This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There seems to be a tendency to award extra stars for difficulty - I think so , anyway. Many times when perusing a guidebook I've turned the page to a section of a crag with predominantly black spot routes, and Bingo! - loads of stars. Especially routes 8a and upwards. Are higher grade routes genuinely of higher quality, on average?
12
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
I tend to agree with you, and its prevalent in all forms of climbing, not just sport. I suppose the argument goes that nobody will bother to put all that effort into establishing a line of such difficulty unless it appears to be an excellent climb. though as there are far less repeats of harder climbs I bet there is a fair amount of first ascentionist bias when it comes to the climb quality... certainly in my opinion many of the harder climbs lack strong lines and are often not much more than eliminates or linkups seeking out the hardest possible climbing. I will never ever reach those dizzy heights to be able to climb them but I would subtract a star off most of them straight away purely for the lack of line
I tend to agree with you, and its prevalent in all forms of climbing, not just sport. I suppose the argument goes that nobody will bother to put all that effort into establishing a line of such difficulty unless it appears to be an excellent climb. though as there are far less repeats of harder climbs I bet there is a fair amount of first ascentionist bias when it comes to the climb quality... certainly in my opinion many of the harder climbs lack strong lines and are often not much more than eliminates or linkups seeking out the hardest possible climbing. I will never ever reach those dizzy heights to be able to climb them but I would subtract a star off most of them straight away purely for the lack of line
8
2
In reply to Webster:
Yes, it was exactly that that prompted my post. I was looking at a 2-star 8b which took a ridiculous-looking rightward diversion, very likely to avoid the (presumably even harder) obvious direct line.
> I would subtract a star off most of them straight away purely for the lack of line
Yes, it was exactly that that prompted my post. I was looking at a 2-star 8b which took a ridiculous-looking rightward diversion, very likely to avoid the (presumably even harder) obvious direct line.
In reply to bpmclimb:
I'd say on average, probably, yes. They're more likely to go up impressive/improbable looking bits of rock, which is one thing that factors into route quality. And perhaps they's also more likely to involve continuously interesting and challenging movement. Also, a lot of sport climbing is on limestone and easier limestone tend to be not that inspiring. You need to look elsewhere for most of the really quality easier routes.
> Are higher grade routes genuinely of higher quality, on average?
I'd say on average, probably, yes. They're more likely to go up impressive/improbable looking bits of rock, which is one thing that factors into route quality. And perhaps they's also more likely to involve continuously interesting and challenging movement. Also, a lot of sport climbing is on limestone and easier limestone tend to be not that inspiring. You need to look elsewhere for most of the really quality easier routes.
6
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
Doubt it. The first ascentionist can give the stars as I understand, and then consensus does the rest. My 9c+ will be ***** and we will see what the consensus is.
Doubt it. The first ascentionist can give the stars as I understand, and then consensus does the rest. My 9c+ will be ***** and we will see what the consensus is.
3
2
In reply to bpmclimb:
I'll never be able to find out given my modest abilities and hefty frame! But it does seem somehow unlikely that once above a certain level routes become almost universally starworthy ...does appear to be especially the case with Limestone Sport climbing.
When I have played on harder (but still modest stuff) the main difference seems to be less choices for holds which does make the sequences more defined and perhaps for that reason more memorable.
I'll never be able to find out given my modest abilities and hefty frame! But it does seem somehow unlikely that once above a certain level routes become almost universally starworthy ...does appear to be especially the case with Limestone Sport climbing.
When I have played on harder (but still modest stuff) the main difference seems to be less choices for holds which does make the sequences more defined and perhaps for that reason more memorable.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Lower-grade limestone generally lesser quality than lower-grade other rock types? I don't think that's the case, and can't think why it would be.
> a lot of sport climbing is on limestone and easier limestone tend to be not that inspiring. You need to look elsewhere for most of the really quality easier routes.
Lower-grade limestone generally lesser quality than lower-grade other rock types? I don't think that's the case, and can't think why it would be.
2
3
In reply to bpmclimb:
Do you only like direct up and down routes?
> Yes, it was exactly that that prompted my post. I was looking at a 2-star 8b which took a ridiculous-looking rightward diversion, very likely to avoid the (presumably even harder) obvious direct line.
Do you only like direct up and down routes?
In reply to The Ivanator:
i don't think it's that unlikely. To put up a hard sport route may take months of effort compared to a day of effort for an 'easy' sport route. Would you be willing to pour months in to a mediocre route? Probably not. Would you be willing to put a day in for a mediocre route? Quite possibly.
> But it does seem somehow unlikely that once above a certain level routes become almost universally starworthy ...does appear to be especially the case with Limestone Sport climbing.
i don't think it's that unlikely. To put up a hard sport route may take months of effort compared to a day of effort for an 'easy' sport route. Would you be willing to pour months in to a mediocre route? Probably not. Would you be willing to put a day in for a mediocre route? Quite possibly.
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
From my own experience, harder routes are generally more prescriptive than easier ones. Easy routes are often: reach > match > step left > step right > repeat.
On harder routes, the sequences are rarely so pedestrian or predictable, even if you just say it's smaller hand and foot holds. I suppose that doesn't necessarily make them better and more star-worthy, but it might suggest there's a degree of logic to the principle.
From my own experience, harder routes are generally more prescriptive than easier ones. Easy routes are often: reach > match > step left > step right > repeat.
On harder routes, the sequences are rarely so pedestrian or predictable, even if you just say it's smaller hand and foot holds. I suppose that doesn't necessarily make them better and more star-worthy, but it might suggest there's a degree of logic to the principle.
In reply to bpmclimb:
What is the purpose of stars? I would argue they are there to indicate routes worth doing first (all routes may be worth doing, of course). If all the hard routes get all the stars and the easy routes get none then no information has been provided and the stars are pointless. There should be an even spread of stars across the grades - a 3* 4+ should just mean it is really good for a 4+ and it should not be necessary to compare it to a 3* 8b.
What is the purpose of stars? I would argue they are there to indicate routes worth doing first (all routes may be worth doing, of course). If all the hard routes get all the stars and the easy routes get none then no information has been provided and the stars are pointless. There should be an even spread of stars across the grades - a 3* 4+ should just mean it is really good for a 4+ and it should not be necessary to compare it to a 3* 8b.
Post edited at 12:35
8
3
In reply to bpmclimb: This is absolutely true, especially in North Wales Limestone. The authors make no secret of the fact that they regard sport routes on the 6s and below as poor quality fillers. They award every route in the 8s 2 or 3 stars every time, even if the line is a tedious eliminate (which many of them are). You are right, and Harold Walmsley has produced actual evidence for it in the form of some mathematical distribution chart thingy.
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
No, I like all sorts of routes, including bendy ones! Of course, some routes are bendy but still follow a strong, logical line. The route I was thinking of wasn't one of those.
> Do you only like direct up and down routes?
No, I like all sorts of routes, including bendy ones! Of course, some routes are bendy but still follow a strong, logical line. The route I was thinking of wasn't one of those.
In reply to bpmclimb:
Hasn't this always been the case across the board?
New, hard routes, no matter what the discipline tend to carry multiple stars. I could make many, many cynical comments about this but will leave that to someone else.
Hasn't this always been the case across the board?
New, hard routes, no matter what the discipline tend to carry multiple stars. I could make many, many cynical comments about this but will leave that to someone else.
In reply to remus:
There may well be an element of that; however, new-routers have a tendency to see their projects through rose-tinted spectacles - arguably all the more so if there's a great deal of time and effort involved.
> i don't think it's that unlikely. To put up a hard sport route may take months of effort compared to a day of effort for an 'easy' sport route. Would you be willing to pour months in to a mediocre route? Probably not. Would you be willing to put a day in for a mediocre route? Quite possibly.
There may well be an element of that; however, new-routers have a tendency to see their projects through rose-tinted spectacles - arguably all the more so if there's a great deal of time and effort involved.
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
No, it should mean it's a really good route not just relative to that particular guidebook, but comparable in quality to national classics at the grade.
4+ is about equivalent to severe/hard severe, and I would bet more or less anything that you can't name a 4+ on Welsh limestone that is comparable in quality to Main Wall, Creag Ddu Wall, Tennis Shoe (etc etc)
I have never climbed 8b and probably never will and I'm not an elitist snob. I wouldn't dispute for a moment that there are loads of really good routes at that sort of difficulty level. In my experience few or none of them are limestone sport routes.
> a 3* 4+ should just mean it is really good for a 4+ and it should not be necessary to compare it to a 3* 8b.
No, it should mean it's a really good route not just relative to that particular guidebook, but comparable in quality to national classics at the grade.
4+ is about equivalent to severe/hard severe, and I would bet more or less anything that you can't name a 4+ on Welsh limestone that is comparable in quality to Main Wall, Creag Ddu Wall, Tennis Shoe (etc etc)
I have never climbed 8b and probably never will and I'm not an elitist snob. I wouldn't dispute for a moment that there are loads of really good routes at that sort of difficulty level. In my experience few or none of them are limestone sport routes.
6
2
In reply to bpmclimb:
Could be an example of choice supportive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
Someone who has chosen to put in a lot of effort to climb a really hard route is not a neutral observer, they want to feel that it was a high quality route, just like someone that just spent a lot of money on a new car wants to feel it is a high quality car.
> There seems to be a tendency to award extra stars for difficulty - I think so , anyway. Many times when perusing a guidebook I've turned the page to a section of a crag with predominantly black spot routes, and Bingo! - loads of stars. Especially routes 8a and upwards. Are higher grade routes genuinely of higher quality, on average?
Could be an example of choice supportive bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
Someone who has chosen to put in a lot of effort to climb a really hard route is not a neutral observer, they want to feel that it was a high quality route, just like someone that just spent a lot of money on a new car wants to feel it is a high quality car.
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
i've offered wondered what's the hardest grade with no stars. For example is there an E8 or 8a with no stars? Probably not. If I had to take a wild punt it'd put it around e5/7b?
i've offered wondered what's the hardest grade with no stars. For example is there an E8 or 8a with no stars? Probably not. If I had to take a wild punt it'd put it around e5/7b?
In reply to bpmclimb:
On sport specifically in the UK, the lower grades (except some of portland) are fairly poor routes on poor crags. All the genuinely good or really great routes are in the F7s and F8s.
On sport specifically in the UK, the lower grades (except some of portland) are fairly poor routes on poor crags. All the genuinely good or really great routes are in the F7s and F8s.
Post edited at 17:53
In reply to Kemics:
i've offered wondered what's the hardest grade with no stars. For example is there an E8 or 8a with no stars? Probably not. If I had to take a wild punt it'd put it around e5/7b?
Total Eclipse of the Sun (E8 6b)
E8 6b and no stars. Any E9's?
Edit: It gets three stars in the guidebook though...
i've offered wondered what's the hardest grade with no stars. For example is there an E8 or 8a with no stars? Probably not. If I had to take a wild punt it'd put it around e5/7b?
Total Eclipse of the Sun (E8 6b)
E8 6b and no stars. Any E9's?
Edit: It gets three stars in the guidebook though...
Post edited at 18:33
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I've got the guide in front of me, and going off the guide what you've written above is just untrue.
There's many routes in the 6s described as excellent and with stars, whilst there are routes in the 8s with no stars.
It's actually a great book for those climbing in the 6s and low 7s.
As someone who's put a lot of work into guidebooks yourself, I'm surprised you will criticise the work of others so easily without even checking what you're saying.
I don't know who's said what, but the guide itself is not as you describe.
> This is absolutely true, especially in North Wales Limestone. The authors make no secret of the fact that they regard sport routes on the 6s and below as poor quality fillers. They award every route in the 8s 2 or 3 stars every time, even if the line is a tedious eliminate (which many of them are).
I've got the guide in front of me, and going off the guide what you've written above is just untrue.
There's many routes in the 6s described as excellent and with stars, whilst there are routes in the 8s with no stars.
It's actually a great book for those climbing in the 6s and low 7s.
As someone who's put a lot of work into guidebooks yourself, I'm surprised you will criticise the work of others so easily without even checking what you're saying.
I don't know who's said what, but the guide itself is not as you describe.
Post edited at 11:09
In reply to Si dH:
That's probably true because most of the easy routes are trad lines. The harder sport routes take blank lines where there is little or no gear. Doesn't stop them being brilliant.
Andy. F
> On sport specifically in the UK, the lower grades (except some of portland) are fairly poor routes on poor crags. All the genuinely good or really great routes are in the F7s and F8s.
That's probably true because most of the easy routes are trad lines. The harder sport routes take blank lines where there is little or no gear. Doesn't stop them being brilliant.
Andy. F
In reply to Mike Stretford: Hi Mike. Sure, I was exaggerating slightly with the use of the word "every". However, I'm going off a conversation between Harold Walmsley and Pete Harrison on this site. The transcript of which is avaialable in the Carneddau Rock FB group. Together with Harold's mathematical analysis of the spread of stars I feel confident that the evidence supports what I say.
As you say, I've put a lot of work into guides myself, so I'm aware of the impact of criticism. However, that doesn't mean that when a guide is so heavily (and self-admittedly) biased against "easy" routes I should keep quiet.
As you say, I've put a lot of work into guides myself, so I'm aware of the impact of criticism. However, that doesn't mean that when a guide is so heavily (and self-admittedly) biased against "easy" routes I should keep quiet.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky: Hi Martin. I can only think they were exaggerating.
I've climbed a lot of sport limestone in the 6s, in Europe and the UK. For that grade range the guide is consistent with other guides and mostly spot on in its allocation of stars.
The may be an issue with routes in the 8s, I don't know, but they have got the 6s right. The guide itself gives a good impression of climbing in the 6s in the area, I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to do more of that, but it doesn't go over the top.
I've climbed a lot of sport limestone in the 6s, in Europe and the UK. For that grade range the guide is consistent with other guides and mostly spot on in its allocation of stars.
The may be an issue with routes in the 8s, I don't know, but they have got the 6s right. The guide itself gives a good impression of climbing in the 6s in the area, I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to do more of that, but it doesn't go over the top.
In reply to bpmclimb:
I think there's a lot of truth in this. In this country lower grade high quality limestone routes are few and far between. I wouldn't dispute that some great lines do exist but the nature of limestone climbing means lower grade climbing (sub VS/HVS or 5/6a?) is loose and dangerous. As a comparison Grit has any number of brilliant routes, that follow perfect lines on immaculate rock at any grade.
I realise this is off the OP but I think it transfers across to sport too routes too, that many (not all) lower grade sports routes tend towards either looseness or lack of line. As for star distribution; does it really matter that much it's purely down to how much the individual enjoyment of the route.
> Lower-grade limestone generally lesser quality than lower-grade other rock types? I don't think that's the case, and can't think why it would be.
I think there's a lot of truth in this. In this country lower grade high quality limestone routes are few and far between. I wouldn't dispute that some great lines do exist but the nature of limestone climbing means lower grade climbing (sub VS/HVS or 5/6a?) is loose and dangerous. As a comparison Grit has any number of brilliant routes, that follow perfect lines on immaculate rock at any grade.
I realise this is off the OP but I think it transfers across to sport too routes too, that many (not all) lower grade sports routes tend towards either looseness or lack of line. As for star distribution; does it really matter that much it's purely down to how much the individual enjoyment of the route.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Why? (specifically, using the word 'grade' to lump together trad and sport, rather than considering 4+ and HS as different grades)
I know that sport routes in this country are generally a bit crap. You know this. The readers of guidebooks know this; people are intelligent enough not to direct compare trad and sport routes. Stars are there to show relative quality. What possible point is there in not giving any stars to sport routes below 6a? How does this help anyone?
If I bought a guidebook for sport and found there were no stars because the authors said 'we haven't given any stars to low-grade sports routes because we think the low-grade trad routes are better' I would be a bit annoyed because I expect a guidebook to use standard symbols (stars) to show better routes. The purpose of a guidebook is to provide information; if authors refuse to do so just to make a point then frankly I will try and get a better guidebook.
The good thing about low-grade sport IMO (something many will not share) is that even if it is a bit crap it doesn't take very long so you can get quantity if not quality :P
> No, it should mean it's a really good route not just relative to that particular guidebook, but comparable in quality to national classics at the grade.
Why? (specifically, using the word 'grade' to lump together trad and sport, rather than considering 4+ and HS as different grades)
I know that sport routes in this country are generally a bit crap. You know this. The readers of guidebooks know this; people are intelligent enough not to direct compare trad and sport routes. Stars are there to show relative quality. What possible point is there in not giving any stars to sport routes below 6a? How does this help anyone?
If I bought a guidebook for sport and found there were no stars because the authors said 'we haven't given any stars to low-grade sports routes because we think the low-grade trad routes are better' I would be a bit annoyed because I expect a guidebook to use standard symbols (stars) to show better routes. The purpose of a guidebook is to provide information; if authors refuse to do so just to make a point then frankly I will try and get a better guidebook.
The good thing about low-grade sport IMO (something many will not share) is that even if it is a bit crap it doesn't take very long so you can get quantity if not quality :P
Post edited at 20:14
3
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Sorry you are wrong. It is very much as "Frank" described and in a previous thread on this topic I produced graphs showing numbers of routes in each grade at each star level that demonstrated this. Where you say "many routes in the 6s" it is really only right to say "a few"!
EDIT: Sorry, I thought it was a UKC thread but reading Franks next post reminded me it was actually a Facebook discussion. I have re-posted the graph on Facebook with a comparison graph for Rockfax 08. The difference (fewer stars for low grade routes in NWL) is striking (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009542945882&sk=photos&collectio...
> I've got the guide in front of me, and going off the guide what you've written above is just untrue.
> There's many routes in the 6s described as excellent and with stars, whilst there are routes in the 8s with no stars.
> It's actually a great book for those climbing in the 6s and low 7s.
> I don't know who's said what, but the guide itself is not as you describe.
Sorry you are wrong. It is very much as "Frank" described and in a previous thread on this topic I produced graphs showing numbers of routes in each grade at each star level that demonstrated this. Where you say "many routes in the 6s" it is really only right to say "a few"!
EDIT: Sorry, I thought it was a UKC thread but reading Franks next post reminded me it was actually a Facebook discussion. I have re-posted the graph on Facebook with a comparison graph for Rockfax 08. The difference (fewer stars for low grade routes in NWL) is striking (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009542945882&sk=photos&collectio...
Post edited at 21:02
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I grew up in Leicestershire, and with 1970s yellow Leicestershire Climbs guidebook. I'm quite sad that I lost it somewhere along the way, and some of the climbs in it were really quite good. But I always found it daft that it had "three star" routes in it, because clearly by any kind of national/objective standard there aren't any in Leicestershire.
My point being: I personally believe that stars in a guidebook shouldn't just be relative to that guidebook but should be on some kind of wider scale on which three stars means a really stunning classic that would be great anywhere, irrespective of grade.
And I'm quite willing to bet there aren't many easy limestone routes in North Wales that are.
The "show me the best routes in my grade range in the book, regardless of whether they're really all that good or not" approach is more pragmatic I admit, but I don't like it. Nor do I like the assertion that it is "elitist snobbery" on the part of the guidebook authors to believe that (e.g.) Statement of Youth is a better route than any 6a in North Wales.
I grew up in Leicestershire, and with 1970s yellow Leicestershire Climbs guidebook. I'm quite sad that I lost it somewhere along the way, and some of the climbs in it were really quite good. But I always found it daft that it had "three star" routes in it, because clearly by any kind of national/objective standard there aren't any in Leicestershire.
My point being: I personally believe that stars in a guidebook shouldn't just be relative to that guidebook but should be on some kind of wider scale on which three stars means a really stunning classic that would be great anywhere, irrespective of grade.
And I'm quite willing to bet there aren't many easy limestone routes in North Wales that are.
The "show me the best routes in my grade range in the book, regardless of whether they're really all that good or not" approach is more pragmatic I admit, but I don't like it. Nor do I like the assertion that it is "elitist snobbery" on the part of the guidebook authors to believe that (e.g.) Statement of Youth is a better route than any 6a in North Wales.
Post edited at 22:57
1
In reply to harold walmsley:
To produce a graph showing fewer 6s have stars than 8s is easy (this sounds like what you've done); to demonstrate, given that quality isn't an objective measure, that this reflects bias from the person giving fewer stars, rather than opposote bias driven by a belief that there "should" be equal number across the range, is rather harder.
As a thought experiment, how many UK sport routes would make the top 10, 50 or 100 6as, 7as 8as or 9as, for sale of argument, in the world. I can imagine more plausible contenders at the harder end than the easier one, if I'm honest.
To produce a graph showing fewer 6s have stars than 8s is easy (this sounds like what you've done); to demonstrate, given that quality isn't an objective measure, that this reflects bias from the person giving fewer stars, rather than opposote bias driven by a belief that there "should" be equal number across the range, is rather harder.
As a thought experiment, how many UK sport routes would make the top 10, 50 or 100 6as, 7as 8as or 9as, for sale of argument, in the world. I can imagine more plausible contenders at the harder end than the easier one, if I'm honest.
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
It helps people realise that the area isn't really that good for the sort of thing tyre looking for and therefore not buy the guide in the first place. If you star things only based on the range of things that are on offer people will complain that they have been suckered into a area on the basis of over-optimistic starring.
There are severes at the avon gorge, and there are severes in north wales, the Lakes and Scotland. However, if you set things relatively, such that in each guidebook 10% of them got ***, 20% **, 40% * and the remainder none then I'd be left pretty cheesed off when I went to Avon and realised the difference in the mean quality level. That way, madness lies.
If there are ten VSs in an area then the best one shouldn't be given *** simply because its the best on offer. Being honest is saying that a particular area is shit for a particular grade range of routes.
A guidebook can, of course, use stars to symbolise better routes, but this doesn't mean that the range should go 0-3 - better routes that still aren't that great should still get only * or so. Just to be clear, this applies equally to horrible sharp cruxy fr7s and to chossy quarried fr5s that have been cleaned with a crowbar prior to being bolted.
> I know that sport routes in this country are generally a bit crap. You know this. The readers of guidebooks know this; people are intelligent enough not to direct compare trad and sport routes. Stars are there to show relative quality. What possible point is there in not giving any stars to sport routes below 6a? How does this help anyone?
It helps people realise that the area isn't really that good for the sort of thing tyre looking for and therefore not buy the guide in the first place. If you star things only based on the range of things that are on offer people will complain that they have been suckered into a area on the basis of over-optimistic starring.
There are severes at the avon gorge, and there are severes in north wales, the Lakes and Scotland. However, if you set things relatively, such that in each guidebook 10% of them got ***, 20% **, 40% * and the remainder none then I'd be left pretty cheesed off when I went to Avon and realised the difference in the mean quality level. That way, madness lies.
If there are ten VSs in an area then the best one shouldn't be given *** simply because its the best on offer. Being honest is saying that a particular area is shit for a particular grade range of routes.
A guidebook can, of course, use stars to symbolise better routes, but this doesn't mean that the range should go 0-3 - better routes that still aren't that great should still get only * or so. Just to be clear, this applies equally to horrible sharp cruxy fr7s and to chossy quarried fr5s that have been cleaned with a crowbar prior to being bolted.
1
In reply to AJM:
Most descriptions I have heard have claimed 3* as 'nationally' good, 2* as 'regionally' good and 1* as 'locally' good, so most crags should have some 1* routes unless they are total crap, but I'm not arguing that everywhere should have 3* routes.
I'm just arguing that you should give 3* to the nationally best sport routes at that _sport_ grade, not compare to either sport routes of a harder grade or trad routes of a similar difficulty. In other words, the 1% best 4+ sport routes in the country should get 3*. The locally best 10% of 4+ sport routes in a locality should get 1*. The 4+ routes should not be compared to severes, hard severes or 8b+ sport routes.
Most descriptions I have heard have claimed 3* as 'nationally' good, 2* as 'regionally' good and 1* as 'locally' good, so most crags should have some 1* routes unless they are total crap, but I'm not arguing that everywhere should have 3* routes.
I'm just arguing that you should give 3* to the nationally best sport routes at that _sport_ grade, not compare to either sport routes of a harder grade or trad routes of a similar difficulty. In other words, the 1% best 4+ sport routes in the country should get 3*. The locally best 10% of 4+ sport routes in a locality should get 1*. The 4+ routes should not be compared to severes, hard severes or 8b+ sport routes.
In reply to harold walmsley:
It is not as 'Frank' described and he's owned up to it. There's a page full of starred routes in the range f5-6c+in the graded list, that's more than a few.
I can't see your FB graph but a presume it shows distribution of stars vs grade. I'm sorry but that doesn't demonstrate that lower grade routes are being under valued in terms of quality. As AJM says routes should be starred relative to other areas.
I've got the book and I've done a decent selection of the routes. I think they've got it pretty much right for the 6s. There's plenty of 1 star routes to go at (20 at Penmaen Head, thanks Harold!), a few 2 star routes and maybe one or two 3 star routes. That's an honest reflection of the area, and isn't off putting.
> Sorry you are wrong. It is very much as "Frank" described and in a previous thread on this topic I produced graphs showing numbers of routes in each grade at each star level that demonstrated this. Where you say "many routes in the 6s" it is really only right to say "a few"!
It is not as 'Frank' described and he's owned up to it. There's a page full of starred routes in the range f5-6c+in the graded list, that's more than a few.
I can't see your FB graph but a presume it shows distribution of stars vs grade. I'm sorry but that doesn't demonstrate that lower grade routes are being under valued in terms of quality. As AJM says routes should be starred relative to other areas.
I've got the book and I've done a decent selection of the routes. I think they've got it pretty much right for the 6s. There's plenty of 1 star routes to go at (20 at Penmaen Head, thanks Harold!), a few 2 star routes and maybe one or two 3 star routes. That's an honest reflection of the area, and isn't off putting.
Post edited at 14:38
In reply to andrewmcleod:
If you are saying this in reference to North Wales Limestone then you've got the wrong impression. For example, Route 1 at Castle Inn Quarry is given 2 stars, and from what I've seen the rest of the star allocation is consistent with that.
> I know that sport routes in this country are generally a bit crap. You know this. The readers of guidebooks know this; people are intelligent enough not to direct compare trad and sport routes. Stars are there to show relative quality. What possible point is there in not giving any stars to sport routes below 6a? How does this help anyone?
> If I bought a guidebook for sport and found there were no stars because the authors said 'we haven't given any stars to low-grade sports routes because we think the low-grade trad routes are better' I would be a bit annoyed because I expect a guidebook to use standard symbols (stars) to show better routes. The purpose of a guidebook is to provide information; if authors refuse to do so just to make a point then frankly I will try and get a better guidebook.
If you are saying this in reference to North Wales Limestone then you've got the wrong impression. For example, Route 1 at Castle Inn Quarry is given 2 stars, and from what I've seen the rest of the star allocation is consistent with that.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Not if they aren't any good surely?
Chris
> In other words, the 1% best 4+ sport routes in the country should get 3*. The locally best 10% of 4+ sport routes in a locality should get 1*. The 4+ routes should not be compared to severes, hard severes or 8b+ sport routes.
Not if they aren't any good surely?
Chris
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I don't know who you think you're arguing against in that case; I've got no interest in a starring system which tries to directly compare severes and 4+s and I'm not sure whether anyone else has suggested it either.
I think the point that was being made about severes and hard severes is that the reason we have a rubbish selection of low grade sport routes in the uk is that much of the rock which if bolted would be given 4+ was instead climbed on trad 50 years ago. The easy lines that no one got round to trad climbing and hence which are available for bolting don't tend to be very good in general.
> I'm just arguing that you should give 3* to the nationally best sport routes at that _sport_ grade, not compare to either sport routes of a harder grade or trad routes of a similar difficulty. In other words, the 1% best 4+ sport routes in the country should get 3*. The locally best 10% of 4+ sport routes in a locality should get 1*. The 4+ routes should not be compared to severes, hard severes or 8b+ sport routes.
I don't know who you think you're arguing against in that case; I've got no interest in a starring system which tries to directly compare severes and 4+s and I'm not sure whether anyone else has suggested it either.
I think the point that was being made about severes and hard severes is that the reason we have a rubbish selection of low grade sport routes in the uk is that much of the rock which if bolted would be given 4+ was instead climbed on trad 50 years ago. The easy lines that no one got round to trad climbing and hence which are available for bolting don't tend to be very good in general.
5
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Not if they're all crap. There has to be some element of genuine excellence in deciding if a route is 3*.
I am not an elitist grade snob. The Dubh Slabs for example at Moderate is indisputably a three star classic in anybody's money. I'd be interested to hear your candidates for 4+ sport routes on North Wales lime that are that good. Or anywhere else for that matter.
As others have pointed out - also the point I was trying to make - there are loads of really excellent, genuinely three star routes in the UK at around the 4+ level of difficulty. They're just not bolted because they were climbed a century ago.
> I'm just arguing that you should give 3* to the nationally best sport routes at that _sport_ grade, not compare to either sport routes of a harder grade or trad routes of a similar difficulty. In other words, the 1% best 4+ sport routes in the country should get 3*.
Not if they're all crap. There has to be some element of genuine excellence in deciding if a route is 3*.
I am not an elitist grade snob. The Dubh Slabs for example at Moderate is indisputably a three star classic in anybody's money. I'd be interested to hear your candidates for 4+ sport routes on North Wales lime that are that good. Or anywhere else for that matter.
As others have pointed out - also the point I was trying to make - there are loads of really excellent, genuinely three star routes in the UK at around the 4+ level of difficulty. They're just not bolted because they were climbed a century ago.
1
In reply to AlanLittle:
Jhony (4) & Prats (4+) at Marin, Alicante are both Top 50's in the current Rockfax. Justifiably so too i'd say. There are plenty more examples showing that lower grade Limestone can give excellent climbing, most (or possibly all) of it lies outside of the UK though.
I don't think stars are awarded purely based on the moves either, it's usually more holistic than that, for example the scenery, positions encountered, finishing on a summit, etc
Jhony (4) & Prats (4+) at Marin, Alicante are both Top 50's in the current Rockfax. Justifiably so too i'd say. There are plenty more examples showing that lower grade Limestone can give excellent climbing, most (or possibly all) of it lies outside of the UK though.
I don't think stars are awarded purely based on the moves either, it's usually more holistic than that, for example the scenery, positions encountered, finishing on a summit, etc
In reply to AlanLittle:
Best Destiny (4c) whilst not a mind blowing classic is pretty decent, the best UK Sport route at that grade I've done.
Best Destiny (4c) whilst not a mind blowing classic is pretty decent, the best UK Sport route at that grade I've done.
In reply to bpmclimb:
I think its patently obvious many harder routes are over-starred, especially sports routes.. 3 stars should be up with the best routes in the UK, or maybe 2 star climbing quality with historical interest. Plenty of highly starred sports routes are non-lines or odd eliminates some even with the odd bit of suspect rock or glued back holds. Even my experience of easier stuff on sports routes is that stars are a bit generous (many lines had nothing much going for them but the great moves and that's often been ruined by polish); some of the stuff getting one star in the Peak is plain rubbish...muddy or loose crap.
Trad can have the same problems, especially at higher grades, as a guidebook team member I have helped 'adjust' a few 3 star routes to none based on team concensus. One good thing I've been involved with with stars is the YMC hollow star idea... really great routes that sometimes get buried under vegetables or mank.
I think its patently obvious many harder routes are over-starred, especially sports routes.. 3 stars should be up with the best routes in the UK, or maybe 2 star climbing quality with historical interest. Plenty of highly starred sports routes are non-lines or odd eliminates some even with the odd bit of suspect rock or glued back holds. Even my experience of easier stuff on sports routes is that stars are a bit generous (many lines had nothing much going for them but the great moves and that's often been ruined by polish); some of the stuff getting one star in the Peak is plain rubbish...muddy or loose crap.
Trad can have the same problems, especially at higher grades, as a guidebook team member I have helped 'adjust' a few 3 star routes to none based on team concensus. One good thing I've been involved with with stars is the YMC hollow star idea... really great routes that sometimes get buried under vegetables or mank.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Well I guess I should declare an interest. I started looking at stars and grades because I was annoyed that my route Prelude to a Pint (6c) was not even awarded a star despite being mentioned in the historical section and even though I thought it was pretty good. However when I started looking into it I realised that there were many other pretty decent lower grade routes, trad as well as sport, that were not given the stars I thought they deserved. I was particularly thinking of classic trad routes such as Plumbline (E3 5c), Solid Gold (E3 6a) and Firefly (E3 5c) that I had always thought of as 3 star classics that were downgraded to two stars and one star respectively (OK maybe Firefly wasn't as good as the others?).
There is not much point in ensuring that the quality of a 6a+ is accurately compared to that of an 8c+ as few people will be trying to choose between the two for a target for the day. It is much more useful to provide information on the relative quality of the routes inside each grade range.
It would also be useful if the quality rating criteria were roughly in line with those used in other guidebook areas. The slate guide, for example, is a lot more generous with its stars in the HVS-E2 and F5-F6 ranges. A comparison would falsely suggest a significant inferiority in the easier A55 area sport offerings. I did not just present the analysis of NWL star ratings in Facebook but also compared it to the stars given by Rockfax 08 for the same area to try and get an idea if the small number of stars was due to low quality routes or stricter criteria. The Rockfax was a lot more generous with stars for the easier routes and closer to the slate guide. As a result it is more useful and informative about the relative quality of the easier routes within the NWL area and between the NWL area and surrounding areas such as Clwyd and Slate (not looked at the recent Clwyd guide yet though). This is valuable information for visiting climbers operating in these grades and is likely to influence peopled choice of venue.
Whilst I accept that the NWL approach does to an extent reflect the greater quality of harder routes, from my knowledge of the lower part of the range (up to about 7a+) I think they overemphasize the importance of difficulty as a determinant of quality. I have not heard people suggest that N Wales sport routes around 7b/c are of low quality yet the trend to more stars in NWL continues right up to the very highest grades: e.g. 8c+ and above get a substantially higher proportion of stars than 8a+ and 8a+ get more than 7b/c.
Well I guess I should declare an interest. I started looking at stars and grades because I was annoyed that my route Prelude to a Pint (6c) was not even awarded a star despite being mentioned in the historical section and even though I thought it was pretty good. However when I started looking into it I realised that there were many other pretty decent lower grade routes, trad as well as sport, that were not given the stars I thought they deserved. I was particularly thinking of classic trad routes such as Plumbline (E3 5c), Solid Gold (E3 6a) and Firefly (E3 5c) that I had always thought of as 3 star classics that were downgraded to two stars and one star respectively (OK maybe Firefly wasn't as good as the others?).
There is not much point in ensuring that the quality of a 6a+ is accurately compared to that of an 8c+ as few people will be trying to choose between the two for a target for the day. It is much more useful to provide information on the relative quality of the routes inside each grade range.
It would also be useful if the quality rating criteria were roughly in line with those used in other guidebook areas. The slate guide, for example, is a lot more generous with its stars in the HVS-E2 and F5-F6 ranges. A comparison would falsely suggest a significant inferiority in the easier A55 area sport offerings. I did not just present the analysis of NWL star ratings in Facebook but also compared it to the stars given by Rockfax 08 for the same area to try and get an idea if the small number of stars was due to low quality routes or stricter criteria. The Rockfax was a lot more generous with stars for the easier routes and closer to the slate guide. As a result it is more useful and informative about the relative quality of the easier routes within the NWL area and between the NWL area and surrounding areas such as Clwyd and Slate (not looked at the recent Clwyd guide yet though). This is valuable information for visiting climbers operating in these grades and is likely to influence peopled choice of venue.
Whilst I accept that the NWL approach does to an extent reflect the greater quality of harder routes, from my knowledge of the lower part of the range (up to about 7a+) I think they overemphasize the importance of difficulty as a determinant of quality. I have not heard people suggest that N Wales sport routes around 7b/c are of low quality yet the trend to more stars in NWL continues right up to the very highest grades: e.g. 8c+ and above get a substantially higher proportion of stars than 8a+ and 8a+ get more than 7b/c.
4
In reply to Offwidth:
I disagree. Some of the best sport routes I've climbed have been 'non lines'. Most of Raven Tor is composed of non lines.
On topic of the OP: in my opinion there are real reasons why lower grade routes (on limestone) tend to get fewer stars:
1) they are ten a penny. A grade 4 next to another grade 4 next to grade 5 next to a grade 4 aren't likely to be overly memorable as you quickly bash off the ticks. You probably won't even remember the name the next day. A grade 8 will likely require (for most) much more time and effort which makes it a more memorable experience. You'll probably remember the name five years later. They're also rarer and compared only to other similarly difficult lines.
2) lower grade routes have so many more ways that they can be climbed than higher grade routes. 10 people could independently climb a grade 4 in a day and each do it differently, some would find it awkward and off balance, others would find it glorious. 3 people could independently climb an 8b in a week and all end up doing it pretty much the same. This is the nature of typically more sequency harder limestone lines. It makes it much easier to consider the quality of the actual moves and factor it in to the star rating. Even if the moves and sequence isn't great... the act of unlocking it can be satisfying and worth trying the route for this reason.
3) lower grade routes on limestone can very often be a grade 3 with a short stopper that pushes it to grade 5. Such is the nature of limestone layers! High grade lines of this nature don't exist in such abundance because people don't bother to bolt them quite so regularly.
I could go on. I personally do think starring is generally pretty fair across the board.
> I think its patently obvious many harder routes are over-starred, especially sports routes.. 3 stars should be up with the best routes in the UK, or maybe 2 star climbing quality with historical interest. Plenty of highly starred sports routes are non-lines or odd eliminates some even with the odd bit of suspect rock or glued back holds.
I disagree. Some of the best sport routes I've climbed have been 'non lines'. Most of Raven Tor is composed of non lines.
On topic of the OP: in my opinion there are real reasons why lower grade routes (on limestone) tend to get fewer stars:
1) they are ten a penny. A grade 4 next to another grade 4 next to grade 5 next to a grade 4 aren't likely to be overly memorable as you quickly bash off the ticks. You probably won't even remember the name the next day. A grade 8 will likely require (for most) much more time and effort which makes it a more memorable experience. You'll probably remember the name five years later. They're also rarer and compared only to other similarly difficult lines.
2) lower grade routes have so many more ways that they can be climbed than higher grade routes. 10 people could independently climb a grade 4 in a day and each do it differently, some would find it awkward and off balance, others would find it glorious. 3 people could independently climb an 8b in a week and all end up doing it pretty much the same. This is the nature of typically more sequency harder limestone lines. It makes it much easier to consider the quality of the actual moves and factor it in to the star rating. Even if the moves and sequence isn't great... the act of unlocking it can be satisfying and worth trying the route for this reason.
3) lower grade routes on limestone can very often be a grade 3 with a short stopper that pushes it to grade 5. Such is the nature of limestone layers! High grade lines of this nature don't exist in such abundance because people don't bother to bolt them quite so regularly.
I could go on. I personally do think starring is generally pretty fair across the board.
Post edited at 12:47
2
In reply to AlanLittle:
I'm not arguing with that. I am arguing that comparing your 3* trad routes at about 4+ level of difficulty to sport routes of 4+ difficulty is kind of pointless. 3* is a bit of a special case (it really has to be good), but if we consider 1*/2* then because we know all UK sport is pretty crap I don't expect a 2* 4+ sport route to be as 'good' as a 2* 4+ difficulty trad route. I spend a lot less time climbing the sport route though so it usually works out in the end...
Let me ask a question - what is the purpose of the star system?
And if you reply with 'to mark out routes of quality' then I ask 'why?'
What is the purpose of marking out routes of quality?
If I wrote a guidebook covering only sport routes in a limited area, and none of the sport routes in that area were that great, then obvious none of them will get 3* and possibly none will get 2*. How do I help the reader by refusing to give stars to any of the routes in my entire guidebook because a 1* route in my area doesn't compare to 1* routes in Portland, or even worse 1* trad routes in Snowdonia?
> As others have pointed out - also the point I was trying to make - there are loads of really excellent, genuinely three star routes in the UK at around the 4+ level of difficulty. They're just not bolted because they were climbed a century ago.
I'm not arguing with that. I am arguing that comparing your 3* trad routes at about 4+ level of difficulty to sport routes of 4+ difficulty is kind of pointless. 3* is a bit of a special case (it really has to be good), but if we consider 1*/2* then because we know all UK sport is pretty crap I don't expect a 2* 4+ sport route to be as 'good' as a 2* 4+ difficulty trad route. I spend a lot less time climbing the sport route though so it usually works out in the end...
Let me ask a question - what is the purpose of the star system?
And if you reply with 'to mark out routes of quality' then I ask 'why?'
What is the purpose of marking out routes of quality?
If I wrote a guidebook covering only sport routes in a limited area, and none of the sport routes in that area were that great, then obvious none of them will get 3* and possibly none will get 2*. How do I help the reader by refusing to give stars to any of the routes in my entire guidebook because a 1* route in my area doesn't compare to 1* routes in Portland, or even worse 1* trad routes in Snowdonia?
In reply to bpmclimb:
It's worth thinking about if the star system should be used to signify simply the quality of the climbing or the quality of the experience. The two are not necessarily the same. For sport I think it tends to be the former, certainly in the UK, but for trad the latter.
Al
It's worth thinking about if the star system should be used to signify simply the quality of the climbing or the quality of the experience. The two are not necessarily the same. For sport I think it tends to be the former, certainly in the UK, but for trad the latter.
Al
In reply to harold walmsley: Hi Harold, I do get the impression this discussion might have blown a little out of perspective, the way things sometimes can (not between us 2 but yourself and the Pete).+
I've not done Prelude to a Pint, but I'll make a point of doing so. How do you think it compares to your other route next door, 'The Whole of the Law', which does get a star?
Overall NWL is quite complimentary about the lower grade venues, describing your routes as 'valuable contributions' at Penmaen Head.
In the Intro, it describes no star routes as good, unless otherwise stated. I like that, you know you have a full guidebook to go at rather than just starred routes.
It may be that the hard routes are 'over-starred', I couldn't tell you, we need a Steve Mclure. For the 6s I've done I think its ok.
I've not done Prelude to a Pint, but I'll make a point of doing so. How do you think it compares to your other route next door, 'The Whole of the Law', which does get a star?
Overall NWL is quite complimentary about the lower grade venues, describing your routes as 'valuable contributions' at Penmaen Head.
In the Intro, it describes no star routes as good, unless otherwise stated. I like that, you know you have a full guidebook to go at rather than just starred routes.
It may be that the hard routes are 'over-starred', I couldn't tell you, we need a Steve Mclure. For the 6s I've done I think its ok.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
The Whole of the Law was Colin's first ascent rather than mine although we both did it same day. I think the two are of similar quality. The Whole of the Law is more spectacular on the arete, which has some very fine moves, but has a less attractive start and a worrying move on a brittle-looking hold to start the hard bit. The UKC ratings suggest Prelude to a Pint is better but I'm not sure of that.
The Whole of the Law was Colin's first ascent rather than mine although we both did it same day. I think the two are of similar quality. The Whole of the Law is more spectacular on the arete, which has some very fine moves, but has a less attractive start and a worrying move on a brittle-looking hold to start the hard bit. The UKC ratings suggest Prelude to a Pint is better but I'm not sure of that.
In reply to AlanLittle:
I agree with this, I've always found sport climbing starts to get good around 6c or 7a, cause it's often sustained moves that require more thought. Personally i think there's a direct link between harder grades and route quality, just my personal experience.
Isn't that why when we climb an easy route and find it good we say, BLIMEY that was actually really good, not quite having expected it.
I agree with this, I've always found sport climbing starts to get good around 6c or 7a, cause it's often sustained moves that require more thought. Personally i think there's a direct link between harder grades and route quality, just my personal experience.
Isn't that why when we climb an easy route and find it good we say, BLIMEY that was actually really good, not quite having expected it.
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
So what exactly makes the quality of a new 8a non-line sports route be up with the best routes or problems in the country; when most of those others have lines, history and numerous other factors adding to the quality. I think, it should mean the moves have to be utterly amazing. Do you seriously contend that is always the case?
I also think you are being daft about the grade issue... hard sports routes get climbed in slightly different ways by climbers with different body shapes and skills and whatever the grade of a route it will feel just as hard and generally force the leader into the easiest sequences to someone pushing their limit on redpoint.
So what exactly makes the quality of a new 8a non-line sports route be up with the best routes or problems in the country; when most of those others have lines, history and numerous other factors adding to the quality. I think, it should mean the moves have to be utterly amazing. Do you seriously contend that is always the case?
I also think you are being daft about the grade issue... hard sports routes get climbed in slightly different ways by climbers with different body shapes and skills and whatever the grade of a route it will feel just as hard and generally force the leader into the easiest sequences to someone pushing their limit on redpoint.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I think what you're missing is that different things about routes appeal to different climbers. Your average trad bumbly may (rightly) be keen on routes with great lines and strong history, but I think those focussing on hard sport aren't as concerned with those things (possibly because lines in limestone are rare and the history of hard sport is very short). The yardstick of quality is therefore much more about the moves and the situation. You can't just judge all routes by the same quality criteria or you'll no doubt find that those actually climbing the routes (i.e. those to whom the information is intended) will disagree.
> So what exactly makes the quality of a new 8a non-line sports route be up with the best routes or problems in the country; when most of those others have lines, history and numerous other factors adding to the quality. I think, it should mean the moves have to be utterly amazing. Do you seriously contend that is always the case?
I think what you're missing is that different things about routes appeal to different climbers. Your average trad bumbly may (rightly) be keen on routes with great lines and strong history, but I think those focussing on hard sport aren't as concerned with those things (possibly because lines in limestone are rare and the history of hard sport is very short). The yardstick of quality is therefore much more about the moves and the situation. You can't just judge all routes by the same quality criteria or you'll no doubt find that those actually climbing the routes (i.e. those to whom the information is intended) will disagree.
4
In reply to bpmclimb:
For those that doubt the quality of more modestly graded Sports climbs try those on this ticklist (and maybe think again):
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/set.php?id=1381
For those that doubt the quality of more modestly graded Sports climbs try those on this ticklist (and maybe think again):
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/set.php?id=1381
Post edited at 23:50
In reply to bpmclimb:
It's a good question but probably doesn't have a simple answer. I think there are multiple explanations.
In broad terms I would say yes, harder climbs do tend to be better. That's because harder routes can take better, more spectacular lines than easier routes. Kilnsey is an example that springs to mind. There are lots of great routes there but the best looking routes are on the central section of North Buttress. The grade range here is from 8a+ up to 9a and includes all the crag's hardest routes.
A second factor is that the more effort one puts into something the greater the reward. Harder routes take much more effort, even for really good climbers, so the reward is that much greater, the route is more memorable. At somewhere around the mid sevens the routes are hard enough to be interesting even for top climbers.
Having said that I also think there is some bias too, at least for a some routes. Hubble for example gets 3 stars on here (2 in the BMC guide) yet the first ascentionist says its only a one star route. Perhaps some routes get more stars for their historical significance rather than quality? There are certainly quite a few Peak routes showered with stars that really don't deserve them. How did the disintegrating Rubicon ever get 3 stars. Or Sardine for that matter. Is it more to do with their history?
> Are higher grade routes genuinely of higher quality, on average?
It's a good question but probably doesn't have a simple answer. I think there are multiple explanations.
In broad terms I would say yes, harder climbs do tend to be better. That's because harder routes can take better, more spectacular lines than easier routes. Kilnsey is an example that springs to mind. There are lots of great routes there but the best looking routes are on the central section of North Buttress. The grade range here is from 8a+ up to 9a and includes all the crag's hardest routes.
A second factor is that the more effort one puts into something the greater the reward. Harder routes take much more effort, even for really good climbers, so the reward is that much greater, the route is more memorable. At somewhere around the mid sevens the routes are hard enough to be interesting even for top climbers.
Having said that I also think there is some bias too, at least for a some routes. Hubble for example gets 3 stars on here (2 in the BMC guide) yet the first ascentionist says its only a one star route. Perhaps some routes get more stars for their historical significance rather than quality? There are certainly quite a few Peak routes showered with stars that really don't deserve them. How did the disintegrating Rubicon ever get 3 stars. Or Sardine for that matter. Is it more to do with their history?
3
In reply to john arran:
You can get in amazing situations on a 6. Maybe as a non bumbly you can convince me better by making assurances nearly all these newer, hardly spectacularly positioned, 2 and 3 star, non-line, UK routes around 8a you have done in your opinion certainly deserve their stars. The overall qualities that matter most are equivalence: a three star route should be notable for the grade and type anywhere.
You can get in amazing situations on a 6. Maybe as a non bumbly you can convince me better by making assurances nearly all these newer, hardly spectacularly positioned, 2 and 3 star, non-line, UK routes around 8a you have done in your opinion certainly deserve their stars. The overall qualities that matter most are equivalence: a three star route should be notable for the grade and type anywhere.
In reply to Offwidth:
There's an analogy here with grades. You can't really quantify what makes up a grade, certainly not when considering how much weight to give to the various factors, and it really boils down to how many people can get up it as to what grade it is. The same applies to quality: if you come back from a day's climbing and go out of your way to tell your mates about a great route you did or tried then it's probably worth 3 stars to you, however poor its line. If enough people agree then it should get 3 stars in the guide.
There's an analogy here with grades. You can't really quantify what makes up a grade, certainly not when considering how much weight to give to the various factors, and it really boils down to how many people can get up it as to what grade it is. The same applies to quality: if you come back from a day's climbing and go out of your way to tell your mates about a great route you did or tried then it's probably worth 3 stars to you, however poor its line. If enough people agree then it should get 3 stars in the guide.
1
In reply to john arran:
This does inevitably lead to a bit of a bias towards harder routes getting more stars since generally, the more effort one has to put into a route and the more uncertain the outcome, the more intense and satisfying getting to the top is. You can have a pretty amazing experience on a route that isn't objectively that great! On lower grade routes there are enough ascents by people not at their limit that you get a more well rounded picture of the quality from the voting but the harder a route gets, the less likely it is that people would be on it as a warm up/mileage etc.
That said, I agree that on the whole harder sport routes are much better than easier ones in the UK. As has been said, the sort of terrain required for a 3* 4 would usually be climbed trad. I can't speak for routes in the 8s but I'm struggling to think of an easier route that I've done that would come anywhere near the quality of climbing on something like Yosemite Wall or New Dawn...
This does inevitably lead to a bit of a bias towards harder routes getting more stars since generally, the more effort one has to put into a route and the more uncertain the outcome, the more intense and satisfying getting to the top is. You can have a pretty amazing experience on a route that isn't objectively that great! On lower grade routes there are enough ascents by people not at their limit that you get a more well rounded picture of the quality from the voting but the harder a route gets, the less likely it is that people would be on it as a warm up/mileage etc.
That said, I agree that on the whole harder sport routes are much better than easier ones in the UK. As has been said, the sort of terrain required for a 3* 4 would usually be climbed trad. I can't speak for routes in the 8s but I'm struggling to think of an easier route that I've done that would come anywhere near the quality of climbing on something like Yosemite Wall or New Dawn...
3
In reply to Offwidth:
Anywhere? I do think stars should be awarded on UK sport with reference to Euro single pitch, which means we aren't going to have many 3 star sports 6s, which we don't.
> The overall qualities that matter most are equivalence: a three star route should be notable for the grade and type anywhere.
Anywhere? I do think stars should be awarded on UK sport with reference to Euro single pitch, which means we aren't going to have many 3 star sports 6s, which we don't.
In reply to stp:
Also, there are routes that might have been three stars in the past but - especially on easier popular limestone routes - can get so polished that they are no longer enjoyable to climb. See basically anything up to about E2 at Stoney. If Hubble can up-starred for historical significance despite being a grotty little non-line, then something like Windhover could be down-starred for being polished to death despite being a superb line.
See also - I suspect - Routes 1 & 2 at Castle Inn, as currently featuring on the "best UK easy sport routes" list. I did them both years ago and as I recall they were pleasant enough (though nowt special in the grand scheme of things). I shudder to think what sort of state they must be in now.
This is going to be an ever bigger problem with bolted limestone routesthat see a lot of traffic - climable rock as a resource that gets consumed. See also Massone at Arco, for a well known international example that was once good but is now completely trashed.
Also, there are routes that might have been three stars in the past but - especially on easier popular limestone routes - can get so polished that they are no longer enjoyable to climb. See basically anything up to about E2 at Stoney. If Hubble can up-starred for historical significance despite being a grotty little non-line, then something like Windhover could be down-starred for being polished to death despite being a superb line.
See also - I suspect - Routes 1 & 2 at Castle Inn, as currently featuring on the "best UK easy sport routes" list. I did them both years ago and as I recall they were pleasant enough (though nowt special in the grand scheme of things). I shudder to think what sort of state they must be in now.
This is going to be an ever bigger problem with bolted limestone routesthat see a lot of traffic - climable rock as a resource that gets consumed. See also Massone at Arco, for a well known international example that was once good but is now completely trashed.
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Yes anywhere... if UK sport was especially shit compared to stuff in Europe we should acknowledge that.
In reply to john arran
Nice dodge... do most of these newer high 7s and low 8s deserve 3 stars in your opinion? stp hit the nail on the head with Rubicon.. a route that I do know and that is nothing like 3 stars in any sensible respect and there is a lot worse stuff out there than that.. Hubble seems obviously 3 stars from history alone but at least Ben was honest enough about the climbing quality... the sort of modesty that we should maybe translate to some other routes.
Yes anywhere... if UK sport was especially shit compared to stuff in Europe we should acknowledge that.
In reply to john arran
Nice dodge... do most of these newer high 7s and low 8s deserve 3 stars in your opinion? stp hit the nail on the head with Rubicon.. a route that I do know and that is nothing like 3 stars in any sensible respect and there is a lot worse stuff out there than that.. Hubble seems obviously 3 stars from history alone but at least Ben was honest enough about the climbing quality... the sort of modesty that we should maybe translate to some other routes.
In reply to Offwidth:
For me, history is almost a non issue. Because Chris Bonnington shat himself on the crux after a dodgy curry the night before, doesn't make it any higher quality.
I think stars should only reflect how the route makes you feel during and after. It doesn't matter if it's a non line and if the moves are shite... if you come off thinking "what a cracking bit of fun", then it should be starred. I can recall many times looking at a starred line and thinking 'that looks shite', only to have a blast.
Star ratings are not relative to how the route physically compared to other lines. They are literally about the fun you are likely to have doing the route. It doesn't matter if there is a f*cking amazing 6 pitch VDiff in Scotland, if you have a high level of fun doing a five move boulder problem in a cave in Dorset then it should be starred. I wrote a guidebook for the longleat boulders and nothing there would get anything beyond one star at stanage. But because it's the only climbing in the area, I gave some lines three stars, some two, some one and some none. It's about the climbing fun I can have without driving an hour.
Yes, the key word being 'slightly'. You may find a higher polished sloper may be more useful than the crimp 10 cm below for you on a V10 crux of an F8b. An F6a crux is likely to have crimps, edges and pockets all over the place and as a result a lot of different combinations of similar difficulty.
> So what exactly makes the quality of a new 8a non-line sports route be up with the best routes or problems in the country; when most of those others have lines, history and numerous other factors adding to the quality. I think, it should mean the moves have to be utterly amazing. Do you seriously contend that is always the case?
For me, history is almost a non issue. Because Chris Bonnington shat himself on the crux after a dodgy curry the night before, doesn't make it any higher quality.
I think stars should only reflect how the route makes you feel during and after. It doesn't matter if it's a non line and if the moves are shite... if you come off thinking "what a cracking bit of fun", then it should be starred. I can recall many times looking at a starred line and thinking 'that looks shite', only to have a blast.
Star ratings are not relative to how the route physically compared to other lines. They are literally about the fun you are likely to have doing the route. It doesn't matter if there is a f*cking amazing 6 pitch VDiff in Scotland, if you have a high level of fun doing a five move boulder problem in a cave in Dorset then it should be starred. I wrote a guidebook for the longleat boulders and nothing there would get anything beyond one star at stanage. But because it's the only climbing in the area, I gave some lines three stars, some two, some one and some none. It's about the climbing fun I can have without driving an hour.
> I also think you are being daft about the grade issue... hard sports routes get climbed in slightly different ways by climbers with different body shapes and skills and whatever the grade of a route it will feel just as hard and generally force the leader into the easiest sequences to someone pushing their limit on redpoint.
Yes, the key word being 'slightly'. You may find a higher polished sloper may be more useful than the crimp 10 cm below for you on a V10 crux of an F8b. An F6a crux is likely to have crimps, edges and pockets all over the place and as a result a lot of different combinations of similar difficulty.
Post edited at 11:50
3
In reply to Offwidth:
Ok, so does that mean we need negative stars for half of Portland? Otherwise everything will be zero and we'll have no idea what is what.
> The overall qualities that matter most are equivalence: a three star route should be notable for the grade and type anywhere.
Ok, so does that mean we need negative stars for half of Portland? Otherwise everything will be zero and we'll have no idea what is what.
Post edited at 11:54
1
In reply to Offwidth:
IMO star ratings are not universal nor transferable, nor should they be unless we adopt a system with at least 10 star options. They're there to inform book users as to which are the better offerings in the area, and as such their 'value' will be related to the overall quality of climbing in the area.
In response to your earlier question, I have no idea whether any recent 8as in the Peak are worth 3* as I haven't climbed hardish sport in the Peak for a long time, but if the people interested in climbing them nowadays think they're among the best routes in the area that would be plenty good enough for me.
IMO star ratings are not universal nor transferable, nor should they be unless we adopt a system with at least 10 star options. They're there to inform book users as to which are the better offerings in the area, and as such their 'value' will be related to the overall quality of climbing in the area.
In response to your earlier question, I have no idea whether any recent 8as in the Peak are worth 3* as I haven't climbed hardish sport in the Peak for a long time, but if the people interested in climbing them nowadays think they're among the best routes in the area that would be plenty good enough for me.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
It's a reasonable line, at an almost unique steepness for the grade, with good moves on decent tock, in a lovely place. It's a bit short and overused, but definitely at least 2* and 3* is not outrageous.
> Nice dodge... do most of these newer high 7s and low 8s deserve 3 stars in your opinion? stp hit the nail on the head with Rubicon.. a route that I do know and that is nothing like 3 stars in any sensible respect
It's a reasonable line, at an almost unique steepness for the grade, with good moves on decent tock, in a lovely place. It's a bit short and overused, but definitely at least 2* and 3* is not outrageous.
In reply to Si dH:
Rubicon also passes the historical significance test. It seems quaint now, but the time it was one of the first ventures into proper sustained steepness, and it was widely imagined that only somebody with arms the size of Tom Proctor’s could free climb something like that.
Rubicon also passes the historical significance test. It seems quaint now, but the time it was one of the first ventures into proper sustained steepness, and it was widely imagined that only somebody with arms the size of Tom Proctor’s could free climb something like that.
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
i think there may also be a bit of selection bias in there as well. At the top end, climbers may have to spend a long time working a route to get a first ascent. In which case you would be more motivated to keep working a 3 star route than a no star route. so what i am getting at is: maybe only the more starred routes get a first ascent in the first place.
i think there may also be a bit of selection bias in there as well. At the top end, climbers may have to spend a long time working a route to get a first ascent. In which case you would be more motivated to keep working a 3 star route than a no star route. so what i am getting at is: maybe only the more starred routes get a first ascent in the first place.
In reply to AlanLittle:
There are things Proctor climbed I can only wish one day I'd be good enough to follow. Rubicon certainly isnt one of them when HVS punters like me can work it, nor is it uniquely steep for what is a retrobolted 7a. As for the history even the guidebooks points out the route 'self gardens' so the grade and exact sequence changes from year to year. It should get a bit more starworthiness for its history but it's nothing special limestone climbing on poorish rock. 2 star tops.
There are things Proctor climbed I can only wish one day I'd be good enough to follow. Rubicon certainly isnt one of them when HVS punters like me can work it, nor is it uniquely steep for what is a retrobolted 7a. As for the history even the guidebooks points out the route 'self gardens' so the grade and exact sequence changes from year to year. It should get a bit more starworthiness for its history but it's nothing special limestone climbing on poorish rock. 2 star tops.
Post edited at 15:19
In reply to Offwidth:
You might be missing my point, which is that in 1979 it was "uniquely steep" for any free route of any kind in the country, and iirc was quite big news in Crags for that reason.
I agree it's not three star route.
> nor is it uniquely steep for what is a retrobolted 7a.
You might be missing my point, which is that in 1979 it was "uniquely steep" for any free route of any kind in the country, and iirc was quite big news in Crags for that reason.
I agree it's not three star route.
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I tend to agree with this but..
The history of the route is bound to affect the way we feel. The sense of satisfaction one must get from topping out on Hubble must surely be immense but the history of the route is surely a big part of that. If it was some unknown route on some bit of obscure limestone in Europe put up a couple of years ago by some unknown french teenager I think climbing it would feel very different.
But that implies that what we know about a route affects its quality, which seems wrong to me. If someone strolls up to Rubicon say, knowing absolutely nothing about its history then it won't seem worth its star rating.
At the end of the day the question seems to be whether the star rating should be more than just quality and reflect the history or the route's perceived importance or status. If this is included then there's another reason some harder routes get more stars than easier ones: a classic testpiece is, by its nature, hard.
> For me, history is almost a non issue. Because Chris Bonnington shat himself on the crux after a dodgy curry the night before, doesn't make it any higher quality.
I tend to agree with this but..
> I think stars should only reflect how the route makes you feel during and after.
The history of the route is bound to affect the way we feel. The sense of satisfaction one must get from topping out on Hubble must surely be immense but the history of the route is surely a big part of that. If it was some unknown route on some bit of obscure limestone in Europe put up a couple of years ago by some unknown french teenager I think climbing it would feel very different.
But that implies that what we know about a route affects its quality, which seems wrong to me. If someone strolls up to Rubicon say, knowing absolutely nothing about its history then it won't seem worth its star rating.
At the end of the day the question seems to be whether the star rating should be more than just quality and reflect the history or the route's perceived importance or status. If this is included then there's another reason some harder routes get more stars than easier ones: a classic testpiece is, by its nature, hard.
In reply to stp:
Maybe I'm a sucker for the history aspect. Joe Brown routes do have an aura about them, maybe because of his - entirely justified imo - position as one of *the* central figures in British climbing history, or maybe because he had a really good feel for where great climbing was to be found, and more or less had the pick of the best lines at the cutting edge of his day.
I'll probably never find out from personal experience, but I get the same vibe about Chris Sharma. His top routes seem to be not just at or very close to the cutting edge of the day in difficulty, but also great lookers and real quality.
Maybe I'm a sucker for the history aspect. Joe Brown routes do have an aura about them, maybe because of his - entirely justified imo - position as one of *the* central figures in British climbing history, or maybe because he had a really good feel for where great climbing was to be found, and more or less had the pick of the best lines at the cutting edge of his day.
I'll probably never find out from personal experience, but I get the same vibe about Chris Sharma. His top routes seem to be not just at or very close to the cutting edge of the day in difficulty, but also great lookers and real quality.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Show me a route that gets 3 stars because Chris Bonnington shat on it. That is bizzarre snobbish twaddle.
On the bouldering point I'm a very keen participant and guidebook documentor and understand that a brilliant problem like Crescent Arete deserves its three stars as much as a brilliant short route like Archangel above and neither will have as much climbing as a brilliant long mountain route on rock or ice. Yet I also want to be honest so won't be giving anything 3 stars just because its one of the most significant problems on a below-par crag, because that's exactly what what the meaning of 1 star used to be. The quality inflating attitude you describe on your Longleat problems is exactly what I want to challenge in any form of climbing and what I suspect happens on some sports climbs.
Another solution that works well for bouldering is to forget stars... the main guidebooks I helped with either dumped them altogether or used a 2 star system very sparingly. Quality was based on the text and a graded list.
Show me a route that gets 3 stars because Chris Bonnington shat on it. That is bizzarre snobbish twaddle.
On the bouldering point I'm a very keen participant and guidebook documentor and understand that a brilliant problem like Crescent Arete deserves its three stars as much as a brilliant short route like Archangel above and neither will have as much climbing as a brilliant long mountain route on rock or ice. Yet I also want to be honest so won't be giving anything 3 stars just because its one of the most significant problems on a below-par crag, because that's exactly what what the meaning of 1 star used to be. The quality inflating attitude you describe on your Longleat problems is exactly what I want to challenge in any form of climbing and what I suspect happens on some sports climbs.
Another solution that works well for bouldering is to forget stars... the main guidebooks I helped with either dumped them altogether or used a 2 star system very sparingly. Quality was based on the text and a graded list.
2
2
In reply to AlanLittle:
Most of Sharma's stuff looks stunning on his videos: 'king lines' that are seemingly on perfect rock and have amazing sustained climbing. Even at my mortal grades I've climbed stuff in Spain that left me thinking wow. Then I look at some of the sports stuff given 3 stars in the Uk and think wtf?
Most of Sharma's stuff looks stunning on his videos: 'king lines' that are seemingly on perfect rock and have amazing sustained climbing. Even at my mortal grades I've climbed stuff in Spain that left me thinking wow. Then I look at some of the sports stuff given 3 stars in the Uk and think wtf?
In reply to stp:
Agreed
Again, I agree. Which I why I don't think history should be considered. If it adds to the experience of the person who knows the history then great. But if I don't know the history then I shouldn't be tempted on to a choss fest because it was the first female 7a or something.
But, yes, I see your point!
> I tend to agree with this but..
> The history of the route is bound to affect the way we feel.
Agreed
> But that implies that what we know about a route affects its quality, which seems wrong to me. If someone strolls up to Rubicon say, knowing absolutely nothing about its history then it won't seem worth its star rating.
Again, I agree. Which I why I don't think history should be considered. If it adds to the experience of the person who knows the history then great. But if I don't know the history then I shouldn't be tempted on to a choss fest because it was the first female 7a or something.
But, yes, I see your point!
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Surprised I have to clarify but I was not being literal- I was making the point that because Bonnington et al had an epic on it doesn't make it a three star route. It shouldn't be considered in the quality. And, 'snobbish'? I'd have thought not caring about this history and just focussing on the climbing and feeling the route gives you is the polar opposite of snobbish.
Quality inflating? Now there is a 'snobbish' term if I've ever heard one! . If people disagree with the star rating I gave the lines then they can vote on the logbooks.
> Show me a route that gets 3 stars because Chris Bonnington shat on it. That is bizzarre snobbish twaddle.
Surprised I have to clarify but I was not being literal- I was making the point that because Bonnington et al had an epic on it doesn't make it a three star route. It shouldn't be considered in the quality. And, 'snobbish'? I'd have thought not caring about this history and just focussing on the climbing and feeling the route gives you is the polar opposite of snobbish.
> The quality inflating attitude you describe on your Longleat problems is exactly what I want to challenge in any form of climbing and what I suspect happens on some sports climbs.
Quality inflating? Now there is a 'snobbish' term if I've ever heard one! . If people disagree with the star rating I gave the lines then they can vote on the logbooks.
Post edited at 10:21
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
The problem is that isn't helpful for prospective visitors. If a keen boulderer detours offthe M5 to check out these 3 star problems, they might be annoyed to find out they are in fact 1 star problems nationally. And they are the people for whom the star system is intended, not the FA.
Now for Longleat it isn't a great problem as you get a flavour of the place from the crag guide on here (thanks), but the principle stands.
> But because it's the only climbing in the area, I gave some lines three stars, some two, some one and some none. It's about the climbing fun I can have without driving an hour.
The problem is that isn't helpful for prospective visitors. If a keen boulderer detours offthe M5 to check out these 3 star problems, they might be annoyed to find out they are in fact 1 star problems nationally. And they are the people for whom the star system is intended, not the FA.
Now for Longleat it isn't a great problem as you get a flavour of the place from the crag guide on here (thanks), but the principle stands.
Post edited at 10:38
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
I agree in principle with the former, and entirely with the latter. It's the only reason I gave them stars, so others knew what was worth focussing on.
My concern comes with what a "1 star problem nationally" means? I suspect relative to the rest of the country we probably have no three star problems in the SW with the exception of maybe Lightening Strike on Portland. Does this mean that nothing else is really worth doing for those in the area? Not at all. There are hundreds of great problems. The fact that they'd not get many stars at Stanage is for me, pretty irrelevant.
But I agree. We mustn't give people the impression that it's worth driving miles and miles. I am not sure exactly how you solve this without two separate star grades, one for local and one for national. But that seems incredibly stupid. So I think we should stick with the UKC logbooks voting system!
> The problem is that isn't helpful for prospective visitors. If a keen boulderer detours offthe M5 to check out these 3 star problems, they might be annoyed to find out they are in fact 1 star problems nationally. And they are the people for whom the star system is intended, not the FA.
I agree in principle with the former, and entirely with the latter. It's the only reason I gave them stars, so others knew what was worth focussing on.
My concern comes with what a "1 star problem nationally" means? I suspect relative to the rest of the country we probably have no three star problems in the SW with the exception of maybe Lightening Strike on Portland. Does this mean that nothing else is really worth doing for those in the area? Not at all. There are hundreds of great problems. The fact that they'd not get many stars at Stanage is for me, pretty irrelevant.
But I agree. We mustn't give people the impression that it's worth driving miles and miles. I am not sure exactly how you solve this without two separate star grades, one for local and one for national. But that seems incredibly stupid. So I think we should stick with the UKC logbooks voting system!
Post edited at 10:53
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
TBH I'd generally base my ideas about which areas are worth visiting based on something other than looking at the number of stars given to stuff in the definitive guidebook. Maybe Google around or look for threads on here, maybe actually read the introduction to the guidebook - I wouldn't say that giving a Longleat problem thee stars is necessarily misleading, but saying "this is one of the UK's premier bouldering destinations with a multitude of problems to rival anything in North Wales or The Peak" might be...
On the other hand, once I'm in the area I'd expect the stars to be roughly consistent between venues.
TBH I'd generally base my ideas about which areas are worth visiting based on something other than looking at the number of stars given to stuff in the definitive guidebook. Maybe Google around or look for threads on here, maybe actually read the introduction to the guidebook - I wouldn't say that giving a Longleat problem thee stars is necessarily misleading, but saying "this is one of the UK's premier bouldering destinations with a multitude of problems to rival anything in North Wales or The Peak" might be...
On the other hand, once I'm in the area I'd expect the stars to be roughly consistent between venues.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Can't see any problem with using "local" stars as long as it's clear that the stars wouldn't equate to stars on other/better locations. I would question whether it's worthwhile using stars at all for a location with only 20-30 problems when they're all pretty visible with easy access.
Can't see any problem with using "local" stars as long as it's clear that the stars wouldn't equate to stars on other/better locations. I would question whether it's worthwhile using stars at all for a location with only 20-30 problems when they're all pretty visible with easy access.
Post edited at 11:21
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Your point is complete nonsense... no VD route ever got 3 stars because Bonnington had an epic. The fact you repeat it rather than saying it was a joke is worrying. He was a good climber for his time and any VD classics were more a lucky find and a sign he had nothing to worry about ego wise from climbing such lowly routes.
Your point is complete nonsense... no VD route ever got 3 stars because Bonnington had an epic. The fact you repeat it rather than saying it was a joke is worrying. He was a good climber for his time and any VD classics were more a lucky find and a sign he had nothing to worry about ego wise from climbing such lowly routes.
In reply to Offwidth:
Have I got the wrong end of the stick here? To be clear I'm not talking about Bonnington's character, or his achievements. You can change his name for Heckmair, Steck, Sharma, or any other climber in history.
It was my understanding that you were arguing the history of a route matters to the star grade. I said I disagree, I don't think it matters, I gave (what I thought was) a light hearted example.
So you're saying the history shouldn't be included in the star grade? In which case. We agree.
Have I got the wrong end of the stick here? To be clear I'm not talking about Bonnington's character, or his achievements. You can change his name for Heckmair, Steck, Sharma, or any other climber in history.
It was my understanding that you were arguing the history of a route matters to the star grade. I said I disagree, I don't think it matters, I gave (what I thought was) a light hearted example.
So you're saying the history shouldn't be included in the star grade? In which case. We agree.
Post edited at 12:03
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
The thread is here to read. Bonnington having a shit isn't history giving any route extra stars, so its a silly snobbish joke at best with not even a smiley to help us split gentle humour from the barbed.
The vast majority of UK guidebooks have important historical routes gaining a slight shift in quality ratings and I fully agree with that line.
As for your local problems why on earth are you listing no star problems in an area where three stars would be worth one at Stanage. Surely the best way to inform visitors is to only list stuff worth doing. There is tons of unlisted lesser stuff in any of the bouldering areas I've climbed at.
The thread is here to read. Bonnington having a shit isn't history giving any route extra stars, so its a silly snobbish joke at best with not even a smiley to help us split gentle humour from the barbed.
The vast majority of UK guidebooks have important historical routes gaining a slight shift in quality ratings and I fully agree with that line.
As for your local problems why on earth are you listing no star problems in an area where three stars would be worth one at Stanage. Surely the best way to inform visitors is to only list stuff worth doing. There is tons of unlisted lesser stuff in any of the bouldering areas I've climbed at.
Post edited at 12:44
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
In practice it does sort of happen. When script checking for guidebooks, or using little amateur produced guides, both usually produced with the FA, I've got used to expecting the 'local' system to be in use.
For a published guidebooks it should always be the national one.
Getting back to 6s sport routes, I think the 2 3 star 6a routes I know, Coral Seas and Reptile Smile, are both very good and would be starred at a euro sports crag (maybe not 3 though). If they are taken as bench marks then North Wales Limestone is spot on IMO. Many people have done route 2 at Castle Inn, and the logbook voting is actually consistent with NWL, 2 stars not 3.
(last bit not really in reply to Longleat Boulderer)
> But I agree. We mustn't give people the impression that it's worth driving miles and miles. I am not sure exactly how you solve this without two separate star grades, one for local and one for national. But that seems incredibly stupid. So I think we should stick with the UKC logbooks voting system!
In practice it does sort of happen. When script checking for guidebooks, or using little amateur produced guides, both usually produced with the FA, I've got used to expecting the 'local' system to be in use.
For a published guidebooks it should always be the national one.
Getting back to 6s sport routes, I think the 2 3 star 6a routes I know, Coral Seas and Reptile Smile, are both very good and would be starred at a euro sports crag (maybe not 3 though). If they are taken as bench marks then North Wales Limestone is spot on IMO. Many people have done route 2 at Castle Inn, and the logbook voting is actually consistent with NWL, 2 stars not 3.
(last bit not really in reply to Longleat Boulderer)
Post edited at 12:48
In reply to Offwidth:
So it boils down to you taking issue with me joking that Chris Bonnington shitting on a route is part of the 'history'. That's fine, replace that with anything else that makes you happy. Hinterstoisser et al plus many before all dying prior to1938 Eiger success, Statement of Youth as the first 8a, an aid line that took years to free on El Cap, the first oxygenless ascent of Everest... all of these things add to the history of the line. All of these things are very important to remember and to note. None of these things should have any influence on the suggested quality of the line in a guide.
As a personal aside: you again you use the word 'snobbish'. On my life, I don't understand why.
So you do think Bonnington having an accident of the pants department should affect the quality. It would be a historical anecdote after all. (Sorry couldn't resist.)
You care about history it seems. Would you not like to know the history of an area? I grew up in an area with no climbing for an hour and a half. I had to make do. I collected all the info I could about Heaven's gate (from a guy called Ben Sutton), there was very little, so I wrote a small mini guide. Since then and after listing on UKC traffic has grown and grown. I receive regular requests for said guide and I regret absolutely nothing. Addition of stars enhances the usability of the guide. It does not detract.
In fact, here is the guide in case you'd like to check out some of the local three star classics if you're in the area (it was written when I was a kid, so you'll have to forgive the enthusiasm and spelling- it's not meant as snobbery):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ptthpc59nfp83uu/AADz928H-X0XI2t-slMAf9-2a?dl=0
EDIT: Anyway, we clearly disagree. So let's leave it there!
> The thread is here to read. Bonnington having a shit isn't history giving any route extra stars, so its a silly snobbish joke at best with not even a smiley to help us split gentle humour from the barbed.
So it boils down to you taking issue with me joking that Chris Bonnington shitting on a route is part of the 'history'. That's fine, replace that with anything else that makes you happy. Hinterstoisser et al plus many before all dying prior to1938 Eiger success, Statement of Youth as the first 8a, an aid line that took years to free on El Cap, the first oxygenless ascent of Everest... all of these things add to the history of the line. All of these things are very important to remember and to note. None of these things should have any influence on the suggested quality of the line in a guide.
As a personal aside: you again you use the word 'snobbish'. On my life, I don't understand why.
> The vast majority of UK guidebooks have important historical routes gaining a slight shift in quality ratings and I fully agree with that line.
So you do think Bonnington having an accident of the pants department should affect the quality. It would be a historical anecdote after all. (Sorry couldn't resist.)
> As for your local problems why on earth are you listing no star problems in an area where three stars would be worth one at Stanage. Surely the best way to inform visitors is to only list stuff worth doing. There is tons of unlisted lesser stuff in any of the bouldering areas I've climbed at.
You care about history it seems. Would you not like to know the history of an area? I grew up in an area with no climbing for an hour and a half. I had to make do. I collected all the info I could about Heaven's gate (from a guy called Ben Sutton), there was very little, so I wrote a small mini guide. Since then and after listing on UKC traffic has grown and grown. I receive regular requests for said guide and I regret absolutely nothing. Addition of stars enhances the usability of the guide. It does not detract.
In fact, here is the guide in case you'd like to check out some of the local three star classics if you're in the area (it was written when I was a kid, so you'll have to forgive the enthusiasm and spelling- it's not meant as snobbery):
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ptthpc59nfp83uu/AADz928H-X0XI2t-slMAf9-2a?dl=0
EDIT: Anyway, we clearly disagree. So let's leave it there!
Post edited at 13:35
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Definitely, I'd agree with that.
> In practice it does sort of happen. When script checking for guidebooks, or using little amateur produced guides, both usually produced with the FA, I've got used to expecting the 'local' system to be in use.
> For a published guidebooks it should always be the national one.
Definitely, I'd agree with that.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Thanks for linking the guide whatever. The ultimate bouldering quality system was one of the first I ever saw: highlighting problems worth getting out of bed for and those worth getting out of someone else's bed for.
Bonnington's metaphorical historical turd even if was like the eggs dropped by the goose above the beanstalk wouldn't turn no stars to a classic so I just don't get what you are worried about when you are seemingly metaphorically into turd polishing for the sake of other climbers. Most keen climbers like history and find it adds to the climbing experience, just like some enjoy having at least something to do outdoors in a pretty barren area
Thanks for linking the guide whatever. The ultimate bouldering quality system was one of the first I ever saw: highlighting problems worth getting out of bed for and those worth getting out of someone else's bed for.
Bonnington's metaphorical historical turd even if was like the eggs dropped by the goose above the beanstalk wouldn't turn no stars to a classic so I just don't get what you are worried about when you are seemingly metaphorically into turd polishing for the sake of other climbers. Most keen climbers like history and find it adds to the climbing experience, just like some enjoy having at least something to do outdoors in a pretty barren area
In reply to Offwidth:
Haha! Fair enough! Anyway, interesting none the less. Every aspect of climbing can cause debate... it's really like no other sport!
Haha! Fair enough! Anyway, interesting none the less. Every aspect of climbing can cause debate... it's really like no other sport!
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I agree with that. Including the historical aspect in the star rating confuses things in my opinion. If you know a route has a bit of history and see it gets two stars you won't whether those are for the quality of the climbing or its history. And if you don't know anything about the history and you get on say, Rubicon, then the guidebook is misleading. As time goes by fewer and fewer climbers will know about the history of the older routes which implies that the historically rated routes would have to be downrated. But when this should happen would be anyone's guess.
I think the history of routes is really important and was disappointed not to see first ascents listed in the BMC Peak Lime guide. I just think it should be completely divorced from the star system for the sake of clarity.
> Which I why I don't think history should be considered. If it adds to the experience of the person who knows the history then great. But if I don't know the history then I shouldn't be tempted on to a choss fest because it was the first female 7a or something.
I agree with that. Including the historical aspect in the star rating confuses things in my opinion. If you know a route has a bit of history and see it gets two stars you won't whether those are for the quality of the climbing or its history. And if you don't know anything about the history and you get on say, Rubicon, then the guidebook is misleading. As time goes by fewer and fewer climbers will know about the history of the older routes which implies that the historically rated routes would have to be downrated. But when this should happen would be anyone's guess.
I think the history of routes is really important and was disappointed not to see first ascents listed in the BMC Peak Lime guide. I just think it should be completely divorced from the star system for the sake of clarity.
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
I guess climbing quality breaks down into good moves, in spectacular positions, on good quality rock. A good strong line adds to the equation a bit.
Of these, good moves and good positions are more likely on harder climbs in my opinion. The reasons for the climb being harder will be due to having less viable holds, so more technical/physical requirements and unlikely sequences needed to make the moves, and being more likely to tackle the steep parts of the crag - more fitness needed to get through the sequences. Together these add up to a more rewarding experience.
So I can see why harder climbs might, on average, deserve more stars than easier lines. In the UK where this doesn't stack up is rock quality, in that most of our sport crags are on chossy or polished limestone
For me, no stars should be the default. If the climb then involves sharp holds or chossy rock that should get a mention. Climbs involving a particularly enjoyable sequence or in a great position should be 1 star. Climbs involving both of these are 2 stars. Then climbs with continuously enjoyable climbing or an especially memorable sequence, on good rock, in a good position, should be 3 stars.
Taking Rubicon as an example, I'd say this involved enjoyable climbing in the 'king line' of that particular part of the crag, though on poor quality rock. 2 stars.
I think history should be in the notes, not in the star rating.
I guess climbing quality breaks down into good moves, in spectacular positions, on good quality rock. A good strong line adds to the equation a bit.
Of these, good moves and good positions are more likely on harder climbs in my opinion. The reasons for the climb being harder will be due to having less viable holds, so more technical/physical requirements and unlikely sequences needed to make the moves, and being more likely to tackle the steep parts of the crag - more fitness needed to get through the sequences. Together these add up to a more rewarding experience.
So I can see why harder climbs might, on average, deserve more stars than easier lines. In the UK where this doesn't stack up is rock quality, in that most of our sport crags are on chossy or polished limestone
For me, no stars should be the default. If the climb then involves sharp holds or chossy rock that should get a mention. Climbs involving a particularly enjoyable sequence or in a great position should be 1 star. Climbs involving both of these are 2 stars. Then climbs with continuously enjoyable climbing or an especially memorable sequence, on good rock, in a good position, should be 3 stars.
Taking Rubicon as an example, I'd say this involved enjoyable climbing in the 'king line' of that particular part of the crag, though on poor quality rock. 2 stars.
I think history should be in the notes, not in the star rating.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...