UKC

I started climbing around 1980 with EBs, a Whillans Harness (eventually), some second hand stoppers a few slings and a shared rope. In the intervening time, we've had sticky boots, rocks on wire (other brands are available), skinny ropes, cams, lightweight high performance everything. Also in the intervening time we've had the development of training methods, facilities and access.
I was looking at the graphs for average grades over the years, and the current averages for trad (HS) and sport (6a) are lower now than back in the day. I'm interested to see what the UKC collective thinks are the reasons for this, given that, for example, the most climbed on rock (grit) is safer now than it ever was when routes were being put up by plumbers and roofers with no gear in plimsoles.
What do you think?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Mass marketisation. Increasing lack of boldness for those with some talent. More alternatives (bouldering, indoor walls , UK sport, cheap overseas climbing hols).

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

There's much more diversity in the kinds of people who climb,lots of casual climbers and a lot of people who do it for fitness as well.my personal excuse is the fact I can't afford time off as I'm self employed and a complicated injury could in essence cost me my house so any bold routes just aren't worth it tbh.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

The improvement in kit makes it more accessible to the less able.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


The recent logs include a much wider range of climbers since those that have recorded their climbing on UKC from years ago are generally the lifetime keen climbers. On the whole they will be better climbers than those who do a bit during a keen period but then move on to other things.

Alan

In reply to galpinos:


That about sums it up.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


You mean the UKC graphs? I don't think they can show anything but about historic trends as people retro logging routes are likely to be just remember their best ones from days gone past.

In reply to galpinos:

Pretty much the above.... I'm keen but I'm pretty crap. I'm not sure I would have been able to stay on the rock or alive long enough in the less pampered days...

Also I never would have found any climbs as I am rubbish at reading route descriptions so photo topos are a god send.

I'm not a weekend warrior but a weekend bimbler, but I still enjoy it

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

It's probably the increased numbers. As you say, it used to be a sport almost solely for serious participants, whereas these days plenty of punters (like me) can now safely get involved.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Some good points already made. In general, more new people arriving all the time = lower average level of experience. Plus, as others have already said, to stick at climbing years ago you had to be substantially less risk-averse than the average bod, and that is much less the case these days.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):


The History sections in some of the guidebooks scare the crap out of me. There's one in The Roaches guide showing a belayer sat near the top of the crag with just a body belayer, not one bit of gear between the two of them!

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Possibly far more 'casual' participants nowadays Paul?

If you strip these out of the numbers, you may find that whilst average grades haven't increased to the degree you would expect with all the modern gear, it hasn't gone down either amongst serious long term climbers.

I'm a child of the era when running it out above gear in knackered EB's held together with gaffa tape, and a few crappy old nuts, was a normal day out on the crag

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Average grades are exactly that, not the average highest grade. My average grade jumps around from s/hs but it's not a representation of my level of climbing at all, just my average grade.

In reply to deacondeacon:

Agreed. I've just had a nice few days bouldering around some of the crags I used to climb on a lot in Yorkshire. A pair of boots; no mat, no chalk. If I log that activity I'll probably drag the average grade down quite a bit

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Actually, 1980 marked a point at which climbing development plateau'd out. If you think about it historically:

Nylon ropes - 1940's
Rock Shoes (P.A.s) - early 50's
Machine nuts on slings - late 50's
Alloy karabiners, hard steel pegs - early 60's
Alloy nuts on slings, nylon tape slings, technical grades - mid 60's
Climbing walls - mid 60's
Nuts on wire - late 60's
Harnesses, systematic training - early 70's
Belay plates, general use of chalk, harness design frozen at present pattern - mid 70's
Cams - late 70's

Since when it's just been tweaks. Ropes, krabs, nuts, slings, cams - all are lighter and sweeter to use, but they're still ropes, krabs, nuts, slings and cams.

Even the advantages of sticky rubber are overrated in my opinion. I've not noticed any great difference between climbing on the Etive slabs in the 60's and nowadays, a crag which some people thought would no longer be worth visiting when Fire's came out.

Also, the modern indoor scene, through which many people start climbing, has imposed a spurious structure to the activity as an expectation of the need for training as people move from indoor top-roping, to indoor leading, to "moving outdoors" (gulp), with more top-roping, single-pitch to multi-pitch etc. No wonder the average punter is put off progressing.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

There´s also a demographic with those most likely to have a logbook (and put VDiffs in it). Keen starter climbers are more likely to do so than old gits like me, if I put 40 years worth of E´s into the logbooks and my contempories did as well the stats would look different

In reply to Andy Long:

I think modern shoes make a huge difference. Not necessarily on slabs, it isn't just about the rubber.

In reply to jimtitt:

... and people doing harder sport climbing might be more likely to maintain their logs on 8a.nu than on ukc.

In reply to AlanLittle:


Go wash your mouth out

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

The crags are much busier now. So we end up climbing more lower grade routes because there are more of them and they are free.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Up to about VS is attainable by most people who climb fairly regularly, and doesn't need you to be particularly strong or fit, or have great technique or be very brave. Modern footwear helps, but the advantage isn't that great when you consider that these grades were routinely climbed in big boots (just look at the photos in the original Classic Rock). Modern pro gives a psychological boost, but most climbers at these grades have no intention of falling off so it doesn't get tested often. Then as now, the large number of climbers who are content simply to get out when they can will climb at this level and aren't willing to make the extra commitment needed to go beyond. It's entirely possible to have a thoroughly enjoyable and long climbing career at these grades.

What modern gear and training have done is allow those who do want to make the extra commitment to get into the harder grades which were once the preserve of the elite. There is a second peak in the graphs at around E2 which reflects this.

In reply to AlanLittle:


True.

I remember when you bought your EB's a size to big so you could wear a thick pair of socks. Fine when it was cold, but when it got hot, it was funny to see climbers wearing just shorts, but with a thick pair of socks rolled down to the ankles - and the smell?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Could it be that the internet and photo topo guidebooks have opened up climbing to occasional climbers like myself rather than it being limited to small groups of dedicated enthusiasts and established clubs who showed each other where to climb and how to climb. Improved gear probably also helps as people who don't want to dice with death can now happily climb E1 or higher in relative safety.

In reply to Goucho:

Hi Goucho, what kicked this thread off was me having a gear clear out and tidy up yesterday. I found most of my original rack, including a bunch of rigid stem Friends which I bought in about '82. They've been re-tatted a few times with nylon tape and a tape knot and are really still good to go. I remember what a transformation they were, esp on grit.
I guess I naively expected that with the improvements in gear combined with the opportunity to climb and train whenever you want, that the avge grade would be above HS now. I do take on board the vagaries of the logbooks and what gets put in can historically make them unreliable for extracting trends. Nonetheless I was surprised.
I certainly see a lot less lobbing at the crag these days, which isn't going to get you an onsight, but certainly allows you to push your limits and builds real confidence in your gear. Fuzzy memory time now, but I seem to remember a kind of theory amongst the group I climbed with in the early 80s that falling/dogging/yoyoing while not ideal, really improved your overall onsight grade because you were really pushing yourself. There were lots of people I knew back then who were on-sighting well into the E grades within their first year of climbing. I certainly remember awards in Uni clubs for the "lobbing lemmings" who had clocked up the most air time in a season, one friend of mine claimed to have got acute jet lag.
Ps I am in no way suggesting that harder is 'better' and it's all about enjoyment.
PPs I had a pair of gaffa taped up Hawkins Rockhoppers before my first pair of EBs!

In reply to Oujmik:


Most E1s that are safe now were already safe with late 70s gear. Cams (which already existed in the late 70s but were esoteric & rare) made a lot less difference in typical UK climbing than in Yosemite/Utah style perfectly parallel cracks.

(Speed of placement on harder stuff, sure. But actual ability to get a placement or not on HVS-to-low-extremes? Not so much)

In reply to Goucho:

You're kidding!

In reply to AlanLittle:

My "comfortable" grade in 1966 was E2. My "comfortable" grade today is, guess what, E2. There was a time when sports climbing and indoor climbing raised me to the lofty heights of E4 but I think it was mainly because it allowed me to get the mileage in regardless of the weather. I have never trained as such at least not in a structured way.

When I look around the major, poular crags, those with a spread of grades, I still seem to see most climbers operating at VS and below so it doesn't surprise me that the average has not moved much although I would have expected improved protection and the availability of indoors would have raised that. Back in the day I think that only seriously dedicated (my wife would say obsessive) climbers managed the E's.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


Found a load of mine a few months back too - it certainly was a trip down memory lane


After a long lay off, when I started getting out again a few years ago, I too was surprised on a trip to Stanage to see queues for the same old mid grade routes, and the standard extremes we climbed regularly back in the day, deserted.


Never got into the 'flight time' theory to improve your grade - probably my lack of balls.



Never had Hawkins, but Uncle Brian (Cropper) did sell me a pair of MOAC Gollies once - god they were awful.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Not sure if using the data from UKC is truly representative for a number of reasons.
Beginners are more likely in their enthusiasm to log anything and everything. More experienced climbers retrospectively filling out a logbook, will probably not bother with the 'easy' stuff.
UKC tends to cater for a certain type of climber. Take a sample from UKBouldering (appropriate PPE required...) and you might well get a different result.

Additionally, there might well be a geographic bias. Grit is particularly suited to beginners with it's ease of top roping and it's proximity to large populations. So, at a casual glance, the average does indeed seem the same or perhaps even lower.
However, go to somewhere like Pembroke and the story is different.

In reply to jon:
Life in general is a lot more risk averse now and back in the day there wasn't the alternative of climbing indoors or sport routes which also I find lower trad grade leading
At one time It was common to see people on most E5,s on High Tor and on sight but no longer. People go to High Tor R H which we ignored as crap
So really the various forms of climbing are different sports. I personally find lying on the ground and slotting myself on my back under an overhang to attempt a problem weird but as I am now ancient I like sports climbs but would love to climb back up the traddy grades Probably won't happen!

In reply to deacondeacon:


Exactly. You can't go by the average grade climbed, you have to look at the average max grade. In a typical day out at the crag folk usually do a fair number of routes at a level below their max, and only one or two at or near the max, and that's only if they're going well and the route suits them etc.

In reply to FactorXXX:



The average sport grade for 8a nu is around 7a+, for UKC it´s 6a+.
Clearly the data is only for people using UKC logbooks and has no other relevance, Pedestal Crack at Swanage must have had more than 303 ascents/descents, its the easy way down at Subluminal

In reply to FactorXXX:


Their 2014 survey was hardest grade climbed not average, but the "average max" was around 7c.

As many people have said "average" of the entire database is pretty meaningless; most people mostly climb routes well below their limit. I can redpoint 7a with a bit of work, but most of the routes I do - warming up, warming down, long multipitch days, days when I'm not feeling up to trying hard etc etc - are around 6a/b.

In reply to rocksol:




High Tor RH was crap. Wezzy Wonks and MUGS Route. I used to go to High Tor a lot, and it really wasn't unusual to have ropes cross-crossing the main face like a topo diagram. Coming up Delicatessent and waiting for some room to be freed up on the Debauchery ledge. Like you say, there were stacks of teams on the harder Es like Pillar Direct and Supersonic.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Exactly the same thing in running. I was looking at results from a local 10 miler from 1985. Proper talented fell runner I know (still running, went on to get an England vest at vet level) was languishing in the bottom half of the results with a 56 min run. These days that would be top handful in a local race, winner if you pick the right race.

Back then and you ran/climbed, it was probably your thing to the exclusion of most other things, you were a bit of an oddball, dedicated. Nowadays we tend to dabble more - climbing, running, biking and spread ourselves thinner. The British marathon record is nearly 30 years old now.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

And whats the average age? When I go out it seems to be 40+. When you go to a wall and talk to the younger set, they boulder and don't climb. One even asked if you can use all the holds on a route outside!! I blame grade conversions; if you can climb F6b inside, I could seriously stitch you up on a HVS. Theres no apprenticeship, so climbers like Wsdconst think the apparent danger is not worth it. Bet he drives tho'! We are losing the idea that we can risk manage.
Chris

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

People just have a much worse base fitness.

When I was a boy/teenager we used to walk/bike everywhere. All the time.

I went for a walk up a local hill this morning. People were out of breath just walking up it.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Just been looking back through some old diaries and guidebooks Paul, to see what routes were my first at a new grade, and it makes for interesting reading, as nearly all my grade increases were on grit - and usually Stanage. I'm sure at that time, grit grades were seen as harder than Wales and the Lakes.

1st V Diff - Robin Hoods Right Hand Buttress Direct.
1st Severe - Hargreaves Route, Black Slab.
1st VS - High Neb Buttress.
1st HVS - Congo Corner
1st XS (this is pre E-grades) Desperation.

These were all early to mid 70's, and none of them what you'd call a soft touch at the grade. But they were also nothing special either within my extended circle at that time.

come on, this whole thread is just a good excuse for old duffers to have there say about how much better it was in their day

I've been for a walk along Stanage today and admittedly haven't seen anyone on anything harder than E2 but what do you expect on a warm bank holiday Monday at Stanage. I've only been climbing a few times recently but I've seen people sport climbing in the 8's at Cheedale, 7C bouldering in Toms Roof at Stoney and Pete Whittaker having a crack at clipperty clop at Ramshaw, even indoors at Awesome Walls there was a girl of about 14/15 climbing a 7c, I'm sure that would have been a rare sight back in the good old days.

In reply to deacondeacon:
Things were differnt when I started in the late 80s. On the big name grit, crags a much greater proportion of climbers were on extremes (Id say the number of climbers has increased and those on harder routes have dropped).

In reply to Offwidth:

Perhaps this is because a lot of the people climbing harder things go elsewhere these days, rather than because they don't exist.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I haven't read a single reply to this topic so apologies if this has already been said.

But it seems obvious to me. More people climb now. Most (like me) are part time amateurs. This brings the average down. In the 80's I would imagine it was a much smaller, more fringe sport. Thus the majority of climbers were more dedicated, meaning they climb more often and at a higher level.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

You can't compare the performance of the masses who have been attracted to climbing in recent years (simply because it is so much more convenient and accessible) to the exploits of the elite of the sport (?) at the time. The current elite level is still moving upwards, even if the mass participation 'average' is dropping.

In reply to neilwiltshire:

In the 1980s the disciplines of sport climbing and bouldering were in their infancy - all that most climber did was trad, possibly with a summer Alpine trip thrown in. Nowadays, many of the climbers who would have been engaged in high-standard trad are either boulderers or sport climbers.

In reply to John2:

Thats part of Alan's "elsewhere"... it's certainly not all trad elsewhere as I know the elsewhere venues as well . I think there is a clear decline in the numbers pushing hard on the low extremes, even as modern gear and training has allowed improvements for the same native ability. There are honourable exceptions of course.

In reply to Offwidth:

I can't really comment on the eighties as I was just a baba and the only thing I'd climbed was jacks rake in my wellies

But look at the top ascents thread this week
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=615097
A selection of mostly unsponsored climbers getting out there and smashing it, and this isn't particularly special, just a wet week in April.

Yes there's a lot more punters (arent we all) climbing the classics at Stanage and Birchen but isnt there also more people on the harder stuff too?

In reply to deacondeacon:
The elite are better than they have ever been, but the typical top ascents are not so special...my most talented mates were doing E5 ascents (onsight where possible) in the 90s on a good week. In any case its the low extreme leading weekend warriors that I said seem to be in decline.

The trad part of the list is impressive but mainly down to tumle, does anyone know him,.. he looks like he might be a logbook troll.

In reply to Andy Long:



Absolutely. I started rock climbing in 1980 and and I am basically just using updates of the same gear now. There have been no revolutions.

In reply to Orgsm:


Some are, but some are less busy. Crags and climbing types come into and go out of fashion.

In reply to Offwidth:


Could the explanation be that modern gear, climbing walls etc allows many of those who are able to get into the low extremes to push on fairly quickly into the mid-extremes?

The historical graphs don't really show it, but I suspect that in the past the grade distribution would be a normal bell curve, peaking at around Severe and tailing off into what are now the mid-extremes. Now the graphs show a double-bell curve, with one peak still at around Severe-VS and another at around E2. There's now a greater gulf between those who regard climbing as a recreational activity and those who treat it as a sport and are prepared to put more effort and commitment into it. The improvements in gear, training etc disproportionately benefit the latter group. I write as one who is firmly in the former!

In reply to deacondeacon:


Since most of them are claiming to have started climbing in the 80's they're just bairns rather than old duffers!

For those who started in the 60's there was a revolution over the ensuing 15 years. Gear changed enormously. And 'unprotected' slabs started leaping up in grade

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I suggest that this is simply a statistical problem.

lets say that that the achievement grade distribution assumes a gaussian distribution and has a mean in 1970 of HS and a standard deviation of 1 grade . the tails of the distribution stretch from diff to 'Swanage HVS'

By 2015 the number of people climbing has increased. The tails of the distribution have spread upwards, but not downwards. The number of people attaining higher than HVS is however tiny so the skewness of the distribution is very small. Consequently the mean grade attained is still HS.

I'd say that the quality of gear has absolutely no effect as in any era the gear in use is the latest and greatest. SO who would be put off by the gear? Its the exposure that stops people achieving higher grades. Sport climbing, bouldering, climbing walls and gear do absolutely nothing to prepare one for the shock of exposure on self placed gear. Therefore no increase in grade should be expected.

In reply to mutt:

Sport climbing, bouldering, climbing walls and gear do absolutely nothing to prepare one for the shock of exposure on self placed gear. Therefore no increase in grade should be expected.

This, I would say, is a very modern perspective. Those brought up on a more traditional walking / scrambling to climbing apprenticeship do not seem to suffer any "shock of exposure" - in fact compared to scrambling its diminished !

In reply to GrahamD:

I could be wrong but I'm not sure he means 'exposure' so much as boldness, i.e. having to climb above gear.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't perceive low extreme leaders to be in decline. See plenty at the crags. Maybe mid-extreme? Your E5 onsighting mates would be a good example.

In reply to galpinos:

Hooray for that - priceless memories and I never got past VS.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I'm not sure I buy this boldness thing either. Bolted routes are way more run out than many trad routes where you can often just plug in gear to order. What I would buy is that there has somehow grown up a mystique about placing your own gear which simply isn't warranted.

In reply to Offwidth:


Agreed, at least from my (admittedly limited) experiences on Peak Grit over recent years.

Masses of climbers on Diff - VS routes; a much smaller, but reasonable number doing the HVS - E2 classics; a growing minority headpointing E6 and above.

From E3 to E5 there seems to be a massive decline going on in the sort of on-sight/no big deal activity I used to witness on a regular basis many years ago.

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far on the thread is the impact of bouldering. Many younger climbers appear to prefer getting their technical difficulty fix above crashpads...

Pete.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Meh. Seems reasonable to me that people roughly climb the same as 'they used to'. How much faster can the average person run now compared to 50 years ago? or with any sport, technology aside

In reply to jsmcfarland:


I would guess the average club runner is faster now than 50 years ago (because training has got better) but would be interested to know.

It's true that since about 1980 climbing gear hasn't improved dramatically but the opportunities to train and practice year round have expanded enormously.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indeed. I often feel that for many training (walls, weights, bouldering, sport climbing etc) has replaced trad climbing for the greater part of their career.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:



I think that's true but it is still quite surprising that there aren't more people who have utilised their better fitness and training to improve their trad grades. My anecdotal judgement is that there are no more people climbing even the low E grades, let alone the mid E grades, than in the early 80s (and quite a few of those are the same people as in the 1980s!!)

In reply to Postmanpat:


You'd think, but everything you read about the subject, including higher up on this thread, suggests the opposite.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
The reason the average grades are low is that there are just so many more people climbing 'a bit' as people have more leisure time now and better info to decide what to do with it; plus of course walls provide a way in to climbing that didn't exist in the past.

But I don't think UK climbing can have gone down the pan. As an 'average plodder' climbing a lot when life is amenable to it, going to Pembroke and Gogarth and working my way through the classics up to E3ish, it still feels like all the good climbers are on the E5s and I'm a bit shit. So things can't be in terrible decline...

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think there's perhaps more easily accessible rewards in bouldering and sport - especially if you're an achievement focused (grade chasing) type. Whereas to apply your fitness and strength to trad requires more free time, more hurdles to overcome. For me the rewards of trad are greater but that's not going to apply to everyone at all - many people find a much greater reward in climbing something really really hard after a lot of work than waiting for the stars to align to onsight that one route you've been thinking about trying for years.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

For grade chasing 'rewards', surely trad is one of the easier options? I mean to be climbing E2 is respectable enough, while if you say you boulder V4 it comes across as being pretty easy (which it ain't!)

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Horses for courses Jon. But whatever the current trend, the great trad routes are still out there for those looking for that special trad magic - apart from the ones covered in crap because they haven't been climbed in years

In reply to Goucho:

You may have noticed I put up a in memoriam photo for Martin Harris. The first time I climbed with him was in 1968 when I met him in Ynys. He took me up Nexus, Vember, the Boulder, the Great Corner
on Llech Ddhu via Central Route, the Great Buttress on Cyrn Las in 4 days. Do they make the like that today? I was of course very much the second.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I think if you're say, a teenager starting out, you can get very easily to V4 by climbing a lot indoors. Many will do this in much under a year. At that age, it seems that V7 is achievable in just a couple of years of climbing a lot down the wall. While anyone's first few outings on rock are going to feel hard if they've learned indoors, it's not going to take much experience - possibly even just a handful of trips - to utilise the strength and technique on boulders and sport.

Trad on the other hand might seem easy if you've been doing it for yonks. An E2 may not be very physically demanding compared to a V4, as you point out. But it generally takes a lot more mileage on rock to be climbing E2s, and an awful lot more to be consistent on them. As for getting up E5s, that really takes some dedication, and not dedication to the wall/fingerboard.

In reply to GrahamD:

Boldness is not the same thing as run out-ness. Proper sport climbers will miss clips and nonchalantly run it out and take huge whippers with no fear or risk. Some trad routes will have short but bold, dangerous runouts.

In reply to jcw:


Great routes, and still big ones in 68 too - I still remember my first trip to Llech Ddhu on a typically atmospheric day (wet) to do Great Corner - they were routes you aspired too, and they very rarely disappointed.

For me, there's something of an 'event' about climbing the great trad routes, irrespective of grade, and the memories last longer too. I wonder whether the history and folklore surrounding such routes, was as much a part of the experience, as the climbing itself?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The trouble is that people also grow older and usually less bold at the same time - I am certainly stronger and fitter than I was in the mid '80's, but still climbing approximately the same grades; it's just that I am now a pussy and tend to push my grade on pumpy well protected stuff rather than bold routes.


My thoughts entirely. The norm used to be to just go to the crag and onsight stuff. Now there are too many subsports and distractions/excuses.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Also, maybe all the training and science has taken away some of the passion needed to climb harder E grades on a regular basis?

Enthusiasm and desire tend to be pretty important for harder trad routes.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I see it like this; Until around the early 1990s There were very few good indoor walls for training, bouldering guides and bouldering grades didn’t exist, bouldering mats hadn’t been invented and sport climbing at amenable grades in Britain was very much in its infancy and not many of us took regular winter trips to sport crags overseas. Therefore most rock climbers in Britain were, per se, trad climbers and most of those with any ambition aspired to climb, classic Extremes particularly those illustrated so vividly in magazines and glossy books like Hard Rock and Extreme Rock etc.
From the 1990s onwards a lot of E2/3 climbers realised that they could easily climb sport routes up to around 6c and with a change of mindset could get a lot of satisfaction pushing their sport grade through the 7s in greater safety than they could push their trad grade. New, wall trained climbers began to demand more lower grade sport routes for their transition to the outdoors (also, a sport climbing single rope and quick-drawers being much cheaper than the full-racks of cams, nuts and micro wires we older climbers had acquired over time). The bouldering revolution also began with big numbers in the various bouldering grading systems being available to those who got strong on the plastic of indoor walls and cellar boards in their own homes. Now there were classic named boulder problems to tick in specialist bouldering guides and big soft pads to fall onto rather than the traditional car mat or beer towel. It was also a very sociable game – ideal for the social-media generation –easy to photograph and video.
Winter trips to Spain became cheaper and more popular introducing more trad climbers to the more laid-back and relaxed arena of quick-tick clip-ups.
Therefore rock climbing as we knew it in previous decades evolved in the 1990s from the traditional game we all once played to effectively 3 more specialist disciplines of Sport Climbing, Bouldering and (still popular with some) Trad, but only in largish numbers with those operating up to VS and with a much smaller elite group at the very top end of the grade spectrum. The E2 to E5 hard-core aspirants of the 1970/80s doesn’t seem to have been replaced by the follow on generations.
Does any of this really matter? I think not, Our traditions are well documented and something to be proud of. They can still be followed by those who wish to do so and who are prepared to put in the effort. The new kids on the block are free to choose how they enjoy our great variety of rock types mountains and cliffs and all the disciplines mentioned are interchangeable. Whatever the UKC stats seem to indicate my experience is that the average climber today is certainly climbing harder moves than the average climber of 30 years ago, just not as often in life threatening situations.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Very good summary Dave - much more balanced perspective than the "E2 on grit was the be all and end all for us so it should be for everybody always" brigade.

I think the "life threatening situations" get played up too much though. I enjoyed the odd life threatening situation in my youth, mostly on slabs, but I also remember finding my first encounters with sport climbing terrifying because you actually had to go above the gear on steep ground. Whereas in normal low to mid grade trad climbing you can pretty much plug gear in front of your nose wherever you feel the need. Provided that you have the large collection of expensive gear and experience of how to use it, as you already pointed out.

Also: (not in reply to Dave but as a general point) you don't know how lucky you are in the UK. On the continent we have idiots arguing that existing bold routes are an anachronism and should be made safe, and that putting up and documenting new bold routes so that people might want to go and repeat them is irresponsible. And these bedwetters get published in the DAV magazine, so they're not just a tiny lunatic fringe. Thank God we also still have people like Hans-Jörg Auer prominently spitting in the face of such ideas.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Whilst this is true, there are still plenty of trad routes that don't - if that sort of thing is not your bag. With guidebooks as good as they are now its not hard to identify the safe routes from the potential chop routes.

All this is a bit different to what I think the post I replied to was asserting - that people were afraid to move above good gear, whereas they weren't afraid to move above bolts (unless I completely misread it). This I think is a modern affliction where the predominant route to outdoor climbing seems to be through learning at walls rather than via scrambling etc.

In reply to GrahamD:


I suspect that the opposite is at least as often true; that many people (often those who have come new to trad via sport) seem to have undue faith in their gear placements and treat them as if they were a bolt rather than with due suspicion both of the placement and their ability to place the gear optimally.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

My hunch would be that if you plotted the grades and numbers of people climbing those grades you'd find it pyramid shaped - in 1980 it was a smaller based pyramid, with steeper sides in 2015 the base is 10x wider, the peak is 5 grades higher but the sides are less steep, hence the middle of the pyramid hasn't moved up much.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Great sounding theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. At least, taken literally )

http://www.gordonstainforth.co.uk/images/climbingstandards1980-2015theory.j...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You need to look at dividing your pyramids into equal areas, and making the larger pyramid's sides less steep. Also the range of grades in 1980 was Mod - E6, in 2015 the range is Mod - E11, so the heights are all to cock as well

In reply to Andy Hardy:

They're not my pyramids

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Because I've been v busy, I haven't made any comments on this thread. But it's surely revealing that on the 'What climbing did you do this weekend?' thread, out of 74 replies, only 3 are about good multipitch routes (N side of Tahquitz - Dave Garnett; Herod, Rock Idol etc., Pembroke - Luke Glaister; and Etive Slabs and Garbh Bheinn's South Wall - Mr Riley - and somebody scrambled up the N Ridge of Tryfan in the rain). All the rest are about v small things in the Peak, including an amazing amount at Burbage (!). It seems v sad that, on a Bank Holiday in a relatively affluent age when access has become so much easier, climbers are not just a little bit more adventurous or imaginative. Baffling really, and somewhat dispiriting.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

There's certainly been a definite shift away from the mountains to cragging which probably goes back to the 70s/80s. Not much useful statistical info to be gained from looking at threads like that though, I feel. A lot of folk don't reply to those as they don't like blowing their own trumpets.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Shitty bank holiday weather forecasts for the mountains? This last year I've climbed multipitch onsight trad in the US and in Sinai (mostly new routes) as well as UK mountains and seacliffs.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Small edit for you

In reply to Robert Durran:


I would say bold is exactly the same as runout but would draw a distinction between 'bold' and 'serious'. Bold is climbing above gear whereas serious means you don't want to fall off! So pretty much all serious routes are bold but not vice versa.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The Etive Slabs / Garbh Bheinn one was by far the best weather weekend over the last month, but wasn't a bank holiday weekend.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon
I have to take issue with this, I think my post about driving from Lincolnshire to Gogarth, doing the 8 pitch girdle traverse of the main cliff(in bloody cold weather) then driving home, 15 hours door to door fits into the adventurous multi-pitch category?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Do you think the changes in occupations might have been a factor in this (possibly fictional) change in grades?

Considering we used to be a country of burly tradesman but now we are all mostly soft-bellied IT consultants Could a base level of general fitness and willingness for 'the grind' has been lost?

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I can't see it on this thread - and I was talking about this thread - but thanks for pointing this out to me. I'll do a search for it now.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria: I think in the 60,s ,70'and early 80's maybe the majority of UK climbing fell into the "adventure" category and attracted a certain type of person. With the advent of bolted routes, numerous climbing walls, bouldering with mats, and climbing as a "leisure"
activity, it is a much more diverse sport with a wider range of participants. A lot of the strongest and most talented climbers are now drawn into bouldering and sport climbing. However there are still plenty of UK climbers doing hard trad on-sights and headpoints(such as Indian Face last year).

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Also, as you point out in the original post, the most climbed on(ukc logged) rock is grit. Grit lends itself ideally for bouldering, headpointing and easy access "leisure" climbing.

If you go to Stoney Middleton any dry weekend the mid grade sport routes are much busier than the trad routes. In fact the trad routes are often empty of climbers

In reply to Michael Gordon:


People often used to start their rock climbing in the traditional mountain areas, then perhaps progress to cragging (perhaps seen as training for the mountains) and then perhaps into sport climbing and bouldering (as training for cragging) and then to indoor climbing (as training for the outdoors). The whole progression has generally now been reversed for younger climbers, so that mountains are at the tip of the pyramid rather than at the base. You only have to see the trepidation with which "multipitching" (horrible new term!) is often mentioned on UKC as some sort of ultimate aim rather than the norm to see how things have changed.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

What happened to UK climbing? It got better. Loads of choice of styles of climbing, places to climb, places to train etc.

In reply to aln:


What's the 'it' you refer to? If you mean the facilities, just as you say, you're dead right. If you mean the sport of climbing, many here are rightly debating whether the full range of those facilities really are being taken full advantage of.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The overall 'it' of climbing in the UK that the OP is referring to.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

IMO the rot started when people decided that climbing on British crags was an end in itself rather than useful training for the Greater Ranges.

In reply to aln:

OK, fine, so that's what I referred to in my second sentence above.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I know you're joking ... but the main point I'd make is that for about 9 decades for most climbers they complemented each other perfectly.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So are we OK or are you trying to start an argument with someone who's agreeing with you?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's a joke but with a serious point - if people are increasingly able to seek out the climbing that they find most satisfying without worrying that it's not proper climbing and they should be doing something else instead then I have trouble seeing that as a bad thing. If someone gets more out of projecting 8as at Malham then I don't see why they should be expected to climb necky trad routes at Pembroke or Cloggy every weekend just to keep me happy.

In reply to aln:

Not wanting an argument at all. Just seeking clarification. Nothing to argue about.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Strange. I never 'worried about whether I should be doing something else.' I was just fascinated by climbing in general - climbing big mountains was immensely exciting, but I just loved rock climbing too, particularly in N Wales, the Lakes and Cornwall. I also loved toproping on SE Sandstone. Plus we all did quite a lot of bouldering too. It was very rich and varied. About the only kind of climbing I never got heavily into was Scottish winter climbing, partly because I had a loathing of gullies after my near-death experience in Norway, but mostly because I'm quite a thin guy who feels the cold - it really is rather too macho for me.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I knew that really. I dunno, it seems sometimes we worry about this stuff too much. People go out and climb up bits of rock, or not. It's fun but does it really matter?

In reply to Steve nevers:


I would expect an IT consultant who trains indoors to climb a lot better than a burly tradesman who doesn't.

In reply to aln:


'Fun' has never seemed quite the right word for something that at its best can be quite scary, involve quite a high level of risk, and a huge output of adrenaline. It's a kind of bizarre, sometimes extreme thrill that often involves a lot more than fun. And sometimes, the level of fun is quite low, but level of satisfaction very high (e.g climbing a big, tough, dangerous mountain). Even bouldering can be quite scary. i did some 'high ball' routes at Fontainebleau once - partly because I was talked into it by my peers - that were quite near my limit, where I was shxtting myself.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Really nice synopsis Dave. I have to hold my hand up here and admit I gave up roped trad for bouldering some years ago, although I'll still go out soloing on Grit. It's finding stuff I can't do and spending time working on it that I find captivating. However I'll also admit that the mid grade climbs like Robert Brown, Darius, Elegy etc. stick out in my memory the most.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Robert Brown stands out in mine too. I took two big whippers from it!! Great route and a good example of the buzz you get from bold but still relatively safe, run-out trad.

In reply to Dave Musgrove:

"The E2 to E5 hard-core aspirants of the 1970/80s doesn’t seem to have been replaced by the follow on generations"

Take away the "hard-core" from the above statement and it describes literally everyone I know who climbs, give or take a couple of folk a bit lower (but gnarling it up in winter) and a couple who climb harder than this (and who might just qualify as hard-core but would never admit it). Of the 20/30 or so people I climb with in the peak, plus countless others I've met round the country, everyone trad climbs in the mid E grades. Most of the ones I know (but not all) climb indoors as well, but generally not nearly as much as outdoors. Most sport climb in the peak too. Most boulder on grit. About half winter climb and alpine climb as well. Mixture of routes into climbing from hillwalking etc to indoor climbing. No difference in psyche for trad from the "wall bred" ones to the others. Except some of the "wall bred" ones are more psyched because they're so much stronger/fitter/better. Most have been at it for at least 10 years, some longer some shorter. Mixture of men and women. Mixture of ages. E4/E5 not a massive deal for a lot of them (it would be for me though...)

I think this is typical of what I see of ordinary climbers i.e. climbing is one of if not the main hobbies they have, but jobs family etc meaning they're pressed for climbing time.

To echo what Jon Stewart said above - go to Gogarth and you'll see plenty of folk on E3 and above. Pembroke the same. To be honest last time I went to Pembroke I think climbing at E2/3 as I was made me the lowest grade climber I saw. E5 seemed the average and E6/7 was getting onsighted too, and not by famous names either.