not the number we had at Froggatt a few weeks back.

I do find it a bit tedious when folk moan that UK grades 'are broken'. It's nonsense. All a grade is (or should be) is a consensus of opinion. Many routes are too morpho to ever achieve a true consensus. Plus, up until the last decade there wasn't a procedure for gathering consensus other than a few opinions in a pub. I don't get too hung up on grades and accept there will always be times I don't agree with them - as long as there is a vague balance either way no big deal. As a shortie you're on the backfoot, but think how Hazel etc feel. Take a step back and it is fairly ridiculous that we pay grades the attention that we do, it's the most amorphous arbitrary system possible. Unfortunately until some standard grading robot is invented it's all we have.

Narcissus - I don't think 7A+ is a very useful grade either to be honest. Agreed it's a UK 6b crux, but it's high and you have to do some tricky moves to get into it. Then of course it's a reach, so opinions will vary. Plus I've never seen so many mats under as when you did it, or so many people doing it to convince each other it is doable and they won't die. So to me E6 6b is probably more relevant normally, on the day in question 6C+ !! might be more useful. The main problem is that all the reference problems in font are much shorter - and a font grade is an overall grade unlike UK tech. With 3 pads I doubt 7A+ would feel all that inappropriate.

The Runnel is probably a bit harsh at E2 if you are short, and overgraded if you are tall. Aren't they all. It's also one where committing is harder than the climbing, so if you'd got up it you'd probably feel less hard done by. Since when did E2 6b mean low crux? It never did, it means there is a hard move but overall the route it E2 - which it is because it's about 6 metres long and you can either jump off or reverse.

In reply to Adam Long:
I'm with you on all of that. It still doesn't deal with all the routes that are in the grey area above with especially odd grades. In particular, whats your view on Daydreamer, as it never made sense to me, even with a bit of grade flexibility: is it much harder than 6A+ or a bit harder and 6a?

I also still think Nightmare Slab is best described as a route sometimes climbed as a solo and the bouldering grade in the new Rockfax is ill advised as it could lead folk into trouble, thinking the top is easier than it is.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yeah I guess there will always be plenty in no-man's land, it's what grit is all about. Did Finger Distance today which is just the same. E2 6b always seemed fine for Daydreamer, though it's been a while since I did it. Maybe E2 6a. No idea what font grade it would be but I think the sensible thing would be to give a higher font grade to take into account the length - as they do in font.

Agree Nightmare slab is a solo and should be described as such.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Perhaps my opinion is a bit out of place as I'm a few letters off needing to worry about any of the grades in question, but I think it'd be a shame if we start grading routes previously climbed as routes with bouldering grades. It seems to be a nod towards encouraging people to climb the route in poorer style than the first ascensionist - which is totally contrary to what we usually strive to do, isn't it?

In reply to tehmarks:

But what is the better style on these routes? Fawcett top-roped Careless Torque before the FA (and presumably fell off the start quiet a few times), now it's done ground up with pads. I don't have a view on what's better btw, I just go out climbing and do things the way that gives me the most fulfillment.

In reply to tehmarks:

Poorer style? No. Safer style, yes.

In reply to Adam Long:

just noticed this has changed to a V3, the landing is appalling and can't really be made safe even with a lot of pads and so should not be described as a boulder problem.

Certainly agree most people out bouldering/high balling don't have masses of pads probably 5 max and in most cases a lot less! and the guides should reflect this.

BMC guide books seem to already have solved this problem in general for example The Alliance V6 (E4 6B) to show it is usually bouldered out but is high enough to warrant a route grade and that even climbing it with pads as per the usual style it might still feel like soloing above pads. But routes with lower cruxs but are usually boulder out but lead to easier but have no fall off ground towards the top like D.I.Y. are E3 6a but it is noted in the text usually at the end that it can be high-balled or in the case of bold/no gear routes it is usually apparent from the description.

Noticed UFO at shining cliff in my mates rockfax guide is now apparently a boulder problem too, whilst the crux is fairly low its not that low and its 15 meters long in total

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Will you have some kind of grade cut-off, or is there an inevitable trickle down to lower grade mini-routes/problems? Al, after you kindly equipped me with both the Eastern Grit guide and the bouldering guide, I've been ticking my way solo through many easier micro routes at Burbage and Stanage, but I've noticed that many of the diddy routes at the popular end of Burbage, and some also at Stanage, are in both guides. I generally take the route guide as I (ridiculously, of course) feel much better getting home and ticking off ten "routes" in my logbook than I do ticking ten VB and V0 boulder problems!

While taking some family for a very blowy walk along the south end of Stanage last week I took the chance to quickly nip up The Real 20-foot Crack (VS 4c) while no one was looking. It's a nice climb, but although I can see why it gets VS, it is not really VS in the way Hargreave's Orig or Central Trinity are, let alone the Old Man of Stoer or Botterill's Slab! It is interesting that in the UKC logbook far more people have soloed it than have led it, and its even more if you note the people who have logged it as bouldered. The same is true for its almost namesake across at Burbage too.

Is it just that, as most people seem to think, low grades in bouldering tend to be a bit flakey that mean its better to call this VS than V0 (or whatever)? Because at least is the UKC logbook is taken to be representative, far more people seem to take The Real 20ft Crack as a highball problem not a route as such.

In reply to TobyA:

I quite like the idea of the same climb being a boulder problem in the bouldering guide and a route in the route guide, but the database won't allow for this.

I guess if you (and most people) are soloing this climbs (no mats/spotters) then they are routes even if they are short!


Chris

In reply to TobyA:

Real 20ft Crack is ace. And it's a route, albeit a short one (and so perhaps not quite VS given its stature). To me, a boulder problem is something you fall off and keep trying if you need to. While no one can be arsed to rack up for R20' that's because it's not in VS climbers' territory, rather it is surrounded by boulder problems and hard short routes. If you plonked it somewhere else, it'd get loads of roped ascents (and be polished). And again, V0- doesn't tell you that you need to be able to climb VS to get up it (think about how a V0- climber would fair on it!).

Next time you're passing, do Trainer Failure (VS 5a) and Easy Walling (V1) too. And Massacre (HVS 5c) and Mating Toads (E1 5c). And the lovely V3 arete, the little V2 dyno wall and a few of the other problems. A quality 1h fix of VS-V3 climbing on some of the best rock around. The grades above are what I think, not what's in the books - see who you agree with!

In reply to TobyA:
You are right but the reason is almost, certainly that the real 20 foot crack is the hardest for many a VS leader without the glory of the big name tick! The boulder traffic will be from very proficient jammers and better climbers. It retains a true dual identity as a perfect protectable VS micro-route and a very testing V0- 4c problem (I'm ok at 4c jamming and rarely have to think much on a V0- and it still raises the heart beat).

Someone mentioned UFO above... this and its neighbours do not require a finish of the full routes for the bouldering grade. Wet with Sweat is the hardest of the bunch (a hold broke on this around the time Froggatt was published).

In reply to Chris Craggs:


I've never really thought about it, but does something become bouldering only if you take a mat with you? On my Burbage sessions, I've not taken a mat but normally just because I can't be bothered lugging it along. Being generally quite a cautious/cowardly climber anyway, I am quite picky about what routes I will solo though - on the whole its cracks where I feel I can 'lock in'. I generally wear a helmet too, so both of those things point towards "climbing" I guess rather than "bouldering". I've done a few easy smeary slab things, but I tend not to enjoy them so much because I don't feel secure. And generally my approach is don't go up something where I'm not pretty convinced I can climb back down it again if need be, but then I tend to approach boulder problems with bad landings in the same way!

Nevertheless, I'm not sure the Real 20ft Crack would feel so different just because you put a mat under it. My point was more that if most people are "soloing" it, that it seems to be approached much more as a problem than as a route.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Is that the thin crack round to the left from R20'? If so I slipped off it last Wednesday, but as I didn't have a mat, plus my sister and bro-in-law were whining it was very cold and windy and wanted to go a cafe I didn't keep trying. But as I've already fallen off it, following your logic (which incidentally I think I fully agree with) I will call that one a boulder problem, because still being in the process of working a problem sounds so much better than failing on a route!

In reply to TobyA:
Well the bit of rock doesn't change - just the way you approach it I guess. I always thought of 'bouldering' as trying something hard, often repeatedly (no mats or spotters back then mind), and soloing as just going climbing!


Chris

In reply to TobyA:

Trainer Failure is the arete just L of R20'. It involves couple of long, locky rockover/stretches (hard 5a) between breaks and is great - feels HVS on solo but I guess the VS grade is correct because you could lead it if you were so inclined.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Spotting is nothing new: it has been used by some since the start of bouldering in the early parts of last century. Climbers often forget crack climbs were routinely unprotectable in the early days of climbing so the distinction between a route and boulder problem on something like 20 foot crack couldnt exist until the 60s.

In reply to TobyA:

"but does something become bouldering only if you take a mat with you?"

So no one went bouldering before the 1990s ? what were those guys doing in la Forêt all that time. Come to think of it, I've rarely bouldered either with that definition.

In reply to TobyA:

In Eastern Grit we will almost certainly have a grade cut-off at UK tech 5c. Routes below this will be given the trad grade HVS 5c, E1 5c etc. Above this we are proposing to use the Font grade.

For the routes like the one you mention, they obviously fall into two styles. Plenty of people lead 20ft Crack, many lead the Chant, but it also gets frequently soloed and bouldered above pads. The book that these are covered in can reflect the style.

Having said that we do have some problems currently in adapting the bouldering guidebook for there App, which is why the first version of the App won't have the Peak Bouldering guide in it.

Alan

In reply to MischaHY:

If it was an argument of safety, we'd all be top-roping. After all top-roping is a safer style than leading, no?

In reply to Offwidth:


The circles I moved in everyone stood back and watch you take you turn, then had a good laugh when you fell off and landed on your backside.


Chris

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

How close to needing a new Eastern grit are we, surely very few routes have changed, Is changing the grade just part of a reason for a new book to sell?

But back on topic, Is there really enough call for it to change, I'm only just getting into some intermediate stuff E1/E2s and as varied as i have found the grading I don't focus on it too much. Surely if you begin changing the tec grades on highballs its just one step closer to scraping the whole system due to grade confusion

In reply to Lukem6:


The previous version sold out a few months ago, we could reprint of course but where's the fun in that.

The new version is looking superb and massive too - at 560 pages it is the biggest book we have ever produced,


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

go on then tease me whats going to be new

In reply to Chris Craggs:




As big as some of the crags within

In reply to MischaHY:


Bancroft's onsight solo of Narcissus was inspired, truly brilliant.

An ascent above a stack of pads is run-of-the-mill.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Seems a very sensible solution as everyone seems to agree that Font grades make very little sense below 6A anyway, but it will no doubt be good fodder for us doing the lower the grades to gab about on UKC for years to come! BTW, I think I wimped out of 'bouldering' the Chant, but I may well have not had a mat or spotter at the time. One to try this spring once I get some afterwork sessions in again - looking forward to that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well it would have been inspired, truly brilliant... if he had onsight soloed it.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:


Ah! (Goes to check Peak Rock). So that was a comment in the old Froggatt guide about someone else's onsight repeat, not the FA - who was it?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Hey, no problems. I believe Alain (I think it was Alain) Gershen onsight soloed it. Apparently he was (is?) a momentously strong Font boulderer. I guess he regarded it as a highball, albeit with no mats or spotters.

Don't get me wrong, Steve was a fantastic climber and round about the time he did it, he'd gone up a notch further with a lot of time spent at the old Leeds uni wall. But you couldn't just head up there on hope and a prayer. For a start, you'd be mad not to solo Valkyrie and peer down at the finish (which, courtesy of the ethics police nowadays, would of course remove the onsight)! Even so, once you committed (sans mats/spotters) to something that might be too hard/impossible, it would be broken legs at least, probably a broken pelvis or worse.

At least Gershen knew it had been done, so that was something (not much!)

Gutsy climbing - from both of them.

Mick

In reply to Lukem6:


Every crag photo, every map, and around 1000 routes not previously covered in a Rockfax. Plus an overhaul of the text.

As Chris says, we could probably have reprinted this one, but our presentation style has moved on a lot since 2006 and I don't think reprints are really in the best interest of climbers in the long run. Sometimes they are unavoidable, but when we can do new editions, we do.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm just a little bit concerned about the type of ascent. Bouldering is meant to be projected (there aren't many people who do on-sight bouldering, are there?) while in trad "leader should never fall", hence the confusion.

I would say that the grade should be kept as in FA and then all alternative grades with suggestions should be mentioned in the description?

There are few routes with trad grade next to all bouldering problems and people I climbed with didn't really like my idea that you should use trad gear to protect "a bouldering problem with trad grade". I didn't read the description, so I can't remember what was that all about.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Will it come with a Sherpa to carry it? Or are we supposed to leave it at home for browsing, and all buy the App to take to the crag?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Fwiw, I reckon trad grades for trad problems and font grades in text. If something needs 15 pads to be tamed into a boulder problem then fair enough but I'm not a fan of Boulder route grades on things where it's only a boulder problem if you don't fall off.

This tends to be low grade affairs that are admittedly often / usually solid by folk operating far above the tech difficulty on offer, but giving e.g real 20 foot crack F4 instead of VS or even mating toads F5 instead of HVS will leave punters operating at those Boulder grades quite baffled.

Don't really know about the good climbers operating at the higher grades who go around with teams of pads but the most I have used is 2 or 3.

On which subject anyone seen what happens to the buck stone dyno with 10+ pads?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


It will be quite big - a sliver thicker than Peak Bouldering which is currently 1.03kg. Of course with gritstone you don't need to carry it up the route! Whether you buy the App version or not is entirely up to you.

Alan

In reply to Mutl3y:


I think Duncan's comment about 15+ pads has inadvertently given people the wrong impression. Yes that does happen but it isn't the norm. A small group with 2 or 3 pads is much more common and that is what we will be assuming.

Having said that it is worth noting that there are a few route/problems out there that were climbed above crash pads. Enterprise at Burbage, and Chequers Groove at Froggatt for example. Not sure if either of these have had second ascents above bouldering pads or not.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Fair enough about the 15 pads.

There are lots of blurry lines out there and this is just one I suppose. I can appreciate the challenge you have as a guidebook writer.....trying to incorporate the changing styles and so on into a single route style is difficult.

Often there will be people bouldering on Burbage North but these are usually competent climbers operating well within their ability, who would be doing it even without pads...the same folk as you will see soloing 15-20m things on stanage, perhaps with a bouldering mat far below (and not directly below either) that was used to keep the boots clean. Does this mean that they are also Boulder problems?

The point about crash pads from the old days....interesting.... I suppose at the time these would have been given hypothetical grades for an on sight without a crash pad?

In reply to Mutl3y:



What happens?

In reply to deacondeacon:

I guess it becomes the NTBDA (a riposte to NTBTA)... Not The Buckstone Dyno Anymore.

Mick

In reply to Mutl3y:


These are described with bouldering grades in the Peak Bouldering guide. However for this guide we will describe them with route grades since they are mostly below the Font 6A threshold.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

My opinion would be to leave them as trad grades.

Many of these routes are high enough to be serious propositions, even above a few pads. People who are capable of high balling the routes will know, for example, what E6 6c means. At the lower end of the grade spectrum, giving something like Trainer Failure at Stanage a V0 might give the impression that it is a small easy boulder, when it is actually a stiff VS with the crux at a worrying height above a poor landing and most VS leaders would not choose to solo/ highball it.

Also, keeping the trad grade gives a nod of respect to the first ascent which in some cases was soloed above a beer towel.

Thanks for asking

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


<off topic>
I think Peak Bouldering is generally alright at this thanks to the fluttery heart symbols, but it always does my head in when bouldering guides give no indication that a venue is almost entirely highball. Based on the Vertebrate book, it wouldn't be that unreasonable for a beginner to turn up expecting somewhere like the 20 Foot Crack area (okay, the name is perhaps a giveaway in this case) to be a good place for a bumbly first-timer to try some nice low-grade problems.

I'm not sure why something like the "mostly small" or "mostly highball" symbols in the purple font guide aren't quite a lot more common - possibly another symptom of "by local regulars for local regulars" syndrome?
</off topic>

In reply to Ramblin dave:


We were very conscious of this when putting Peak Bouldering together and paid particular attention to it with regard to the circuits. The aim was to try and avoid too many highballs in the green and orange circuits. A crag like Baslow for example, has plenty of lower grade problems/routes but they are all a bit high for people operating at those grades.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Interesting discussion Alan. As I’ve said many times on these threads over the years if we didn’t have grades to talk about climbing would be a much duller sport, particularly in the pub or to and from the crag in the car.
Grading has never been an exact science and there are many grey areas. It will probably be impossible to reach a consensus on many of these borderline highball ‘micro-routes’ for all the reasons previously stated. However, neatly sidestepping that branch of the debate, can I put in a plea for the abolition completely of V grades and the proper and sensible adoption of Font grades for easier problems.
I do appreciate that most serious ‘boulderers’ these days operate well above V1 and don’t consider anything much below Font 6a as worthy of attention but there are a lot of creaky old gits like me still out there enjoying the competition on easier problems and grades such as VB, V0- etc seem completely meaningless and de-motivating to me. The Font grade, however, if used properly works perfectly well down to Font 1 (or even Font 0) and usefully correlates much better to the old UK trad grades which helps us oldies much better make sense of this new game of naming and grading the old problems that many of us have climbed in apparent ignorance for the last 50 years.
Font 0 = Moderate
Font 1 = Diff
Font 2 = V.Diff
Font 3 = Severe (4b)
Font 4 = 4c
Font 4+ = 5a
Font 5 = 5b
Font 5+ = 5c
From 6a and above I’ll leave it to the younger generation.
Oh, and my second plea – Please ensure that all problems are given names. I really hate, for example, ACD P3 B7 on page 328.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

Tandem grades are a good idea,plus a little mention of risks that can be expected.Most important is to get either grade right.Not just reproducing grades from existing guides,but getting concensus from people who have done or are trying the routes/highballs.Local sandbag grades need to be updated,too.Stacks of mats really can reduce e grades by 2 grades,such as Big Air at Stanage.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

Trouble is you need to build from places like Yorkshire as the stuff at these grades in Font are all over the place and usually major sandbags (averaging more than a number undergraded because of polish and resistance to change old grades). The YMC were lucky they had folk who cared if something originally given Font 1 was really a 3+.

When I boulder indoors the most popular lines all seem to be V0- so guidebooks ignoring this are damaging future sales.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't really see that this is a massive problem, though? From the Peak, it's easier to get to Yorkshire than Font (or Hueco) if you want to compare stuff...

(I've got a similar rant to Dave's about walls who insist on using "V grades" and then use V0 and V1 for the beginners' jug ladders. Most of the arguments for using V-grades don't really hold up if you're going to distort the system beyond recognition anyway.)

In reply to Offwidth:


I don't agree with that Steve. Prospective guidebook buyers who climb around that grade indoors are surely more likely to be inspired by the overall presentation and a wider range of lower grades which should indicate that this guide has been produced by climbers who understand their needs rather than many bouldering guides in the past which have concentrated on the higher grade elite problems and just threw in a few token easy ones without any real checking or thought on grade progression.

I would have thought that Alan's guide writers would have learned from this over the years and, I'm sure realise that the biggest market for guide sales is amongst the lower grade new climbers. Even older climbers can be inspired by new names and sensible grade differentiation on old problems.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Pretty much no-one knows what these grades mean and you don't see it as a problem to use them? Even the YMC effectively made them up. I agree with the practical designations Dave makes but in practice one VDiff might have protected Uk 3c moves and another might have bold UK 2c moves, so even the YMC grades only align properly from UK 4a & 4b (which they called ~F3 & F3+... and which match well with the Peak VG grades). I still think for the moment a UK tech grade tells V0-/F1-3 punters more.

Indoor colour circuits have encouraged experimentation and detachment from grade obsession for beginners (a good thing in my view) even if the V grades are (as you say) wrong: usually by 2 to 4 notches overgraded cf V0 outdooors in the Peak or Yorkshire.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Except when V0- indoor boulders get inspired and move from indoor walls and use the UK or Fontainbleau guides they too often still don't work, as problems often feel desperate and dangerous. I'm very experienced and usually flash the odd F6a+ that suits me in a session and yet can still get nervous on Shipley Glen F3+ highball lines that I've done... so what do you expect beginners to think of them on a first visit? Climbing testing 4b moves at 6m is really VS leader territory even with a mat. On the U grades Moff and I invented to link into Peak V grades we decided to give such lines U9 4b or even V0 4c if the 4b moves were on the 4c border (our normal short U9 grade would be UK 5a).

Most outdoor users climbing near limits on lower grade problems still seem to me to be trad climbers. Some tell me this is not a bad thing, as too much traffic might trash the problems: the bad behaviour I see on on F5's and 6's (climbing damp grit, not cleaning shoes, over-brushing, over-chalking etc) certainly leaves much to be desired and problems are getting damaged much much faster than routes are.

In reply to Offwidth:

As I said earlier Grading is not and never will be an exact science and there will always be grey areas which guidebooks have the capacity to explain and point out on individual lines. Or in relation to whole sectors or crags like Shipley where nearly every climb falls right into that highball 'is it a route or a problem?' area.

New climbers may learn some techniques and get strong very quickly indoors but they have to acquire 'crag sense' outside through experience. Guidebooks can only do so much so all I'm really advocating is that an easily understandable grade progression is better, in my view, than VB, VO- VO+ etc.

I totally agree that there are, and probably always will be anomalies in any system and I know we haven't got it consistently right in the new Yorkshire guides but I think we've made a step in the right direction. With time and many new editions down the line we may eradicate many of the wobbly F3+ highballs which really should perhaps have a duel grade or at least a universally understood symbol to indicate that the hard moves are near the top.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:
I think the Yorkshire guides have done a great job but I just don't think Font grades help V0- boulders as much as they are claimed to. Maybe in 10 years if they have been adopted more uniformly they might but for the moment I still think a UK tech grade is more likely to be helpful. Once we are moving up through and above the F6's, Uk tech grades become pretty useless.

Shipley is a great place and has a very honest introduction emphasising the scary feel for lower grade climbers. I reclimbed all the problems to 3+ (and easy looking 4's that might be 3's) in a day to check my own views for the chapter feedback. It's not the grades that are wrong it's what is meant by a Font grade that we maybe need to change (ie allowing for the landing at lower grades)...even yellow and orange circuit highballs at Font usually get graded a bit softer.

A big concern of mine is how do we make guidebooks assist the development of crag sense and good practice as climbers move from indoors. I think the BMC, VG and YMC guides that I've been lucky enough to be involved with have really helped but there is still a more obvious 'gap' for those who wish to transition at V0-. Tweaks like adding a grade to lower grade highballs or putting more 'starting off outdoors at low grade' comments in the guidebook introductions would help. Rockfax also seem to be doing a good job (rare exceptions aside, on venues like The Woolpacks where I have issues) and the twin grade system does seem to work (V/UK trad for lower grade and Font for higher grade).

In reply to Offwidth:


Agreed, but on the basis that its nice to leave things a bit better than you found them it seems sensible to try to use Font grades consistently across all grades with an easy-to-find conversion table to show how they map to UK tech grades at the low end. Then a few years down the line, you might actually end up closer to having a single grading system that actually works for all grades of bouldering, rather than exactly the same mess that we've got now...

You never know, if it catches on then someone might even produce a font guide where the low-end grades make sense!

In reply to Offwidth:


Agree with this, although arguably the way forward here is for guides to make the highball-factor obvious in the extra information attached to the problem (like the rockfax fluttery heart symbols, like the Fontainebleau Climbs per-area exclamation mark symbols) rather than trying to include it in the grades.

I need to revisit this thread since we have changed our minds again.

It proved to be too difficult to assign dual E grade and Font grade to highballs. As some had spotted, there are too many routes/problems that fall into a grey zone. What was more difficult though was realising that there are loads of other routes on the edges which have no gear, are potential highballs, but haven't been done for whatever reason be it a bad landing or just never having been tried.

So we are reverting to plan A - list with route grade, but include highball Font (only, no V grade) grade in the description.

What do people reckon about including lower grade problems with UK Tech grades, or Font grades as suggested by Dave above?

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I would go with UK tech grades, everybody is familiar with the system and it is used throughout the rest of the book,


Chris

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Like Dave said - stick to font grades for problems and try to get some consistency into the system.

(At my local wall, for a while, all the V0 problems had an eng tech grade too - from 4b to even a 5c once. Too complicated even if it works, the font system can at least go low enough...)

In reply to Chris Craggs:

If you're talking about the bouldering grade in the description it definitely shouldn't be english tech which a huge majority of people not from a trad background aren't familiar with at all. Conversely people do know font bouldering grades and they are easily convertable to indoor v-grades. It makes sense to use font for the highball description.

In reply to Removed User:


I think you are wrong there. The vast majority of climbers who go to the Popular End of Stanage are very familiar with UK Tech grades, but not very familiar with Font grades. They may know V grades from their local wall.

The bouldering grade I am talking about is the main grade, the one listed with the route next to the route name. In the Rockfax Peak Bouldering guide we listed these as V1 5b or the like. I am now proposing to list boulder problems as either just 5b or alternatively Font 5 (as per Dave's table above). Harder boulder problems will be listed as 7B+, etc. with a capital letter to distinguish it from a sport grade.

This will mean the complete dropping of the V system in the book.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Font grades all the way- I don't think UK tech is that useful and by using font grades we can begin to get a consensus in the UK, where font is way more useful than V's.

I think its well worth starting to correct the ridiculous situation created by wall across the country where V grades are inflated, leaving people no idea what to expect outside. using font across the board has to start somewhere, if not here, why not and when?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

What's going on with the logbooks? Some things show up as one grade in the logbook but a different grade when you click on it. And some have lost their tech grades all together. eg Art of White Hat Wearing at Curbar shows up as V8 in logbooks but E5 / font 8a when you click on it. I've made this point before, but when a problem changes from a font grade to V grade, or vice versa, all the votes are lost and you can't vote again because you have already voted.
Font grades in the descriptions are sensible. I've got a big list of routes with highball grades if it's any use.

Oh and is Rivelin Quarries going in the new edition? Best crag that wasn't in the original

In reply to mark20:




Don't know about the grade problems but Rivelin Quarries aren't in. I had a mooch round the right-hand end and centre last spring and it didn't look like anyone had been there for years - totally overgrown,


Chris

In reply to mark20:


There is some confusion at the moment and hopefully this debate will have helped iron out our strategy so that we can construct a better system.

The votes aren't lost as such, they just get assigned to the older grade. They will re-appear if the grade is switched back. This is why you can't re-vote however that is a bit rubbish if you had an opinion on an E grade which now turns into a Font grade. So it needs sorting as well.


That would be very useful - alan [at] rockfax.com

Alan

In reply to mark20:

Hi Mark, the logbook pages shows the old UKC grade but the single climb and crag pages shows the Rockfax grades. I'll update that tomorrow. I'll try and squeeze in an update to the voting too so it doesn't matter if you've voted for V or font before - It will merge the 2 sets of votes together.

The Art of White Hat Wearing (f7B) should probably have a boulder grade in the Rockfax database tbh though.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

( mark20: > What's going on with the logbooks? Some things show up as one grade in the logbook but a different grade when you click on it.)

Take a look at the last climb I bothered to log as a case of this. Says 4a on my profile but 5a on the climb (5a in the rockfax guide) and there's more than a few others, as Mark has pointed out. Nothing to do with the voting really - I'm guessing data entry issues?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think UK tech grades for everything up to say VS/HVS/font 5 sort of level and an E grade with a font grade in the description or wherever for highballs would make sense

In reply to Chris Craggs:
I disagree
English tech doesn't work with boulder problems as they are not applied in the same way

for example, it was generally agreed on ukb that f6C+ is the start of English 6c, yet they don't appear in the BMC guides until around V8

though if they were correct, I think it would be useful!

In reply to ashtond6:

Really? ...UK tech 6c is centred between V7 and V8 on the BMC grade tables. Maybe most examples you are thinking of happen to be sustained UK 6b moves. How about some examples of 6C+ with easy 6c moves that currently get 6b.

In reply to Alan

Sticking to UK tech for the moment for F5 and below would be the safer option. If you do change: for highballs, use Dave's system to translate the grades from UK tech and if in any doubt on borders always go for the higher notch to be on the safe side. In contrast to ex0 I think hardly anyone understands low grade Font as there is simply no measurement standard and no exempler outside the few local UK adjusted versions, like that on grit (I've not checked enough Lancs stuff to judge as yet). VG took two editions to get peak lower grades to settle down and the YMC had some of the few checkers with a system who could judge and I bet there will be plenty of grade changes on lower grade problems in less popular venues for the next editions.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Shame, I guess the best way of keeping them that way is to leave them out of the guide! The good routes get cleaned and done periodically - as posted on UKB recently.

In reply to Adam Long:

Maybe one needs technical highballers eyes.... since Burb Infinity was published the better lines there nearly always looked OK to me, indicating some reasonable traffic (except of course any of the easier lines)

In reply to Adam Long:

I should have checked the thread on UKB.... even some mortal's routes have been cleaned recently according to Mark20.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,12998.50.html