UKC

Mixed grades

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Mr. Lee 20 Nov 2015
My experience with M grades has been limited to drytooling crags and a few routes in Cogne and Chamonix. I don't really understand what the grading is trying to quantify to be honest? Is it the hardest move, or the general difficulty of a pitch? Ie taking into account how sustained the climbing is? The descriptions I've read seem to relate more to the 'style' of the climb, which strikes me being rather vague and overly simplified.

For example M7 is described on Alpinist as "Overhanging; powerful and technical dry tooling; less than 10m of hard climbing" but I've climbed M7 without overhangs on vertical tenuous rock. It seems therefore that grading system is often adapted?

When using the M grades for short-ish bolted drytooling routes they make loose sense to me. In my general vicinity though they are used to describe Alpine-style routes purely on trad gear anything up to 500 to 600m. Understanding the how the difficulties are graded therefore becomes a bit more critical I know grades are all subjective and getting more climbs done will improve my 'feel' for the grading but it would be helpful to undetstand at least what is trying to be measured.
In reply to Mr. Lee:

You can't really compare drytooling on drilled slots to anything actually wintery except in the strength and stamina department. I think that generally speaking if you take 2 grades off your Scottish winter grade you get an m grade. So Scottish tech 6 is probably about m4 (but often more blind and on trad gear) . Its a bit like trying to compare trad with sport. I think the grade is more of an overall description rather than hardest move. I've climbed m7 onsight but not wintered IX (or VII or VIII for that matter) in the same way that I regularly onsight sport 7a or 7a+ but don't go round knocking out E6s.
OP Mr. Lee 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Somerset swede basher:

Thanks, yes I've read about approximate conversions to Scottish grading. Starts getting exciting though when climbing close to my Scottish equivalent. For example I was breaking into VI 7 in Scotland before leaving the UK. So would put me around M5. Problem is M5 could potentially dump my on a Scottish VII. I'm referring here more to lack of abjetive grading I know but my point being that it would be good at least to understand better the principles of M grading irrespective of the Scottish system to give me every opportunity not to sandbag myself.

Mixed grades to me are almost a rock equivalent to the WI grades, with the focus on steepness and sustained difficulty, rather relating to the hardest move or how delicate. At least that's my current understanding.

Maybe the confusion in my head is arising from some sources (eg the Batoux 100 best Chamonix climbs book) using M grades to describe some very short sections of mixed. So in effect using the grade to describe a mixed crux.
 Steve Perry 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Somerset swede basher:

> I've climbed m7 onsight but not wintered IX (or VII or VIII for that matter) in the same way that I regularly onsight sport 7a or 7a+ but don't go round knocking out E6s.

I was told it was one grade different, i.e M7 would be grade VIII but I think you're nearer the mark with two grades different. This comparison must only be relevant to the physicality or technicality of the route, it kind of all falls down when you think one has bomber resin bolts in solid rock every few metres and one may have a sling around a tuft of frozen turf ten metres below you.
 HeMa 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Mr. Lee:
> I don't really understand what the grading is trying to quantify to be honest? Is it the hardest move, or the general difficulty of a pitch?

It's the overall grade for the pitch. So a pumpy overhanging thing will get M7. A desperately thin and unforgiving vertical dealio can also get a M7. From the former, you're likely to fall off because you're pumped sh*tless and can't even hang on to the tools any more. Not the case with the latter. You might not be pumped at all, but simply fall off because your weight shifted slightly and the tool popped.

From my, not so scientific nor extensive experience... a M5+ was quite a bit harder than VI 7's I climbed in Scotland. So the Tech 7 felt like M4+ to me. M5 might also be spot on, for a long sustained thing. But pretty much all the lines I climbed in Scotland and also back here have not really been that sustained. Sure, you might climb almost 50m, but the meat is usually 3 to 5m.
Post edited at 18:17
 Robert Durran 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Mr. Lee:

It's the tooling equivalent of the YDS. Hope that clarifies things.
 HeMa 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

Actually, you're wrong...

It's the french grade
 Webster 20 Nov 2015
In reply to Mr. Lee:


> Mixed grades to me are almost a rock equivalent to the WI grades, with the focus on steepness and sustained difficulty, rather relating to the hardest move or how delicate. At least that's my current understanding.

That's exactly it, at least in theory... its supposed to be more akin to French grading, ie overall difficulty rather than adjectival grading. works quite well in dry tooling and sport style mixed but naturally will get much more subjective in mountaineering routes
In reply to Mr. Lee:
> Maybe the confusion in my head is arising from some sources (eg the Batoux 100 best Chamonix climbs book) using M grades to describe some very short sections of mixed. So in effect using the grade to describe a mixed crux.

The M grades around Chamonix are ll over the place. No one has a clue.

If you want any specific info on the approximate Scottish grade of any route send me a PM and I'll try and let you know. [oh, just noticed you're based in Norway, right? Those Cham grades won't help much...]

When "accurately" graded I'd say M grades around about 1.5 tech grades below Scottish grades (M5 = Scottish 6+, M6 = 7+)

When you get to the M7s and M8s a lot of the routes are waaaay overgraded. Jeff Mercier came up with the term "Commercial Grade".... (i.e sounds good for the sponsors)
Post edited at 09:30
 HeMa 24 Nov 2015
In reply to Fultonius:

> When "accurately" graded I'd say M grades around about 1.5 tech grades below Scottish grades (M5 = Scottish 6+, M6 = 7+)

Interesting... some of the stuff I've climbed here in Finland (as has Toby) seems quite stiff then... Because the stuff seems to be around M4+ and indeed felt like Tech 7 (Para Andy, Piggotts and Cutlass). Perhaps, it's too stiff here. But then again, some of the stuff has also been climbed by people who've climbed mixed stuff in Rjukan, and also in the Alps. So they do have an idea with M5, M6 and so on feels. Perhaps Piggots and Cutlass are egoboosters when it comes the the tech grade.
 planetmarshall 24 Nov 2015
In reply to Fultonius:

> When "accurately" graded I'd say M grades around about 1.5 tech grades below Scottish grades (M5 = Scottish 6+, M6 = 7+)

This doesn't really makes sense to me - there's no reason why the M grade would have the same divisions as the Scottish Grade, unless people were coming up with the M grade by working out the Scottish difficulty first and then subtracting 1, 1.5 or whatever. There might be a formula that converts one into the other (approximately), but it's pretty unlikely to be just "Add 1.5".

 Robert Durran 24 Nov 2015
In reply to planetmarshall:

> This doesn't really makes sense to me - there's no reason why the M grade would have the same divisions as the Scottish Grade.

I agree. In these discussions people often seem to assume that there is a linear relationship between two grading systems (or even a simpler additive or multiplicative relationship). There is, of course, absolutely no reason to expect this to be the case. It's even meaningless to talk about equal increments within a single grading system. Grade boundaries are just arbitrary cut off points in a hypothetical perfect graded list of all routes.
 HeMa 24 Nov 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I agree. In these discussions people often seem to assume that there is a linear relationship between two grading systems...

That's because most grading systems are actually telling you the physical skills required to get up the pitch (Scandinavian, French, UIAA and Ewbanks or what ever it was called that's used down under).

As far as I understand only UK system gives the technical "grade" for the hardest move. And then an overall grade, that takes the technical grade, how sustained and the quality of the protection into account.

Of course, with winter climbing grades, it's even more of a mess than with rock. After all the conditions play even a greater role in winter (no ice or snow -> no go, thin verglass = impossible, 0.5cm of ice = harder than the grade, 2cm of ice = the grade, 15cm of ice = much easier than the grade).
 Robert Durran 24 Nov 2015
In reply to HeMa:

> That's because most grading systems are actually telling you the physical skills required to get up the pitch.

Eh..........no, my point had absolutely nothing to do with that. It was a general comment on the nature of ALL grading systems (the fact that grade boundaries are arbitrary cut off points in a graded list) which makes discussions such as this (looking for a general conversion rule) almost pointless.

> As far as I understand only UK system gives the technical "grade" for the hardest move. And then an overall grade, that takes the technical grade, how sustained and the quality of the protection into account.

Yes, the Scottish system is analagous to the UK adjectival + tech grade for rock, whereas (as I understand it, though I may be wrong - I've never used it) the M grade is analagous to a French grade.

 HeMa 24 Nov 2015
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, the Scottish system is analagous to the UK adjectival + tech grade for rock, whereas (as I understand it, though I may be wrong - I've never used it) the M grade is analagous to a French grade.

Correctomundo...

And on general level, majority of the grading systems used, give a measurement on required technical and physical skills (ie. French, Scandinvian, UIAA, M-grade and so on).

Two tier system (UK and Scottish), give an overall grade that takes into account everything (including the amount of spare undies and thickness of slings) plus the technical grade of the hardest move.

Other system (like M-grade) often separate the physical aspect and then add (if needed) a second attribute for the quality and quantity of protection (PG/R/X and also S1/S2... or R1/R2 and so on).

 Robert Durran 24 Nov 2015
In reply to HeMa:

> Correctomundo...

Is that Finnish (or Latin?) for "globally spot on"?

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm just saying "in my experience". As in, the experience of doing >35 routes of Scottish Tech 5 to Tech 8 and >20 M4 to M7 (or guidebook M8) routes.

I'm not saying below M4 (if that even exists) and above M8 (a handful of naturally protected routes) it remains linear, but in that range I think lopping off 1.5 grades works about right [i] as a rule of thumb[/i].

Just my opinion...
In reply to HeMa:

> Interesting... some of the stuff I've climbed here in Finland (as has Toby) seems quite stiff then... Because the stuff seems to be around M4+ and indeed felt like Tech 7 (Para Andy, Piggotts and Cutlass). Perhaps, it's too stiff here. But then again, some of the stuff has also been climbed by people who've climbed mixed stuff in Rjukan, and also in the Alps. So they do have an idea with M5, M6 and so on feels. Perhaps Piggots and Cutlass are egoboosters when it comes the the tech grade.

M5 in Chamonix is like tricky tech 6 or easy 7. Pelissier gully, vent du dragon, Rebuffat Terray (might sneak low tech 7).
Goulotte Pepite gets m4 - it's got one short step of tech 6.
Madness Tres Mince M4+ I'd say tech 6+ in the condition we found it but I could imagine it being easier.

Generally alpine M routes are fairly well protected so the adjective grade would be matched, or one below if the crux is short.

In the higher grades it seems like (currently) there is a bit of compression of the M grades - but many feel that M7 and M8 routes are highly overgraded as there are basically no M6 routes around.

Maybe linearity shouldn't be assumed?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...