UKC

For all of those who are struggling to get to grips with the UK grading system as illustrated in another thread may I offer the following first proposed in the 70's by Ed Ward Drummond of Dream of White Horses fame: :

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 constitutes 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 GridNorth:

"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."

Thought I first heard it when I bought Ed's book (& the supplement)

In reply to Doug:

Don't know if I can manage to learn another one. But I'm a bit thick.

In reply to GridNorth:

It was actually absurdly complicated, and quite unusable. In a weird way it didn't somehow ever relate very closely to the climb you had just done. Because it was reduced to this complicated row of numbers, and the quality and nature of the route were nowhere. It seemed to say less, not more, than the old English adjectival + technical grade system. It was altogether weird.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It seems to be what younger climbers want though, chapter and verse.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

On a wonderful afternoon of climbing with Ed on Stanage, along with how his water cooled helmet worked, he tried to explain how his grading system would work (he was genuinely puzzled as to why it had not been universally adopted) using Tippler as an example.

After ten minutes, I had a better idea of how his helmet worked, than his grading system, which just seemed like a logarithm to me.

But then I am pretty stupid when it comes to understanding this kind of thing.

In reply to GridNorth:


Rather than older climbers, who seem to prefer making random generalizations based on no evidence and then harrumphing into their beards about how it "just goes to show"...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I dont think a lot of people even understand the existing grading system. ie for any given grade range highish technical grade +good pro = lower adjectival grade , whereas the same technical grade plus bad pro or unprotected will go up an adjectival grade. But there seems to be quite a few cases creeping in where the protection (consequences) factor is ignored and the adjectival grade given purely for the technical grade - which is a bit pointless really, giving rise to anomalies such as unprotected vs 5a -huh?

In reply to pebbles:

Or the inability to differentiate between sustained climbs and bold climbs both holding the same grade but offering wildly different chances of broken bones or death.

That too.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Now who is making generalisations.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. But guilty as charged.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

If you want to simplify the grading then why not go with the Norwegian system, where they have a numerical grade only.

Does "5-" mean straightforward well protected hard severe or straightforward but massively run out VS? You don't get to find out* until you climb it.

I don't think the bolted anchors will catch on over here though.

*if someone with a better understanding wants to contradict me feel free, but that was my impression of it.

In reply to GridNorth:

Sustained difficulty numeral... gottit
Protection numeral... gottit
Rock quality numberal... gottit


Don't get this one. It seems to duplicate the technical grade, which would partly be based on these? Also, it sounds best suited to steep limestone but don't think it would work so well on other mediums/angulations. Where would easy, smooth granite slabs fit into the equation for example?

Worth pointing out that the Rockfax guides have the symbols for the first three numerals, although obviously not scaled. They do help to explain deviations between overall and technical grades without the waffle though.

In reply to davidbeynon:

The Nordic grading system is basically a hint of the difficulties as you say. No indication of how sustained or how good the gear, which makes for extra excitement. Some guidebooks offer enough supporting description but many don't. Primarily I suspect because not many people are leading trad in Norway.

In reply to neuromancer:



Yes, that puzzles me too (folk not managing to work out which it is)

In reply to GridNorth:

So a long varied pitch might go something like: 5c,2,3,1,3,2,3,1,2,1,3,1,2,3 etc

In reply to Bulls Crack:

No idea. Didn't understand it at the time and still don't I just put it out there for those who are dissatisfied with the current system.

Al