This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It would be very useful to be able to vote UK grades for routes in countries whose own grading systems do not reflect the actual challenge of the climb. I've just spent a while in the US where a 5.10a might, for me, be anything from a disappointingly easy HVS warm up to an exhausting or terrifying inch by inch E3 struggle. Obviously the guidebook or the look of the route can give clues, but a proper grade would often save a lot of grief!
I'm sure I'm not alone in frequently taking the opportunity to ask other UK climbers what grade a route is.
Post edited at 03:03
25
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
I agree entirely! I got on a multi pitch 5.6 out there and one pitch was around 45 meters off width with no gear!scared myself stupid!hardest thing I've ever done mentally above the E numbers I have been on!would have been a death fall imo!
Also we climbed two 5.9 routes next to each other and one felt vs and the other E2!I believe that their 5.9's are like our VS's in that if its an old school classic 5.9 you know about it where as the new ones are just more of a technical grade. Similar to 'The File' and so on....
I agree entirely! I got on a multi pitch 5.6 out there and one pitch was around 45 meters off width with no gear!scared myself stupid!hardest thing I've ever done mentally above the E numbers I have been on!would have been a death fall imo!
Also we climbed two 5.9 routes next to each other and one felt vs and the other E2!I believe that their 5.9's are like our VS's in that if its an old school classic 5.9 you know about it where as the new ones are just more of a technical grade. Similar to 'The File' and so on....
In reply to Robert Durran:
We have been here before and I still dont get many problems with US grades (but stick to PG when pushing my limits). At my most common onsight grade of 5.7 the so called equivalent VS in Yorkshire or Peak Moorland or Northumberland can be as hard as yosemite 5.9 and a very different beast from some in Pembroke which felt 5.6, so its not just the US where the grades don't mean the same in different locations. There are lots of threads here with examples and Mountain Project votes are sorting out the sandbags (and unlike UKC your vote links to your name so you can take grades from named climbers you trust).
We have been here before and I still dont get many problems with US grades (but stick to PG when pushing my limits). At my most common onsight grade of 5.7 the so called equivalent VS in Yorkshire or Peak Moorland or Northumberland can be as hard as yosemite 5.9 and a very different beast from some in Pembroke which felt 5.6, so its not just the US where the grades don't mean the same in different locations. There are lots of threads here with examples and Mountain Project votes are sorting out the sandbags (and unlike UKC your vote links to your name so you can take grades from named climbers you trust).
1
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Im in. Where do I sign up?
> It would be very useful to be able to vote French grades for routes in countries whose own grading systems do not reflect the actual challenge of the climb. I've just spent a while in the UK where......
Im in. Where do I sign up?
4
In reply to Offwidth:
Hi Al, these were the routes Great White Book (5.6)Doggie Deviations (5.9)
the Doggie Diviations route had a variation and the flakes one felt very steady, the other however.....
Hi Al, these were the routes Great White Book (5.6)Doggie Deviations (5.9)
the Doggie Diviations route had a variation and the flakes one felt very steady, the other however.....
In reply to jon_gill1:
Great White book must have spooked you; the run-out is less than 20m if you keep looking and less than that with a, camelot 5. I thought the crux section was about VS 4a but I'm good at these 5.6 offwidth things and HVS 4b may be a better view for those inexperienced on such routes and lacking monster cams. Not done Doggie D and Mountain project doesnt help much... what was the issue?
Great White book must have spooked you; the run-out is less than 20m if you keep looking and less than that with a, camelot 5. I thought the crux section was about VS 4a but I'm good at these 5.6 offwidth things and HVS 4b may be a better view for those inexperienced on such routes and lacking monster cams. Not done Doggie D and Mountain project doesnt help much... what was the issue?
In reply to Offwidth:
Great white book was never hard but not having climbed much of this style route it felt very gnarly and i felt that if I released tension for a moment then i would fall out.the way we belayed it left me with around a 50m pitch with a dodgy cam 5 at around 8 -10 meters into the pitch!didn't see anything else but i could well have been leaning against a random wire slot.
As for Doggie deviations there was no problem,just one was far harder than the other!
Great white book was never hard but not having climbed much of this style route it felt very gnarly and i felt that if I released tension for a moment then i would fall out.the way we belayed it left me with around a 50m pitch with a dodgy cam 5 at around 8 -10 meters into the pitch!didn't see anything else but i could well have been leaning against a random wire slot.
As for Doggie deviations there was no problem,just one was far harder than the other!
In reply to Offwidth:
Well, I disagree. When I saw mention of a 5.6 with death fall potential I thought, "does he mean Great White Book?". I had a very similar experience - I remember 150ft of unprotected climbing amongst other delights.
Well, I disagree. When I saw mention of a 5.6 with death fall potential I thought, "does he mean Great White Book?". I had a very similar experience - I remember 150ft of unprotected climbing amongst other delights.
1
In reply to EarlyBird:
A good guess but it sounds like it left you in the same boat so perhaps not a guess and more of a fearful memory!
A good guess but it sounds like it left you in the same boat so perhaps not a guess and more of a fearful memory!
In reply to jon_gill1:
It was the first route of the trip so we thought we'd be cautious! I remember being 100ft into "the" pitch and having to stop for an extended pant (not having factored in altitude), and as you say it's not particularly hard but it would be easy to fall off if you got something wrong - and it's a pitch on which you want to keep moving so having to stop wasn't welcome. The potential fall onto the ledge below didn't look like R to me at the time, I certainly had an X experience contemplating the thought of popping out of the corner while I gasped for breath.
The rest of the trip was pure delight after that.
It was the first route of the trip so we thought we'd be cautious! I remember being 100ft into "the" pitch and having to stop for an extended pant (not having factored in altitude), and as you say it's not particularly hard but it would be easy to fall off if you got something wrong - and it's a pitch on which you want to keep moving so having to stop wasn't welcome. The potential fall onto the ledge below didn't look like R to me at the time, I certainly had an X experience contemplating the thought of popping out of the corner while I gasped for breath.
The rest of the trip was pure delight after that.
In reply to EarlyBird:
Wow what an introduction! I had been sand bagged some what by some American climbers that we were hanging out with so I didn't know that it was an R let alone the feel of an X. From the floor it looked amazing and I had no idea that it would be that unprotected for the length it was. The perspective from the floor was very hard to work out the route length. When I got to the top I was a jabbering wreck and struggled to even walk off! Fortunately a couple of days later I was back to normal! Its apparently a North American Top50 climb which is quite a quote!
Wow what an introduction! I had been sand bagged some what by some American climbers that we were hanging out with so I didn't know that it was an R let alone the feel of an X. From the floor it looked amazing and I had no idea that it would be that unprotected for the length it was. The perspective from the floor was very hard to work out the route length. When I got to the top I was a jabbering wreck and struggled to even walk off! Fortunately a couple of days later I was back to normal! Its apparently a North American Top50 climb which is quite a quote!
In reply to EarlyBird:
There was a hands-off rest at any point leaning your right shoulder in on the corner/roof and with feet flat on the slab and at some points you could lie down in the cleft... so you must have been spooked as well. It was one of my fiirst climbs in the area and my first on that crag. Another nice trick for the confident is to hop up onto the arete and layback that (I was in seventh heaven on that pitch going up and down to enjoy things as much as possible . I've never climbing that confidently at much harder than easy HVS, certainly not when new to a crag. It just goes to show that if you lack the skills and experience for big granite grade views can be pretty different whether in UK or US money. On the subject of granite offwidths there are old school 5.9s I couldn't touch on a tr and mid 10s I found hard but OK so some routes were either sandbag or soft.
There was a hands-off rest at any point leaning your right shoulder in on the corner/roof and with feet flat on the slab and at some points you could lie down in the cleft... so you must have been spooked as well. It was one of my fiirst climbs in the area and my first on that crag. Another nice trick for the confident is to hop up onto the arete and layback that (I was in seventh heaven on that pitch going up and down to enjoy things as much as possible . I've never climbing that confidently at much harder than easy HVS, certainly not when new to a crag. It just goes to show that if you lack the skills and experience for big granite grade views can be pretty different whether in UK or US money. On the subject of granite offwidths there are old school 5.9s I couldn't touch on a tr and mid 10s I found hard but OK so some routes were either sandbag or soft.
Post edited at 15:25
1
In reply to jon:
Over ten weeks: Eldorado, Boulder, Lumpy Ridge, Colorado NM, Indian Creek, Bishop, Tuolumne, Yosemite, Taquitz/Suicide, J Tree, Red Rocks (still there!).
I'm still none the wiser what aspect of the difficulty of a pitch the YDS is meant to be trying to measure. Nor, apparently, do the locals, but, mostly, not having climbed outside the US, they are unaware just how dysfunctional the YDS is. It is certainly used incredibly inconsistently and could be anything between a UK tech grade and a French grade.
But it's not just the US. Same problem in Scandinavia and the Middle East. And anywhere which attempts to apply French grades to trad routes.
> Good idea, Rob. Where have you just been?
Over ten weeks: Eldorado, Boulder, Lumpy Ridge, Colorado NM, Indian Creek, Bishop, Tuolumne, Yosemite, Taquitz/Suicide, J Tree, Red Rocks (still there!).
I'm still none the wiser what aspect of the difficulty of a pitch the YDS is meant to be trying to measure. Nor, apparently, do the locals, but, mostly, not having climbed outside the US, they are unaware just how dysfunctional the YDS is. It is certainly used incredibly inconsistently and could be anything between a UK tech grade and a French grade.
But it's not just the US. Same problem in Scandinavia and the Middle East. And anywhere which attempts to apply French grades to trad routes.
In reply to AJM:
Well it would require UKC to provide the voting facility.
Edit: just reread your post and noticed your substitution of 'French' for 'UK'. I would have no objection to being able to vote French grades on UK routes as well.
> Im in. Where do I sign up?
Well it would require UKC to provide the voting facility.
Edit: just reread your post and noticed your substitution of 'French' for 'UK'. I would have no objection to being able to vote French grades on UK routes as well.
Post edited at 15:32
In reply to jon_gill1:
I was so traumatised on Great White Book twenty years ago that I backed off a 5.2 slab pitch at the top and pitched the 'walk off' descent. I was climbing about E3 at the time.
I was so traumatised on Great White Book twenty years ago that I backed off a 5.2 slab pitch at the top and pitched the 'walk off' descent. I was climbing about E3 at the time.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Indeed, people coming from different backgrounds use UKC Logbook. So voting on a grade in a familiar system is the best.
Sadly, this would mean that each route would have to be given numerous grades (one per each system) in the backend, and I'm not sure they want to do it. Also pre-populating all the grades might become a mess.
> Edit: just reread your post and noticed your substitution of 'French' for 'UK'. I would have no objection to being able to vote French grades on UK routes as well.
Indeed, people coming from different backgrounds use UKC Logbook. So voting on a grade in a familiar system is the best.
Sadly, this would mean that each route would have to be given numerous grades (one per each system) in the backend, and I'm not sure they want to do it. Also pre-populating all the grades might become a mess.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
But in the US it is not just inconsistent calibration; it is inconsistency in what the grade is attempting to measure in the first place. There is little hope of the calibration being sorted out until they agree what is actually being measured. The system is completely screwed!
> We have been here before and Its not just the US where the grades don't mean the same in different locations.
But in the US it is not just inconsistent calibration; it is inconsistency in what the grade is attempting to measure in the first place. There is little hope of the calibration being sorted out until they agree what is actually being measured. The system is completely screwed!
In reply to Robert Durran:
Strange isn't it - I soloed it as one of my 1st routes in the States and thought it was about Severe!
Crhis
> I was so traumatised on Great White Book twenty years ago that I backed off a 5.2 slab pitch at the top and pitched the 'walk off' descent. I was climbing about E3 at the time.
Strange isn't it - I soloed it as one of my 1st routes in the States and thought it was about Severe!
Crhis
2
1
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Ahh but you think that La Demande is HVS Chris.....different routes suit different people I guess.
Ahh but you think that La Demande is HVS Chris.....different routes suit different people I guess.
In reply to jon_gill1:
Funnily enough I just found la Demande in my diary (this was way before it was ever attributed a French grade by the Brits) and it says HVS 5a. So let's just say it's not just Chris...
> Ahh but you think that La Demande is HVS Chris.....different routes suit different people I guess.
Funnily enough I just found la Demande in my diary (this was way before it was ever attributed a French grade by the Brits) and it says HVS 5a. So let's just say it's not just Chris...
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Maybe I was spooked - perhaps it would have felt different after a bit of acclimatisation (in both senses). Our big route on that trip was Regular Route, the 5.9 on Fairview Dome, which felt about VS - albeit a big VS. I was expecting that to feel harder.
Maybe I was spooked - perhaps it would have felt different after a bit of acclimatisation (in both senses). Our big route on that trip was Regular Route, the 5.9 on Fairview Dome, which felt about VS - albeit a big VS. I was expecting that to feel harder.
In reply to jon:
Oh I know its not just Chris, seems to be considered steady by most who led it back in the day but most who have done it recently seem to have found it hard,friend of mine who has climbed 7c or more agreed it felt harder than the 6a its given on pitch 5!I do wonder if its just polish or if holds are now missing from it or just the style of route.....
Oh I know its not just Chris, seems to be considered steady by most who led it back in the day but most who have done it recently seem to have found it hard,friend of mine who has climbed 7c or more agreed it felt harder than the 6a its given on pitch 5!I do wonder if its just polish or if holds are now missing from it or just the style of route.....
In reply to EarlyBird:
I'd give the first three pitches on RR Fairview HVS 5b; VS 4b; HVS 4b (if done in one push as a super sustained 60m corner) then VS easing to VD with a terrifyingly exposed VD 3a descent
I'd give the first three pitches on RR Fairview HVS 5b; VS 4b; HVS 4b (if done in one push as a super sustained 60m corner) then VS easing to VD with a terrifyingly exposed VD 3a descent
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I'd say it is equivalent to many a big UK tough severe or easy HS solo (nothing much harder than 4a)
I'd say it is equivalent to many a big UK tough severe or easy HS solo (nothing much harder than 4a)
In reply to Robert Durran:
Its not screwed.. its a more finely gradated scale than UK grades and the traffic is less so the mistakes and regional differences and stylistic differences just look bigger. If you were traumatised on GWB when leading E3 its shows you've not adjusted to the feel of US stuff as it is 5.6 according to nearly all tye US votes (I'd say not even technically hard for that grade when compared to all the granite stuff I've done having backed off a few and left bloody and exhusted by some others at JTree)
https://www.mountainproject.com/scripts/ShowObjectStats.php?id=105835754
Its not screwed.. its a more finely gradated scale than UK grades and the traffic is less so the mistakes and regional differences and stylistic differences just look bigger. If you were traumatised on GWB when leading E3 its shows you've not adjusted to the feel of US stuff as it is 5.6 according to nearly all tye US votes (I'd say not even technically hard for that grade when compared to all the granite stuff I've done having backed off a few and left bloody and exhusted by some others at JTree)
https://www.mountainproject.com/scripts/ShowObjectStats.php?id=105835754
Post edited at 18:31
In reply to Robert Durran:
I too think that would be a good idea. I spent the summer in Norway and found their grades a bit random even on the same crag.
Their grades seem to be like a technical grade so one route might have a single, soft touch 4c move whilst another could have long sections of sustained 4c/borderline 5a moves but both get the same grade. It also takes no account of the gear so in theory the above examples could mean a HS might get the same grade as an E1.
> It would be very useful to be able to vote UK grades for routes in countries whose own grading systems do not reflect the actual challenge of the climb. .... >
I too think that would be a good idea. I spent the summer in Norway and found their grades a bit random even on the same crag.
Their grades seem to be like a technical grade so one route might have a single, soft touch 4c move whilst another could have long sections of sustained 4c/borderline 5a moves but both get the same grade. It also takes no account of the gear so in theory the above examples could mean a HS might get the same grade as an E1.
In reply to Offwidth:
Oh yes it is...
Oh no it isn't.... (please note I've used this smiling face symbol so please don't start getting stroppy with me like you usually do... )
> Its not screwed..
Oh yes it is...
> its a more finely gradated scale than UK grades...
Oh no it isn't.... (please note I've used this smiling face symbol so please don't start getting stroppy with me like you usually do... )
1
In reply to jon:
I just wish he'd argue this "US grades are screwed" point on supertopo for once. I've onsighted E2 and yet backed off a a number of Yorkshire VDs, one I backed off several times (and had try try hard with a spotter before I sussed it...Purgatory Chimney, Widdop, is now respectfully undergraded in YMC in the Yorkshire style at S 4a and is VD with VD votes on this site). On sports routes I've flashed 6b, worked 6cs and been completely incapable of climbing single moves on a number of polished 5s. Bouldering at Font I've worked a f6C and failed on a F2.. so all grades must be screwed if US ones are.
PS on the subject of Purgatory Chimney I'm pretty good at such sandbag VD climbs having checked pretty much everything low grade for a number of grit guides.. those who have done GWB might try it and let me know if GWB felt bolder or technically harder.
I just wish he'd argue this "US grades are screwed" point on supertopo for once. I've onsighted E2 and yet backed off a a number of Yorkshire VDs, one I backed off several times (and had try try hard with a spotter before I sussed it...Purgatory Chimney, Widdop, is now respectfully undergraded in YMC in the Yorkshire style at S 4a and is VD with VD votes on this site). On sports routes I've flashed 6b, worked 6cs and been completely incapable of climbing single moves on a number of polished 5s. Bouldering at Font I've worked a f6C and failed on a F2.. so all grades must be screwed if US ones are.
PS on the subject of Purgatory Chimney I'm pretty good at such sandbag VD climbs having checked pretty much everything low grade for a number of grit guides.. those who have done GWB might try it and let me know if GWB felt bolder or technically harder.
Post edited at 19:14
1
In reply to:
I was ridiculed for saying Great White Book was HVS, good to see some others think the same.
I'm sure I did a pitch without any gear, probably would have been easier as a solo.
I was ridiculed for saying Great White Book was HVS, good to see some others think the same.
I'm sure I did a pitch without any gear, probably would have been easier as a solo.
Post edited at 19:13
In reply to jon:
I've heard a few people say La Demande is HVS, unless you're a wall trained climber who will find it more like E2. I'm not wall trained but I definitely think it's worth E1, 5b.
Regarding the original topic, I would find it useful to have the option to log Continental trad routes with a British grade.
I've heard a few people say La Demande is HVS, unless you're a wall trained climber who will find it more like E2. I'm not wall trained but I definitely think it's worth E1, 5b.
Regarding the original topic, I would find it useful to have the option to log Continental trad routes with a British grade.
In reply to Robert Durran: I'd agree to that. I've had similar experiences on Norwegian 6- varying from straightforward VS to I'd guess E2 with scanty protection and a lot of 6- moves
In reply to Offwidth:
The graduation is irrelevant when nobody can even agree what the grade is meant to be measuring. I'm at the end of a ten week trip here visiting a wide range of venues and am none the wiser. In fact even more baffled than I was at the start.
If the grade means different things in different places then that means it is pretty useless. 'Yorkshire VS' is a calibration issue easily solved by recalibration. The YDS seems to be beyond redemption..........as far as I can see the only answer is to scrap it and start again.
> Its not screwed.. its a more finely gradated scale than UK grades and the traffic is less so the mistakes and regional differences and stylistic differences just look bigger.
The graduation is irrelevant when nobody can even agree what the grade is meant to be measuring. I'm at the end of a ten week trip here visiting a wide range of venues and am none the wiser. In fact even more baffled than I was at the start.
If the grade means different things in different places then that means it is pretty useless. 'Yorkshire VS' is a calibration issue easily solved by recalibration. The YDS seems to be beyond redemption..........as far as I can see the only answer is to scrap it and start again.
Post edited at 01:51
1
In reply to Colin Moody:
And rightly so; it's much harder than that.
> I was ridiculed for saying Great White Book was HVS.
And rightly so; it's much harder than that.
In reply to Orgsm:
Most of the classic routes in the US have quite a number of ascents logged, and probably by people who have been around a bit and reasonably good at giving a grade. Just a handful of votes are going to give a pretty good indication of whether to expect something nearer HVS or E3 from a given 5.10a.
Great WhiteBook is a notorious.opinion splitter and a special case which should not be seen as giving a general case against the idea of applying UK grades to US routes.
> No, because I don't think you'd get enough votes to make it meaningful.
Most of the classic routes in the US have quite a number of ascents logged, and probably by people who have been around a bit and reasonably good at giving a grade. Just a handful of votes are going to give a pretty good indication of whether to expect something nearer HVS or E3 from a given 5.10a.
Great WhiteBook is a notorious.opinion splitter and a special case which should not be seen as giving a general case against the idea of applying UK grades to US routes.
Post edited at 01:43
In reply to HeMa:
You appear not to have noticed the UK in UKC.
Also you appear not to have noticed my reference in my OP to grading systems which do not reflect the overall challenge of a route (and which therefore are not reliable guides to whether one is going to get up it). I am not aware of any system other than the UK one which does attempt to reflect the overall challenge of a route.
> Indeed, people coming from different backgrounds use UKC Logbook. So voting on a grade in a familiar system is the best.
You appear not to have noticed the UK in UKC.
Also you appear not to have noticed my reference in my OP to grading systems which do not reflect the overall challenge of a route (and which therefore are not reliable guides to whether one is going to get up it). I am not aware of any system other than the UK one which does attempt to reflect the overall challenge of a route.
In reply to Offwidth:
There would be no point. Few Americans travel enough to ever see how broken their system is (why would they when they have such a huge share of the world's best trad climbing and weather at home!). Realistically they are never going to mend it. But that is no reason why my suggestion for voting UK grades on UKC shouldn't be taken up to help visiting UK climbers with appropriate route selection.
> I just wish he'd argue this "US grades are screwed" point on supertopo for once.
There would be no point. Few Americans travel enough to ever see how broken their system is (why would they when they have such a huge share of the world's best trad climbing and weather at home!). Realistically they are never going to mend it. But that is no reason why my suggestion for voting UK grades on UKC shouldn't be taken up to help visiting UK climbers with appropriate route selection.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Geez..listen to you guys....you can't even agree if GWB is Vdiff or E3....a climb thats so low-angled you could probably wallow up it on your belly.
Geez..listen to you guys....you can't even agree if GWB is Vdiff or E3....a climb thats so low-angled you could probably wallow up it on your belly.
Post edited at 02:43
1
1
In reply to redjerry:
I agree that it might be easier to downclimb it on your bum (or should that be ass) than climb on your feet.
Anyway, you're supposed to be giving me some support on here like you said! You're probably as well qualified as anyone to comment on the two grading systems.
Oh, and that route I got spanked on earlier was definitely at least E3. Probably definitive Reiff E4
And Freakout is E4 6a and for all I know could be anything between 10b and 11b....
> Geez..listen to you guys....you can't even agree if GWB is Vdiff or E3....a climb thats so low-angled you could probably wallow up it on your belly.
I agree that it might be easier to downclimb it on your bum (or should that be ass) than climb on your feet.
Anyway, you're supposed to be giving me some support on here like you said! You're probably as well qualified as anyone to comment on the two grading systems.
Oh, and that route I got spanked on earlier was definitely at least E3. Probably definitive Reiff E4
And Freakout is E4 6a and for all I know could be anything between 10b and 11b....
Post edited at 03:13
In reply to Robert Durran:
Indeed, but then again, I'm not sure if they'd be willing to add such a function. It would require quite a bit of tweakin' methinks. Even if they don't include any pre-population of the "empty" grades (which I think they shouldn't).
French and Scandinavian grades actually do that, so does YDS nowadays. And just like I have problems understanding your system, you have problems understanding other systems. That doesn't mean that they are flawed. It just means that your understanding is limited.
> You appear not to have noticed the UK in UKC.
Indeed, but then again, I'm not sure if they'd be willing to add such a function. It would require quite a bit of tweakin' methinks. Even if they don't include any pre-population of the "empty" grades (which I think they shouldn't).
> I am not aware of any system other than the UK one which does attempt to reflect the overall challenge of a route.
French and Scandinavian grades actually do that, so does YDS nowadays. And just like I have problems understanding your system, you have problems understanding other systems. That doesn't mean that they are flawed. It just means that your understanding is limited.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Sounds like a very good idea. UKC is meant to cater for UK climbers and this would definitely be a big help.
Sounds like a very good idea. UKC is meant to cater for UK climbers and this would definitely be a big help.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Yes, and the logbook is used quite widely around the globe... as when it was launched, there wasn't that much competition (Summitpost). Nowadays it's a bit different though, but while there are better systems available now most are just not arsed to move their logs from one site/system to another. I know I ain't willin' to do that.
> Sounds like a very good idea. UKC is meant to cater climbers that might recide in UK and this would definitely be a big help.
Yes, and the logbook is used quite widely around the globe... as when it was launched, there wasn't that much competition (Summitpost). Nowadays it's a bit different though, but while there are better systems available now most are just not arsed to move their logs from one site/system to another. I know I ain't willin' to do that.
Post edited at 07:42
In reply to HeMa:
Nonsense. French definitely doesn't. YDS doesn't, unless, arguably, when it is used equivalently to a French grade and with the addition of the R/X thing. Scandinavian didn't last time I used it 3 years ago.
I can understand any system that is properly explained to me. It seems you cannot.
I don't think the French and Scandinavian systems are flawed; they measure what they measure, it's just that that is not the overall challenge of the pitch.
The problem with the YDS is that nobody can explain it because nobody seems to agree what it is meant to be measuring; it means different things from area to area.
> French and Scandinavian grades actually do that, so does YDS nowadays.
Nonsense. French definitely doesn't. YDS doesn't, unless, arguably, when it is used equivalently to a French grade and with the addition of the R/X thing. Scandinavian didn't last time I used it 3 years ago.
> And just like I have problems understanding your system, you have problems understanding other systems. That doesn't mean that they are flawed. It just means that your understanding is limited.
I can understand any system that is properly explained to me. It seems you cannot.
I don't think the French and Scandinavian systems are flawed; they measure what they measure, it's just that that is not the overall challenge of the pitch.
The problem with the YDS is that nobody can explain it because nobody seems to agree what it is meant to be measuring; it means different things from area to area.
Post edited at 08:56
1
In reply to HeMa:
I've no idea what you are trying to say here let alone why it is relevant to Michael's post!
> Yes, and the logbook is used quite widely around the globe... as when it was launched, there wasn't that much competition (Summitpost). Nowadays it's a bit different though, but while there are better systems available now most are just not arsed to move their logs from one site/system to another. I know I ain't willin' to do that.
I've no idea what you are trying to say here let alone why it is relevant to Michael's post!
In reply to Robert Durran:
And you're absolutely wrong on this.
Both measure the overall technical difficulty required to get up the pitch. And BTW. Scandinavian system is a two tier system, in which the quality of protection (and lack off) is also measured. So, similar to YDS with R/X-ratings.
So if claim that E6 doesn't tell me if I'll be able to get the route up. I'm correct (since from my feeble understanding of the grades, the technical difficulty for an E6 could be between Fr6c to Fr7b or something). Same be said about the use of simple tech grade 6A.
YDS is indeed a bit of a mess. Due to heritage (initially hardest move and fixed range to 5.9). How ever, once again modern or checked routes in the states use YDS for overall difficulty (with a slight bias on cruxy routes for the tick). And the R/X (or PG, which is often neglected) tells you more than enough on how hard the climbing is. As does french grade or Scandinavian.
> I don't think the French and Scandinavian systems are flawed; they measure what they measure, it's just that that is not the overall challenge of the pitch.
And you're absolutely wrong on this.
Both measure the overall technical difficulty required to get up the pitch. And BTW. Scandinavian system is a two tier system, in which the quality of protection (and lack off) is also measured. So, similar to YDS with R/X-ratings.
So if claim that E6 doesn't tell me if I'll be able to get the route up. I'm correct (since from my feeble understanding of the grades, the technical difficulty for an E6 could be between Fr6c to Fr7b or something). Same be said about the use of simple tech grade 6A.
YDS is indeed a bit of a mess. Due to heritage (initially hardest move and fixed range to 5.9). How ever, once again modern or checked routes in the states use YDS for overall difficulty (with a slight bias on cruxy routes for the tick). And the R/X (or PG, which is often neglected) tells you more than enough on how hard the climbing is. As does french grade or Scandinavian.
In reply to HeMa:
The French grade does not take protection and seriousness into account, so it does NOT reflect the overall challenge of the pitch.
I have not seen it used like that in my visits to Lofoten (last time three years ago). I'll take your word for it.
Of course it won't reliably tell you if you'd get up the route, but it aspires to give the best indication possible with one number. More people will get up any given E5 than any given E6. A 'well rounded' climber will be able to get up most routes of some grade but fewer of the next. Obviously the grade is not tailored to any one person's strengths, but you can take that into account yourself.
At least we agree on that!
> Both measure the overall technical difficulty required to get up the pitch.
The French grade does not take protection and seriousness into account, so it does NOT reflect the overall challenge of the pitch.
> Scandinavian system is a two tier system, in which the quality of protection (and lack off) is also measured.
I have not seen it used like that in my visits to Lofoten (last time three years ago). I'll take your word for it.
> So if claim that E6 doesn't tell me if I'll be able to get the route up. I'm correct (since from my feeble understanding of the grades, the technical difficulty for an E6 could be between Fr6c to Fr7b or something).
Of course it won't reliably tell you if you'd get up the route, but it aspires to give the best indication possible with one number. More people will get up any given E5 than any given E6. A 'well rounded' climber will be able to get up most routes of some grade but fewer of the next. Obviously the grade is not tailored to any one person's strengths, but you can take that into account yourself.
> YDS is indeed a bit of a mess.
At least we agree on that!
Post edited at 09:43
In reply to Robert Durran:
I've spent well over a year in total climbing in the states now. I normally go to Red Rocks and Joshua Tree every other Xmas but have toured other venues in Utah and Arizona. In the summer I've visted most of the Californian stella venues. Yosemite Tuolumne, Lake Tahoe, Tarquitz/Suicide, Needles and many good lesser ones besides. The vast majority of my climbing is trad onsight, mostly mulitipitch and using this "stupid broken" US grading system, as a fully signed up bumbly, I can climb consistently harder in the US as the grades are generally so trusworthy. I've led up to 5.10a slab (hard E2 5c), seconded 10c, top-roped into the low 11s, done sport and bouldering. You witter on about how one 10d is easier than another 10b (translated into rough UK terms a mid 5c is easier than an easy 5c where a UK grade could be wrong and we wouldnt even know it) but never consider how some areas on the same rocktype, have the same range... how many climbers seriously think a safe Masochism HVS at Ramshaw is easier than a safe Big Crack E2 at Froggatt and this is on starred grit climbs the most popular trad in the world at mortal grades. Then as someone points out above people here are commenting who are so out of touch with the style on US rock that they think a boldish 5.6 standard classic feels like an E2 ffs.
The US has 21 tech related grade bands (5.10a to 5.15a) in the range we have 7 (5b to 7b) and you think our version is better. The US film ratings (PG, R and X) make risk explicit where UK grades can hide a terrifying crux by the same route having a hard safe move. Thats before we try and judge how hard a 6c move is onsight in the huge grade range it covers when considering hard routes Any system I have used or heard off has problems, has got misued or failed to take into account changes (say due to polish). Even if we could make grades accurate with a magic wand they would still be subjective and vary according to individual skill. Then you say talking to US climbers on a US climbing site is stupid as they are not aware of the depth of their own grade problems (try looking in a mirror).
I've spent well over a year in total climbing in the states now. I normally go to Red Rocks and Joshua Tree every other Xmas but have toured other venues in Utah and Arizona. In the summer I've visted most of the Californian stella venues. Yosemite Tuolumne, Lake Tahoe, Tarquitz/Suicide, Needles and many good lesser ones besides. The vast majority of my climbing is trad onsight, mostly mulitipitch and using this "stupid broken" US grading system, as a fully signed up bumbly, I can climb consistently harder in the US as the grades are generally so trusworthy. I've led up to 5.10a slab (hard E2 5c), seconded 10c, top-roped into the low 11s, done sport and bouldering. You witter on about how one 10d is easier than another 10b (translated into rough UK terms a mid 5c is easier than an easy 5c where a UK grade could be wrong and we wouldnt even know it) but never consider how some areas on the same rocktype, have the same range... how many climbers seriously think a safe Masochism HVS at Ramshaw is easier than a safe Big Crack E2 at Froggatt and this is on starred grit climbs the most popular trad in the world at mortal grades. Then as someone points out above people here are commenting who are so out of touch with the style on US rock that they think a boldish 5.6 standard classic feels like an E2 ffs.
The US has 21 tech related grade bands (5.10a to 5.15a) in the range we have 7 (5b to 7b) and you think our version is better. The US film ratings (PG, R and X) make risk explicit where UK grades can hide a terrifying crux by the same route having a hard safe move. Thats before we try and judge how hard a 6c move is onsight in the huge grade range it covers when considering hard routes Any system I have used or heard off has problems, has got misued or failed to take into account changes (say due to polish). Even if we could make grades accurate with a magic wand they would still be subjective and vary according to individual skill. Then you say talking to US climbers on a US climbing site is stupid as they are not aware of the depth of their own grade problems (try looking in a mirror).
Post edited at 09:52
2
In reply to Offwidth:
French grade plus R/X for everything everywhere is the obvious way forward.
Except on ukc where "7b+ X" for the Indian Face would be met with howls of protest.
French grade plus R/X for everything everywhere is the obvious way forward.
Except on ukc where "7b+ X" for the Indian Face would be met with howls of protest.
4
In reply to Offwidth:
I am arguing that one 10d can be easier than another 10b in the sense that it would get a lower E grade. So your comparison with 5c is irrelevant.
,> How many climbers seriously think a safe Masochism HVS at Ramshaw is easier than a safe Big Crack E2 at Froggatt.
To Labour my earlier point, this is simply a matter of calibration which could and should be corrected by adjusting the grades. It does not mean the system is broken, It just means that some routes are incorrectly graded. In contrast the YDS is broken because nobody seems to be able to agree what it is actually meant to be measuring in the first place.
There undoubtedly is an issue with UK climbers feeling sandbagged due to styles of climbing prevalent in the States which we have little of in the UK (sustained cracks and slabs) and GWB is the standard lowish grade example. This is just something we have to adjust to and is not a fault of either system.
The graduation size has got nothing to do with the objections to the YDS I have been making.
The film ratings are a useful fix but are not always used.
At the end of the day, more people will get up any given E2 than any given E3 (unless one of the routes is incorrectly graded). This is not necessarily true of any given 10b and any given 10c.
I am not realistically expecting the YDS to be reformed or scrapped. I am simply asking UKC to allow voting of UK grades for routes abroad so that we can have a useful assessment of whether we are likely to get up it. It seems there is plenty of support for this.
> You witter on about how one 10d is easier than another 10b (translated into rough UK terms a mid 5c is easier than an easy 5c)
I am arguing that one 10d can be easier than another 10b in the sense that it would get a lower E grade. So your comparison with 5c is irrelevant.
,> How many climbers seriously think a safe Masochism HVS at Ramshaw is easier than a safe Big Crack E2 at Froggatt.
To Labour my earlier point, this is simply a matter of calibration which could and should be corrected by adjusting the grades. It does not mean the system is broken, It just means that some routes are incorrectly graded. In contrast the YDS is broken because nobody seems to be able to agree what it is actually meant to be measuring in the first place.
> Then as someone points out above people here are commenting who are so out of touch with the style on US rock that they think a boldish 5.6 standard classic feels like an E2 ffs.
There undoubtedly is an issue with UK climbers feeling sandbagged due to styles of climbing prevalent in the States which we have little of in the UK (sustained cracks and slabs) and GWB is the standard lowish grade example. This is just something we have to adjust to and is not a fault of either system.
> The US has 21 tech related grade bands (5.10a to 5.15a) in the range we have 7 (5b to 7b) and you think our version is better
The graduation size has got nothing to do with the objections to the YDS I have been making.
> The US film ratings (PG, R and X) make risk explicit where UK grades can hide a terrifying crux by the same route having a hard safe move.
The film ratings are a useful fix but are not always used.
> Then you say talking to US climbers on a US site is stupid as they are not aware of the depth of their grade problems (try looking in a mirror).
At the end of the day, more people will get up any given E2 than any given E3 (unless one of the routes is incorrectly graded). This is not necessarily true of any given 10b and any given 10c.
I am not realistically expecting the YDS to be reformed or scrapped. I am simply asking UKC to allow voting of UK grades for routes abroad so that we can have a useful assessment of whether we are likely to get up it. It seems there is plenty of support for this.
Post edited at 10:25
> Then you say talking to US climbers on a US climbing site is stupid as they are not aware of the depth of their own grade problems.
There's no point. Do you remember that thread a while back about the YDS a while back which spilled over into Supertopo? The Americans simply childishly abused UK climbers and the UK grading system while making no attempt to understand it and made no attempt to explain the YDS when invited, presumably because they couldn't.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Same can be said of E1, E2 and even VS. From my own experience....
And simply put, each system is flawed if you're not used to it.
Oddly enough, the only one I have had considerable problems has been the UK dealio. YDS, french, UIAA and Scandinavian varieties have been rather easy (for me). And simply by lookin' at the topo, I have a greater change of knowing beforehand if I'm to succeed in OS it or not. Where as with UK, it's a mess.
So, vis-a-vis, if you're used to something, then different systems might seem to be flawed/bad/stupid. But others are saying the same thing on what you're used to (where as they are not).
BTW. the current YDS definer is overall (technical) grade for the whole pitch (or hardest pitch). Akin to French grade. And this has been the norm more or less from mid-90s onwards (if not already earlier). Previously it was about the hardest move (akin to your tech -grade) and then the hardest sequence (again, akin to you tech grade).
> I am arguing that one 10d can be easier than another 10b in the sense that it would get a lower E grade. So your comparison with 5c is irrelevant.
Same can be said of E1, E2 and even VS. From my own experience....
And simply put, each system is flawed if you're not used to it.
Oddly enough, the only one I have had considerable problems has been the UK dealio. YDS, french, UIAA and Scandinavian varieties have been rather easy (for me). And simply by lookin' at the topo, I have a greater change of knowing beforehand if I'm to succeed in OS it or not. Where as with UK, it's a mess.
So, vis-a-vis, if you're used to something, then different systems might seem to be flawed/bad/stupid. But others are saying the same thing on what you're used to (where as they are not).
BTW. the current YDS definer is overall (technical) grade for the whole pitch (or hardest pitch). Akin to French grade. And this has been the norm more or less from mid-90s onwards (if not already earlier). Previously it was about the hardest move (akin to your tech -grade) and then the hardest sequence (again, akin to you tech grade).
In reply to Robert Durran:
And you're doing the same, now....
> There's no point. Do you remember that thread a while back about the YDS a while back which spilled over into Supertopo? The Americans simply childishly abused UK climbers and the UK grading system while making no attempt to understand it and made no attempt to explain the YDS when invited, presumably because they couldn't.
And you're doing the same, now....
In reply to HeMa:
Exactly. More people will get up a given E1 than a given E2 (if correctly graded), but your own strengths might mean you personally find the E2 easier, but you will get up more E1's than E2's in general
Eh? A system is flawed independent of any given user.
I have made it very clear why I think the YDS is flawed.
In which case why do many modern guidebooks given different grades to different parts of pitches on topos? The same thing is often done with the French grade when applied to trad routes.
If there is indeed a trend towards equivalence with French grades, then this is very welcome and maybe the system is on the mend after all.
> Same can be said of E1, E2 and even VS. From my own experience....
Exactly. More people will get up a given E1 than a given E2 (if correctly graded), but your own strengths might mean you personally find the E2 easier, but you will get up more E1's than E2's in general
> And simply put, each system is flawed if you're not used to it.
Eh? A system is flawed independent of any given user.
I have made it very clear why I think the YDS is flawed.
> BTW. the current YDS definer is overall (technical) grade for the whole pitch (or hardest pitch). Akin to French grade. And this has been the norm more or less from mid-90s onwards.
In which case why do many modern guidebooks given different grades to different parts of pitches on topos? The same thing is often done with the French grade when applied to trad routes.
If there is indeed a trend towards equivalence with French grades, then this is very welcome and maybe the system is on the mend after all.
Post edited at 11:07
In reply to Robert Durran:
It's good idea. I already do this in my own head even for sport but then I was brought up with the UK system and find that I am most comfortable with that. With regard to variations in grade. I used to climb equally on grit and limestone and never felt that one was graded any harder than the other, it's a matter of style and what you get used to. I haven't been on grit for many years but I feel sure that if I visited Stanage tomorrow and climbed a few of the cracks I would feel sandbagged. To give a few examples: I thought Great White Book in Toulomne was VS/HVS. The route to the left, I think it's called Truckers Delight, or something like that is good E4. Stoners HIghway on Middle Cathedral is sustained E2,5b unless you do the direct start which ramps it up to E3, 6a IMO.
Al
It's good idea. I already do this in my own head even for sport but then I was brought up with the UK system and find that I am most comfortable with that. With regard to variations in grade. I used to climb equally on grit and limestone and never felt that one was graded any harder than the other, it's a matter of style and what you get used to. I haven't been on grit for many years but I feel sure that if I visited Stanage tomorrow and climbed a few of the cracks I would feel sandbagged. To give a few examples: I thought Great White Book in Toulomne was VS/HVS. The route to the left, I think it's called Truckers Delight, or something like that is good E4. Stoners HIghway on Middle Cathedral is sustained E2,5b unless you do the direct start which ramps it up to E3, 6a IMO.
Al
In reply to Robert Durran:
To give you added information. And I believe in this case the route might be cruxy rather than sustained.
Besides, if they grade a pitch as 5.6, 5.8, 5.11c, and 5.9 the grade is going to be 5.11c for the darn thing and you'll also know where the hard stuff is going to be and how long of a section.
> In which case why do many modern guidebooks given different grades to different parts of pitches on topos? The same thing is often done with the French grade when applied to trad routes.
To give you added information. And I believe in this case the route might be cruxy rather than sustained.
Besides, if they grade a pitch as 5.6, 5.8, 5.11c, and 5.9 the grade is going to be 5.11c for the darn thing and you'll also know where the hard stuff is going to be and how long of a section.
In reply to HeMa:
No I'm not. I'm bending over to be open to constructive discussion.
> And you're doing the same, now....
No I'm not. I'm bending over to be open to constructive discussion.
1
In reply to HeMa:
But can 10b, 10b, 10a, 10b add up to 10c for the pitch? And what do the individually graded bits mean?
> Besides, if they grade a pitch as 5.6, 5.8, 5.11c, and 5.9 the grade is going to be 5.11c for the darn thing and you'll also know where the hard stuff is going to be and how long of a section.
But can 10b, 10b, 10a, 10b add up to 10c for the pitch? And what do the individually graded bits mean?
In reply to GridNorth:
Good God! I seconded a very experienced on granite US based climber on the first three pitches a couple of weeks ago (including the direct start) and we agreed the pitches were E4 6b, E4 6a, E3 5c!
> Stoners HIghway on Middle Cathedral is sustained E2,5b unless you do the direct start which ramps it up to E3, 6a IMO.
Good God! I seconded a very experienced on granite US based climber on the first three pitches a couple of weeks ago (including the direct start) and we agreed the pitches were E4 6b, E4 6a, E3 5c!
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes,
And overall (physical) grade for that section...
> But can 10b, 10b, 10a, 10b add up to 10c for the pitch? And what do the individually graded bits mean?
Yes,
And overall (physical) grade for that section...
In reply to HeMa:
I'd be interested to see if others agree with that. Last time this came up on here, the most plausible explanation of the YDS was the physical difficulty of the hardest section of a pitch between rests or 'stopping' points (a sort of mini Fench grade).
> And overall (physical) grade for that section...
I'd be interested to see if others agree with that. Last time this came up on here, the most plausible explanation of the YDS was the physical difficulty of the hardest section of a pitch between rests or 'stopping' points (a sort of mini Fench grade).
In reply to Robert Durran:
Isn't that what I wrote?
physical grade for that section? If the climbing is considerably easier before & after, that pretty much counts as a rest.
which oddly now some people seem to also use as a basis for the UK tech (ie. hardest sequence of climbing) instead of the hardest individual move (as it was originally dubbed being).
Isn't that what I wrote?
physical grade for that section? If the climbing is considerably easier before & after, that pretty much counts as a rest.
which oddly now some people seem to also use as a basis for the UK tech (ie. hardest sequence of climbing) instead of the hardest individual move (as it was originally dubbed being).
Post edited at 11:49
In reply to Robert Durran:
It was a long time ago but I do remember that after the first pitch the rest was quite straightforward. In fact I seconded the first pitch and my feet slipped literally the micro second that I unclipped the bolt and I took a huge pendulum, one of the longest falls I've experienced.
Al
It was a long time ago but I do remember that after the first pitch the rest was quite straightforward. In fact I seconded the first pitch and my feet slipped literally the micro second that I unclipped the bolt and I took a huge pendulum, one of the longest falls I've experienced.
Al
In reply to GridNorth:
We thought there was a highly technical 6a sequence with feet above a small cam with easing run out to a bolt on the second pitch.
I fixed a backropee but still found the potential baby bounce quite intimidating!
> It was a long time ago but I do remember that after the first pitch the rest was quite straightforward.
We thought there was a highly technical 6a sequence with feet above a small cam with easing run out to a bolt on the second pitch.
> In fact I seconded the first pitch and my feet slipped literally the micro second that I unclipped the bolt and I took a huge pendulum, one of the longest falls I've experienced.
I fixed a backropee but still found the potential baby bounce quite intimidating!
In reply to HeMa:
Not quite. You reckoned that sections could accumulate to give a higher overall grade than any individual section.
> Isn't that what I wrote?
> physical grade for that section?
Not quite. You reckoned that sections could accumulate to give a higher overall grade than any individual section.
In reply to Robert Durran:
The only bolt we saw was the one on the first pitch. Are you sure you went the right way. I remember a series of leftward slanting grooves that were protectable.
Al
The only bolt we saw was the one on the first pitch. Are you sure you went the right way. I remember a series of leftward slanting grooves that were protectable.
Al
In reply to GridNorth:
There were at least two on the first pitch and I'm pretty sure at least one on the second. That description sounds right and it looked travelled.
> The only bolt we saw was the one on the first pitch. Are you sure you went the right way. I remember a series of leftward slanting grooves that were protectable.
There were at least two on the first pitch and I'm pretty sure at least one on the second. That description sounds right and it looked travelled.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes, they could. The old Falcon guide I have has it also so. The hardest part of the route I seem to recall was 10d, where as the route was graded to be 11a. It was around 6 or 7 pitches.
A section /= pitch...
> Not quite. You reckoned that sections could accumulate to give a higher overall grade than any individual section.
Yes, they could. The old Falcon guide I have has it also so. The hardest part of the route I seem to recall was 10d, where as the route was graded to be 11a. It was around 6 or 7 pitches.
A section /= pitch...
In reply to Robert Durran:
Nice idea about being about voting for a UK grade. I'd happily vote for a UK grade as well as the local grade, although would want the local grade to be kept. Foreign guidebooks are usually a compilation of grades amongst local activists, verified by an editor. I'd much rather see these grades in the logbook rather than a UK grade guestimate, added by whoever and probably every bit as unreliable.
Something worth pointing out is that a lot of foreign areas often don't register enough votes in the logbooks to really mean anything and so comments prove often more useful.
Another point is that with a good guidebook an overall grade isn't essential in my experience. It's quite easy to sum the critical factors up with a few descriptive words (eg run-out, sustained) so I think the problem often relates more to inadequate guidebooks. The quality of guidebooks in the UK are arguably the best in the world bare in mind.
Something also worth pointing out is that UK routes are generally quite short. Therefore it's quite easy to start inflating the overall grade for some foreign multipitch crags because of 'commitment'. Eg some of the long routes in Romsdal, which would probably convert easier to Alpine grades than they would UK grades. Speaking of which, when will the modern form of Alpine grading by introduced in the logbooks? :-P
Nice idea about being about voting for a UK grade. I'd happily vote for a UK grade as well as the local grade, although would want the local grade to be kept. Foreign guidebooks are usually a compilation of grades amongst local activists, verified by an editor. I'd much rather see these grades in the logbook rather than a UK grade guestimate, added by whoever and probably every bit as unreliable.
Something worth pointing out is that a lot of foreign areas often don't register enough votes in the logbooks to really mean anything and so comments prove often more useful.
Another point is that with a good guidebook an overall grade isn't essential in my experience. It's quite easy to sum the critical factors up with a few descriptive words (eg run-out, sustained) so I think the problem often relates more to inadequate guidebooks. The quality of guidebooks in the UK are arguably the best in the world bare in mind.
Something also worth pointing out is that UK routes are generally quite short. Therefore it's quite easy to start inflating the overall grade for some foreign multipitch crags because of 'commitment'. Eg some of the long routes in Romsdal, which would probably convert easier to Alpine grades than they would UK grades. Speaking of which, when will the modern form of Alpine grading by introduced in the logbooks? :-P
In reply to Mr. Lee:
Yes, I'm not suggesting binning the foreign grades.
Yes, but the most often climbed classics would soon accumulate enough votes .to be make a consensus grade meaningful.
True, but until recently US guidebooks have often been remarkably poor. Some still are.
Indeed. The Red Rocks guide does this very well in conjunction with a YDS analogous to a French Grade and without the R/X thing.
Yes, we have been spoilt with both the best guidebooks and the best grading system. Hopefully the rest of the world is now catching up.
> Nice idea about being about voting for a UK grade. I'd happily vote for a UK grade as well as the local grade, although would want the local grade to be kept.
Yes, I'm not suggesting binning the foreign grades.
> Something worth pointing out is that a lot of foreign areas often don't register enough votes in the logbooks to really mean anything and so comments prove often more useful.
Yes, but the most often climbed classics would soon accumulate enough votes .to be make a consensus grade meaningful.
> Another point is that with a good guidebook an overall grade isn't essential in my experience.
True, but until recently US guidebooks have often been remarkably poor. Some still are.
> It's quite easy to sum the critical factors up with a few descriptive words (eg run-out, sustained) so I think the problem often relates more to inadequate guidebooks.
Indeed. The Red Rocks guide does this very well in conjunction with a YDS analogous to a French Grade and without the R/X thing.
> The quality of guidebooks in the UK are arguably the best in the world bare in mind.
Yes, we have been spoilt with both the best guidebooks and the best grading system. Hopefully the rest of the world is now catching up.
Oh well, at least this thread has been passing the night effectively after being snowed out of my doss in the hills behind Red Rocks in the fear that my rental car would be stuck! So after a few hours shivering at the side of the main road, I'm off to photograph the wintery Red Rock sunrise..........then get some rest before a final magical mystery grade tour tomorrow . And home the day after
Post edited at 13:42
In reply to Robert Durran:
What have you done at Red Rocks and how did you find the climbing there ? (way more interesting than grade arguments)... we are heading out again in a couple of weeks.
Incidentally, as you used Reiff as an example, a Yorkshireman once quipped to me: imagine moving this (yorkshire grit) to the seaside whilst removing the knarl, flesh ripping crystals and skiddy polish and getting your gran to grade it so you looked good.
What have you done at Red Rocks and how did you find the climbing there ? (way more interesting than grade arguments)... we are heading out again in a couple of weeks.
Incidentally, as you used Reiff as an example, a Yorkshireman once quipped to me: imagine moving this (yorkshire grit) to the seaside whilst removing the knarl, flesh ripping crystals and skiddy polish and getting your gran to grade it so you looked good.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm sorry Al, I'm with Rob all the way here. Well, when I say all the way, I mean up to halfway up the second pitch... it was there that I bailed... and I was seconding! You might well know the guy who was leading, one Chris Hunter - shame I spoiled his day. It was 37 years ago, but that's no excuse.
> Stoners HIghway on Middle Cathedral is sustained E2,5b unless you do the direct start which ramps it up to E3, 6a IMO.
> > Good God! I seconded a very experienced on granite US based climber on the first three pitches a couple of weeks ago (including the direct start) and we agreed the pitches were E4 6b, E4 6a, E3 5c!
I'm sorry Al, I'm with Rob all the way here. Well, when I say all the way, I mean up to halfway up the second pitch... it was there that I bailed... and I was seconding! You might well know the guy who was leading, one Chris Hunter - shame I spoiled his day. It was 37 years ago, but that's no excuse.
Post edited at 17:01
In reply to jon:
It's over 20 years ago when I did it so my memory may be flawed but my honest recollection was that the first pitch was far harder than anything else. So much so in fact that I thought the original would have been a better route than the direct start being more homogeneous in character. I will bow to your more recent experiences however and just assume that I was climbing well at the time It's strange if my memory is wrong because I've always considered it one of the best routes I've done. Ever! Unfortunately the guy I did it with, Ray Harris, is no longer with us so I can't check with him.
Al
It's over 20 years ago when I did it so my memory may be flawed but my honest recollection was that the first pitch was far harder than anything else. So much so in fact that I thought the original would have been a better route than the direct start being more homogeneous in character. I will bow to your more recent experiences however and just assume that I was climbing well at the time It's strange if my memory is wrong because I've always considered it one of the best routes I've done. Ever! Unfortunately the guy I did it with, Ray Harris, is no longer with us so I can't check with him.
Al
Post edited at 17:08
In reply to Robert Durran:
Correct me if I'm wrong:
The E grade tells you how hard the climber should be (not how hard the climb is).
The French grade tells you how hard the climb is.
The YDS should be the latter?
French + danger grades (possibly plus tech/Font grade) for me.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
The E grade tells you how hard the climber should be (not how hard the climb is).
The French grade tells you how hard the climb is.
The YDS should be the latter?
French + danger grades (possibly plus tech/Font grade) for me.
In reply to jon:
I'm surprised you failed to second the second pitch if you'd managed the scary traverse on the first. I didn't think there was much difference in technical difficulty but was very glad of the rope above me on the second one.
> I'm sorry Al, I'm with Rob all the way here. Well, when I say all the way, I mean up to halfway up the second pitch... it was there that I bailed...
I'm surprised you failed to second the second pitch if you'd managed the scary traverse on the first. I didn't think there was much difference in technical difficulty but was very glad of the rope above me on the second one.
In reply to GridNorth:
Well no, it wasn't a more recent experience - far from it! (I must have edited my post as you were typing.) My main memory was watching Chris's feet apparently on good holds, disappearing steadily upwards and thinking, ah, at least there are good footholds - only to get there and find just crap smears. I've always wanted to go back on it but somehow have always found an excuse!
> It's over 20 years ago when I did ... I will bow to your more recent experiences
Well no, it wasn't a more recent experience - far from it! (I must have edited my post as you were typing.) My main memory was watching Chris's feet apparently on good holds, disappearing steadily upwards and thinking, ah, at least there are good footholds - only to get there and find just crap smears. I've always wanted to go back on it but somehow have always found an excuse!
In reply to andrewmcleod
In the sense that the higher the grade, the fewer climbers will be capable of infighting it.
How physically hard, in the sense that the higher the grade, the fewer climbers would be able to top rope.it
Hmmmm.........possibly, but in practice it seems to be used as anything between a UK tech grade and a French Grade. Possibly as a Font grade for the hardest sequence.
That would work.
> The E grade tells you how hard the climber should be (not how hard the climb is).
In the sense that the higher the grade, the fewer climbers will be capable of infighting it.
> The French grade tells you how hard the climb is.
How physically hard, in the sense that the higher the grade, the fewer climbers would be able to top rope.it
> The YDS should be the latter?
Hmmmm.........possibly, but in practice it seems to be used as anything between a UK tech grade and a French Grade. Possibly as a Font grade for the hardest sequence.
> French + danger grades (possibly plus tech/Font grade) for me.
That would work.
In reply to Robert Durran:
My guess is that it would be a major and very difficult change to the logbook database system, but there's nothing to stop you putting in a comment on your ascent regarding what grade you thought it was in whatever grading system you like (though giving font grades to routes on El Cap might not be very useful).
My guess is that it would be a major and very difficult change to the logbook database system, but there's nothing to stop you putting in a comment on your ascent regarding what grade you thought it was in whatever grading system you like (though giving font grades to routes on El Cap might not be very useful).
In reply to andrewmcleod:
YDS isn't usually the same as French sports grades but its not so far off.... I always thought it the grade of the hardest continuous sequence, so for instance a sustained sequence of 'individual 5.7 moves' might be 5.8 or even 5.9 but a sustained 5.7 pitch would have lots of 5.7 sequences with half rests or much easier climbing between (eg pitch 3 RR Fairview Dome). What bugs Robert (the slight vagueness and occasional variation in the YDS definition) is hardly a problem compared to the huge width of UK tech grades that ruin our trad grading system above UK 6a; or when compared to how bad grading can be or how variable it is at times from area to area. In addition I've met UK climbers who adapt UK tech grades (in a YDS sort of way) for sequences, instead of sticking strictly to grading single moves (what is help is a grade for a single move in a sustained bouldery section when comparing it to a one move wonder crux?).
French and/or font with danger grades.. seems to me what most trad folk want to know (for onsight or headpoint), especially when UK grades get too wide. YDS with film ratings gives pretty much the same information.
YDS isn't usually the same as French sports grades but its not so far off.... I always thought it the grade of the hardest continuous sequence, so for instance a sustained sequence of 'individual 5.7 moves' might be 5.8 or even 5.9 but a sustained 5.7 pitch would have lots of 5.7 sequences with half rests or much easier climbing between (eg pitch 3 RR Fairview Dome). What bugs Robert (the slight vagueness and occasional variation in the YDS definition) is hardly a problem compared to the huge width of UK tech grades that ruin our trad grading system above UK 6a; or when compared to how bad grading can be or how variable it is at times from area to area. In addition I've met UK climbers who adapt UK tech grades (in a YDS sort of way) for sequences, instead of sticking strictly to grading single moves (what is help is a grade for a single move in a sustained bouldery section when comparing it to a one move wonder crux?).
French and/or font with danger grades.. seems to me what most trad folk want to know (for onsight or headpoint), especially when UK grades get too wide. YDS with film ratings gives pretty much the same information.
Post edited at 17:40
In reply to Offwidth:
The fact that you feel the need to use the YDS as both the equivalent of a UK tech and a French grade in the same sentence pretty much proves my case! It's ludicrous!
That, again, is a simple matter of calibration, which, given the will could be sorted with a mere sticking plaster compared with the major surgery that the YDS needs.
> so for instance a sustained sequence of 'individual 5.7 moves' might be 5.8 or even 5.9.
The fact that you feel the need to use the YDS as both the equivalent of a UK tech and a French grade in the same sentence pretty much proves my case! It's ludicrous!
> What bugs Robert (the slight vagueness and occasional variation in the YDS definition) is hardly a problem compared to the huge width of UK tech grades that ruin our trad grading system above UK 6a.
That, again, is a simple matter of calibration, which, given the will could be sorted with a mere sticking plaster compared with the major surgery that the YDS needs.
Post edited at 17:55
In reply to Offwidth:
"Then as someone points out above people here are commenting who are so out of touch with the style on US rock that they think a boldish 5.6 standard classic feels like an E2 ffs."
Its nothing to do with it being US rock,it could well be to do with the style of route. Grades are almost entirely subjective to each person, if thats how it felt to me then its my right to have that opinion (not fact, opinion). I hardly think you need to use bad language to illustrate you point the way you have. I don't like these forums sometimes because if we were all in the same room talking,I doubt people would be so quick to say half the things they do so that shouldn't change on here.
Imo I think Roberts simple idea to have a voting system to make it easier for us to understand what we are getting ourself in for is a good one.
"Then as someone points out above people here are commenting who are so out of touch with the style on US rock that they think a boldish 5.6 standard classic feels like an E2 ffs."
Its nothing to do with it being US rock,it could well be to do with the style of route. Grades are almost entirely subjective to each person, if thats how it felt to me then its my right to have that opinion (not fact, opinion). I hardly think you need to use bad language to illustrate you point the way you have. I don't like these forums sometimes because if we were all in the same room talking,I doubt people would be so quick to say half the things they do so that shouldn't change on here.
Imo I think Roberts simple idea to have a voting system to make it easier for us to understand what we are getting ourself in for is a good one.
> I've met UK climbers who adapt UK tech grades (in a YDS sort of way) for sequences, instead of sticking strictly to grading single moves (what is help is a grade for a single move in a sustained bouldery section when comparing it to a one move wonder crux?).
The issues you have with the UK system seem to only be a problem in the upper grades. So by all means formally or informally add Font grades for sequences or French grades for overall physical difficulty if it helps. I'm all for it. But the system works brilliantly up to about E5 and therefore for the vast majority of climbers. It's not broken, so don't try to mend it.
Post edited at 18:03
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes, I'm sure it works really well.... if you're accustomed to it.
Oddly enough, so does YDS, UIAA, French grades and also Scandinavian system...
> But the system works brilliantly up to about E5 and therefore for the vast majority of climbers. It's not broken, so don't try to mend it.
Yes, I'm sure it works really well.... if you're accustomed to it.
Oddly enough, so does YDS, UIAA, French grades and also Scandinavian system...
In reply to HeMa:
Not if they are used without an additional protection grade. Alone they only reflect aspects of physical difficulty which cannot possibly give an indication of the overall challenge of a pitch (if you can't see that you are a lost cause) . I've only ever seen the YDS used with a protection rating, but the YDS is, as I have argued, screwed anyway.
> Yes, I'm sure it works really well.... if you're accustomed to it.
> Oddly enough, so does YDS, UIAA, French grades and also Scandinavian system...
Not if they are used without an additional protection grade. Alone they only reflect aspects of physical difficulty which cannot possibly give an indication of the overall challenge of a pitch (if you can't see that you are a lost cause) . I've only ever seen the YDS used with a protection rating, but the YDS is, as I have argued, screwed anyway.
In reply to Offwidth:
The first time I went to Red Rocks 9 years ago I was underwhelmed by the place. The guidebook for such a vast, complex area was rubbish and could have been designed to put visiting climbers off. The proximity to Vegas also detracted. This time (I've only spent part of my trip here) I've been lucky enough to climb with an exceptionally knowledgeable local able to point me at brilliant stuff without YDS sandbags ( not too many anyway!). The guidebook is also excellent now. I now really love the place, it takes a while to realise just how many gems are hidden in the complex depths of those canyons and maybe for Brits to come to terms with the mixed trad/bolt thing. The Vegas thing can also be mostly worked round. Highlights have probably been Triassic Sands and Risky Business which totally blew me away with its quality. Hoping to top things off before going home with Nightcrawler tomorrow. The starring in the guidebook is mean, so expect excellence with 1 star and a world class experience with three! I am reliably told that the quality only gets better with higher grades, and having seconded a few harder things, I wouldn't argue. Most visitors seem to be moderate/middle grade punters like myself, and it's possibly the best venue in the US at moderate grades, but if it ever came into fashion with the top performers' circuit, I expect they'd be gobsmacked at what they've been overlooking. I'll be back anyway!
> What have you done at Red Rocks and how did you find the climbing there ? (way more interesting than grade arguments)... we are heading out again in a couple of weeks.
The first time I went to Red Rocks 9 years ago I was underwhelmed by the place. The guidebook for such a vast, complex area was rubbish and could have been designed to put visiting climbers off. The proximity to Vegas also detracted. This time (I've only spent part of my trip here) I've been lucky enough to climb with an exceptionally knowledgeable local able to point me at brilliant stuff without YDS sandbags ( not too many anyway!). The guidebook is also excellent now. I now really love the place, it takes a while to realise just how many gems are hidden in the complex depths of those canyons and maybe for Brits to come to terms with the mixed trad/bolt thing. The Vegas thing can also be mostly worked round. Highlights have probably been Triassic Sands and Risky Business which totally blew me away with its quality. Hoping to top things off before going home with Nightcrawler tomorrow. The starring in the guidebook is mean, so expect excellence with 1 star and a world class experience with three! I am reliably told that the quality only gets better with higher grades, and having seconded a few harder things, I wouldn't argue. Most visitors seem to be moderate/middle grade punters like myself, and it's possibly the best venue in the US at moderate grades, but if it ever came into fashion with the top performers' circuit, I expect they'd be gobsmacked at what they've been overlooking. I'll be back anyway!
Post edited at 18:44
In reply to Robert Durran:
Regarding the pg/r/x grades used in the states.
Might seem like a good idea on paper, but in practice really pretty useless and often downright misleading.
Its just too blunt of an instrument for summing up all the different factors that make a route serious or demanding in that sort of way.
My ideal grading system is a french/US grade and an E-grade.
Willy-waving aside ... I think Roberts idea is a good one. Having E-grades on the UKC would probably help people have better trips to foreign trad areas.
Regarding the pg/r/x grades used in the states.
Might seem like a good idea on paper, but in practice really pretty useless and often downright misleading.
Its just too blunt of an instrument for summing up all the different factors that make a route serious or demanding in that sort of way.
My ideal grading system is a french/US grade and an E-grade.
Willy-waving aside ... I think Roberts idea is a good one. Having E-grades on the UKC would probably help people have better trips to foreign trad areas.
In reply to redjerry:
Folk tend to suggest it as some kind of magical solution (to what I'm not sure!) without realising that it would be less nuanced than UK overall grades.
"I think Roberts idea is a good one. Having E-grades on the UKC would probably help people have better trips to foreign trad areas."
Yep. Really the relative merits of different grading systems is not the main thing here. My first question with any foreign graded route is 'what would the UK trad grade be?' It's just something which is nice to know, and just looking at grade tables isn't always the best solution.
> Regarding the pg/r/x grades used in the states.
> Might seem like a good idea on paper, but in practice really pretty useless and often downright misleading.
> Its just too blunt of an instrument for summing up all the different factors that make a route serious or demanding in that sort of way. >
Folk tend to suggest it as some kind of magical solution (to what I'm not sure!) without realising that it would be less nuanced than UK overall grades.
"I think Roberts idea is a good one. Having E-grades on the UKC would probably help people have better trips to foreign trad areas."
Yep. Really the relative merits of different grading systems is not the main thing here. My first question with any foreign graded route is 'what would the UK trad grade be?' It's just something which is nice to know, and just looking at grade tables isn't always the best solution.
Post edited at 19:58
> Really the relative merits of different grading systems issot the main thing here.
Yes, my OP was about the usefulness of adding UK grade voting for routes in any areas which do not use a grade reflecting the overall challenge of the route (ie everywhere apart from the UK, not just the YDS using countries) . The response has been very positive. I might get in touch with UKC to see if it can be done.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Even I think this is a good idea...
Links to those routes, with pictures (I've not done them but have looked up in awe)
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/the-nightcrawler/105920684
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/triassic-sands/105732392
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/risky-business/105732866
Even I think this is a good idea...
Links to those routes, with pictures (I've not done them but have looked up in awe)
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/the-nightcrawler/105920684
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/triassic-sands/105732392
https://www.mountainproject.com/v/risky-business/105732866
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Maybe for the higher E-grades, but for the lower grades PG/R/X would give more information (and certainty) of the danger than UK grades, which are only going to vary (at most) by +/- 1 grade usually. That +/- 1 grade has to incorporate multiple information - onsightability (less of an issue at low grades), overall difficulty, boldness... You can usually assume that VS 4b is a bit bold, but is it sustained and only a bit bold or is it easy and very bold? Is VS 4c mostly easy bold stuff with a single protected 4c crux, or is it sustained and hard throughout but safe and protected? You can probably assume VS 5a is well protected I guess, but it would still be nice to know it was definitely 'PG'...
> Folk tend to suggest it as some kind of magical solution (to what I'm not sure!) without realising that it would be less nuanced than UK overall grades.
Maybe for the higher E-grades, but for the lower grades PG/R/X would give more information (and certainty) of the danger than UK grades, which are only going to vary (at most) by +/- 1 grade usually. That +/- 1 grade has to incorporate multiple information - onsightability (less of an issue at low grades), overall difficulty, boldness... You can usually assume that VS 4b is a bit bold, but is it sustained and only a bit bold or is it easy and very bold? Is VS 4c mostly easy bold stuff with a single protected 4c crux, or is it sustained and hard throughout but safe and protected? You can probably assume VS 5a is well protected I guess, but it would still be nice to know it was definitely 'PG'...
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Obviously a specific protection grade is the best way of giving specific information about protection with a grade! But that does not mean the UK adjectival grade should be replaced with a protection grade, because you would be losing information about other stuff than protection.
The great strength of the UK system is the adjectival grade. There might be a case for adding a protection grade or replacing the tech grade with a Font or French grade, but if you lose the adjectival grade, the system would be no better than those in use in the rest of the world. It is now!
> Maybe for the higher E-grades, but for the lower grades PG/R/X would give more information (and certainty) of the danger than UK grades.
Obviously a specific protection grade is the best way of giving specific information about protection with a grade! But that does not mean the UK adjectival grade should be replaced with a protection grade, because you would be losing information about other stuff than protection.
The great strength of the UK system is the adjectival grade. There might be a case for adding a protection grade or replacing the tech grade with a Font or French grade, but if you lose the adjectival grade, the system would be no better than those in use in the rest of the world. It is now!
In reply to andrewmcleod:
It's got nothing to do with whether the route is VS, E2 or E6. As has been said time and time again, whether the trad and tech combo is down to boldness, strenuousness, sustainedness etc can 99 times out of a hundred be figured out by reading the description and looking upwards before starting climbing.
"You can probably assume VS 5a is well protected I guess, but it would still be nice to know it was definitely 'PG'..."
I think if you're mainly concerned with identifying very well protected routes only, the best solution is guidebooks which use smiley face symbols for stuff which is genuinely laceable if required. On Peak Rock for example is good for this.
The trouble is whenever you get away from the extremes of totally safe or no gear at all it gets harder to indicate the relative level of boldness just from a single symbol. One man's R could be big but safe runouts, another's could be serious but not death, another's could be climbing 3 metres above bomber gear. And different bits of the same pitch could be totally safe, runout or a no falls zone so it could get hard to know which symbol to give.
Some guides use fluttery heart symbols for certain routes, presumably the equivalent of R/X. But I've done routes with these that could be anything from a few moves above good gear to definite groundfalls so their usefulness is certainly limited. If I paid more attention to them I'd likely have been put off trying stuff which turned out to be (to me) totally fine.
> Maybe for the higher E-grades, but for the lower grades PG/R/X would give more information (and certainty) of the danger than UK grades, which are only going to vary (at most) by +/- 1 grade usually. That +/- 1 grade has to incorporate multiple information - onsightability (less of an issue at low grades), overall difficulty, boldness... You can usually assume that VS 4b is a bit bold, but is it sustained and only a bit bold or is it easy and very bold? Is VS 4c mostly easy bold stuff with a single protected 4c crux, or is it sustained and hard throughout but safe and protected?
It's got nothing to do with whether the route is VS, E2 or E6. As has been said time and time again, whether the trad and tech combo is down to boldness, strenuousness, sustainedness etc can 99 times out of a hundred be figured out by reading the description and looking upwards before starting climbing.
"You can probably assume VS 5a is well protected I guess, but it would still be nice to know it was definitely 'PG'..."
I think if you're mainly concerned with identifying very well protected routes only, the best solution is guidebooks which use smiley face symbols for stuff which is genuinely laceable if required. On Peak Rock for example is good for this.
The trouble is whenever you get away from the extremes of totally safe or no gear at all it gets harder to indicate the relative level of boldness just from a single symbol. One man's R could be big but safe runouts, another's could be serious but not death, another's could be climbing 3 metres above bomber gear. And different bits of the same pitch could be totally safe, runout or a no falls zone so it could get hard to know which symbol to give.
Some guides use fluttery heart symbols for certain routes, presumably the equivalent of R/X. But I've done routes with these that could be anything from a few moves above good gear to definite groundfalls so their usefulness is certainly limited. If I paid more attention to them I'd likely have been put off trying stuff which turned out to be (to me) totally fine.
Post edited at 14:56
In reply to Robert Durran:
I reckon the system works fine once you're familiar with it. I've been on 5.9s that feel like E4 and that hurts the ego a bit but when all is said and done it's still only 5.9!
I think you have to take the conversion chart with a pinch of salt because a single pitch 5.10 and a multipitch 5.10 are different things, although this is the same for the British system too.
Bottom line for me is that the American system is hard on the ego but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Duncan
I reckon the system works fine once you're familiar with it. I've been on 5.9s that feel like E4 and that hurts the ego a bit but when all is said and done it's still only 5.9!
I think you have to take the conversion chart with a pinch of salt because a single pitch 5.10 and a multipitch 5.10 are different things, although this is the same for the British system too.
Bottom line for me is that the American system is hard on the ego but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Duncan
In reply to sparkass:
The fact that a 5.9 can feel E4 (or VS) is conclusive proof that it does NOT work. The whole purpose of a grading system is to tell you how challenging you can expect a route to be.
> I reckon the system works fine once you're familiar with it. I've been on 5.9s that feel like E4 and that hurts the ego a bit but when all is said and done it's still only 5.9!
> Bottom line for me is that the American system is hard on the ego but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
The fact that a 5.9 can feel E4 (or VS) is conclusive proof that it does NOT work. The whole purpose of a grading system is to tell you how challenging you can expect a route to be.
In reply to Robert Durran:
So then you have the same problem with E5 - which can be F6a and F7b
If you are on a true onsighting run - no pre information. It is not always possible to tell how well protected it is. Many people consider E5 6a a horrendous, roulette grade
How can you argue YDS is wrong because 5.9 can be VS or E4, when E5 can mean 6a or 7b?
I'm sure we had this very debate, not so recently Robert!
> The fact that a 5.9 can feel E4 (or VS) is conclusive proof that it does NOT work. The whole purpose of a grading system is to tell you how challenging you can expect a route to be.
So then you have the same problem with E5 - which can be F6a and F7b
If you are on a true onsighting run - no pre information. It is not always possible to tell how well protected it is. Many people consider E5 6a a horrendous, roulette grade
How can you argue YDS is wrong because 5.9 can be VS or E4, when E5 can mean 6a or 7b?
I'm sure we had this very debate, not so recently Robert!
Post edited at 16:33
In reply to ashtond6:
What E5 routes are f6a?
But it sounds like you've missed the point. E5 will inevitably cover a range of french grades as it has to take other factors into hand which are judged to make a route hard, such as the protection. But there's a world of difference between VS and E4 (overall grades). So if 5.9 can be anything between these then it is frankly fairly useless as an indicator of overall difficulty.
What E5 routes are f6a?
But it sounds like you've missed the point. E5 will inevitably cover a range of french grades as it has to take other factors into hand which are judged to make a route hard, such as the protection. But there's a world of difference between VS and E4 (overall grades). So if 5.9 can be anything between these then it is frankly fairly useless as an indicator of overall difficulty.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
How many examples do you want?
hairless heart, silver lining, green death
It sounds like you haven't actually read my post. I am arguing that the difference between F6a and F7b is actually larger than the difference between VS & E4
Personally:
Stood at the bottom of a USA 5.9 - I would expect climbing between HVS & E3
Stood at the bottom of an E5 - I would expect climbing between F6a & F7b
I am not saying the UK grade is better or worse, simply saying that BOTH systems cover a very large range of difficulty
How many examples do you want?
hairless heart, silver lining, green death
It sounds like you haven't actually read my post. I am arguing that the difference between F6a and F7b is actually larger than the difference between VS & E4
Personally:
Stood at the bottom of a USA 5.9 - I would expect climbing between HVS & E3
Stood at the bottom of an E5 - I would expect climbing between F6a & F7b
I am not saying the UK grade is better or worse, simply saying that BOTH systems cover a very large range of difficulty
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Hairless Heart is E5 and is similar in difficulty to some F6a Euro sports slabs I've struggled with and not disimilar to 5.9 sport or tr slabs at JT.
Hairless Heart is E5 and is similar in difficulty to some F6a Euro sports slabs I've struggled with and not disimilar to 5.9 sport or tr slabs at JT.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Stood at the bottom of an E5 - I would expect climbing between F6a & F7b"
I would say that E5 is saying is that if you can onsight a 6a with no protection, then thats in the same ballpark as on-sighting 7b with great protection....certainly not true for all climbers, given that most of us do some things better than others....but not an unreasonable statement.
"Stood at the bottom of a USA 5.9 - I would expect climbing between HVS & E3 (actually Hairless Heart would be JTree 5.9 so make that between HVS and E5"
What 5.9 is saying is that if you are a HVS climber you might be able to top rope it clean, but there is a good chance that you won't be able to lead it.
In other words, if its leading that you're interested in, the E grade is more useful than the YDS grade.
Stood at the bottom of an E5 - I would expect climbing between F6a & F7b"
I would say that E5 is saying is that if you can onsight a 6a with no protection, then thats in the same ballpark as on-sighting 7b with great protection....certainly not true for all climbers, given that most of us do some things better than others....but not an unreasonable statement.
"Stood at the bottom of a USA 5.9 - I would expect climbing between HVS & E3 (actually Hairless Heart would be JTree 5.9 so make that between HVS and E5"
What 5.9 is saying is that if you are a HVS climber you might be able to top rope it clean, but there is a good chance that you won't be able to lead it.
In other words, if its leading that you're interested in, the E grade is more useful than the YDS grade.
3
In reply to ashtond6
Oh dear.........
If I can only climb HVS, I'm going to have a pretty frustrating time on my trip to the States if lots of the 5.9s I go to do are too hard for me. However, if I am a steady E5 leader, I should stand a good chance of success whether an E5 is a super bold 6a or a super safe 7b.
The UK adjectival grade is the ONLY grade I know of which reflects the overall challenge of a climb and which therefore gives, on its own, a reasonable indication of your chances of success. Which is what a grade is meant to do and what you want to know before you walk miles to attempt a route.
............It's really pretty simple stuff!
> Stood at the bottom of a USA 5.9 - I would expect climbing between HVS & E3
> Stood at the bottom of an E5 - I would expect climbing between F6a & F7b
Oh dear.........
If I can only climb HVS, I'm going to have a pretty frustrating time on my trip to the States if lots of the 5.9s I go to do are too hard for me. However, if I am a steady E5 leader, I should stand a good chance of success whether an E5 is a super bold 6a or a super safe 7b.
The UK adjectival grade is the ONLY grade I know of which reflects the overall challenge of a climb and which therefore gives, on its own, a reasonable indication of your chances of success. Which is what a grade is meant to do and what you want to know before you walk miles to attempt a route.
............It's really pretty simple stuff!
3
In reply ashtond6
Yes, and it seems it is necessary have it again; some people still don't get it!
> I'm sure we had this very debate, not so recently Robert!
Yes, and it seems it is necessary have it again; some people still don't get it!
In reply to Offwidth:
Ticked it. WOW! What a way to end the trip. I'll probably still be grinning when I land, jet lagged, in drizzly Edinburgh on Thursday
Grade?........Who cares?
> Even I think this is a good idea...
> Links to those routes, with pictures (I've not done them but have looked up in awe)
> www.mountainproject.com/v/the-nightcrawler/105920684q
Ticked it. WOW! What a way to end the trip. I'll probably still be grinning when I land, jet lagged, in drizzly Edinburgh on Thursday
Grade?........Who cares?
In reply to Robert Durran:
Exactly!
If one can do it - great, enjoy! If one cannot, then one needs to accept that they are not good enough, not that the grade, or grade system is wrong.
> Grade?........Who cares?
Exactly!
If one can do it - great, enjoy! If one cannot, then one needs to accept that they are not good enough, not that the grade, or grade system is wrong.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Well done.
Good inspiration for our trip which we needed given what's going on in The Sinai, our hoped-for trad spring venue, where we've been mixing route checking with onsight new routes for the last two years on beautiful multipitch granite. I feel so sorry for the locals as their tourist income was already really low. Grade juggling there mixes Israeli, Russian, UK, US and Eurozone opinions but we set stuff using UK trad.
Well done.
Good inspiration for our trip which we needed given what's going on in The Sinai, our hoped-for trad spring venue, where we've been mixing route checking with onsight new routes for the last two years on beautiful multipitch granite. I feel so sorry for the locals as their tourist income was already really low. Grade juggling there mixes Israeli, Russian, UK, US and Eurozone opinions but we set stuff using UK trad.
Post edited at 09:52
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
I understand your logic & respect your opinion,& agree with you, I just don't like the UK system
The reason is - yes to onsight E5's you would expect to solo F6a or do F7b. So yes you can become a well rounded leader then start climbing E5s as you've said, but I think it holds UK climbers back massively for that exact reason - you don't know what you're getting in for.
I like the UK grading system when a climb isn't at my limit (for the reasons you have explained) but when it is, I personally want to know whether an E4 is F6a or F7a.
Anyway, this isn't the topic of your thread. Since UK grading system isn't going anywhere, yes I would like to be able to vote on UK grades abroad
> In reply to ashtond6
> Oh dear.........
> If I can only climb HVS, I'm going to have a pretty frustrating time on my trip to the States if lots of the 5.9s I go to do are too hard for me. However, if I am a steady E5 leader, I should stand a good chance of success whether an E5 is a super bold 6a or a super safe 7b.
> The UK adjectival grade is the ONLY grade I know of which reflects the overall challenge of a climb and which therefore gives, on its own, a reasonable indication of your chances of success. Which is what a grade is meant to do and what you want to know before you walk miles to attempt a route.
> ............It's really pretty simple stuff!
I understand your logic & respect your opinion,& agree with you, I just don't like the UK system
The reason is - yes to onsight E5's you would expect to solo F6a or do F7b. So yes you can become a well rounded leader then start climbing E5s as you've said, but I think it holds UK climbers back massively for that exact reason - you don't know what you're getting in for.
I like the UK grading system when a climb isn't at my limit (for the reasons you have explained) but when it is, I personally want to know whether an E4 is F6a or F7a.
Anyway, this isn't the topic of your thread. Since UK grading system isn't going anywhere, yes I would like to be able to vote on UK grades abroad
Post edited at 12:59
In reply to ashtond6:
Wouldn't the grade of E4 5c or E4 6b tell you all you need to know?
Chris
> I like the UK grading system when a climb isn't at my limit (for the reasons you have explained) but when it is, I personally want to know whether an E4 is F6a or F7a.
Wouldn't the grade of E4 5c or E4 6b tell you all you need to know?
Chris
2
1
In reply to Chris Craggs:
No really no, I understand there are anomaly's all over the world, but there are lots here
I'll give some examples below, more of these routes are obviously stamina gear fests, others are not so obvious and a true 'onsight' approach can be very dangerous
I am not saying we should get rid of it.... just explaining why I don't rate it
E4 6b yes fine
E4 5c
no - Arms Race/fingerlicker/wellington crack Vs Scarlet Runner / Chalkstorm / Brush Off
E5 6a
definitely not
E6 6a yes fine
No really no, I understand there are anomaly's all over the world, but there are lots here
I'll give some examples below, more of these routes are obviously stamina gear fests, others are not so obvious and a true 'onsight' approach can be very dangerous
I am not saying we should get rid of it.... just explaining why I don't rate it
E4 6b yes fine
E4 5c
no - Arms Race/fingerlicker/wellington crack Vs Scarlet Runner / Chalkstorm / Brush Off
E5 6a
definitely not
E6 6a yes fine
In reply to ashtond6:
I wouldn't go out of my way to defend the UK tech grade. There is a strong case for replacing it with a French grade or, perhaps my preferred option, a Font or V grade for the hardest section (as some claim the YDS does!). What I would defend to the death is the UK adjectival grade
> I personally want to know whether an E4 is F6a or F7a.
I wouldn't go out of my way to defend the UK tech grade. There is a strong case for replacing it with a French grade or, perhaps my preferred option, a Font or V grade for the hardest section (as some claim the YDS does!). What I would defend to the death is the UK adjectival grade
In reply to Offwidth
I'm off to Wadi Rum in a couple of weeks and I imagine tourism is being hit there too. The middle east is such a wonderfully friendly area in my experience. Such a mess.........
> Good inspiration for our trip which we needed given what's going on in The Sinai, our hoped-for trad spring venue. I feel so sorry for the locals as their tourist income was already really low.
I'm off to Wadi Rum in a couple of weeks and I imagine tourism is being hit there too. The middle east is such a wonderfully friendly area in my experience. Such a mess.........
In reply to sparkass:
But I was very glad to be climbing with a local who could tell me to expect a 10c of the E2/3 variety rather than the E4 variety so that I could spend the last day of my trip on a worthy challenge for me, rather than wasting it on a sandbag.
> Exactly!
> If one can do it - great, enjoy! If one cannot, then one needs to accept that they are not good enough, not that the grade, or grade system is wrong.
But I was very glad to be climbing with a local who could tell me to expect a 10c of the E2/3 variety rather than the E4 variety so that I could spend the last day of my trip on a worthy challenge for me, rather than wasting it on a sandbag.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Maybe they could replace the UK tech grade with a YDS grade...
> I wouldn't go out of my way to defend the UK tech grade. There is a strong case for replacing it with a French grade or, perhaps my preferred option, a Font or V grade for the hardest section (as some claim the YDS does!). What I would defend to the death is the UK adjectival grade
Maybe they could replace the UK tech grade with a YDS grade...
2
2
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Have you retired Rob, or are you having a year off or something?
> I'm off to Wadi Rum in a couple of weeks
Have you retired Rob, or are you having a year off or something?
In reply to JHiley:
There would have to first be agreement on what the YDS was actually measuring.
> Maybe they could replace the UK tech grade with a YDS grade...
There would have to first be agreement on what the YDS was actually measuring.
In reply to jon:
Just a term off. Back to work in January.
> Have you retired Rob, or are you having a year off or something?
Just a term off. Back to work in January.
In reply to Robert Durran:
"There would have to first be agreement on what the YDS was actually measuring"
Its basically a top-rope grade...how hard is it to link a pitch on a top rope (Personally, I try to include an estimate of the physical difficulty added by placing the gear).
Having said that, on a lot of climbs over here where there are regular rests, the top rope grade and the technical grade amount to "measuring" the same thing..ie a hard sequence.
As an added complication technical difficulty probably seems to get a rather a low weighting from the bulging-forearm-but-banana-footed british perspective, especially on western granite.
"There would have to first be agreement on what the YDS was actually measuring"
Its basically a top-rope grade...how hard is it to link a pitch on a top rope (Personally, I try to include an estimate of the physical difficulty added by placing the gear).
Having said that, on a lot of climbs over here where there are regular rests, the top rope grade and the technical grade amount to "measuring" the same thing..ie a hard sequence.
As an added complication technical difficulty probably seems to get a rather a low weighting from the bulging-forearm-but-banana-footed british perspective, especially on western granite.
1
In reply to redjerry:
Yes, I know that is how you interpret it, but how universal is that?
Ouch!
> Its basically a top-rope grade...how hard is it to link a pitch on a top rope (Personally, I try to include an estimate of the physical difficulty added by placing the gear)
Yes, I know that is how you interpret it, but how universal is that?
> As an added complication technical difficulty probably seems to get a rather a low weighting from the bulging-forearm-but-banana-footed british perspective, especially on western granite.
Ouch!
In reply to Robert Durran:
To go back to your origonal, and very sound, suggestion; it would be truly entertaining to be able to vote UK grades for US routes on
UKC.
The main issue seems to be that the range of grades to choose from would need to be huge. Great White Book already has tongue in cheek suggestions at HVS while others know it's actually an easy VDiff chimney. The resulting Average grade might prove no more useful than the useless YDS.
To go back to your origonal, and very sound, suggestion; it would be truly entertaining to be able to vote UK grades for US routes on
UKC.
The main issue seems to be that the range of grades to choose from would need to be huge. Great White Book already has tongue in cheek suggestions at HVS while others know it's actually an easy VDiff chimney. The resulting Average grade might prove no more useful than the useless YDS.
In reply to alan moore:
Tongue in cheek? I reckon that would be a fair assessment. It only feels harder because it's insecure style is so alien to visiting British climbers.
It might for oddities like Great Book (though it would serve as a warning). I think it would work very well for most routes once a handful of votes were in.
> The main issue seems to be that the range of grades to choose from would need to be huge. Great White Book already has tongue in cheek suggestions at HVS.
Tongue in cheek? I reckon that would be a fair assessment. It only feels harder because it's insecure style is so alien to visiting British climbers.
> The resulting Average grade might prove no more useful than the useless YDS.
It might for oddities like Great Book (though it would serve as a warning). I think it would work very well for most routes once a handful of votes were in.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Fair point but I haven't yet done an American route that wasn't an oddity....
Fair point but I haven't yet done an American route that wasn't an oddity....
I emailed UKC directly putting the suggestion to them and have received this reply from Alan James:
"Thanks for this suggestion. We will put it on the suggestions list. Having just spent a lot of time on Logbooks it is unlikely to get actioned soon though."
"Thanks for this suggestion. We will put it on the suggestions list. Having just spent a lot of time on Logbooks it is unlikely to get actioned soon though."
In reply to Robert Durran:
while I understand where you are coming from, I think it would confuse the issue even more. In the case of the Dolomites I found that on UKC grades we're being quoted UK, French, Alpine, and whatever it's called eg Vi- . After considerable climbing around the world I find it best simply to bed into the local system. I have never had difficulty with the N America grading system. The occasional sand bigger is not any more surprising than any other grading systems. The real problem lies in the length and commitment rather than some comparison with a bit of grit. The British system is designed for the UK and is not innately better than any other. I may not be expressing myself very well, but I feel that your suggestion will confuse rather than clarify things.
while I understand where you are coming from, I think it would confuse the issue even more. In the case of the Dolomites I found that on UKC grades we're being quoted UK, French, Alpine, and whatever it's called eg Vi- . After considerable climbing around the world I find it best simply to bed into the local system. I have never had difficulty with the N America grading system. The occasional sand bigger is not any more surprising than any other grading systems. The real problem lies in the length and commitment rather than some comparison with a bit of grit. The British system is designed for the UK and is not innately better than any other. I may not be expressing myself very well, but I feel that your suggestion will confuse rather than clarify things.
Post edited at 23:07
In reply to Chris Craggs:
That's about the length of it Chris. Our first route at Tuolumne and a nice afternoon it provided.
But I do agree about US grades being inconsistent. For example Yellow Spur at Eldorado Springs Canyon has pitches (apart form the bolt ladder finish) from 7 to 9 but they all felt pretty even to us.
Having said which, in response to the original question, isn't that part of the fun of going all over the place - variety? A little of the unknown to spice things up?
> Strange isn't it - I soloed it as one of my 1st routes in the States and thought it was about Severe!
> Crhis
That's about the length of it Chris. Our first route at Tuolumne and a nice afternoon it provided.
But I do agree about US grades being inconsistent. For example Yellow Spur at Eldorado Springs Canyon has pitches (apart form the bolt ladder finish) from 7 to 9 but they all felt pretty even to us.
Having said which, in response to the original question, isn't that part of the fun of going all over the place - variety? A little of the unknown to spice things up?
In reply to jcw:
You're going to get burned on a stick for that one...
> The British system is designed for the UK and is not innately better than any other.
You're going to get burned on a stick for that one...
In reply to jcw:
For Alpine type routes the UK grade would obviously be of only so much use. For pure rock routes though it would seem very useful, but one can always ignore the suggested grades!
For Alpine type routes the UK grade would obviously be of only so much use. For pure rock routes though it would seem very useful, but one can always ignore the suggested grades!
In reply to jcw:
Totally agree - you go to a new area and use the local system - drop your grade a bit to start and away you go. You will find sand-bags and soft-touches the world over - part of the fun of the game,
Chris
> After considerable climbing around the world I find it best simply to bed into the local system. I have never had difficulty with the N America grading system. The occasional sand bagger is not any more surprising than any other grading systems. The real problem lies in the length and commitment rather than some comparison with a bit of grit. The British system is designed for the UK and is not innately better than any other.
Totally agree - you go to a new area and use the local system - drop your grade a bit to start and away you go. You will find sand-bags and soft-touches the world over - part of the fun of the game,
Chris
3
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Where are you at the moment, Chris?
> You will find (... ) soft-touches ...
Where are you at the moment, Chris?
1
In reply to jcw:
Interesting as as a grit local I still find grit harder to regularly onsight at my limit. I lead at slightly harder grades in the US on big routes and have onsight new routed around my current limit in the Sinai, where rescue would be tricky, so I don't lack the ability to commit. I particularly don't trust UK grades on lesser climbed boldish grit routes unless I can see the route from say the route next door. I guess this was a motivation for getting involved in the local guides as I really enjoy the UK trad onsight game and bad grit grading clearly held many punters back. Despite massive improvements in the modern guidebooks I still feel grades could be tweaked further to encourage, rather than hold back, future trad climbers.
Interesting as as a grit local I still find grit harder to regularly onsight at my limit. I lead at slightly harder grades in the US on big routes and have onsight new routed around my current limit in the Sinai, where rescue would be tricky, so I don't lack the ability to commit. I particularly don't trust UK grades on lesser climbed boldish grit routes unless I can see the route from say the route next door. I guess this was a motivation for getting involved in the local guides as I really enjoy the UK trad onsight game and bad grit grading clearly held many punters back. Despite massive improvements in the modern guidebooks I still feel grades could be tweaked further to encourage, rather than hold back, future trad climbers.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...