UKC

Given the H grade is a necessary and crucial step advancement in the grading of rock climbs I suggest we compile a list on here of classic routes with the proposed H grade.

Please adhere to the following format: Adjectival grade / H grade / tech grade and rationale please. I'll start:

Demon Wall, Almscliff = E0 HHVS 5a Due to the blind jug at the top.

In reply to Removed User:

3 pebble slab HVS 4c

As in H-vs

In reply to Kemics:

Good joke but it remains HE0 4c at the top: the only trick is confidence in the obvious good padding. The left variant is HHVS 5a and the moves above the pocket are serious enough and tricky but obvious, with gear at your feet. The H grade means nothing. I'd argue the same applies to Demon Wall its hardly beta to look at a route from various angles.

In reply to Removed User:

A 'H' grade is an E Grade that you have rehearsed as it was too hard for you to on-sight - so the number stays the same and the capital letter changes,


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:
John Arran invented it for things like Doctor Dolittle and described it clearly enough and its not that (see p179 Froggatt). There are lots of bold sequency grit routes from mid extreme where an H grade would be useful to cut ego ascents. If we grade for nominal onsights, when most ascents are headpoints, by necessity the number is inflated.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Or just reduce the E grade by, lets say, a factor of 1.43

In reply to Offwidth:

So typically the H number is going to be lower than the E number. Which means that Franco's new H10 might be an E11...

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

That was the original intent but depends on how Franco is using it in detail: could be low in the grade H and high in the grade E. It indicates to me a route that headpoint practice makes more of a difference to a theoretical onsight than it usually would on average for the style. The H grade is of course based on real experience but the E grade is a guesstimate. I know Franco climbs more widely than Andy realises and maybe Doctor Dolittle should be something he quietly tries.

In reply to Removed User:


Really... .. . ???

In reply to Removed User:

Pointless. Doesn't add anything except confusion.

For first ascents: give it a proper adjectival grade, it only has to be an honest estimate, if it's wrong then it will be adjusted by subsequent ascensionists.

In reply to Removed User:

Just put a French grade in brackets after the British grades... that way you can see clearly the disparity between psyche and physique.

In reply to Bob:


Adds the ability to describe how hard the route was to climb in the style in which you climbed it, rather than how hard you think it might be to climb in a style in which no-one seems likely to climb it in the near future. That seems like a worthwhile thing to be able to do, no?

Also removes bragging rights from headpoints of bold, knacky routes and encourages people to get on and onsight stuff.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

No it doesn't! You are simply saying "I climbed this with pre-practice on a top rope". This might equate to one top-rope attempt before a lead or five hundred so subsequent contenders still have to figure out what is being meant.

The current usage of adjectival + tech up to around E5 then the addition of the Sport grade above this covers all bases much more adequately.

In reply to Bob:

I'm routinely amazed by people not getting the H grade - It's really not that complicated. Of course you're not just saying "I climbed an Ewhatever with pre-inspection" - otherwise you'd just say that.

The thing with the H grade is that it describes the experience you had and any other headpointer/flasher will have. This is only loosely related to how hard the climb would be to onsight (perhaps therein lies the confusion).

A case study... If I had only given an E grade to a line like Sky burial (H9 6c), it would have been E10 or E11. Although the crux is really rather straight forward and would be about E6 with one bolt, it's a solo above probable death. Added to this, it's ridiculously hard to read, blind and the rock is a bit dodgey. To climb it ground up without beta would be ridiculous (perhaps even impossible) and as a result the E grade would be astronomical for the level of climbing - similar to if Mousetrap at Gogarth had no gear; it'd be E6 5c or something ridiculous.

Conversely you could have a route that is no harder PROPORTIONALLY (obviously it's about 3 grades harder to climb things without beta) to ground up without beta than to headpoint. In the latter scenario you'd have an E grade and H grade that are roughly the same. This scenario is more likely to be the case with safe routes, as the more dangerous a route is, the exponentially faster it becomes ludicrous to climb without beta.

To many the H grade appears a gimmick (and I have considered just dropping it), but the result would be a load of meaningless guesswork. Psykovky's would be E9+, infinity in a grain of sand would be E9, Fly agaric something similar, sky burial E10+, divine moments of truth E? You really couldn't grade anything. You'd just end up with a mess like in other areas.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Why isn't this covered by a French grade (or font bouldering grade) ? Is it just that a French and E grade and UK, tech combo is more clumsy?

In reply to Offwidth:

French grade is for the easiest sequence. It doesn't take into account how hard it is to read it. You could have an e grade and then a French grade/bouldering grade with a danger rating, but that would be less accurate and involve changing the grades of all routes that currently exist (not going to happen).

In reply to Franco Cookson:


In that para have just given E Grades to all your routes bar one,


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:
But what does it achieve? Psykovsky's is certainly a harder headpoint than infinity in a grain of sand. The grades cease to mean anything, they are just inaccurate trophies.

In reply to Offwidth:

To elaborate on Franco's reply to you: the French grade would be a useful, if cumbersome, addition, but an accompanying H-grade would still be a better description of a headpoint ascent than an E grade. Consider headpointing a route with an easy, but blind, dyno way above gear. This would result in a relatively high E grade, which, in combination with the relatively low French grade would imply that the headpoint was very bold (and thus flatter the headpointer); by contrast the H grade would reveal the true level of difficulty/achievement.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Think of the potential for a new book though Chris: 'Headpoint Rock' !

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Yes. In the same way that nearly every route graded E9/10 might be substantially harder if graded for an onsight. Then again they could be spot on since no-one knows what an E9/10 onsight would feel like.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


You've just highlighted what is wrong with the current system perfectly. These routes AREN'T being graded for the onsight, but are still using E grades. Some of these routes will be onsighted one day. It's going to be a mess.

In reply to Franco Cookson: The American system of difficulty and R/X has a lot going for it if you are grading chop routes.

Andy F

In reply to Franco Cookson:
It's not going to be a mess: the routes will just be regraded to fall in to line in the same way that routes have always been adjusted once they get enough ascents.

With any "system" of classification there will always be outliers, the exceptions. What you are doing is changing the classification to suit the exceptions, it's the tail wagging the dog. It's why Mick Fowler gives his loose horrorshows HXS rather than shoehorn them in to the existing system. Give the route an adjectival grade, along with a tech grade and a sports grade (if you so wish), it just has to be your best guess. If/when it gets repeated then the grade may go up/down/stay the same, it doesn't really matter, eventually it will find its place in the scale.

And it's not "E grades" it's the adjectival grade, the overall difficulty of the route.

In reply to Removed User:

I get it. But I don't want it, just was very disappointed when I heard the Indian face had been rehearsed rather than inspected. I realised slowly that soooo many extremely touch and go routes that required a mixture of skill, ability, zen and no forget that, no zen, just rehearsal.
Just point out that the route was climbed first ascent in the guidebook as a redpoint, H or whatever to help punters understand the history or beta progress they may require.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Franco, do you mean you could have 2 routes where one would be a harder headpoint and the other a harder onsight? Seems to stand to reason by what you say above, though for the examples you've given they do still seem to be in line with each other. Any real life examples?

In reply to Removed User:

Mecca Extension (8c) - R 5+

So have I got this right....??

The French (sport) grading system is dependent on:
1. Physical difficulty of route

American grading system (including the R/X component):
1. Physical difficulty of route
2. How dangerous it is

The British 'E' grade:
1. Physical difficulty of route
2. How dangerous it is
3. How difficult it is to onsight

If the above is correct can't we just grade all the routes that hasn't been on-sighted yet with a sports grade with a R or X attached to it?? Then when someone on-sights it, they can give an assessment of the 'E' grade which will show a nice progression of the history of the route.

I mean wouldn't this be far more informative than a 'H' grade as this wouldn't give an indication of whether the route is graded as such due to the physical difficulty or danger. I know we have the British technical grade to give some indication of physical difficulty but I personally don't find it very useful from 6a and above anyway due to how broad it is.

In reply to Removed User:

Question for everyone. Does H10 require a death fall in the same way as E10?

In reply to Removed User:


You are joking?


Chris

In reply to Removed User:

surely its the tech grade that needs to be addressed. In my humble experience a worked 6a tech feels way easier than an onsighted one!

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:

The UK tech grade was originally a French bouldering grade so was only ever intended for individual moves or short sequences which was fine when most climbs (even the hard ones) were like that - Right Wall only has a couple of 6a moves for example, most of the rest is 5a/b; Left Wall has one 5c move and three or four 5b moves and the rest is easier; Footless Crow (before the flake came off) had one 6b move and four or five 6a moves.

Up to somewhere around E5 (the overall not a danger grade) this all works and given that most climbers didn't train it wasn't a problem. Once you get harder than this then the routes tend to be hard move after hard move after hard move so adding the sports grade helps. Climbers now train and are much fitter so a modern route given E5 feels much different to one from the mid 1970s.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


I get the impression that the current grades of all climbs could be corrected by the following algorithm:

less than E7 or so: keep grade.
greater than E7 or so: replace 'E' with 'H'.

(replace E7 with the actual grade beyond which most climbs are headpointed rather than ever being onsighted).

In reply to Short&Savage:

That argument has been made in the past. I think where possible estimating the E grade is the most useful way of showing the overall difficulty of the route for future onsighters. Where the FA doesn't feel they are able to estimate the onsight grade (only top-end stuff) I can see the value of the H grade as an indication of overall difficulty, as that is how subsequent ascentionists are most likely to attempt it.

Your last paragraph could just as well be a criticism of E grades, to which I would respond that looking at the tech grade, reading the description and looking at the route nearly always clears the matter up.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

That would tend to be roughly my view.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


I think as long as folk keep in mind their original assessment of technical difficulty when working a route (which presumably they do), there shouldn't really be a problem.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Well, it is actually just a gimmick and is quite unnecessary. A grade isn't absolute or objective, it's subjective and can vary from person to person, depending on their strengths or weaknesses. It's just an estimate of the route in question. You're really the only person insisting on using it, which is fine, but don't expect everyone else to adopt your willful idiosyncrasy whose purpose seems to be simply to add complication where there's no requirement to do so.

In reply to Pylon King Against Capit@lism:


Good point.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes but then the majority of climbers have no idea (me included) have no idea about where an 'H' grade would correspond to in the grand schemes of things, whilst nowadays everyone pretty much are familiar with sport grades.

In reply to Fraser:

>A grade isn't absolute or objective, it's subjective and can vary from person to person, depending on their strengths or weaknesses. It's just an estimate of the route in question.

correct, but you want that estimate to be as accurate as possible - that's why we stopped using british tech and adjectival grades to grade most boulder problems.

Someone higher up asked for a concrete example of routes where the E grade fails for the headpoint experience. I'll use Sky Burial again (H9 - E10/11) v. Divine Moments of truth (H10 - E10/-). Onsighting Sky Burial would be considerably harder than onsighting Divine Moments of Truth, but the latter is a harder headpoint. Fly Agaric (H8 - E8) v. Infinity in a grain of sand (H8- - E9). Same again, Fly Agaric is a far harder headpoint than Infinity in a Grain of Sand.

Like I said before, I don't particularly like the H grade - it's ugly and no one understands it. It does serve a good and honest purpose though.

In reply to Fraser:


I think 'subjective/objective' is useful, isn't the latter something you can't prove to be wrong? e.g.
OBJECTIVE, my house has 2 storeys, I live in London, scores on multiple choice tests.
SUBJECTIVE, my house is good value for money, London's a dump, scores on essays.

We can't have objective grades, but grades are very useful, and a consensus helps, that's why I like the UKC feature allowing users to enter grades.

Sorry if I'm just stating the bleeding obvious (a specialty of mine).

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Thanks for the response. I'm afraid I don't know the routes you mention other than some brief descriptions I've read on line, so could you perhaps clarify why the E grades fail in your examples and how the H-grade improve the situation. I'd also be interested to hear why you would assign H8 to both FA and IIAGOS yet, although the former has a lower adjectival grade you consider it a harder redpoint? (leaving aside the tech grade for the time being)


Doesn't the existing E grade system already reflect the [theoretical, and maybe that the issue you have with an E-grade] grade in terms of seriousness and protectability? One day someone will onsight an E9 or E10, that's for sure. I also don't understand why, if the E system works for grades up to a certain point - E7 was mentioned earlier I recall - it doesn't work at the upper end? Okay, some folk onsight E7 but plenty don't and do it as a headpoint instead. All they've done is headpoint an E7, the grade of the route itself still remains, it hasn't become easier, other than for that person who HP'd it. It's for those reasons I don't understand why the H grade becomes necessary, other than simply to introduce another form of classification. Presumably the H grade is always less than the E grade.


In reply to abseil:

I agree with everything you said there, but I'm not clear if you're saying that to agree with the H-grade system or to disagree with it! The point I'd been trying to make is that, even with a given E-grade for an easier route, say an E2, there are still some folk for whom that will be hard and it might feel like an E3. Perhaps they're short and can't reach a gear placement to protect an upcoming crux move. That was why I said the grade will always be subjective as, presumably, would any H grade be, unless Franco can correct me on that?

In reply to Fraser:



Thanks for your response - I didn't intend to comment on H-grades, just to consider objective/subjective and say even though grades are subjective, we need them. Sorry I wasn't clearer! And thanks for your further explanation too.

In reply to Fraser:
The e grades fail when you try to use them without having had the experience of a route you're using them to describe.

IIAGOS is bold. If you climbed it without beta, you'd probably fall off and end up in intensive care. A lot of people could headpoint it however. FA could be a potential target for a betaless ascent. If you fluffed it , you might end up with a limp, but it's more likely to be possible for a very good climber. Headpointing it is not a lot easier.

Grades are about collective subjectivism. How many people are able to do a route? With IIAGOF maybe 0.14% of climbers could do it headpoint. With fly agaric maybe 0.1% could do it. Onsight these figures might change to 0% and 0.08% respectively. (these figures are bs but illustrate the point). I'd say change in relative difficulty is very common.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Having read that sentence several times, I still genuinely don't understand it.



But surely that's covered already by the fact that FA is given E8 not E9? It doesn't require an H grade to say the same thing.


Agreed.


Again, I don't know what you mean by that, sorry.

In reply to Fraser:


An E grade is attempt to tell you how it feels to onsight it. If you haven't had the experience of onsighting it's hard to say how it would feel to onsight it, and thus hard to assign an E grade.

An H grade is attempt to tell you how it feels to headpoint it. If you have headpointed it, it's fairly easy to say how it feels to headpoint it, and thus easy to assign an H grade.

I'm rather baffled by the complaints about the H grade. It seems very straightforward and sensible to me. We can assign E grades up to ~ E7 or 8, because such routes have been onsighted. But above that routes have only been headpointed, so what people are actually assigning is H grades (even if they call them E). Assigning an H grade is more honest and appropriate, because that was the style of the ascent! It's also the likely style of repeat ascentionists.

What is hard about that concept?

Franco seems to be being very sensible and thoughtful on this, and assigning grades fairly accurately and well. I'm baffled by the flack he is getting.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well yes, I do understand that but that is so glaringly obvious that I'd assumed Franco was trying to say something else, however perhaps it was that simple. If I've no experience of <insert activity of choice> then clearly I'm not going to know how it feels. However there's nothing different about that unknown climbing experience at, for example, E1 rather than E10.

Yes, I got that bit too.



It's not the concept that I'm objecting to, it's the requirement to have it. French grades are the same: up to a certain level, they are predominantly for the onsight (by implication) up to say about F7b, and above that it's generally graded for the redpoint. Routes are graded relative to similar routes climbed in a similar style. They don't split it into two separate grading systems, it's understood that harder grades are normally worked rather than onsighted.


For me, the objection is to the unnecessary introduction of another grading system for the sake of it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Perfectly explained. I think people are trying to over-think this. Basically headpoint grades already exist - people just use E grades to grade headpointing experiences. As these routes are onsighted in the future this will lead to inaccuracies/confusion, as these grades won't describe the onsight experience, rather the headpoint one.

You could quite reasonably argue that the boundary between typically headpointed and typically onsighted routes naturally sorts itself out and people just "know" which is an ground-up E grade and which is a headpoint E-grade, but why rely on that? Just have a system that works and doesn't rely on perpetual re-grading.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

That's exactly my point, the system already exists and people understand it.

Edit: if someone is headpointing a route they'll soon know how it feels, so don't need another grade to tell them.

End of my tuppence worth.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

What we really need is someone well versed in H grades to offer their opinion (after leading) of standard established routes in mainstream areas of each grade, say up to E10/H10?

More seriously, while I applaud the chance to be open and clear with the style routes are climbed in, I've never really felt the need for H grades as a parallel grading system. I'm not convinced the variance between E and H grades for a route is greater than between grades, or that it's even enough to merit a full grade difference (e..g, routes that are E7 to on-sight but H6 to headpoint -- those routes are really E6!). Basically what I'm saying is that routes that are hard to headpoint for the grade are comparatively hard to on-sight as well.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Nicely put Coel., and congratulations to Franco for his patience. Top end trad is living a lie since it is not approached in the same way that middle grade extremes are. The H grade is a more honest grade. Week after week we are supposed to marvel at the top trad ascents of the week but further investigation shows most of them to be headpoints, or above mats or snow. Every style of ascent has its place but surely the high E grades have been corrupted.

In reply to Kafoozalem:


I'm not sure which reports you're reading but all those I read here and on other climbing sites almost universally give details of the style of ascent. In fact I don't recall reading one which hasn't. Most top end climbers are are all too aware of the scrutiny their endeavours are subjected to by all us armchair critics! However impressive Franco's achievements are, I just don't think there is a requirement to invent a new grade system to describe them, that's all. And with that, I'll say no more.

In reply to Fraser:

Sorry to sound like a broken record but....

You're right, there's no need to invent a new grade system for head-point vs on-sight. There's already a perfectly well accepted grading system called the French grade which close to 100% of British climbers are familiar with. Therefore, if a climb has never had an onsight ascent, just give it a French grade to it and just add a R or X after it to indicate how dangerous the climb was. This is really easy to follow (yes I admit the R and X but will be a bit new to British climbers but it really isn't that difficult is it??) and it takes the onus off the first (headpoint) ascensionist to blindly guess how difficult an onsight ascent might be. Once an onsight ascent gets done some day, well done to that person and they have earned the 'right' to give it an'E' grade since they actually know how hard it was to onsight that route.

Is there any logical argument against this???

In reply to Short&Savage:

I never liked that solution. An overall grade (be this E or H) gives a much better indication of the overall difficulty than having seperate difficulty and seriousness indicators.

I have no personal experience of the American system, so can you explain the exact point when a route becomes R and when R becomes X? Doesn't seem very specific somehow.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Well according to Wikipedia:

G: Good, solid protection.
PG: Pretty good, few sections of poor or non-existent placements.
PG13: OK protection, falls may be long but will probably not cause serious injury.
R: Runout, some protection placements may be very far apart (possibility of broken bones, even when properly protected).
X: No protection, extremely dangerous (possibility of death even when properly protected).

In reply to Short&Savage:

Might be worthwhile converting to York Grit grades:

G & PG = P1
PG13 & R = P2
X = P3

In reply to Removed User:

It struck me this weekend that we've all got into a terrible mess grade-wise trying to fine tune something slightly too far. Example: local bouldering venue has a mishmash of V, Font and English tech.

Example 2: picture the scene - old bloke who's come back after a bit of a break meets young bloke on rock for very first time after lots of indoor bouldering. They meet at another highball bouldering/solo venue... 'nice one, that's about 6a' [blank look]. 'Gets a bit necky high up, probably worth E2 anywhere else' [blank look]. E grades mean nothing to young bloke. Sport grades mean a little bit more - he's been to other walls, he's not an idiot, but not that useful here. English tech? There's a chart somewhere that translates proper V grades into this old-person speak, he makes a mental note to look it up when he gets home. Both blokes have a nice time but go away wishing they shared a common language.

In reply to SteveRi:

I'm multilingual but I think in English tech.

In reply to Removed User:

Only because like most climbers you are too shit to notice the benefit of other systems over higher UK tech grades.

In reply to Removed User:

H grade makes sense to me conceptually at least, two routes different in nature but with the same E/uk-tech combo could be quite different experiences to headpoint. That said if it's widely adopted it'll doubtless be used as inappropriately and inconsistently as all the other grades we have. As with E grades the addition of F or Ft/V grade as appropriate probably adds something to the hopelessly broad UK 6c/7a band in most cases.

jk

In reply to Removed User:

I totally get what Franco is doing with the H grade but extending what Bob said, however rather than tweaking at the edges, if we're going to make changes I'd start using a French grade and R, R/X and X. Here's a pick of random routes off the top of my head.

Dream of White Horses 5
Chequers Buttress 5+
Three Pebble Slab 5+ R
Flying Buttress 6a
Brown's Eliminate 6a+ R/X
Strapadictomy 6c+
Right Wall 6c+ R
London Wall 7a+
Gaia 7b R/X
Master's Edge 7c R
Equilibrium 8b R/X

R = Run out
R/X = Run out and probable injury
X = significant injury or worse

Much like what Rockfax did for the grit highball stuff, keep the E grade in the text and if it's hard to onsight, then write it in the text - this usually happens anyway.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

There's a big difference between different "Xs". The adjectival grade just works - the P grade does not.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

I don't think there is any less distinction. You have 4 distinct grades, as you have with adjectival being E1 then 4c - 5c, or E5 then 5c - 6c.

Adjectival doesn't work mainly because the UK tech grade is so wide. 6c (for me) can mean anything from onsight-able to impossible after training for it. Give it an E/H and a French grade if you wish, but it amounts to the same thing as I described.

The adjectival system often gets hung up on danger rather than the difficulty of climbing it. This just flips it the other way, focusses on the technical difficulty and tells you whether it actually is dangerous or not.

What would your new route get under this system? 8b X?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

The adjectival grade describes the difficulty of climbing the route. At no time has it ever become hung up on danger - that's people misunderstanding it.

The UK tech grade is broken for modern routes because it's a bouldering grade and wasn't intended for long sustained sequences. Adding the sport grade for such routes gives that info but it's not needed for old style routes that aren't sustained and have distinct cruxes - Right Wall would be an example.

In reply to Bob:


I don't disagree it's the misunderstanding of it, I'm very confident I understand the E grade system, but it does get hung up on it, and that's what holds A LOT of people back and causes confusion. It becomes hung up on danger because people get hung up on it. If there are misconceptions or misunderstandings that can be removed by making something simpler, then make it simpler. You wouldn't just stick with a complicated tax system, just because people should understand it better.

Sport routes have distinct cruxes too, the grades work perfectly well there. E5 6a (in your Right Wall example) doesn't tell you there's 2 distinct cruxes, as you do understand the E grade, you know there's a whole range of types of route that covers. Having the grade 6c+ R tells you that you'd need to be solid and confident on 6c+ (placing gear) to get up it, and you might get scared on any cruxes, but if you fell off you'd probably be safe.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

>The adjectival system often gets hung up on danger rather than the difficulty of climbing.

The danger (or lack of it) is kind of important. If the above was the case then bold routes would be graded too softly compared to well protected ones. I'm not convinced that is the case (except sometimes when a route is borderline anyway).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Of course the danger element, or lack of is important, and my point isn't to ignore it, it's to be clearer about it, but use a finer grade for the difficulty. It's the combination of the sport grade and a danger grade which tells you what you need to know with more precision. Ultimately E grades are a blunt tool, tech grades are worse.

Giving something a French grade and a danger grade is much narrower than adjectival + tech. Certain aspects of routes under either system are missed. E5 6a covers London Wall and Right Wall. One is 7a+ and one is 6c+ R respectively. You know one is hard and safe, you know one is easier and run out. You know nothing about cruxes from either unless it's in the description. There's disadvantages of both systems (like a super cruxy, super safe route is better described by say E5 6c, but as I said that sort of info is usually in the route description anyway) but overall, you have more information, not less.

At the end of the day, I'm not on some campaign to change it, "because it's so broken". I "get" the E grade system, it's just blunt and holds people back from progressing because of it, and to my mind there are better ways.

We're rightly very proud of our climbing history in the UK, and should hold on to it carefully, but sometimes, aspects of it drag us back.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

You note that sport routes have distinct cruxes but that the sport grades work perfectly well. However is it just me or is there an increasing amount the use of font to describe the crux(es) in reporting routes by ascensionists at the cutting edge. That to me suggests in itself that the sport grade in isolation is limiting to some degree same as the E/H grade.

In reply to Removed User:

You're quite right to pull me up on that, I might have been a bit over-zealous in the use of "perfectly". They work "perfectly" well in that they work no worse than E5 6a. Ultimately a cruxy route is usually described in the text. Like trad, some sport routes might be described as cruxy or bouldery, they can still be accurately graded, they're just cruxy.

Regarding using Font grades, I agree, and I don't think it is, or should be, limited to cutting edge or sport only. I think Franco gave the crux of the route that kicked all this off a tentative Font grade, we're already there with shorter grit, and you'll find quite few routes not at the cutting edge described with a Font grade, Caviar at WCJ for example.

As I said above, there are limitations with a sport + R/X grade (just like with any system) but it's ultimately a finer tool overall than E + tech, and limited to a lesser degree.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

The problem is we seem to be obsessed with describing a complex thing in too simplistic a way. Sometimes you cannot describe the difficulty of a route and the nature of those difficulties in four letters. Franco wants to address what he sees as failings with the existing system by introducing a new system but in doing so misses out information provided by other systems. You don't get football pundits being told to describe a goal in as few words as possible, why do we think a climb can be described by a single grade. I mean, can anyone tell me how physically hard an H10 7a is? Is it three Careless Torques on top of each other, is it like Make it Funky without the bolts, is it like Remergence above a death landing or is it another way of describing Rainshadow?

Its the same with describing styles of ascent, we need more words and a bit of colour to supplement flash, onsight and redpoint.

In reply to Tyler:


Exactly, I'd rather not fiddle around with edge case fixes, like H grades, if there's a better overall system. So break it down into the two simple and understood things that matter (and that work!). How physically hard it is and how dangerous it is. You usually only ever back off a trad route because it's either too dangerous, or it's too physically hard, whether that's onsight or otherwise. The rest can be worked out in a combination of text descriptions, making a judgement from the ground, or from specific move/gear beta if you're less bothered about the onsight.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

An overall grade plus tech grade just works so much better in letting folk know what they're in for. What does, for example, 6a R/X mean? Surely it depends just how runout and whether the runout bits are the hard bits. In a 10m unprotected route you could have a 5c move just off the ground then bold 4c to the top. Alternatively you could have bold 4c to near the top then a gearless 5c move to finish. Both might get the above grade but in reality would be around HVS and E3!

In reply to Michael Gordon:



Yes but being told that something is E3 5c doesn't tell me at all whether it's a route with a lot of British 5c moves and safe, or its one dangerous British 5c move (with the 4c move/s not adding to the grade at all in your example).

Still using your example (two different 10m unprotected routes, one with crux at bottom, the other at top). With the French grade, whether that British 5c move is at the start or the end of the route will change the grade (as doing the crux at the end is physically harder than just doing it at the start and cruising to the top) - i.e. It can go from say a F6a to a F6b+. If the route is given an 'X' for being unprotected, anyone hoping to climb either of these route will have to ask themselves if they are willing to climb essentially an unprotected 'X' route, one being a F6a, the other a F6b+.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Anyway, I'm not sure whether this thread is arguing about the abolishment of the 'E' grade (personally I am not).

The 'E' grade, imperfect as it is, tries to give an indication of the totality of the trad climbing experience, and it does so for an on-sight ascent which no other grading system does (incorporating physically difficulty, danger, 'on-sightability'). At this, it seems to work pretty well up to a certain grade but I think everyone here will probably agree that it is illogical to apply this same grade system to routes that hasn't been on-sighted.

Where we are disagreeing is whether these so far non-onsighted routes should be given a 'H' grade or not. I think the arguments against the 'H' grade has been made pretty well already - e.g. cannot distinguish dangerous vs pumpy routes, the British technical grade above 6b being too broad. But actually my main point is that it will just make things even more confusing as no-one really knows what to compare it to. At the end of the day grading is all subjective based on how hard something 'feels' and I bet you no-one here know how hard a bench-mark H3, or a HHVS should feel.

Far better to use a mixture of a sport grade which at least everyone knows how to use, and a R/X grade which shouldn't be that hard to pick up.

In reply to Short&Savage:



Looking at the route and reading the description tells you that.



If it's slabby (as many of these short bold routes can be) then having the crux at the end is physically no harder. Certainly not 3 sport grades.

But that's actually irrelevant. The point is a bold route which gets 6a/6b+/whatever R/X doesn't tell you whether it's the hard bits which are bold or the easier bits. The trad grade does.

In reply to Short&Savage:

Certainly the H grade wouldn't work at all at lower grades as very few folk go round headpointing E3s etc. For top-end stuff I quite like the idea of pinning a number to something to show overall difficulty but at the end of the day it doesn't matter too much if potential suitors are just going to throw a rope down anyway.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
Ever climbed a slab where each move is progressively harder than the last? And the other way round? One is far more physical than the other.

Anyway, it's not an inflexible system. Take Downhill Racer. Let's say it's 6c R/X as it is. Let's hypothetically flip it so the crux is at the top and the easy bits at the bottom. No-one would then argue with 6c X.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes but your reasoning falls apart completely once you have routes which are longer than what you can see from the ground, or has any section of remotely sustained climbing - both of which will be better served by a French grade.

Anyway, so according to you if we are going to have a 'H' grade only for harder grades, where exactly does it start from then? From E5 routes? E6? E7???? And if it only gets used from some arbitrary point in difficulty onwards shouldn't the first grade be H1?? Or does the H grade only start from H7????

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Yep, agree with you there. I mean taking the argument to the extreme, an unprotctable route with a British 6c move at the bottom and then a Diff to the top ain't going to get a X grade by virtue that to someone who can do a British 6c move probably won't find the top adding anything to the difficulty or the danger.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


By the way, brilliant typo!!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Very few people headpointing E3s? Have you ever climbed on bold grit??

In reply to Short&Savage:


Joycean.

Mick

You can't have three pieces of information (onsightability, sustainedness, boldness) in one grade, even given the relationship between tech grade and E grade, without some ambiguity. Maths (probably) says so! (since onsightability and boldness are independent of tech grade).

For a route at a given tech grade, a high E grade means that it is bold, OR it is sustained, OR it is hard to onsight, but you can't tell which from the grade. In practice this is not an issue, as the description usually tells you if it is bold and noone really cares that much about the onsightability anyway?

Personally if I was going to start from scratch I would throw away the onsightability part (how much difference does this really make - give some examples?), give a French grade for the overall difficulty, give a boldness grade (U/PG/15/18 - we are British after all) for the boldness and give the tech grade as well - or possibly even drop the tech grade.

In reply to Short&Savage:


That is correct. But using my example, plenty folk might boulder out 5c moves but not like the idea of unprotected 4c - hence it is not irrelevant to the grade (in this case HVS). An E3 climber will likely be well equipped for an 6a R/X but since it could turn out to be anything from HVS-E3, this surely says something about the usefulness of the system proposed.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


But as I say, that is actually irrelevant. Let's say that I accept for the sake of argument that putting the crux to the top usually changes the sport grade. For any given 10m unprotected route you still don't know where that move is from the grade alone. Your 6b R/X could have a 6a move at the base then 4c to the top or it could be 4c to near the top then a 5c move to finish. How are you meant to know which?

The trad grades by comparison would be a much more useful E1 6a vs E3 5c. Quite a big difference.

In reply to Short&Savage:


From the level that stuff hasn't been onsighted, or very rarely. So it would mainly be there to serve the routes currently graded E8+

I don't have a big objection to your sport + danger grade for that level, unlike for the sort of stuff which people onsight all the time without having any problems using the E grade.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


If the 6a was really at the base, then it wouldn't be R/X (using the same logic that led to Veranda Buttress HVD 5b). But even if we assume the 6a is high enough off the ground to be equally dangerous as falling off a high 5c move, then you should be equally likely to fall off the 6a move shortly after the start as you would be to fall off the 5c move while pumped. After all the sport grade should tell you how likely to are to be able to climb it, or to reverse that how likely you are to fall off! And if the consequences of falling off are the same, then the danger grade should be the same. So if the danger is the same and the difficulty is the same, the only information you are missing is the tech grade (but you don't need to get rid of this, it can form part of the description if it is an unusually cruxy 6b) and the onsightability.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


It would be - there is still high unprotected 4c climbing. Imagine if California Arete had a 6a move at the base.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


There's always edge cases that break any system down.

But if CA had a UK 6a boulder problem at the bottom then what grade would you give it? E1 6a? Maybe E2 6a? Either is meaningless for a route like that without the description.

Let's say it was given 6b X and similarly described (as a boulder problem start with a long and easy but unprotected run out) tells you more.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

The difference is E1 6a, while it doesn't tell you how difficult the upper bit is (though you know won't be harder than 5a), it does tell you the 6a bit is at the start. 6b X on it's own doesn't tell you this.

But yes, putting a note in the description would clear the matter up (though would be less necessary with E1 6a).

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No it wouldn't. For E1 6a the route could be 40m of 4c then a cluster of bomber gear and a 6a move (or many other combinations). You seem to have forgotten that you wouldn't know it would be run out from the E1 6a grade, you are assuming the detail about the crux, because you already know about the run-out. You would require a significant description to know more about a route of that type given that grade.

I said right up in one of the early posts that neither system works very well for particularly cruxy routes (and the E grade might work slightly better), you're trying to convince me of a point that I've already made! But overall across the spectrum of types of routes and grades you have more information using a french grade + R/X, there are more margins of error and unknowns in the E grade system overall.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


In my example I was talking about a route that was obviously unprotected. For a route like that graded E1 6a, the 6a bit would obviously be at the start. Not much bomber gear at the top of an unprotected route I find.

I do think the sport + danger grade system would do a poorer job at describing short unprotected routes (as you may not be able to tell by looking at them where the hard moves are). And there are a lot of routes like that in the UK, particularly on grit. It seems like quite a big flaw to me, but we may have to agree to disagree.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I know, but the point is, you would have to be told (or be stood underneath) it's totally unprotected for that grade to make sense, the grade doesn't tell you that.

Most of the short highball grit is better served by Font grade (+ R/X if needed) rather than an E grade anyway, as has already happened because the E grade's flawed there.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
(sneak preview - Summary: if you want to exactly obtain four separate quantities, which are either independent or dependent on each other in a non-linear way, you need to have four numbers!)

Time to get anal... on which note some of the below is probably complete rubbish (it is late at night and I am working this through as I go!). I hope nobody actually bothers reading me making a simple concept very complicated...

We have the following information:

D (ifficulty) The overall difficulty of the route. We define this as the overall success/failure probability (see bottom) of the entire route using the best sequence and all available gear beta. This is basically the French grade.
C (rux move) The difficulty of the hardest move. We define this as the overall success/failure probability (see bottom) of the hardest move using the best sequence. This is basically the English tech grade.
O (nsightability) The onsightability of the route. We define this as the change in probability of success from that expressed by quantity 1 if the route is climbed 'onsight' i.e. without beta. This is not expressed individually by any grading system I know of.
X (danger) The 'danger' of the route. This can be calculated by taking each metre of the rule, multiplying the likelihood of a fall (normalised for the grade) by the consequences, and summing for the whole route. This is basically the American danger grade.

Note that I cannot and do not attempt to put numerical values or units on any of these but this is not required.

Now we examine the relationships (or lack of) between these three quantities) - independent here meaning that it is not affected by the quantity (it may affect that quantity).
The overall difficulty (D) clearly depends on the technical grade (C), but it does not depend on the onsightability or the danger.
The technical grade is independent of overall difficulty, onsightability or the danger.
The onsightability is independent of the overall difficulty by design. You could argue that it does depend on the ratio of the tech grade to the overall difficulty (e.g. a cruxy route being harder to onsight) but I will not assume this.
The danger grade is independent of the overall difficulty by design. It does depend on the tech grade since it depends on the details of the climb e.g. where and how hard the crux is. It may also be affected by the onsightability.

I have chosen these quantities because these are the ones we want to extract from the grade - overall chance of success, how hard the hardest move is, how easy it is to onsight and how dangerous it is.

System A: the British trad grade.
E: the adjectival grade is a function of the overall difficulty, the onsightability and the danger.
T: the tech grade is a pure quantity (not affected by the other quantities).
So E = E(D, O, X). But we also have D = D(T), O = O() and X = X(T), so E = E(D(T), O, X(T)). We know the relationship between D and T is non-linear; generally a tech grade sets a minimum difficulty but a long sustained pitch can be much harder than this minimum. We also know the relationship between X and T is non-linear, since it depends on the position of difficult parts and the availability of gear.
So if you have a given E and T (a complete British trad grade) you will always have ambiguity in D, O and X which you cannot simply resolve. How do we get any information at all? In practice a tech grade sets a likely range of difficulties, I think the onsightability is in practice not very important and at least at the lower grades the danger only changes the grade by one or two. So you can never tell if your VS 4b is very sustained 4b or just poorly protected, or if your HS 4c is just very easy to onsight with one hard move or super well protected (in practice a lot of the easy grades are probably used as shorthand i.e. VS 4b gets used for a 'poorly protected VS', regardless of whether there are 4b or 4c moves or how sustained it is). What you actually get is a region of probability; by assuming the difficulty is typical for the tech grade and ignoring the onsightability you can make an estimate of the danger grade but it is not exact. You can use further guidebook information (i.e. if it is 8m high it is probably not super-sustained) to further constrain you guess but you can never be exact.

System B: French grade and a danger grade.
D: the overall difficulty.
X: the danger grade.
Since these are both quantities we want, we obtain them perfectly (barring the usual grading debates), however we have lost all of the information of the hardest technical grade (although we know the range it might reasonably fall within) and the onsightability. We actually have a _better_ idea of the danger since we have the exact value rather than the inexact version we estimate from the British trad grade.
We can trivially change this by adding the tech grade, at which point we also know the tech grade (unsurprisingly). I was going to say that sport climbers have never asked for this but then I remembered that (hard) routes are often described with cruxes measured in boulder grades so actually this is sometimes included...

Summary: if you want to exactly obtain four separate quantities, which are either independent or dependent on each other in a non-linear way, you need to have four numbers!

Appendix:
When I say 'overall success/failure probability', what I _actually_ mean is that for an averaged climber with a 'skill level' matching the grade (e.g. a prototypical 'VS' climber) the chance of success is equal to that of other routes of the same grade - i.e. if our VS climber can climb 95% of all VS climbs, then there is a 95% chance of success of climbing this one as it too is a VS climb. I have explained this very badly but it isn't important!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I don't think the E grade is particularly flawed with highballs - it's just that highballs have become easier with pads. Surely something like narcissuss is now just a well protected 6b?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

It's a highball font 7A - the grade recognises the style of the vast majority of ascents.

It's not about whether it can still work in the highball with mats scenario, I agree in principle it can, it's whether it's the best solution.

I get that that is what you're essentially doing with H grades, as the majority of ascents are head-points, but just tweaking the system doesn't work as well as using what is essentially a red-point grade and a danger grade. On an ascent like that the other elements like knowledge of the crux and the on-sightability are already removed, so you're left with that anyway.

All I'm saying is that I think extending that system across the board is more accurate (neither are precise) than the E grade overall, as it's a finer target.

We haven't even touched on the bonkers-ness of multi-pitch routes. I mean, on the face of it, what the hell does E3 5b 5b 5c 5c mean? I'd much rather set off up a 2 pitches of 2 of E1 5b + 2 of E3 5c and onsight than 2 of E3 5b + 2 of E1 5c. Far better described 6a, 6a, 6b, 6b or 6a X, 6a X, 6b 6b respectively.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


That's where reading the route description comes in!

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Your 'D' would be better phrased as the overall difficulty of the CLIMBING, not the overall difficulty of the ROUTE (this is the E grade).

Reducing trad grades down to three factors is over-simplifying the situation. E is for Everything, and in the real world much of this comes down to the feel of the route, and can't simply be arrived at by using equations. Sometimes a short well protected 5b bit feels sufficiently awkward that E1 is more the case, not HVS. Some moves, though relatively easy, can feel precarious due to polished or sloping footholds. Some routes go through intimidating ground and the trad grade is higher than the climbing alone would suggest. Sometimes looseness means that easy moves have to be climbed much more carefully than otherwise would be the case.

But you still know how hard the ROUTE is and whether you may be a worthy contender for success. That is (at least part of) the beauty of the UK grading system.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):



Never had a problem with it myself during 30 years of climbing! It means you will get at least one E3 pitch or an overall E3 experience - and , as the above post says: read the guidebook!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

If you wanted to use a danger grade, you'd need a large number of integers. There's an enormous difference between okay low gear, poorish low gear, a series of skyhooks, a single skyhook and a total solo. That's before you get to a solo above a 10m fall above steep grass, a solo above a 10m rocky fall, a solo above a 30m rocky fall and a 50m solo above a rocky sea-shelf with seals nipping at your gonads.

The H grade is a slight modification of the E grade that everyone could quite easily understand and use. It has all the romanticism of the E grade and that same magic. If you start using the r/x system, you might as well just stay in and eat McDonalds.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Not really, if the technical difficulty of the route is accurate.


Not a huge enough difference that they can't be placed as R, R/X and X. You've described Master's Edge (7c R), Gaia (7b R/X), The Zone (8a R/X), Knocking on Heaven's Door (7b X) respectively. Excluding a route with a 'series of skyhooks' as I can't think of one.


All get X - you know how big the route is.


I'm not really arguing that E (or H) is so broken it can't be understood, though you've changed your stance since your post higher up to match your argument: "Like I said before, I don't particularly like the H grade - it's ugly and no one understands it." I'm just happy to debate possibilities of a better overall system - I'm not expecting everyone to agree - especially ronhill romantics!

In reply to Michael Gordon and Bull's Crack:

I was being a bit OTT but as we've been discussing the whole way through, this is about debating whether there's a more systematic way that doesn't rely solely on having to read the description to get a pitch by pitch understanding of the severity of each one.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Yes.


This is true, and is equivalent to an Alpine grade in this respect (although Alpine routes often come with lots of extra numbers). If all you want is an overall grade then the E grade is OK, but what you lose is information about any of the elements that make up that number - you can't know (exactly) whether the grade is high with a lower tech grade because it is dangerous, because it is hard to onsight, or because it is sustained. Which means you don't know exactly what you are getting yourself in for... which I suspect is the way many people (not me) like it! :P

In reply to andrewmcleod:

yep the three Ss - sustained, serious and strenuous (or a combination thereof). You can nearly always work out which it is from the description and looking at the route.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

We are always going to use other sources of information other than grades to get information on what the nature of the route is. What we are disagreeing on is whether taken in isolation without any other information, the E grade or French with American R/X system gives more information for any prospective climber of that route. It's pretty pointless arguing over the relative merits of different grading systems if your stock reply to any criticism of where the E grade lacks is "but we can always read the guide book or look at the route". I suspect you climb mainly on grit where routes are short and easy to inspect?

As I've mentioned previously in this post, I have some issues with the E grade due to its inability to differentiate between physical difficulty (which emcompasess difficulty of moves and sustaind-ness), seriousness, or onsightability. Plus that fact that it's coupled with a British tech grade which is largely useless in the harder grades. Personally, I think the French + R/X combo will give more information than the E grade, but having said that, I'm not arguing for getting rid of it as it's the established grading system for trad in this country, and works well enough for routes which sees regular on-sights (which it is designed for).

What this original thread was about was the H grade, and a wider discussion on how to grade head-pointed routes. What I think is that the H grade will be pretty pointless as no-one knows where to calibrate it against. I mean you've already stated it should only start from E8 (as in routes that don't see regular on sights). In which case what is a benchmark H7 or H8 or H9? Can you name any? And how crap would a grade system be that can only start from an arbitrary point of E8 and upwards??

I mean using the H grade just seems to incur all the disadvantages of the E grade and just add more confusion to it. The French grade is very easy to understand, and the R/X system is easy to adopt as well.

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Well the American R/X system goes on 5 levels and if you use a slash grade that's 9 levels you can grade danger at. Surely that's enough.

In reply to Short&Savage:



Nope. I live in Scotland.




Good.




I'm certainly not the right person to answer that! (though I do recall reading Dave MacLeod refer to If Six Was Nine as benchmark mid-E9)


And how crap would a grade system be that can only start from an arbitrary point of E8 and upwards??
>

It's really just a clarification to the top end of the existing system, rather than a whole new system.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


So does that mean If Six Was Nine is a H7? H8? H9 H10? I bet very few people can give answer that but a lot more will be able to have a stab at answering what French grade it is and also how dangerous it is.

Also if you are not in a position to know what a H7 and upwards should feel like, care to enlighten us on some benchmark H4/H5/H6 routes. Or even some H1/H2/H3 routes?

In reply to Short&Savage:

>And how crap would a grade system be that can only start from an arbitrary point of E8 and upwards??

Well, any grading system starts from some arbitrary point, does it not?

jcm

In reply to andrewmcleod:

>Summary: if you want to exactly obtain four separate quantities, which are either independent or dependent on each other in a non-linear way, you need to have four numbers!

Ed? Is that you?!

jcm

In reply to Short&Savage:



It's an H9 as it's doubtful it was graded for the onsight. Same goes for practically every route E9 and above - they have been graded for a headpoint but given E grades.



As I have already said, I don't think giving headpoint grades makes sense at levels which are commonly onsighted. Partly for the very reason you've suggested - no-one would know what an H3 was as very few go round climbing those routes in that style. It makes the most sense at grades which are nearly always headpointed. If you've done a route graded E9 you will have some idea of what H9 is like. If you've done a few you'll have a good idea of what H9 is like.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I'm not sure this is true - there seems to be quite a lot of it going on across the grades,


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I've seen VDiff headpoints and on bold grit E3 its possibly the most common form of roped lead ascent.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yes of course that true of any grading system but at least with the French grade the arbitrary starting point is right at the bottom of what we deem to be 'rock climbing' (i.e f1, 2, 3, 3+ etc) and works all the way up.
We also have a vast collection of routes across the grade range which are considered benchmark at a certain grade, meaning subsequent routes can be calibrated against these.

The same cannot be said at all for H grades and so will just cause confusion with very little gain.

Question:

I am led to believe most stuff above E8 is headpointed, not onsighted, and so all E grades above this are already H grades really. I have no experience of the E1-E8 range. The argument is that the traditional grading system is for the onsight.

But can anyone really give an example of a route, below E1, where the grade is higher or lower because the onsight is harder/easier? Perhaps this happens more on the kind of routes I don't climb, but I've never (or sufficiently rarely) found routes at this grade where I thought "that's tough to onsight" (whereas I have done with boulder problems). Maybe it will all become clear to me at HVS/E1 :P

In reply to andrewmcleod: Below E1... think about how much easier The Sloth would be as a lead if you'd previously top-roped it half a dozen times. Huge difference between onsight and headpoint on that (no idea what the headpoint grade would be H-HS 5a?).

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Verandah Buttress is really about HS 5b as an onsight and S 4c when you know how.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

I'd have thought that anything "easy but scary" would be a good example - nervy padding would be a lot less nervy if you'd done it five times on a top rope and you knew you could get up it with your eyes closed, whereas, say, sustained jamming is still sustained and jammy however many times you do it. Not in your grade range, I know a guy (much harder than me) who did The Snivling Shits (E5) this way at a time when he was generally leading about E2.

In reply to Michael Hood:


HS 5a would be a very unusual grade :P can you really have 5a on a HS which isn't just a boulder start?

In reply to Offwidth:


Again, a very unusual route by all accounts? (not done either).

As for bold but easy, while it may be less nerve-wracking climbing it for the fifteenth time, I think that for me remains a factor of its boldness, not its onsightability (which should be about whether you are going to fall off or not!).

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Hi Andrew, I think the 'onsightability' of a route gets more critical the steeper it is. At VS you can usually keep the weight on your feet while working out a confusing move, or trying to find out information about a blind move, so you have plenty of time at your disposal to make a good decision. Thus difficult to read sections on not steep routes have relatively little impact on the adjectival grade. On the steep ground typical of the high E grades you either have to make a good decision on difficult to read sections pretty quickly, or fail. Likelihood of failure on the onsight is what governs the E-grade.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Thats not true. Loads of VS climbs are steep enough to have to move reasonably fast and there are plenty of non-steep Extremes. VS leaders are pretty much as likely to fall off VS climbs as Extreme leaders off extremes.

In reply to Removed User:
How about Kelly's Overhang at HHVS E0 5b? Defo a clock ticker from memory.

In reply to Offwidth:
Actually, it is true that VS routes tend to be less steep than E8s. I concur that VS leaders are just as likely to fail at VS as E7 leaders are to fall off at E7 - my point was a bit more subtle. I think if you read it again in less of a rush you will see what I meant: steeper ground makes difficult to read ground more important in attributing an adjectival grade.

In reply to andrewmcleod:
I'd say that onsightability (and grade generally) also takes into account whether you'll actually get on it in the first place! You don't get a tick for saying "I could probably have cruised it but I didn't want to face the consequences if something went wrong so I gave it a miss!"

In reply to Wicamoi:

So what? Plenty of VS climbs are steep enough to make it difficult to read ground and make any hanging around turn into a fall. It's got sod all to do with the grade apart from arguing the toss as to what percentage of each grade it applies (yes more E7s will be like this than VS). E7 onsights are elite in any case, high E grades for onsights are more like E5/6 to me.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Agreed. Plenty routes have little in the way of decent gear but relatively easy climbing for the grade. Once you know the moves and can get it sufficiently wired that you're unlikely to fall, the gear (which you've still made as good as you possibly can!) becomes less of an issue. An onsighter getting to this gear before the tricky runout may well not feel they can commit with the gear as it is. It's often these sort of routes which get headpointed, for this very reason (that they are disproportionately easy to headpoint).

In reply to Offwidth:


So I was trying to help you understand that you'd misunderstood my post


In other words, you agree with me - your grudging sweariness in doing so is noted, and appreciated.

In reply to Wicamoi:

You are of course correct. Very few overhanging walls are juggy enough to be only 4c. I tend to think this is a factor why the tech grade gets spread over more overall grades as you go up as fitness becomes much more important. You get the likes of the big pumpy E3 5c pitches, then there's the even more sustained and pumpy (though still well protected) E4 5c ones.