UKC

just wandering what the French grade of The Cad (E6 6a) is! I guess it would be around 7a?

don't have ago at me for using the French grade on British traditional climbs its just the grade get very vague!

thanks

In reply to JSH:

Not more than F6c+. Buoux slab grade anyone?

Several previous threads have discussed sport grades of classic trad. routes like this.

In reply to flaneur:

Whoa - awesome that I can climb E6 and above! Hang on, no I can't! Bummer.

In reply to flaneur:



I've always been told it was around 6c+ / 7a - but I hope to god it's not Buoux 6c+ slab grade.

Boggy

In reply to JSH:

What do people get out of these comparisons?

Whilst I can attach a trad grade to a sports route, at least in my own head, to help me understand it, the other way round seems totally meaningless.

Al

In reply to JSH:

I'd have given it 6c maybe low 6c+. Not sustained enough to be 7a.

Alan

In reply to GridNorth:





It makes it a lot easier to understand how hard it is once the gear is taken out of consideration. Especially handy when there isn't a lot of it, such as on the Cad - hence the climbing may well be a bit easier than your "average" E6 to account for the death factor.

In reply to Bogwalloper:

Hard E6 as an onsight with no bolt option, standard UK 6a tech, French grade maybe 6c but certainly easier than a Buoux 6b+ slab!
The main difficulty onsight is that when it looks like it's over, it isn't As a headpoint it would be relatively straightforward, maybe even only H5

In reply to john arran:


Ha, I read that as HS!

In reply to ianstevens:

I always thought that was what the E grade told you. Surely a technical grade combined with an E grade and mention of a route being sustained and sparse on gear tells you all you need to know. Never having done it I would expect the route to be sustained with a few moves of UK 6a. Does f6c+ tell you more than that? And yes I know the french system grades for the pitch and not the hardest move but f6c+ still does not give any indication of if the route is sustained or a one move crux.

In reply to JSH:

I think the point to this is that some of us at some point look at what we can do at the wall/on bolts and romanticise about what we may be able to achieve on routes such as this.
I think we all know that the reality is vastly different.

Andy

In reply to GridNorth:

It does to a degree, but the French grade still provides a useful indicator of how hard the pitch is going to be - I'm not trying to insinuate that it's what should be used, but can provide a handy piece of information. I believe that for hard trad routes where tech grades become wider than a... (I'll leave the simile to your imagination!) that use of a French grade as an addition is pretty common practice.

Personally, I'm a bit shit, so it makes no difference to me.

In reply to john arran:

Agree with John Top roped it prior to 1st ascent Never considered a bolt Ron has moved boundaries/acceptability quite a bit during his amazing career
Boux 6b ? try Cham high mountain route slabs! Once did Dimanche Noir on Peine slabs Thierry Renault said to me if you fart you fall!!

In reply to GridNorth:


I remember in the early 80s seeing a report about two new(ish) routes. One was Statement of Youth and the other was The Bells the Bells and they were both given E7 6b at that time since people hadn't fully accepted the sport grade (if you aren't happy with Statement being the route then substitute Requiem on Dumbarton Rock which was also done around that time and given E7 6b (I think) but is fully trad). The thing is that those grades are actually about right.

So...

The Bells, The Bells - 6c+/7a ish
Statement - 8a
Requiem - 8a

To me that is useful information that is completely lost in the UK trad grading system.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm afraid those grades are far beyond my modest capabilities and perhaps that's the crux, no pun intended, of the issue. The hardest I've climbed is E5, and that was a fluke and a one off, so realistically E4 and IMO trad grades have always been more than adequate for me in that grade band.

In reply to GridNorth:


It certainly is more used in the harder grades, and is especially useful on bold routes.

Jon Read includes sport grades for the majority of the routes in his excellent Grit List - http://gritlist.wikifoundry.com/page/E5%20Peak%20District

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

In the 80s there was wide disagreement as to whether the tech grade should be the hardest move or the whole pitch - hence Supersonic proposed at 6c. I was in the latter camp, which lost out, but I still think it's a far more useful measure than hardest move. I think the current tendency to use sport grades instead of tech grades reflects this.

In reply to GridNorth:

E5 6a London wall 7a+
E5 6a On the air 6c
E5 6a heartless hare 6a+

I want a french grade

In reply to john arran:

Again I can only speak for grades up to E4 but the problem with making the technical grade the grade of the pitch rather than the hardest move is that the E grade becomes unnecessary, especially on single pitch routes, and you have in affect given a UK trad route a French grade. I just don't see how a single tier system e.g. French, Australian etc. can ever offer more information than a 2 tier system i.e. UK trad. No matter how you cut it f6b, f6b+, f6c etc. etc is essentially 1, 2, 3 , 4 etc. whereas the UK trad system offers two variables.

Al

In reply to ashtond6:





I assume that to mean in addition?

In reply to jon:

We've had quite a lot of this discussion on the H grades thread, will maybe blog about it in next couple weeks given I can't climb at the moment.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=617286&v=1#x8069612

In reply to JSH:

Perhaps one solution would be to have a UK trad grade for the lead and a French sports climb grade for the second or on top rope. The main issue of contention seems to be that UK tech describes the hardest move and the French system describes the pitch/climb. I have noticed that many multi-pitch or long sports climbs seem to get disproportionately high grades just because they are long/serious.

This would also stop those, and I have met a few, who claim to climb, say E2,5c when what they really mean is that they got to the top but fail to mention they were dragged up that route with a very tight rope.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
What I meant was that a French grade on its own just wouldn't work - you'd need an E (or I suppose an H) grade too. Ashton's post seemed a little ambiguous and I was just trying to clarify. Certainly where I live, giving a French grade on its own to a trad route is just nonsense - but it happens!

In reply to GridNorth:


With respect I think you've missed something very important.
The supplementary tech grade may describe the whole pitch but still only relates to physical difficulty and says nothing about how hard the pitch is to lead. A F7b could be E5 if well protected yet E8 if really runout. The E grade still remains by far the most useful bit of info as it tells you how hard it is to lead rather than just to top-rope.

In reply to john arran:
I can't be bothered looking back to see where we have got at cross purposes but I agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

Al

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I shunted it at a time when I was fairly regularly onsighting 7a so although I have no idea what it feels like on the lead I perhaps have an idea of the technical grade relative to my strengths and weaknesses (not powerful but moderately tall and ok on fingery technical stuff- thanks to Pex Hill background). I managed it but found it hard. It was pretty sustained above the bolt location (a bolt was there at the time but it looked old and uninspiring) and, as people say, it went on for longer than seemed likely. As a result of this attempt I decided not to go for a lead (I wasn't prepared to work it, I just wanted to see if it was in my safe range. In the end I thought it marginally wasn't.)

In reply to GridNorth:

It gives you an idea of how sustained it is. If its a cruxy route on the other hand the comparison is just about useless.

In reply to JSH:

Surely the point at discussion is that the OP has asked for EXTRA information not instead of information. It doesn't challenge the validity of the Adjectival technical grading system at all.

In reply to GridNorth:

I agree that a sport grade seems unnecessary for up to around E4 (no onsight experience above that). If folk want an additional sport grade after the trad and tech for harder routes then fair enough I guess, but the trad and tech combo remains the best way of assessing how the route will feel provided you have a basic knowledge of the type of route (overhanging crack climb, bold wall climb etc).

In reply to jon:

Higher up, grid north asked why anyone finds the french grade useful. I was pointing out why I find it useful at my limit. It's not always possible to tell by just looking at the route

In reply to ashtond6:


Heartless Hare is E5 5c, no?

In reply to GridNorth:


They will understand how thousands of trad routes around the world are increasingly being graded. Look at 27crags for example, they only use French grades, so that's what trad routes are increasingly getting.

In reply to jon:

Totally agree it's almost useless without an other metric. Hence the R/X I discussed on the other thread.

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
The Bells, The Bells - 6c+/7a X
Statement 8a
Requiem 8a
Equilibrium 8b R/X

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

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


I thought Requiem was established as 8a+? I'm sure I remember reading that the UK's first 8a was actually 8a+ - "it" being Cubby's masterpiece.

In reply to harold walmsley:

That's what I gathered thinking about it. Defo much higher french grade than 7a for any E6 that wasn't purely hard but very well protected.
i'd expect the odd E2 to come in at nearly 7a since I rarely was stopped by that grade once and similarly was rarely stopped at 6Cplus.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Some guides yes, some guides no

In reply to howifeel:


What kind of total sandbag E2 would that be? Most well-protected E2s are about 6b max! I think you were trying a bit harder on the 6c+s than the E2s...

E4s are often around 6c, and frequently easier, E5s 6c+/7a.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Perhaps he's thinking about a solo/boulder problem. 7a would mean about 6A boulder...

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I'd stay away from this below mid Extreme (Browns is F6a R to me with the crux 5b move PG but with some X moves on F4/3 terrain at the top; FBD F6a+ PG). Uk grades work better on their own in this area: many protectable HVS 'traditionally awkward' climbs are solid F6 terrain and then there is the confusion about onsight vs headpoint French grades at the lower grades and the habit of the French to leave old 'easier' sports routes as sandbag horror- shows alongside the tendancy of some walls and some new developers to overgrade.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

Is that not just the Yosemite decimal system?

In reply to GridNorth: I imagine most people will have climbed many more 6c French routes than they have British 6a routes so a French grade is easier to comprehend.

In reply to Offwidth:

Always going to have discussions about the grades, your opinion certainly valid. I think I've only soloed Browns, maybe seconded it once. I would say R/X but it might settle at 6a...


You have that variation problem regardless of grading system. I also think you're just describing two different manifestations of the same issue in 2 different grading systems; the traditional sandbag French grade horror and the sandbag horror of traditional HVS. The constant is "tradition". In reality they're often harder, now's the opportunity to sort it out and lead the way in the UK

Done plenty of bolted F6 that have been traditionally awkward, grade still works - you know what you're letting yourself in for!

In reply to alex_arthur:

Yes, you just answered your own question. Apply a system people understand. Forgive the generalisation, but I suspect the most opposed are likely to be those that sport climb the least.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I'm not opposed unless it starts to replace UK trad grades. If it's supplementary information I can see some benefit but only in the harder grades. I still think the UK system is more than adequate up to and including E4. IMO those looking for equivalent sports grades have probably come from a sport back ground and possibly do not understand the British system. Having said all that it does appear to be in the higher grades when these questions come up.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Most people will ultimately have come from a wall/sport background in a number of years - that wasn't my background though. The wall I first "trained" at only used UK tech grades!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

You don't grade routes X on the main grade when all the hard moves are protected (the US will use brackets sometimes) so for BE we get something like F6a PG/R ( F4 X) maybe. On the HVSs point I think most are fine, its just a minority that are clearly too hard for the onsight even when folk have the skills (like Kellys Overhang) and they should be well up the next grade; others just feel hard because climbers have below average skills in the area.

Awkward and bold routes cause arguments, because some climbers struggle to relate their own ability to cope easily with the likely experience of the nominal onsight climbing average (so for example Goliaths Groove feels VS to me but I know its grade needs to be middling HVS in modern terms for the standard properly skilled HVS onsight leader some of whom think its nearly E1; Sunset Slab feels VS to me but I'm used to it and know it should be lower end HVS as an onsight and yet some think its HS)

In reply to GridNorth:


Not really, most climbers around the world just don't happen to climb in UK... And since french grades are quite well understood globally. Pretty much all other systems globally used are in essence single grade systems telling you how hard the climbing is going to be (overall for the whole pitch), so grade conversions are rather easy. With UK grades, that is not the case, heck an E2 can be anything from roughly french 5c to 6c or so?

And before anyone comes to point out superiour your 2 -tier system is.. well, it's great if you're used to it... not so good if you simply try to decipher how hard the climbing is going to really be from the guidebooks.

In reply to HeMa:

The grades are for climbs in the UK, not the other side of the world. With anyone going to a new area with unfamiliar grading system they would do well to start low until they get a feel for the grades. That goes for the UK, USA, Australia, anywhere.

In reply to HeMa:

But we are talking in a UK context. I'm sure that most climbers who climb trad in the UK live in the UK. I'm also sure that an increasing number of them come to the game from an indoor/sport background these days. I know EXACTLY what to expect from a climb that is graded E2, 5c. All that f6b tells me is that it's harder than f6a and easier than the adjacent f6c. Possibly

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


+1

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


You're almost certainly right there. But we're talking about trad climbing, not sport climbing so you shouldn't expect trad climbers to be more versed in sport grades than trad. The majority of outdoor climbers in the UK do more trad than sport. Those that do so regularly will be well versed in the grades.

In reply to Offwidth:


Fine, if people are happy with 6a R for it. I never really described the PG rating if you see my original post which is why I think we're effectively agreeing just perceptions of the PG/R/X offset with each other


I think you're describing the fundamental of why H grades have been proposed: grade changes when you know it. At least sport grade is fundamentally much less swayed by the emotional side of "how it feels".

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Isn't the emotional side of 'how it feels' a quintessential part of trad?

The Cad typifies this. 50% of the route is about the head factor. The climbing isn't desperate, but the 'snappy' nature of the holds, and the poor gear (especially from halfway and beyond) is what gives it its character - onsight for the full effect - and makes it such a memory.

Personally, I don't want my trad to be quantified like an exercise in vertical gymnastics. I don't want to know every aspect in forensic detail. I want it to have that feeling of adventure.

In reply to JSH:

For someone that does mainly sport (like me) knowing the sport grade puts it in a more familiar frame of reference. The E grade may have more info, but if you use the French grade as your personal yardstick then getting that will be infinity more useful. Doesn't matter if one system is better or gives more info or what, if you can't reference it, it's useless.
For me E3 5c means very little to me. But if someone says 6a+/6b with easy gear then I get the same info, but it's relevant to me. And also, knowing that I am definitely not going to fall off the whole pitch is invaluable. Single moves being graded are useless imo.

In reply to mark_wellin:


That's the bit that confuses me with sports grades. If it's f6b, other than looking at the route how can I tell if it's sustained or a one move wonder. I know that theoretically there is no such thing as a f6b move but I would say that most sports routes I have done usually have one or two moves that are harder than anything else on the route and could be considered as the crux and the difficulty of the route must surely be based on that?

Al

In reply to Goucho:

Which is why when the route is approached as an adventure the UK trad works well. When the route is normally headpointed it doesn't and the sports grade or bouldering grade is way more useful than a (overly wide) UK tech grade.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Do we really think Brown's Eliminate would be F6a with four bolts in it?

Chris

In reply to GridNorth:

>I know EXACTLY what to expect from a climb that is graded E2, 5c.

I don't...


Which is to say the same, that E1, 5b is most prolly easier and adjoining E3, 6a harder...

A french grade gives you much better idea on how hard physically the climbing is going to be (after all, it's an overall grade of physical hardness). UK tech 5c doens't. E2 can shead a bit more light, as does the combination... but as you stated proportionally greater and greater populace (even in UK) will not have a good idea of the physical aspects required, 6b would how ever give them more info in that regard.

In reply to GridNorth:


There is, and it's about Font 5B.

In reply to GridNorth:

It's experience isn't it. I've done enough 6bs to know what one should feel like, whether that's long or cruxy. So it's most useful to me.
I have no idea with E grades, just because I don't use them.
Doesn't matter to me if its run out or safe if it's below my safety limit. If I worked up to my perceived safe onsight level, say 7a, then I would need an additional "good gear or poor gear". But still, knowing the whole pitch is that grade allows me to go at it with the appropriate head. Basically, E's are fine if you use them. If not, sport is more useful. Not trying to gain more info from using sport, more useful info.

In reply to HeMa:


Well if that is all you get from that I can see why you are having problems but I suggest that it would be more productive and dare I say respectful, to take the trouble to learn the system rather than try to change it.

Al

In reply to Offwidth:


A sign of the sport approach to trad?

But then again, I've never understood this sport/headpoint approach to trad in the first place

In reply to mark_wellin:

Many guidebooks also provide a route description.
Something like ' climb thirty feet to a fingerhold' gives you
additional info on top of the E3 5c (or whatever) grade.

Pmc

In reply to GridNorth:


Why, I don't climb a lot in UK... And actually I do understand UK grading to a point. How ever, I would say that not many other foreigners do. Oddly enough, I can copy with UIAA, french, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish and YDS grading. But UK grading is still somewhat of a mystery.

As for changing it, nope not trying to do that. Simply state that the system is hard for those not used to it. And judging from the amount of grading chat here, it doesn't seem to be that well understood even in UK. I mean, why do your top climbers often add the french grade when talkin' about their latest hard climbs. To me, that points out that something is not right in the system...

In reply to HeMa:


I think that may be because trad climbers are on the decline and sports climbers on the increase. Not that I have any figures to back that up, it's just a gut feeling. The system may not be working for the top climbers but that's because, as others have pointed out, their approach is different. I still maintain that up to E4 the UK trad system is the the best and most informative and the fact that some people do not understand it is not reason enough to change it and we should resist any attempts to do so as robustly as we resist indiscriminate bolting. This is not a pop at you by the way.

Al

In reply to HeMa:
The British grading system actually stops you from climbing in the uk? Wow.
It's by no means a perfect grading system, particularly in the upper grades but it's hardly quantum physics to get the gist of it.
Any foreign climbers I've spoken to about it have said that it's taken a couple of days to get used to it, and then it proves to be very descriptive.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what quantum physics are (and even I can get my head round the British grading system).

In reply to HeMa:
It's a silly argument. You have to do a good few routes within any grading system to get a good feel for it. Otherwise I could complain I don't have a good feel for any given grading system which I don't have much on hand experience of. That would probably change after I'd made an attempt to rectify the situation.

The best way of getting a feel for, say, E2 5c would be to do a few E1s then a few E2s of varying tech grades.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

Your suggestion is sensible, but wouldn't it be better to retain the E grade, rather than add R and X? In other words, use a combination of E grade and French grade, rather than the current E plus British tech.

Thus the E grade would remain as an overall assessment of the climb. What is broken about UK grades is not the E grade but the tech grade, especially at the upper end. That's because each grade is too wide, and also because grading for the single hardest move is a bit silly since what matters much more is cumulative difficulty, and how tired you are when you arrive at the hard moves.

That gives:

Dream of White Horses HVS 5
Chequers Buttress HVS 5+
Three Pebble Slab E0 5+
Flying Buttress E1 6a
Brown's Eliminate E2 6a+
Strapadictomy E5 6c+
Right Wall E5 6c+
London Wall E5 7a+
Gaia E8 7b
Master's Edge E7 7c
The Bells, The Bells E7 6c+/7a
Statement 8a
Requiem E8 8a
Equilibrium E10 8b

In reply to JSH:

There is really no need to add extra grading information to the Uk trad grade for trad routes in the UK. What is more important is to look at the route and read the guidebook description along with the given grade. If you can't make a judgement using this information then your in the wrong game.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not sure I agree, the UK system tells you all you need to know if used in conjunction with the guidebook description and a look at the route.
E2,5b will probably be run out, or sustained or be on dodgy rock. E2, 6a will probably be well protected, or have one hard move or be escapable. From just the grade you can't tell, but read the discription and look at the route and you will know.
There is so much information available nowadays you can get information overload, let's remember UK Trad is an adventure game.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


Up to the sort of grades that I climb and which you climb (judging from your profile) I largely agree with you.

But that's not what this discussion is about. Plenty of people who climb E6 and above say that the tech grade is getting pretty useless at those grades, and they're much more likely to talk about a French grade or a Font grade.

The UK tech grade might have worked fine, if people had been willing to use it with a finer gradation, and to treat it as de facto cumulative, but the last generation of climbers and guide book writers effectively destroyed it by shoving everything into 6c, and being hyper reluctant to use 7a, 7b, etc.

Thus, between UK 6b and 7b you have three steps. The equivalent in French is about 14 steps (6c+ to 9a+).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I would have thought that people who climb E6 and above should be have the ability to make a judgement before setting off to on sight a route. If they aren't on sighting, and are pre practising or inspecting a route then they will definitely have all the information they need.
We shouldn't change the system so that the limited number of +E6 climbers have extra information, they are good enough to look after themselves.
The danger is that you tell the wrong person that The Cad is f6c and they will kill themselves because they didn't understand what E6 was.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

That 'sounds easy, lets go for it' factor is certainly one of my concerns, especially if the french grade is mistaken for a flash grade in the grey areas below F7. I still think UK tech is pretty useless above 6a.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


That's an argument for not having grades at all and not having guidebooks. It seems entirely reasonable for on-sighters of those routes to have decent grades to work from.


Any they'll "look after themselves" by gathering beta on French grades for their on-sights. That does not give them "extra" information, it gives them a grade that works at those grades, in the same way that the UK tech grade does work at lower grades.

From UK 4a to 5c is six steps. The equivalent in French is about six or seven steps again (4, 4+, 5, 5+, 6a, 6b, 6b+). They both have similar gradation and both work.

From UK 6b and 7b you have three steps, whereas (as above) the equivalent French has about 14 steps. That's why the UK tech grade is less useful.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think any change is necessary but in order to pander to the needs of the E6 to E10 climbers who are struggling, it sounds to me like the problem is that the UK tech grades from 6b upwards are the problem. So instead of making a hybrid system why not just change the UK high end tech grades. The 6b to 7a range could be broken down to smaller ranges and become 6b to say 8b. It would take time but anything is better than adopting a French system!

In reply to Martin Haworth:


Yep, agreed, that would be a good alternative. But the problem is persuading guidebook editors and others to do that. So far the attitude has been one of derision towards claims of high grades and consequent stuffing things into lower grades. As a result the climbers at those grades have already largely shifted towards French grades.

In reply to deacondeacon:


Absolutely...

Or perhaps it's the price on plane tickets. I can drive to N-Norway for long multitpitch granite a lot easier or fly to the alps/spain/italy cheaper.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

It's pretty hard to judge the difficulty of many routes just by looking at them, particularly if the harder sections are high up. For safe routes a grade of E6 6b could any one of 3 french grades: 7b+, 7c, 7c+. If the gear is hard to get in or the crux is a little run out it might be only 7b.


This is true but grades aren't just for safety. A climber might want to know how long a route might take them. Someone who can flash up to 7b might well need more than 1 day to climb a 7c+. So if you've only got one day at place you want to pick a route you've at least got a good chance of completing having such info is really useful.

In reply to stp:



I understand that having the extra grade adds to the route knowledge but I really question if it is necessary, it's a trad route there will be an element of adventure involved.

So it's all about convenience?
If they've only got one day at a location either climb something easier for guaranteed success, or go for the E6,6b and be prepared for failure, nice to have one to come back to another day.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

What you say sounds entirely sensible to me. Seems little point in a whole sale change of a system which works fine for the vast majority who use it. For harder routes I don't see what is wrong with just putting the sport grade in brackets after the trad and tech grades if there is demand for this.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I think its more that that particular grade, E6, is so broad that more info is essential on deciding whether a route is possible for you or not.


Erm yes. Isn't that what all grades for are for? We use a guidebook to choose a route that's going to be neither too easy nor too hard for us but hopefully something on right on our limit. Not sure what's wrong with that. It's what everyone does.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Something we actually agree on! Mind you, if someone has little experience of sport climbing it will be of little use. For the people who do, it will be very helpful.

Andy F

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Having done it this afternoon. Probably 5c+ R/X

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Nope, unless you include the direct from the ground up the Arete, otherwise f5

In reply to GridNorth:

I'm never sure why the hardest move is considered such useful beta - are there really that many people who can do a single 5c move but not a few 5b moves, or a string of 5c moves but not a single 6a move? And above 6b it starts to become a bit meaningless anyway, from what they say. I find a French grade far more useful because it tells me how hard the pitch is likely to be without getting tied down with mixing in an element of the boldness as the E grade does.

Edit: As an example, if I had 3 routes - 2 grades E3 5c and one graded E3 6a. One is very bold, one is very pumpy but well protected and one is very cruxy and well protected. Personally, I find it more useful to be able to separately identify the bold one than to be able to separately identify the cruxy one - both the pumpy and the well-protected one are likely to be about the same physical difficulty (6b+ or 6c French) so I'm not too bothered whether the amount of effort I have to put in is spread out over a whole oitch or concentrated into a single crux. I'm more keen on identifying the leg-breaker.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


That was the kind of grade I had in mind,

Chris

In reply to AJM:


Agreed. To me a 6a move when fresh (e.g. off a hands-off rest) feels similar to a 5c move when a bit tired, and a 5b move when a lot tired, et cetera.

In reply to AJM:

Well it's useful to me because experience tells me that I can get up a 5c but not necessarily a 6a. The E grade tells me how many 5c moves I'm likely to encounter and what the overall feel of the route, in terms of difficulty and seriousness, is likely to be. I'm not arguing that it's perfect but I do maintain that it tells me more than a grade based on a single variable can ever do. I accept that on the same basis I know I can get up a f6b but not a f6c but that's all it tells me. On a trad route I need the additional information because I do not want to hurt myself. On a sport route it doesn't matter that I can't climb f6c as there is nothing to stop me trying it. On trad I would attempt an E2 5c, but I would be hesitant to try either an E4 5c or an E2 6a. I need that additional information that only the 2 tier system gives me.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

I'm not disagreeing with a 2 tier system, to be clear, I just think that if you have a 2 factor system then I think it's more useful to make the danger unambiguous (either with a separate pg/r/x rating or from the difference between overall and French grade, which would leave the danger making up the difference, I don't mind) rather than making the hardest move unambiguous and leaving boldness vs sustainedness as an unknown factor. In your example, the E grade doesn't tell you how many 5c moves there are likely to be, because the sustainedness vs danger element is left ambiguous.

Who knows. Maybe people are less well-rounded than I assume they are in terms of physical ability at the level they lead trad (relative to their theoretical maximums).

Do you really stand more chance on an E3 5c than an E2 6a? That for me is the ultimate measure of whether the tech grade is a useful measure to identify separately...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yes, it's certainly something I've though of suggesting and it's a more valid system than we have currently however the argument I have against is that it's going to take a lot more getting used to than a FR+R/X as the technical difficulty that routes used to get pegged to has been removed.

Without some kind of pegging to the E grade you don't actually know that London Wall E5 7a+ is safe, sustained and well protected, where a grade of 7a+ (without any R/X in this case) gives you that. An E5 that's (Strapadictomy) 6c+ or 7a may be of the same nature too. You can make assumptions, but it still doesn't tell you as precisely as a Fr+R/X. Hence the two discrete understandable factors, the physicality and the danger.

Thinking out loud, I suppose the litmus test of that system is: Can you think of routes say that are the same Fr+R/X grade that have different E grades? I'm sure there are examples but are there enough that breaks it down? The closest, thinking while I type, in the examples so far is Right Wall (E5) and The Cad (E6), both being 6c+. Though I would assume The Cad would get 6c+ R/X, where Right Wall gets 6c+ R, so there is some definition.

I know that the difference in E grade isn't solely about danger, but the finer grading of focussing on the physicality ie the Fr grade does allow you to avoid a lot of the uncertainty around the rest of the grade aspect it creates, and allow you to focus on the danger element. At the end of the day most people care most about a) how hard it is and b) how dangerous it is. Other bits of extra information (like hard to place gear, specialist gear, exposure etc) can be, and are usually, given in the description.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


Climbing is an adventure game, the UK isn't all that special in that respect. 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 Martin Haworth:


a) some people do set off up routes that are too dangerous for them anyway
b) for everyone else, knowing discretely that a route is R, R/X or X helps you not do that. Give the majority of people some credit, most are not going to set off up 6c+ X if they don't have a lot of grades in the bag. If they do refer to point a).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Which surely gives you extremely usable info when combined with an E grade?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

What other routes have an effective French grade easier than the tech grade of the crux move? It's at least 5+ to use the blunt version. From the ledge in UK tech, move by move it's something like 5b into a 5a into a 5a into a 4c then 4a/b to top.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I have to be honest and say I have no idea what R or X means, or PG.

The point I've tried to make is that the E grade plus UK tech grade plus guidebook description and a look at the route should be enough information for everyone.
A few people have commented that the UK tech grade doesn't work too well above 6b and I accept this. So reluctantly, above 6b maybe a sport grade in brackets is useful.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


That's the thrust of the argument that makes the sport grade as a replacement useful, read up the thread a bit further...


Fixed that for you

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Well, I think his point was the opposite - because they're essentially the same overall effort, it doesn't add anything to specify it.

In reply to JSH:

I'm getting confused by this thread. My argument is that a 2 tier system will give more information than a 1 tier system therefore it stands to reason that by supplementing this with another variable e.g. a French grade that will give even more information as it then would become a 3 tier system. My argument is that up to E4 this is neither desirable nor necessary but that was not the context of the original post which asked a straightforward but meaningless question, essentially what would be the French grade of The Cad. The point I am trying to make is that E5, 6a tells you more about the route than f7a and I don't think anyone has put forward a satisfactory explanation as to why it does not, other than virtually admitting that they do not fully understand the UK system.

Al

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


But we don't use F or X or PG or French grades for UK trad routes, because they aren't needed.

If we use the Cad as an example I don't think knowing its f6c+ is relevant, it's a bold head game route.

E6, 6a , plus the guidebook description which uses the words bold and boldly, and the crag introduction which mentions snappy holds, plus standing at the bottom of the route, should give you everything you need to know!

In reply to GridNorth:

I agree this

In reply to GridNorth:

I've not been following this terribly closely, but how many people here have actually been arguing for a 1-factor system? That seems like something of a straw man? Most of the posts I saw were after a 2-tier system, either E + Fr or Fr+ PG/R/X.

In reply to GridNorth:


It's not meaningless. It tells you how hard the climbing is when you strip everything else away.


and also IRT to Martin RE:


Given that most of the thread is discussing various methods of improving the E grade system (whether wholesale change, 2 tier, 3 tier not, just a sport grade) it shows a general acceptance that it's not as good as it could be. I think everyone is saying if people were to use the French grade you need something additional to make it work, whether thats a R/X or an E grade (or as an addition to current system in brackets). As AJM said your argument is probably a straw-man.

In reply to AJM:

but if you take it as 'fresh' then you can work the rest out?

In reply to AJM:


Yes.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

There are two fundamental problems with using R/X/PG suffices, although I agree it sounds like a useful system until considered in detail.
The first is that such a system simply fails you tell you how hard a route is to lead relative to a route next door: e.g. is a 6b X harder or easier to lead than a 6c R or a 7a PG?
The second is what the R or X actually applies to. Would a route with a well-protected 6a move followed by 20m of unprotected 5b get 6b X, 6b R or simply 6b? This matters, as the current UK grade would be maybe E4/5 6a and yet I'd expect a 6b X to be maybe E5 and a 6b PG to be more like E2.
Fundamentally there is no perfect system, but if leading is what we're assessing then I prefer a system that tells you first and foremost how hard a route is to lead, only afterwards qualifying this with helpful sub-grades.

In reply to JSH:

The idea that a two tier system works best is obvious. But the E system muddys the water by not keeping the two elements discreet (technical difficulty and danger). its all very well saying the e grade plus the description tells you all you need, but then the description is acting as another (subjective) teir.
I have no idea why knowing the hardest move would be more useful than knowing the overall difficulty? For me the French will always win.
7a x is a lot more concise and contains the same info, with a lot less ambiguity than the corresponding e grade+ description. And doesn't need a description (although it would always benefit from one)

In reply to GridNorth:



The whole point is that on average people will find E4s harder than E3s and E3s harder than E2s. People who prefer well-protected routes may disagree and find E2 6a easier than E3 5c, whereas people who prefer scary routes may find E4 5c easier than E3 6a, but that doesn't change the fact that on average the E grade given is a measure of the proportion of people likely to succeed.

In reply to john arran:

I don't disagree. I was asked a personal question and gave an honest personal answer.

In reply to john arran:


Absolutely, does that mean you'd prefer E+ Fr, given that french grade is much finer, or even font grade to stick with the "crux" version, as the sub-grades are more helpful? I also think that the R/X issue you highlight is generally surmountable, just requires some definition and the overall benefit outweighs where it falls down in those areas. Basically having this discussion is needed to make it work!

R - runout/larger fall potential
R/X - runout/injury potential
X - serious injury likely in failure

I suspect in your case it would settle at 6b R/X, and a description of: "a low, protected crux then a long and lonely easier, but not to be underestimated, solo to the top." You are describing real edge cases (no pun intended) to make the argument. How many routes are there that are really 20m of 5b after a protected 6a move? We need a system that works best in the majority of cases, as above descriptions etc can sort the edge cases out.

In reply to GridNorth:

As john suggests, I suspect that in this you're an outlier - on average (or for the hypothetical "well rounded climber"), people will find them the other way round.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

The rest of what? Your post seems lacking some of the information I need to make any sense of it

In reply to AJM:


Quite, grades no matter how fine are subjective to some extent, hence the need for people to talk about definitive E1 or definitive 7a. If most people had that same imbalance of success on E3 5c/E2 6a then its the grade that's wrong, not the ability.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Wuthering, Elegy, The Fang, etc. are all classic routes that would really struggle with that system. I think it has its priorities in the wrong place, i.e. ranking physical difficulty as primary rather than overall leading difficulty. Perfect if what people really want to do is top-rope.

In reply to john arran:


Which is what it comes down to and we'll have to agree to differ, I'm well aware as the real father of the H grade it was likely to end that way! Essentially I think the combo of the Fr+R/X gives you enough you need to know about how difficult it is to lead, and much more info about the physicality of it, but some don't.

In reply to JSH:

Can anyone explain to me why the E grade system is "broken" in the higher grades? Surely the English tech. grades are just incremental increases in difficulty the same as the French grades?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I've got more chance of success on an E3,5c than an E2, 6a.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Well, if most people on average feel like that then the E grade's broken (and it is for you too).

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

Agreed. I just think that the main objective of a grade is how hard it is to lead, and to have to try to deduce that by combining two grades plus some text is not the most helpful approach, even though I agree it may contain similarly accurate data.

P's. The H grade predated me; I just chanced upon an ideal opportunity to apply it.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I disagree. I'm weak, crap at bouldering, but have a good head for run outs.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes but the UK system identifies the hardest move whereas the French system describes the pitch or route which is why it is difficult to compare the two. There is a school of thought that states it would have been more helpful to compare the French grade with the UK adjectival grade rather than the technical grade but that's yet another can of worms.

To those who say I am an "outlier" because I can climb E3, 5c but not E2, 6a you may be right. That's because the 6a element is a purely physical barrier and I'm not getting any younger but I have never had problems with the head game.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


There's a surprise!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

That's a bit harsh!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

>, does that mean you'd prefer E+ Fr, given that french grade is much finer, or even font grade to stick with the "crux" version, as the sub-grades are more helpful?

I've always thought that if you're going to assess physical difficulty in isolation you're better off doing so cumulatively, i.e. what proportion of climbers could top-rope ithe pitch without falling, rather than try to focus on some nefarious hardest bit to try to quantify. Cruxy routes are the exception to be handled separately rather than the norm to be prioritised. Apart from grit, of course

In reply to Martin Haworth:

We've disagreed on pretty much every point all down the thread, that's absolutely fine - nothing personal, and not meant in any wider context - it just didn't surprise me when you continued to argue the point!

In reply to john arran:


100%


Exactly! In both systems E and Fr cruxy doesn't work so well. At the shortest level why highball grit has already moved to the Font grade.

If that's your premise, and given you used a cruxy route to counter my argument, I'm sure you could be debated round to the Fr+R/X system eventually

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I think we disagree because we are opposite ends of the climbing grades. At your grades maybe the system doesn't work. At my end of the scale I think it does.

In reply to GridNorth:

There is a school of thought that states it would have been more helpful to compare the French grade with the UK adjectival grade rather than the technical grade but that's yet another can of worms.

Too right! The UK tech grade, the hardest move in isolation, is an absolute...in isolation... and can be qualified by whatever overall grade system you choose to give it. I always mentally give a route I've done. sport, trad, boulder problem whatever, a tech grade - it just seems obvious to me!

I have been climbing in the UK for over 20 years and I still struggle with the grading system. In my opinion it has 2 problems. Firstly the E grade can mean strenuous or boldness. This is not always easy to tell from the description and you can't always see the whole route to make a judgment. Secondly the British technical grades are too broad. British 6a can be several bouldering grades. I know I can climb 5c. I also know I rarely climb 6b, so depending on what end of the scale can have an impact. And while I don't mind pushing myself and falling off I don't really want to end up in hospital. Eg I want to climb a classic 3* single pitch sea cliff E4 6a. I can't see the route from the top and I have to traverse to the bottom. The description says. "Climb the flared crack. (difficult when damp) Until hard to read sequence leads to hollow flakes which are followed to the top." Is it strenuous? Could be. Is it bold? Sounds it. Is it hard technically? Sounds it. Could I hurt myself? Maybe if the flared crack doesn't take good gear. Or the flakes are really bad. Then again it could be really well protected and sustained. There could be several 6a moves. Or one desperate 6a move between the crack and the flakes. I have no idea! E4 6a has given me a rough idea of what could really be 3 or 4 different grades.
You only have to look at grade comparison charts and see how many French grades an E grade covers to see our system is too broad and vague. Even E4-/+, 6a-/+ would be an improvement

In reply to WB:

100% my opinion

I want to push myself, how do I know which E4 to try? Other than asking people how the gear is and the overall difficulty. Holds me back for sure

In reply to all:

Poor guy just wanted to know the Fr grade of the cad haha

In reply to JSH:
Not to sound obtuse, but those asking for a sport grade (or more than an e grade) seem to have a reasonable justification (ie it tells me whether I should try and climb a route and so it will make me climb more and have more fun), and those against seem to justify it with.... Well, actually... What? The death of a piece of cultural heritage? The effete pride of having gone up a route they knew little about and conquered and now some strong gym climber is going to come and take that away from me?

Nobody is suggesting we bolt strawberries. What evil would adding a French grade to guidebooks really do? (Except maybe the basket case who decides to lead the cad - but he can see the old English grade next to it and should be able to read the description and realise he's soloing f6c+).

In reply to neuromancer:



Spot on, added information is rather good (unless it goes to too much detail on gear or beta), as it allows you to make better decisions.

A good example is already Tech 6a, it ranges from F5c to F6b (F for Font)... and from a general idea that for routes the french grade is a full numerical harder (if route is sustained instead of cruxy), so Tech 6a could mean f6c to f7b, that already quite a big gap (4 french sports grades). And if the route happens to be cruxy instead of sustained, well then the lower end might creep downwards (6b'ish).

In reply to WB:

I agree completely and it's something I've said a few times in similar debates. A higher E grade relative to the tech grade can mean it's either bold or sustained with no way of telling if it's not obvious form the ground. And equally, tech grades are so broad once you get above 6a you might as well just grade them "hard, very hard and desperate" as that's about as accurate as can be. And with the fact it's supposed to be the hardest move, it could mean one boulderly 6a move near the ground, or a sustained sequence of them, making for a much harder climb.

I like how in some of the lakes guides, for harder routes they give the trad grade then a sport grade as well so we know actually how hard it is to climb from top to bottom which is very useful before setting out on something potentially serious.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Is Strapadictomy really that easy or is this one of those cases where F grades don't work for what's basically a big boulder problem and it's more like F6c+/V6?

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Maybe it's 7a, I certainly wouldn't say it was any harder - have done it 6 or 7 times but not for a couple of years so memory might be failing me. The crux is easier for the tall that's for sure.

Jon Read gave it 7a here: http://gritlist.wikifoundry.com/page/E5+Peak+District

In reply to WB:

Well, having used it for 30 years now (gulp), I've never had any serious problems with it! Now and again it may be lacking but generally the grade + description (let alone all the online opinion you can get now) means you know a lot before you set out and how much more do you want to know before the on-sight becomes becomes irrelevant?

In reply to GridNorth:


I'm less convinced of this as I see it getting used quite differently in different parts of the country. I noticed in Pembroke when I visited the other weekend quite a few routes grade HVS 4c, E1 5a, E2 5b etc. none of which were dangerous, in fact often the opposite, but just sustained. My memories from climbing in Scotland (maybe the newer SMC guides have changed this but I don't think so) is that VS 4b, HVS 4c etc. was reserved for just the most runout and probably dangerous pitches and my experience in North Wales, Peak etc. Shorter routes in the Peak can also have odd grades - VS 5a for example, where actually there is no protection and you are well above a safe height to jump off from even with a mat, but it seems if the route is "short" it gets graded like that. And is the Yorkshire grit guide still using the P grades? What's up with that?!

I don't really care, but the idea that UK grades tell you everything you need to know doesn't strike me as realistic when they get used differently by different people. At the end of the day, standing at the bottom of the climb, looking and using your own judgement seems just as important as if the climb was given 6a (poor gear), 5.10 R or whatever.

In reply to TobyA:
It's beginning to look like a generation issue. Most of us old codgers don't appear to have any problems with the UK grading system. I agree that it can be difficult to know if the E is for sustained or unprotected but then that's the same with the French grades so I see no need to change one for the other which is what many are proposing and is the original context of the thread.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Yes, but less difficult to know, and that matters a lot, and a lot more as the routes get harder.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


When I'm at a new area looking for suitable routes the main grade given should be the most useful indicator of difficulty. If I climb E4 the I'll look for E4s, plus or minus depending on other factors, but mainly I'll be scanning the pages for good E4s. At a sport crag I'll do the same, scanning the pages for the grades I'm most interested in.

This becomes much less useful if sport grades are used as the main grade for trad routes, since F6c could in reality be anything from E2 to E6, and it's only by looking at the other grades and the text that I'll be able to narrow the field of potential routes. In that case if I'm looking for good routes at E4 I'll need to be considering anything graded F6b to F7a+, and then dismissing most of them again after looking at the grade suffix. That approach I'm sure works very well in places where the clear majority of routes are well protected, so the sport grade more useful most of the time, but in the UK the routes are much more likely to be R, X (or anywhere between or both in different places) so juggling 2 grades when scanning a guidebook for likely routes would be far more confusing.

In reply to john arran:

Then what would be so hard about just adding a sport grade after the british trad grade system?

Then when you scan for your 3* classic E4, and find that it's got a french grade of f5c, you know you need a stiff dram of whiskey before you take it under your belt (or a psych eval).

In reply to neuromancer:


Why not just read the guidebook - that is what they are for:

E4 5c "super-sustained but safe as houses"

E4 5c "bold and committing to the 1st runner at 15m"


Chris

In reply to TobyA:


A low tech grade and high E grade means the route is either sustained OR dangerous (or both) and this has always been the case.

Chris

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I would like to know the grade… Mostly so I can make an assessment on whether I have a low or high chance of injuring myself. I don’t need to know specific moves or gear. Just a good idea of the difficulty and danger. I think the E grade – French grade combination is good at this. It can’t be too hard to change a system to provide more information with just the addition of Fr. Which of these 2 lists tells me more?

E4 6a E4 Fr6b+
E4 6a E4 Fr6c
E4 6a E4 Fr6c+
E4 6a E4 Fr7a

For me: One list tells me which one is physically the hardest, and which is most likely to be better protected. The other tells me – not much

In reply to Chris Craggs:


And there is the problem, you don't know which, or both. To use E5 as an example, it's less the obviously bold ones E5 5c that's the problem, it's E5 6a, which can cover anything from about 6b to 7a+. Big difference.

6b X (dangerous)
6b+ X or R/X (dangerous or easier runout)
6c R/X (runout and potentially dangerous, quite sustained)
6c+ R (runout and sustained)
7a (safe and sustained)
7a+ (safe and very sustained)

sorts that out and lots more options than E5 6a. I'm sure you can think of examples of routes that fit in those categories.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


What amazes me, is that there is so much 'beta' out on the internet - including UKC particularly - that you can get almost forensic levels of information about most routes.

How much more information do people need to make an informed decision on a route?

And regarding The Cad, whether it's E6 6a, or E6 6a/f6c etc, isn't probably going to mean the difference between success or failure. You need something in reserve on a route like this (it's hardly the kind of route you're going to have an onsight punt at if you're unsure) so if you're good enough to climb the route, you're good enough to climb the route.

In reply to Goucho:


Ever tried googling a route at the bottom of Gogarth, when the route you went to do is wet/busy/dirty. Crags aren't usually in areas of 3G/4G

But yes, access to beta is of the reasons that standards have risen - wrote exactly that in Peak Rock...

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Don't most people do their research before they get to the bottom of the crag?


...or not?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Does that mean standards have risen, or just that the bar has been lowered?

In reply to Goucho:

ahh is this the classic - every generation believes the golden age was their generation?

However it happened, in grade terms, people are climbing harder, sport, bouldering or trad, than they did, in your day, my day. Training, beta, gear who cares how, but if you want to remove the trad side of things and boil it down to sport or bouldering, they are, no doubt, and that's transferring to trad. Last time I was at Pembroke a month or two ago there were at least 6 or 7 climbing partnerships all younger than me (some 10 years or so), some all female (definitely less rare since I started climbing days - which is great), steadily on-sighting E4s and 5s all day, and some climbing harder. Brilliant.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


No - even though it was

In reply to TobyA:

It's not that the grades are used differently in Pembroke, it's just that the climbing there often lends itself to pumpy and sustained well protected climbing at lower grades than you usually see it. You see the same at places like Swanage (e.g. Ocean Boulevard @ E3 5b) or Lower Sharpnose.

In reply to WB:

Hi WB,
I arrived in this country bred on bolted limestone. Could climb 7b had never placed a nut!
There's nothing that the British grade doesn't give you if you do read the route description with it. It would seem that unless you operate in the high Es (not my case so...?), the E grade works perfectly fine. I only ever try to convert when I talk to my French pals about routes I do over here.

Please, please, PLEASE... don't make a mix. It's like you speaking in metrics except for people's height, weight and milk pints... you're all over the place. Stick to one thing or move to the other.

As a French climber, who moved up here in my early 20s, I find the British grading system fit for purpose and that's that. This will be forever discussed as indoor bred climbers get first spanked as they try to transition outside. Some will get the ego rubbing well, others won't.

This is of course my personal opinion and I accept that I may be wrong.

In reply to Goucho:


Well, generally I'd say they want to know how hard physically the climbing is going to be (am I strong enough) and also how hard mentally/dangerous the climbing is going to be.

The UK model doesn't specifically tell that, and in some cases it is not even evident by looking at the route.

How ever a PG/R/X or Esomething for solely the danger/mental aspect together with french grade (overall physical aspect) would be more informative.

In reply to HeMa:

The E grade, technical grade, guidebook description, and looking at the route (slabby, steep etc) gives you all that - unless you want something that gives you a guarantee of success measurement as well?


It's been working quite well for decades now though.


Guidebook descriptions tend to be quite good at this, and there is of course the graded list too. However, I do realise that today's Twitter generation may need something that's no more than 140 characters

In reply to Goucho:


Hmm – I would say it has been used for decades with constant revision rather than working well.

My opinion is its time for a new revision. Protection, footwear, training facilities, have all changed in the last 20 – 30 years yet the grading system is based on an era of EBs and moacs. It is not big problem, but not a great system either.

In reply to Goucho:



It's not a great argument when the only counter argument is, "it's been working fine and it was in my day", when a lot of people are now saying it's not, and giving rational arguments why. Some further up the thread, who prefer the E grade, still (John Arran) recognise there's an issue with it, but will construct a good reason why not to change it . The whole point is about allowing you to choose more appropriate routes because it's a finer system. I'm not saying the E grade is unusable, I'm just taking the view that there's probably a better solution.

I remember days, when I was progressing through the grades as a teen, where I failed on an HVS/E1 then climbed an E4 the same day (onsight/GU). If it helps people to progress because they can make better route choices, then that's a big chunk of what a good grading system is about.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
The fact that, without ever having been on this route. I, and any even moderately experienced climber, could nevertheless have told you that the French grade proposed would be either 6c or 6c+ depending on who you talked to (and whether they've top-roped the route or actually led it, of course), suggests to me that contrary to the 'rational arguments' you mention, actually the 'added information' provided by the French grade is zero.

jcm

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I think the guidebook description will generally tell you if a route is particularly bold or sustained.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Jacob guessed 7a - he may be young, but he's certainly getting experienced fast, and definitely climbed harder than almost everyone on this thread! 7a is not an unreasonable guess. On average you probably would guess in the region (vague phrase) of 6c/6c+, but it could realistically be between 6b+ and 7a (in you didn't know it was bold it could be harder), that's a big gap. 6c+ R/X tells you enough to decide.

As I said above Jacob's question is pertinent because, if it helps people to progress because they can make better route choices, then that's a big chunk of what a good grading system is about.

In reply to JSH:
I think UKC should have a Euro-referendum, with the question being:

Do we introduce Euro grades into the British Traditional grading system?

Prior to the referendum each side can nominate someone to champion their cause by writing a short article for UKC (a proxy for televised debates)

In reply to Goucho:

By saying you need to look at the route and read the guidebook description, that's a sign that the grading system itself is failing to give you the info you need. You're effectively saying you have to supplement the 2 factor grade with a third factor gleaned from the description and also a visual inspection because the system isn't telling.you enough.

Any 2 factor system runs into issues because there are at least 3 key things you're trying to convey (hardest move, sustainedness, seriousness, plus others), but let's not pretend the grade as it currently is is perfect. It only works because we assume we have to use other information to make up for the things it doesn't tell us.

In reply to AJM:


Isn't that why we have a brain?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That is a very confusing suggestion to have drawn from there.

Do you think that a squamish guidebook (written by someone who is neither ondra nor sharma or harndon) telling you Dreamcatcher is 9a is of no use to you to understand how hard the route is?

Then why should it be any different a chunk of grades down? Something can be (or as near as close to) objectively graded. Not having done it yourself does not change that grade.

The added information is to describe the overall physical difficulty of the route and compare this to the breadth of routes elsewhere in the world. This gives any climber looking at it a frame of reference for the difficulty of the climb. Why would someone want such information? To know if they have the physical fitness to make the attempt.

The simple question is: Does E6 6a tell you this?

No.

From my perspective, why would I care about the Cad? I don't - it's a wild jump for me. But I want to know where sustained 6a, single move of 6a and easy 6a fits into the sports climbing frame of difficulty to help me assess E2s and E3s before jumping on them. Knowing that the route would go (having bolts on it) at, say, f6b, lets me assess whether or not I should climb it.

So far I seen. The system ‘works’ because there is also information; if you look at the route, in the description, in the graded list, talk to mates and read the internet.
This is clearly a better system than 4 number/letters which could give you that information at once. Oh we also use 4 numbers/letters currently

In reply to JSH:

Whether it's 6c, 6c+ or 7a doesn't really matter. It's a route where you want a big margin. Cruising E5 6a at the very least, probably some better protected E6s, lots of Gogarth experience including the E4s and 5s on North Stack. At that level you would be onsighting more than 7a anyway. At least that's what I would be looking for before getting on it. Same for Lord of the Flies and Ghost Train down at Pembroke. I could probably do the moves if there was sufficient decent gear to protect - but then it wouldn't be E6. Doing the moves well above dodgy gear where a fall could lead to injury or worse is a different matter altogether for most people - you need a good margin of comfort, at least I do!

In reply to Goucho:

When your best defence of a method of conveying information (a grade) relies on the argument that "you don't just use that, you supplement it with the other information conveyed elsewhere" then some might say we could use our brains to make some improvements to it.....

As a thought experiment, I reckon a good grading system, in terms of it's ability to convey information to a first time visitor, is one that could be used in a continental topo guide without a loss of useful info. The uk grade clearly fails in tjat because it relies on the description to convey so much of use. Many others do too, for tjat matter.

In reply to neuromancer:


For this particular route I think E6 6a and the guidebook description tells you all you need to know.

In reply to Martin Haworth:


And yet, you could also get the same information solely from E6 f6c/+ (or E6 6c)... without even reading the guidebook description...

In reply to HeMa: No you couldn't. Is it f6c+ because of one hard cruxy move high above gear, or does it have a few cruxes poor gear and snappy holds...

In reply to WB:

So that E4 Fr 7a = would that be a cruxy 7a or a sustained 7a?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


So that E5 6a = would that be cruxy 6a or sustained 6a?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

John, read the guidebook and look at the route then you will know, particularly if it is extremely cruxy or sustained. UK guidebooks are generally really excellent and informative in many ways.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Does replacing "6c+" with "6a" tell you anything more, without reference to any other info? I don't know which of those the cad is, from its grade alone.

Both scenarios you describe.could just as easily be given E6 6a as E6 Fr6c+

In reply to AJM:



I wasn't defending it as a perfect system. Like all grading systems it has faults (though not as many as the YDS) and these faults have been a source of discussion since before Pete's Eats and indoor walls.

However, grades can only ever be a consensus, as they are created and applied by mortals, not handed down from Olympus, and even if you add more to the trad grade, the discussions and disagreements about what the grade is will continue, but with an extra set of numbers and letters to possibly muddy the waters even further - is The Cad F6C or F7a for instance?

I'm not contrary to opinion some old trad fart stuck in a time warp (although I often wish I was) and - brace yourself - I climb sport too!!!!

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Thanks, it's not a counter argument though when both sides of the argument say that in some cases you need to read the guidebook to get more information.
Usually on cruxy routes. Most of the debate is about other parts of the system, and making it better and more finely graded overall. Some people can't seem to move away from trying to use cruxy routes as the only argument against or simply saying "read the guidebook". Mainly because I suspect you don't, and perhaps don't want to try to, understand sport grades. Time to move on from that argument as we both agree in some cases you need guidebook descriptions too.

In reply to AJM: Yes that is true. The point I was trying to make is that we cant really have any grading system that tells you everything you need to know, and why should we. Any reasonable climber will look at the grade, the guidebook and the route, if this isnt enough then they will either "go for it" anyway, or look elsewhere. Having a little of the unknown isnt such a bad thing.
It doesnt help to know that the route is f6c+ or English 6a, if a hold snaps. But the route description will at least have prepared you for this possibility...

In reply to John Roberts (JR): The argument doesnt just work on cruxy routes, it can apply to sustained, tenuous, committing locations, poor rock. In all these situations the guidebook will help to add supplimentary information to the grade.

In reply to AJM:
Or 6c+ R/X

As you say no-one is arguing that any grade system will:

a) replace the need for guidebook descriptions
b) completely remove the "feeling of unknown"
c) tell you if the rock is snappy, chossy etc
d) be perfect

But there may well be a system that handles it all better than E grade and the nonsense UK tech grade.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
John, just to be clear, I'm not saying the addition of a sport grade won't add anything, I've accepted that at E6 and above. I just don't consider it necessary at E5 and below.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Ok so the point is it might not be necessary for you, but it works as a concept, and might therefore work for others.

In reply to John Roberts (JR): Agreed to a point. Because it works doesnt make it necessary.
Im also against goal line technology in football, which works, but to me it takes something away from the game.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

Yes. If I can get 3 pieces of info from the grade (one from each, and one from the relationship between them) I'd prefer it to be "overall difficulty", "overall physical difficulty" and "danger" and miss out "crux vs sustained".the current system gives me hardest move, overall difficulty and "easy/hard move for the grade" but leaves me in the dark as to why it's an easy move for the grade.

It's not like that's asking.for the moon on a plate, it just means my priorities are different from those in the current system.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

If it works better for most, it's probably going to get implemented though. I first raised this in a thread a couple of weeks ago when Franco did his new route and frankly was quite surprised by the support it's had at some level.

I don't think the goal line metaphor is comparable, but I see where you're coming from. At the end of the day the experience you'll have on the route is the same, whether it's E6 6a or 6c+ R/X it should just helps you have a more successful day out; have an adventure, fail quite a lot, and hopefully not kill yourself.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Come back Ed Ward Drummond all is forgiven. For all you young whipper snappers who haven't a clue what I'm on about, back in the 70's Ed, a very talented climber, proposed a complex grading system that described every, and I mean every aspect of a climb. It was first used in the Avon Gorge and went something like this:

5b = HVS
6a = Extreme

First numeral: technical difficulty in quantitive terms, a rough map of the number of moves of that difficulty e.g. the number of cruxes.

Second numeral: protection with regard to cruxes - 0 totally adequate to 3 difficult moves unprotectable.

Third numeral: quality of rock 0 = sound in all necessary places to 3 rock constitues a major risk.

Fourth numeral: denotes predominating holds and moves associated with them.
0 - Resting ledges; large flat holds
1 - Thin but horizontal holds
2 - Pinch grips, sideways pulls, difficult jams
3 - Persistently thin, limiting holds, resting places only at pegs

So a route could be graded 6a, 1, 0, 1, 2

It never caught on but perhaps Ed was ahead of his time and some of you might like to expand on this. But remember you heard it first here.

Al

In reply to John Roberts (JR):



For 99% of climbers operating up to the lowest E grades the UK system with its technical grades works perfectly.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


In some places, I think sustained but safe (or safe enough) routes graded like that are actually very rare at least in the grades I pay attention to - up to about E2. That's why there being so many of them in Pembroke stood out.

In reply to Goucho:

Actually for something as much an outlier as the cad even E6 Fr6c-7a would give me the info I'd want - it's an E6s worth of effort but with fairly easy climbing so it's going to be a bit of an undertaking.

One of the advantages for me is that if you looked at all the routes given that grade they'd all have something in common in terms.of style - "head games" - which can't be said for E6 6a because that includes a lot.of mind games but also.some.full on forearm melters...

In reply to AJM:


And sometimes both, which leads to a full on mega-meltdown.

In reply to GrahamD:

You're probably in the 1% that agree with you there. (Exaggeration may or may not be included)

In reply to Goucho:



When I was young, research was done on the toilet - with a climbing guide in hand!

It is naive to think any single grade or grading system can cover every single pitch route when that route can be as short as a few meters to 60m in length. That is why a good guide will supplement the grade with some narrative.

This is also why we should all read climbing guides on the bog - taking in the GRADE, the DESCRIPTION and the HISTORY section at the back!

THIS is the golden age of any climbing career! A time of life when climbing appears both important, full of opportunity, and at some level, magical.

In reply to AJM:


But does the French grade alone give you that? The OP asked what French grade a route would be. Fair enough.

From there, there's been a shift in what should be done to: let's give any trad route a British trad grade (2 bits of information) and add the French grade for good measure. Whilst I'm against it (I hate doing DIY with other folks in this country...they speak in feet and inches when it's big then move to mm when it's small!!!!). I can see their side of the argument but counter it by saying that the info is not necessary since you have a route description.

When you rock up to a sport crag on the continent. You get a photo or diagram and a grade and it doesn't give much more. I've climbed a terrifying French 6a at Quinson (verdon) as a teen. The clue was in the name but I was green between the ears " something like "six points to a dream" in French....literally that was the number of bolts over 30+m of climbing. A description saying spaced bolts or scary lead would have been more accurate/useful?!

I think I understand what you mean by a "grading system needed info is imperfect". I would argue that no grading system I have used is perfect and there's still a great deal of info to be gleaned from descriptions/ local beta/ discussions on forum. For me researching the routes I want to climb is part of the compulsory homework/ prep I do and part of the fun. I do recognised we're all different but I don't believe a perfect and uniform grading system can exist: too many types of routes, rocks and climbers.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

John, you have to accept that there are a good number of folk on here that have said they don't think a change is necessary (except perhaps in the higher grades). Count them. It's not just one or two.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I never said there wasn't a good number of folk! I said I was actually surprised by the amount of support in one way or another for the Fr grade + something else. If I understand what you're potentially getting at correctly then thinking it's unnecessary to change the grade system and denying that that there are failings with E grades are 2 different things. If one can't see any failings then one probably doesn't understand the system.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


Though I would assume The Cad would get 6c+ R/X, where Right Wall gets 6c+ R, so there is some definition.
>

You've often said that R or X is far more explicit than the E grade. To me E5 6a and E6 6a (or similar examples in other grades) is much more explicit than R/X and R. Different climbers and guidebook writers would interpret the latter differently.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Some guidebook writers would think differently about the sport grade if a particular route too. All grades are subjective to some extent, but it seems somewhat easier to define under the Fr+R/X system.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


I don't think that's fair. It's basically a system which requires experience in order to be able to interpret properly but by reading between the lines (or just reading the description!) an awful lot of info can be gained.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

So you think the E grade system is perfect? Can't be improved, in any way?

In reply to French Erick:

No, a French grade alone doesn't give you everything you need to judge the difficulty of a trad route. If you find the difficulty of the hardest move important, it doesn't even give you all the information.you,need for a sport route! Noone is suggesting it does on its own.

Your example of obtuse/lacking guidebook writing is one of the reasons I'd prefer a system where the things I care about most are made explicit by the grade. I don't care about the sustained vs cruxy measure that much so I'm,happy to let that fall foul of flowery obtuse guidebook writing, whereas I don't feel the same about the prang potential. I don't want everything, so,I'm not after some perfect 16-factor grade, I just want the information.I care most about...

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I think 'failings' is a bit strong. Many have pointed out the issue with the tech grade for harder routes and without personal experience of those routes I have to accept there is a problem there. I just don't think your system sounds as useful for the low-mid grades, and would argue that at those grades the tech grade is extremely useful.

In reply to JSH: I've read Jacob's profile, he's only 13!(Good climber though)
He probably thinks, crikey, thats not the response I was expecting!!

In reply to AJM:

Quite.

The comparison between "sustained vs cruxy" used as a diversionary tactic is unreasonable and should stop from herein. Is this difference crucial to understanding what is important before setting out on a route? (i.e. am I going to get really hurt doing this or do I have a chance of success) - I would argue no.

Sustained vs Bold is lightyears bigger in problem.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I do also think the arguments about trouble with interpreting different E5 6a / E3 5c etc do sometimes take the piss! I mean who standing below London Wall would be in any doubt about whether it was physically hard but safe climbing or physically easier but bold?

In reply to AJM:

Good answer, man.
I respect that.
What is it you care about most? And would that not change depending of who is climbing?

My own list when reading a guidebook in prep of climbing:
1. access to crag.
2. rock type (and its soundness).
3. type of climbing (and how compact the rock).
4. aspects and how it dries (this is the UK after all).
5. height.
6. grade range.
7. I like a good photo of the crag if possible.

then I look at individual routes if the crag tickles me:
1. grades at level I want to climb on that day- often but not always at my max grade.
2. alongside a grade, I personally like a bit of blurb (a bit like books).
3. any tools allowing to assess its quality and its boldness (trad) and/or style (any type of the sport).
4. If I can see an action shot of the route.

To come back to the OP. I don't know what route the Cad is. At a lofty grade of E6, I'll never be climbing it. I am grateful for the discussion which I thought was constructive and did not get personal.

In reply to neuromancer:

I'd argue it's usually easier to tell visually that a route is bold than to tell whether it's cruxy. And having established the boldness (either visually or by reading the description) wouldn't you also want some idea of whether the bold bits were the hard bits? The E + tech grade system nearly always allows you to do this successfully.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Have you climbed in Lancashire?

You stand under a route, you think 'it looks ok'. It looks like an easy version of London Wall. You look in the guide, it's E3 5c. Psyched, thinking, this is going to be classic, you set off. Calm and cool you clip the peg, it's rotten. You're committed now, the jams run out, you're thinking, this isn't 5c. You get flash pumped. You tug on some heather, it's concealing your gear. It's grown too well. It's concealing your holds too. You pause, considering your fate in the gear-less shale band above you. Your fear and sweat attracts the venomous midges. You're eaten alive. You think you're going die. You didn't sign up to this. You have to push on, it's only E3. Kicking shale-shatter on your belayer, you roll horizontal into the sanctuary of the overgrown fearns. Crawling, crawling to the fence post you cuddle it, finally at peace with the security of a wooden stake. You've made it. 'Safe' quivers from your pursed, dehydrated lips. Cursing the guide, you feel in every way you've climbed E5. As for real E5, onsights are like unicorns.

In reply to French Erick:

Good post Erick.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
So how would the French grade help in this situation?

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Cos it'd actually be something daft like 6c+ even without the heather - and you'd avoid it as your warm up. I tried a E5 6b at Ousel's Nest a couple of weeks ago. The consensus was that it's probably 7b, even harder placing the 3 bits of gear. I'll happily take you there if you're ever around here... Anyhow, I'm off climbing, hope you are too.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I must get to Lancashire. I do own a guidebook. May be I'll sample it soon. I'm looking for a wee English /Welsh road trip (week long) in early October. Would be good to hook up with locals in case the grading system was somewhat obscure!!!

In reply to French Erick:


I'd stay in Wales! but if you don't drop me a PM. I may be about.

In reply to French Erick:

I said above:


I guess at the french grades I have trad climbed I can do the cruxy ones and the sustained ones and so it doesn't bother me too much knowing what I'm going to find en route.

Sometimes guidebook descriptions are crap ("the wall to the right of the crack has some good moves" for sake of argument answers no question on why the grade is what it is) and I don't like leaving something like the boldness at risk of a terse guidebook author. Sometimes you can see from the ground, sometimes you can't, especially on hard to read rock types or long or multi-pitches. I can do bold and I can not do bold, but I like to know what I'm going to find!

In reply to French Erick:


Don't you realise this is UKC? You could be shot for such fair-mindedness! What I believe you really mean is: "Trad grades are perfect and always have been; anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly a tw@t"

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

Completely agree, London wall was a poor example as it's so obviously safe an hard

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


As it happens I think the E grade plus sport grade is the ideal 2-factor combination. At higher grades it's already the de facto standard and, while it's far from being necessary at grades up to E4, it certainly becomes more useful as time goes on since more and more people are very familiar with sport grades from climbing indoors and on sport routes.

What I would hate to see though is the loss of the E grade, since it tells you in a single number how hard it is. Just like a sport grade does for sport routes, just like a Font grade does for bouldering.

Imagine a hypothetical bouldering grade system that told you the difficulty of the hardest single move but then told you whether it was notably sustained (R) or very sustained (X). Yes you could add them up to deduce whether or not it's feasible for you to try, and technically you would be getting plenty of useful info, but it would still be a crap system because it would completely fail to tell you at a glance how hard it is to get up compared to others nearby.

I rest my case m'lud.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Hi John,

I've been following this thread with interest, particularly as I'm in the process of producing a topo-style guidebook to a trad UK area, which will use standard dual-band UK grades but won't feature any routes descriptions, which is where you'd normally offer advice about boldness/seriousness.

I thought about using PG/R/X, etc. but instead decided on a symbol-based rating system offering one of four levels: smiley face, neutral face, unhappy face, skull and crossbones. These will appear in a table next to the route name and grade.

It's use is irrespective of grade — if V. Diff's your technical limit then there are definitely V. Diff 'skull and crossbones' routes out there!

For what it's worth, I don't want French grades for UK trad routes but I do think it might be time for + and - in UK tech ratings.

Pete.

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

Not directed at you, but this thread now contains 215 posts. I wonder how many of the posters have climbed the route in question.

In reply to John Roberts (JR): Can I point you at this thread from a few years back:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=330151&v=1#x4874216

Covers a lot of the ground on here discussing the problems at the top of the E grade.

Andy F

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:


When my palls started to develop this new area in Finland, they ended up with something similar. Albeit here, we only use a single tier system giving the technical difficulty of the route.

Perhaps Google Translate can make out some of this (Finnish 2 English):
http://jammi.net/kalliot/tietovakka/varmistettavuus.html

Basically it ranging from 1 to 5. One being a full crack that can be pretty much protected every centimeter. And five being pretty much a solo. As well as the numerical value, they were given symbols as well...
Teddybear = Pro1
Ibex = Pro2
Monkey (or rather gorilla) = Pro3
Lizard/Gecko = Pro4
Spider = Pro5

In reply to John2:

Maybe a few more if they knew the French grade

In reply to HeMa:

Yep same idea (although I think as a way of describing a potential chop route the skull and crossbones symbol may be slightly more intuitive than a spider symbol).


That's not quite how I envisage it working. Sure, your P1/Teddy Bear and my 'smiley face' symbol would indicate a route that was well protected throughout, but a solo needn't necessarily get the highest rating. There are plenty of zero protection routes where the hardest moves are near the ground, with much easier climbing above. They would have to get a lower protection rating (I actually call it a protection/boldness rating = 'P/B') than a zero protection route of the same technical difficulty, but where the hard move is right at the top. Of course, UK trad adjectival grades would hopefully help point you in the right direction...

Pete.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

well there you go - I'd look in the book!

In reply to john arran:

For once, I'll have to disagree with you John and say: "Trad grades are not perfect but often work well for me; anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly not tradding enough"

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

If french grades are not adopted with the E grade, then I agree the UK tech definitely needs a plus or a minus, the difference between easy 6b and hard 6b is just ridiculous

In reply to John2:

This thread clearly is no longer talking about the cad

In reply to JSH:
The new North Wales Limestone guide uses the accepted UK grading system for trad routes, but it also has a graded list in which the trad routes are ordered into low,mid,high for the grade(subjective) and at E4 and above are given a French sport grade.
Seems an acceptable compromise.

In reply to JSH:

So in summary... About 6c+/7a.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


No, and now I think I won't bother! I enjoyed the description though.

In reply to sfletch:

God, have you not been reading? F6c

In reply to john arran:



You know, I actually don't want to see the loss of the E grade either. That's the romantic tradition bit of it all. However, look at it this way. As a thought experiment, if you were starting from scratch, and we had to work out a come up with a system using what exists out there (minus the E grade system), logically you'd almost certainly end up at Fr + R/X. Fr grade is understood, and will become increasingly more so as more generations go by. You wouldn't think Fr +R/X so lacking that it needs an overall grade (like the E grade) and invent it (happy to be wrong on that but we'll never know). This doesn't tell me your system is better, just that it has a level of deep understanding already and a sense of tradition.

Ultimately, we'll probably move toward your E + Fr at some point, as you say it de facto is at the harder end already, and it may be a halfway house to Fr + R/X but it will mainly be up to vanguard guidebook writers. When the new wall-bred generations that already mainly work in Fr grades become the guidebook editors in 20-30 years time, we'll have to see where we end up...

In reply to andy farnell:

Well remembered. Nice to see R/X on there, and getting support from Gresham and Ged amongst others, I know it's nothing new (and there's some of the same faces on this thread too), though I think the tide is turning on actually doing something about it all (font highball grades being an example of how we're being more logical).

In reply to John Roberts (JR):

I don't mind constructive change but E + French grade still leaves another void - particulalry on heterogeneous/cruxy routes - which trad routes often are. And whether you choose to ignore it or not a piece of climbing will always have a technical level

Now where have those P grades gone.....?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):


It lacks the cachet of the E grade. If someone does an 8c then well done to them, but it's hardly cutting edge. If they do an 8c X then wow, that's significant. Yet the grade doesn't quite capture it in the way that an E grade would. I agree with John Arran that an overall grade for the climb is good.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What's wrong with removing the cachet and the ego associated with it? And had a grade to provide those credentials not existed, you probably wouldn't come up with it for those reasons. Safe 8c trad is still cutting edge, and solo as 8c X very much so (as Macleod did - tho now considered 8b+). Has that ever been bettered?

In reply to John Roberts (JR):



I'm not sure how a French grade would help in this situation (not that you are claiming it would mind). Anyhows.... Surely we are missing the point here. Why do we crave for more information? What happened to the adventure? Why do I want to get on an E5 knowing its f6c or f7a+?

As for The Cad, it's an E6 on North stack. It's gonna be scary..... It's not rocket science. It had a bolt placed on it ffs. What does that tell you???

I can't comment for E6+ but personally all the information I generally need is contained in the i) grade (e.g. e5 6a) ii) the description iii) by looking at the route. If I'm still unsure I'll ask someone who has done it. But even then the last question I'm going to ask is 'what the French grade?' All I'm going to ask is, is it bad? Does it have grips and gear where you need them. Easy.

We really don't need to start polluting guide books with French grades and as for the R & X thats best kept on the other side of the pond.
Clearly just my views......

In reply to Adam Ellwood:

You've quoted what I wrote to try and lighten up what was becoming quite a terse debate rather than the base of my argument, but I think you got that.

Just adding a French grade is neither "polluting" to a guidebook, nor to your adventure. At the top of the cad you're not going to be thinking, "I only got up that because I knew it was 6c+, I need more adventure"

In reply to mark_wellin:


You wouldn't get the same info, you'd get the wrong info. A well protected E3 5c will be more like 6b+ / 6c. At least that's what it will feel like.

In reply to ashtond6:



With most routes you can see what the gear is like. If you can't, just choose another one... UKC logbooks are a good source of info as well!

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
Re Lancashire - aren't you just saying that the grades are sandbags rather than thr issue being with the grading system per se.

I think E grades are fine but I can see that at higher grades a sport grade coud be useful given how wide the trad tech grade boundaries are.

As for people who say they struggle with trad grades, I suspect they just need more trad mileage...

In reply to Misha:


Yes, but people please need to stop taking that post seriously! Also if you do recalibrate a system, it should sort some of these area variations and anomalies out.


In some cases maybe, though I think that it might be that those that are for it (but may come across as struggling) have a rounded experience of both trad and sport, and value the finer grade sport climbing has (my background mainly trad btw). The counter is that those that are adamantly for no change or can't see any value in a different system seem to tend to be trad only, and have less or no sport experience. But I'm not sure these generalisations are useful.

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:


The "animal" grade is all about placing protection, not really safety. Thus, no gear gets the highest grading. And it is also isolated from the difficulty, so the technical grade is independent as is the protection grade.

Of course it does not work with and easy solo with a difficult 1st few moves, but no system is perfect (and overall grade would help in this regard), which is why there is the route description and also the routes are rather short, so you mostly see what you'll get.

In reply to John2:


I have, and also onsight, and still couldn't tell you whether it's F6c or F7a, but E6 6a seems spot on.

What I can say from personal experience, is that it's bold, snappy, the gear could be better, I was very relieved to reach the top, and adding another grade won't alter any of this.

Possibly this route is not the best example to use for applying an additional sport 'F' grade, as it is about as far removed from a sport route as you can get.

In reply to John Roberts (JR):
I think a sport grade is a useful addition for harder routes. They've done that in some of the frcc guides and sometimes RF mention a sport equivalent grade, mainly where there is a lot of in situ gear. I guess it's up to guide book writers to embrace this.

By the way, I didn't have you in mind when I said those who don't get trad grades may be just need more trad experience, apologies if it came across that way. I was just thinking of some of the other comments on this thread. As with anything, you get better with practice. If anything, I need more experience of sport grades