This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I got the new Wired Lake District Rock guide for Xmas -very inspiring for if we get a summer.
However for a few of the crags there is some strange 'double gradings' - which I can only assume are typos e.g Stonestar Crag and Burnt Crag with The Challenger (E2 5c) getting E2.8 5c and The Breech (E3 5c) E2.3 5c? Anyone shed any light on this?
However for a few of the crags there is some strange 'double gradings' - which I can only assume are typos e.g Stonestar Crag and Burnt Crag with The Challenger (E2 5c) getting E2.8 5c and The Breech (E3 5c) E2.3 5c? Anyone shed any light on this?
1
In reply to djwilse:
Is it not the introduction of decimal trad grades?
The big question is whether we will follow the americans and have E2.10!
Is it not the introduction of decimal trad grades?
The big question is whether we will follow the americans and have E2.10!
Post edited at 11:15
1
In reply to djwilse:
As one of the original instigators of decimal E grades, I should perhaps reply to this query.
Sending out requests for grades and feedback to the Buttermere guide in 1985, I asked for estimates of grades in decimals so I could average ( after weighting the validity of the estimate ) a conconsensus grade for the guide.
Al rounded the Duddon grades to one decimal place for his excellent 8 ? page guide, which at £2 a go raised a lot of dosh, which was ( all ! ) well spent on bolts by the original Lakes Bolt Fund.
It is all in the guide if you scan the small print. Just round it off to full grades if you don't like it.
As one of the original instigators of decimal E grades, I should perhaps reply to this query.
Sending out requests for grades and feedback to the Buttermere guide in 1985, I asked for estimates of grades in decimals so I could average ( after weighting the validity of the estimate ) a conconsensus grade for the guide.
Al rounded the Duddon grades to one decimal place for his excellent 8 ? page guide, which at £2 a go raised a lot of dosh, which was ( all ! ) well spent on bolts by the original Lakes Bolt Fund.
It is all in the guide if you scan the small print. Just round it off to full grades if you don't like it.
8
2
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Thanks for the info - I had not fully read the blurb about the Phizacklea guide.
Thanks for the info - I had not fully read the blurb about the Phizacklea guide.
In reply to djwilse:
I thought this was a wind up at first! Good god, talk about too much information. Definitely puts me off the guide if there's a lot of that going on.
I thought this was a wind up at first! Good god, talk about too much information. Definitely puts me off the guide if there's a lot of that going on.
6
6
In reply to Rick Graham:
That doesn't make sense. 'E2.8' is still E2, not E3.
> Just round it off to full grades if you don't like it.
That doesn't make sense. 'E2.8' is still E2, not E3.
2
4
3
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
The decimal grade is obviously to tell you about where the route sits within its given E grade, the better to plan for first routes of a grade, first onsight, or maybe just whether what you're about to do is going to require a little more try-hard.
How is that hard to grasp?
The decimal grade is obviously to tell you about where the route sits within its given E grade, the better to plan for first routes of a grade, first onsight, or maybe just whether what you're about to do is going to require a little more try-hard.
How is that hard to grasp?
4
2
In reply to MischaHY:
I heard on the grapevine that the " Decimal Grades " inclusion was the tipping point for the guide winning at Banff.
> The decimal grade is obviously to tell you about where the route sits within its given E grade, the better to plan for first routes of a grade, first onsight, or maybe just whether what you're about to do is going to require a little more try-hard.
> How is that hard to grasp?
I heard on the grapevine that the " Decimal Grades " inclusion was the tipping point for the guide winning at Banff.
1
7
17
In reply to MischaHY:
It's not hard to grasp but it does need explaining that the old E2 goes from E2.0 to E 2.9 rather than E1.5 to E2.4
Presumably, with suitably large samples of opinion, it should be possible to get grades to any number of decimal places with arbitrarily high confidence.
> How is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp but it does need explaining that the old E2 goes from E2.0 to E 2.9 rather than E1.5 to E2.4
Presumably, with suitably large samples of opinion, it should be possible to get grades to any number of decimal places with arbitrarily high confidence.
5
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
It is a fairly small selection of the Duddon crags, there is an inlay explaining the decimal grades and giving a list of the grades but I think it is a bit confusing to also add these grades to the main text of the guide.
It is a fairly small selection of the Duddon crags, there is an inlay explaining the decimal grades and giving a list of the grades but I think it is a bit confusing to also add these grades to the main text of the guide.
In reply to djwilse:
So is standard E2 'E2.0' or 'E2.5'?
Edit - sorry, that question wasn't necessarily directed at you, just to those in the know in the thread.
So is standard E2 'E2.0' or 'E2.5'?
Edit - sorry, that question wasn't necessarily directed at you, just to those in the know in the thread.
Post edited at 14:14
1
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Another way of trying to explain it.
The easiest possible E2 is E2.000, the hardest E2.999. To three decimal places as an example.
So an average E2 would be E2.5.
> So is standard E2 'E2.0' or 'E2.5'?
Another way of trying to explain it.
The easiest possible E2 is E2.000, the hardest E2.999. To three decimal places as an example.
So an average E2 would be E2.5.
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Cheers. Did you do decimal tech grades as well? That would seem more useful, especially for climbers operating above 6a where UK Tech falls over a bit?
Cheers. Did you do decimal tech grades as well? That would seem more useful, especially for climbers operating above 6a where UK Tech falls over a bit?
2
In reply to djwilse:
Do you work for Wired Guides?
I hope everybody realises the this and the Rockfax thread are just free advertising vehicles.
Do you work for Wired Guides?
I hope everybody realises the this and the Rockfax thread are just free advertising vehicles.
In reply to RyanOsborne:
No. I have enough truck guessing E grades.
The Carlisle gang had a go with the 6b grade once, splitting it into four bands.
> Cheers. Did you do decimal tech grades as well? That would seem more useful, especially for climbers operating above 6a where UK Tech falls over a bit?
No. I have enough truck guessing E grades.
The Carlisle gang had a go with the 6b grade once, splitting it into four bands.
In reply to Rick Graham:
It would seem to make sense, as 6b covers about 5 font bouldering grades. Not that I need to worry about 6b grading myself!
It would seem to make sense, as 6b covers about 5 font bouldering grades. Not that I need to worry about 6b grading myself!
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Generally in maths when you talk about rounding off decimal places, 2.4 becomes 2 and 2.5 becomes 3. What you probably meant was 'just ignore the number after the decimal point if you don't like it'.
> Correct.
Generally in maths when you talk about rounding off decimal places, 2.4 becomes 2 and 2.5 becomes 3. What you probably meant was 'just ignore the number after the decimal point if you don't like it'.
1
In reply to MischaHY:
It's not hard to grasp at all. Doesn't mean I'm all for it.
Personally for a few routes at the very top/bottom of grade bands I might note high or low in grade but otherwise it's just an inelegant and unnecessary amount of information.
> The decimal grade is obviously to tell you about where the route sits within its given E grade, the better to plan for first routes of a grade, first onsight, or maybe just whether what you're about to do is going to require a little more try-hard.
> How is that hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp at all. Doesn't mean I'm all for it.
Personally for a few routes at the very top/bottom of grade bands I might note high or low in grade but otherwise it's just an inelegant and unnecessary amount of information.
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
It's called rounding down rather than rounding off. We do it all the time with people's ages.
Rounding up is different - something to do with sheep and only applicable to Welsh grades.
> Generally in maths when you talk about rounding off decimal places, 2.4 becomes 2 and 2.5 becomes 3. What you probably meant was 'just ignore the number after the decimal point if you don't like it'.
It's called rounding down rather than rounding off. We do it all the time with people's ages.
Rounding up is different - something to do with sheep and only applicable to Welsh grades.
7
In reply to Robert Durran:
Just to confuse everybody, when Rockfax couldn't decide between E2 and E3 for the grade of "The Butcher", they gave it E2.5 (thus implying grade ranges running from n.5 to n+1.5). Thus they were indeed rounding as oppose to truncating!
Just to confuse everybody, when Rockfax couldn't decide between E2 and E3 for the grade of "The Butcher", they gave it E2.5 (thus implying grade ranges running from n.5 to n+1.5). Thus they were indeed rounding as oppose to truncating!
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Eh...... no
> That's funny. They couldn't decide either way so settled for mid-E2.
Eh...... no
1
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Which was precisely Coel's point! Anyway, I though it was you who preferred Rounding off to rounding down/truncating.
> Well no. But E2.6 as a low in grade E3 would be somewhat confusing!
Which was precisely Coel's point! Anyway, I though it was you who preferred Rounding off to rounding down/truncating.
1
4
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
We may have been speaking at cross purposes. But to be clear, I think this sort of grade subdivision is best left out of guidebooks.
We may have been speaking at cross purposes. But to be clear, I think this sort of grade subdivision is best left out of guidebooks.
2
In reply to djwilse:
Getting back to the OP and having defined what decimal grades actually imply.
I have done both Challenger and Breech several times and think the grades are spot on.
I would, however, prefer to use E2+ and E2- as a blunter and neater tool. Good old Ron James for coming up with the idea.
Edit. and the genius of producing a guide that fit into the back pocket of a pair of Levis.
> However for a few of the crags there is some strange 'double gradings' - which I can only assume are typos e.g Stonestar Crag and Burnt Crag with The Challenger getting E2.8 5c and The Breech E2.3 5c? Anyone shed any light on this?
Getting back to the OP and having defined what decimal grades actually imply.
I have done both Challenger and Breech several times and think the grades are spot on.
I would, however, prefer to use E2+ and E2- as a blunter and neater tool. Good old Ron James for coming up with the idea.
Edit. and the genius of producing a guide that fit into the back pocket of a pair of Levis.
Post edited at 16:58
3
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
That would seem to be a blunt way of saying E2 goes from E1.5 ( E2-E0,5) to E2.5 (E2+E0.5)
> I would, however, prefer to use E2+ and E2- as a blunter and neater tool. Good old Ron James for coming up with the idea.
That would seem to be a blunt way of saying E2 goes from E1.5 ( E2-E0,5) to E2.5 (E2+E0.5)
1
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
Keep up Durran!
E2- E2.000 to E2.300
E2 E2.301 to E2.700
E2+ E2.701 to E2.999
Keep up Durran!
E2- E2.000 to E2.300
E2 E2.301 to E2.700
E2+ E2.701 to E2.999
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Presumably, if E2.5 is the cut off half way up a hypothetical perfect graded list of E2's then it is the median. And decimal E grades are just deciles (I think that's the right word) in the perfect graded list.
> So is that mean or mode?
Presumably, if E2.5 is the cut off half way up a hypothetical perfect graded list of E2's then it is the median. And decimal E grades are just deciles (I think that's the right word) in the perfect graded list.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
I agree with that.
> Presumably, if E2.5 is the cut off half way up a hypothetical perfect graded list of E2's then it is the median. And decimal E grades are just deciles (I think that's the right word) in the perfect graded list.
I agree with that.
In reply to Rick Graham:
Yes, I know that's what you meant, but it doesn't seem a natural interpretation to me.
Anyway, you seem to be implying that E2 is a broader grade than E2- and E2+
Surely: E2- E2.0000 to E2.3333
E2 E2.3334 to E2.6666
E2+ E2.6667 to E2.9999
> Keep up Durran!
> E2- E2.000 to E2.300
> E2 E2.301 to E2.700
> E2+ E2.701 to E2.999
Yes, I know that's what you meant, but it doesn't seem a natural interpretation to me.
Anyway, you seem to be implying that E2 is a broader grade than E2- and E2+
Surely: E2- E2.0000 to E2.3333
E2 E2.3334 to E2.6666
E2+ E2.6667 to E2.9999
2
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
Thinking about it a bit more, the plus and minus are better defined as the, say, lower or upper quarter or fifth of the grade spread. ie obviously low or high in the grade to save the writer unnecessary sentences in the text.
Thinking about it a bit more, the plus and minus are better defined as the, say, lower or upper quarter or fifth of the grade spread. ie obviously low or high in the grade to save the writer unnecessary sentences in the text.
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Have you come up with this just to add another level of complication in order to spice up the tradition of grade disagreement Rick?
I still don't know what was wrong with good old XS and a tech grade - you soon found out how hard a route was when you got on it.
And regarding the Ron James guides, I completely agree, superb on every level.
Have you come up with this just to add another level of complication in order to spice up the tradition of grade disagreement Rick?
I still don't know what was wrong with good old XS and a tech grade - you soon found out how hard a route was when you got on it.
And regarding the Ron James guides, I completely agree, superb on every level.
2
In reply to Goucho:
Welcome back.
Au contrair. Its a way of reducing grade creep. When folk understand that each grade has a set range, with upper and lower benchmark climbs. Obviously everybody has a slightly different take on individual climbs depending on their own strengths or stature. But just because one climb feels harder than another does not mean it has to be a grade up.
> Have you come up with this just to add another level of complication in order to spice up the tradition of grade disagreement Rick?
Welcome back.
Au contrair. Its a way of reducing grade creep. When folk understand that each grade has a set range, with upper and lower benchmark climbs. Obviously everybody has a slightly different take on individual climbs depending on their own strengths or stature. But just because one climb feels harder than another does not mean it has to be a grade up.
> I still don't know what was wrong with good old XS and a tech grade - you soon found out how hard a route was when you got on it.
Or Scottish " VS " Post edited at 17:36
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm just so thrilled to learn now that, when I was climbing at my best, I could on-sight at about E2.681.
Not really
I'm just so thrilled to learn now that, when I was climbing at my best, I could on-sight at about E2.681.
Not really
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
In practice of course you wouldn't get a perfect grade spread across any one area, so it therefore wouldn't be the median?
> Presumably, if E2.5 is the cut off half way up a hypothetical perfect graded list of E2's then it is the median.
In practice of course you wouldn't get a perfect grade spread across any one area, so it therefore wouldn't be the median?
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
In the 2003 guide, the "+" was used to denote "undeniable, flagrant sandbag".
> Thinking about it a bit more, the plus and minus are better defined as the, say, lower or upper quarter or fifth of the grade spread. ie obviously low or high in the grade to save the writer unnecessary sentences in the text.
In the 2003 guide, the "+" was used to denote "undeniable, flagrant sandbag".
In reply to djwilse:
Stroll on!
If i'd known that having a p1ss take at the grading system 26 years ago would result in this much confusion I'd have introduced it right throughout the entire Lakes guidebook series. At last someone is looking at trad climbing in The Lakes and talking about it! I hope to see you on the crags this summer. Al.
Stroll on!
If i'd known that having a p1ss take at the grading system 26 years ago would result in this much confusion I'd have introduced it right throughout the entire Lakes guidebook series. At last someone is looking at trad climbing in The Lakes and talking about it! I hope to see you on the crags this summer. Al.
1
In reply to Goucho:
Scrolled down the posts until this bit caught my eye. Thought, "F*ck me, the return of commonsense." And only then (honest!) looked up to see who'd written it.
As Rick says, welcome back.
Mick
> I still don't know what was wrong with good old XS and a tech grade - you soon found out how hard a route was when you got on it.
Scrolled down the posts until this bit caught my eye. Thought, "F*ck me, the return of commonsense." And only then (honest!) looked up to see who'd written it.
As Rick says, welcome back.
Mick
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Forget about the grades, Gordon, just think of all those great routes you've done. They're what matter.
Mick
Forget about the grades, Gordon, just think of all those great routes you've done. They're what matter.
Mick
In reply to Mick Ward:
Well. that's just what I meant really. Do you know, I was never particularly interested in grades, and never thought that they meant very much that mattered? Compared with the quality and nature of the route. You know, who cares really if we call Cemetery Gates HVS or E1? Does it matter at all? Not a bit.
Well. that's just what I meant really. Do you know, I was never particularly interested in grades, and never thought that they meant very much that mattered? Compared with the quality and nature of the route. You know, who cares really if we call Cemetery Gates HVS or E1? Does it matter at all? Not a bit.
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Not a problem. The lower bound of E2.5 is by definition the difficulty of the middle route in the list of all the E2's in the UK.
> In practice of course you wouldn't get a perfect grade spread across any one area, so it therefore wouldn't be the median?
Not a problem. The lower bound of E2.5 is by definition the difficulty of the middle route in the list of all the E2's in the UK.
In reply to Rick Graham:
If E11 is the current top grade, there are now 111 Extreme grades?
How the hell do you grade individual climbs to that resolution?
> As one of the original instigators of decimal E grades, I should perhaps reply to this query.
If E11 is the current top grade, there are now 111 Extreme grades?
How the hell do you grade individual climbs to that resolution?
1
In reply to Lusk:
Yes, I think you can (with experience) usually grade around the level you climb at down to low, mid and high in the grade but that's probably the limit of acceptable subdivision.
Yes, I think you can (with experience) usually grade around the level you climb at down to low, mid and high in the grade but that's probably the limit of acceptable subdivision.
1
In reply to Goucho:
No grade inflation there, that's for sure. Bloody (Red) Slab at HVS+ anyone? The Sword (Lliwedd) at S+, Central Wall (Castell Cidwm) ES-, Rowan Tree Slabs Direct (Idwal) HVS-... ?
Eee, you could call yourself a climber when you could lead Ron James HVS!
> And regarding the Ron James guides, I completely agree, superb on every level.
No grade inflation there, that's for sure. Bloody (Red) Slab at HVS+ anyone? The Sword (Lliwedd) at S+, Central Wall (Castell Cidwm) ES-, Rowan Tree Slabs Direct (Idwal) HVS-... ?
Eee, you could call yourself a climber when you could lead Ron James HVS!
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Agree totally. For me, just seconding Jim Erickson on it in 1974 lives on in my memory as one of the best climbing experiences I've had. The position, the history, the sense of breakthrough (whatever grade it is!), above all, being there with Jim, sharing a single day of our lives. I so wish it had been more but, if it's a day, it's a day, that's massively better than nothing. He showed me what was possible; I saved his life.
Mick
> You know, who cares really if we call Cemetery Gates HVS or E1? Does it matter at all? Not a bit.
Agree totally. For me, just seconding Jim Erickson on it in 1974 lives on in my memory as one of the best climbing experiences I've had. The position, the history, the sense of breakthrough (whatever grade it is!), above all, being there with Jim, sharing a single day of our lives. I so wish it had been more but, if it's a day, it's a day, that's massively better than nothing. He showed me what was possible; I saved his life.
Mick
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Of course the fundmental error in this whole discussion is the assumption that the grading system is arithmetic, which it obvously isn't - it's a geometric progression and so E2.5 isn't a halfway house between E2 and E3. I've calculated Three Pebble Slab is still E1 0.85 though
Of course the fundmental error in this whole discussion is the assumption that the grading system is arithmetic, which it obvously isn't - it's a geometric progression and so E2.5 isn't a halfway house between E2 and E3. I've calculated Three Pebble Slab is still E1 0.85 though
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Granted there were a few 'stiff' grades and grade anomolies in it, but as Rick said, it fitted perfectly into the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and was also as tough as old boots.
I recall doing Central Wall on Cidwm in 76' I think, and it seemed to consist of either flat or sloping holds, rather sparse gear, and all a bit moody. Don't know what it gets nowadays, but I would have thought solid E3?
I must have going through an esoteric stage at that time, because the following day I did Herostratus at Llech Ddu - now that is atmospheric!
You weren't doing bad on some of his VS's either.
> No grade inflation there, that's for sure. Bloody (Red) Slab at HVS+ anyone? The Sword (Lliwedd) at S+, Central Wall (Castell Cidwm) ES-, Rowan Tree Slabs Direct (Idwal) HVS-... ?
Granted there were a few 'stiff' grades and grade anomolies in it, but as Rick said, it fitted perfectly into the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and was also as tough as old boots.
I recall doing Central Wall on Cidwm in 76' I think, and it seemed to consist of either flat or sloping holds, rather sparse gear, and all a bit moody. Don't know what it gets nowadays, but I would have thought solid E3?
I must have going through an esoteric stage at that time, because the following day I did Herostratus at Llech Ddu - now that is atmospheric!
> Eee, you could call yourself a climber when you could lead Ron James HVS!
You weren't doing bad on some of his VS's either.
In reply to Goucho:
Great guide (I still hope to complete the ticklist one day) but you must have worn baggier jeans than me if you could get it into your back pocket!
> Granted there were a few 'stiff' grades and grade anomalies in it, but as Rick said, it fitted perfectly into the back pocket of a pair of jeans, and was also as tough as old boots.
Great guide (I still hope to complete the ticklist one day) but you must have worn baggier jeans than me if you could get it into your back pocket!
In reply to humptydumpty:
I've only gazed in awe from neighbouring routes but I think ES- is probably closer to E5- in this case!
> Is that 0.1 harder than HVD+?
I've only gazed in awe from neighbouring routes but I think ES- is probably closer to E5- in this case!
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Old, well worn Levi 501's with a snake belt, or a pair of those really naff army and navy store cheapies would fit it - provided you weren't wearing them tight enough to audition for the village people
> Great guide (I still hope to complete the ticklist one day) but you must have worn baggier jeans than me if you could get it into your back pocket!
Old, well worn Levi 501's with a snake belt, or a pair of those really naff army and navy store cheapies would fit it - provided you weren't wearing them tight enough to audition for the village people
In reply to Goucho:
My snake-hipped loons predated the Village People but I was definitely part of the trackies and lycra generation (not usually shiny you understand)... Where required, guides went down the teeshirt.
> Old, well worn Levi 501's with a snake belt, or a pair of those really naff army and navy store cheapies would fit it - provided you weren't wearing them tight enough to audition for the village people
My snake-hipped loons predated the Village People but I was definitely part of the trackies and lycra generation (not usually shiny you understand)... Where required, guides went down the teeshirt.
2
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I agree.
> Yes, I think you can (with experience) usually grade around the level you climb at down to low, mid and high in the grade but that's probably the limit of acceptable subdivision.
I agree.
In reply to Lusk:
I agree, you cannot.
I have just deleted a long attempt at grading explanation. I soon became disillusioned.
In the 80's the FRCC guides had a graded list of all routes. The guide writers hated it but the Editors insisted.
The Decimal Grades was just a way of analysing the feedback from various folk not all of whom had done every route.
We were all well aware of the impossibility of being that precise, but that was the whole point, it was just a way of giving an individual judgement.
E Minus Typical and Plus are a neat way of avoiding a graded list and repeating low or high in the grade in the text.
E point something had the same intention.
Back to the OP, have you done the Breach? Its very good. Want to know which cam to have ready? Puts it down to E2.1 with good beta
> If E11 is the current top grade, there are now 111 Extreme grades?
> How the hell do you grade individual climbs to that resolution?
I agree, you cannot.
I have just deleted a long attempt at grading explanation. I soon became disillusioned.
In the 80's the FRCC guides had a graded list of all routes. The guide writers hated it but the Editors insisted.
The Decimal Grades was just a way of analysing the feedback from various folk not all of whom had done every route.
We were all well aware of the impossibility of being that precise, but that was the whole point, it was just a way of giving an individual judgement.
E Minus Typical and Plus are a neat way of avoiding a graded list and repeating low or high in the grade in the text.
E point something had the same intention.
Back to the OP, have you done the Breach? Its very good. Want to know which cam to have ready? Puts it down to E2.1 with good beta
In reply to Rick Graham:
Sorry I dozed off for a few days there as the thread started to remind me of bottom set maths O' level ; ). You answered my question within a few minutes of my original post thanks.
Not really after any beta but keen to have a go at The Breach at E1 +/- x (just need to find x as they used to say in Maths class).
Sorry I dozed off for a few days there as the thread started to remind me of bottom set maths O' level ; ). You answered my question within a few minutes of my original post thanks.
Not really after any beta but keen to have a go at The Breach at E1 +/- x (just need to find x as they used to say in Maths class).
Post edited at 21:43
2
In reply to Michael Gordon:
So four people estimate E2, E2, E2, E1 - the average is 7/4 = E1.75 as a decimal grade. Round that normally you get E2, truncate it you get E1. The result should be E2.
Always rounding down puts a bias of -0.5 grade on the result.
If you want to round decimal grades by ignoring the decimal you would need to pre-distort the decimal numbers calculated by averaging people's estimates by adding 0.5.
> That doesn't make sense. 'E2.8' is still E2, not E3.
So four people estimate E2, E2, E2, E1 - the average is 7/4 = E1.75 as a decimal grade. Round that normally you get E2, truncate it you get E1. The result should be E2.
Always rounding down puts a bias of -0.5 grade on the result.
If you want to round decimal grades by ignoring the decimal you would need to pre-distort the decimal numbers calculated by averaging people's estimates by adding 0.5.
Post edited at 22:46
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Dear me. What a depressing thread. There's great climbing in the Lakes in beautiful settings - the finest in this island. Reduce it to mathematics if you will. It is your loss.
Dear me. What a depressing thread. There's great climbing in the Lakes in beautiful settings - the finest in this island. Reduce it to mathematics if you will. It is your loss.
3
In reply to Greenbanks:
Indeed. And no thought at all to the fact that HVS.9 is substantially harder than either E0.5 or E1.3?
Indeed. And no thought at all to the fact that HVS.9 is substantially harder than either E0.5 or E1.3?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But if they say "E2" intending mid-E2 then that is E2.5 rather than E2.0. Your above average assumed that "E2" meant E2.0.
Anyhow, taking a median rather than a mean is likely better for climbing grades.
> If you want to round decimal grades by ignoring the decimal you would need to pre-distort the decimal numbers calculated by averaging people's estimates by adding 0.5.
But if they say "E2" intending mid-E2 then that is E2.5 rather than E2.0. Your above average assumed that "E2" meant E2.0.
Anyhow, taking a median rather than a mean is likely better for climbing grades.
In reply to Greenbanks:
Climbing + Mathematics. What's not to like?
> There's great climbing in the Lakes. Reduce it to mathematics if you will. It is your loss.
Climbing + Mathematics. What's not to like?
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't think that a mean is even meaningful (so to speak) because grades are just a rank order of difficulty rather than something that can be measured.
> Anyhow, taking a median rather than a mean is likely better for climbing grades.
I don't think that a mean is even meaningful (so to speak) because grades are just a rank order of difficulty rather than something that can be measured.
In reply to Greenbanks:
I find it frustrating, perhaps more a reflection on some of the UKC membership.
It was my system FFS. E2 was defined as E2.000 to E2.999. There was agreement and no argument in the 80's. Start another system if you want, you lot.
There's great climbing in the Lakes in beautiful settings, agreed -
the finest in this island. Too bold a statement, I live here but look forward to trips away.
Reduce it to mathematics if you will. It is your loss.
Maths is often the most useful tool for understanding, analysis and description. RD will probably explain better.
Nothing wrong with grade debate but the quality of the climbing is more important.
> Dear me. What a depressing thread.
I find it frustrating, perhaps more a reflection on some of the UKC membership.
It was my system FFS. E2 was defined as E2.000 to E2.999. There was agreement and no argument in the 80's. Start another system if you want, you lot.
There's great climbing in the Lakes in beautiful settings, agreed -
the finest in this island. Too bold a statement, I live here but look forward to trips away.
Reduce it to mathematics if you will. It is your loss.
Maths is often the most useful tool for understanding, analysis and description. RD will probably explain better.
Nothing wrong with grade debate but the quality of the climbing is more important.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Call me conventional but that is how decimal numbers work. Nothing but confusion will result from switching between conventional decimals which everyone learns at school and some kind of rank order and using exactly the same E notation for both of them. Maybe 1% of people using the system will actually understand what is happening.
That is certainly arguable. There's also the question of whether climbing grades are linear or logarithmic, like the Richter scale for earthquakes (or maybe neither linear or logarithmic but scale with some other function) which would also affect how to do arithmetic with the numeric values. If they are logarithmic maybe we should be using dB.
> But if they say "E2" intending mid-E2 then that is E2.5 rather than E2.0. Your above average assumed that "E2" meant E2.0.
Call me conventional but that is how decimal numbers work. Nothing but confusion will result from switching between conventional decimals which everyone learns at school and some kind of rank order and using exactly the same E notation for both of them. Maybe 1% of people using the system will actually understand what is happening.
> Anyhow, taking a median rather than a mean is likely better for climbing grades.
That is certainly arguable. There's also the question of whether climbing grades are linear or logarithmic, like the Richter scale for earthquakes (or maybe neither linear or logarithmic but scale with some other function) which would also affect how to do arithmetic with the numeric values. If they are logarithmic maybe we should be using dB.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
We use the "truncation" rather than "rounding" system for lots of things, for example time. The year 2015, for example has a midpoint of 2015 and 6 months, not 2015 plus nothing. If someone said "it happened in 2015" you would not interpret that as happening between July 2014 and June 2015.
If you were giving time as decimal (which of course people do for all sorts of calculations) you take that into account.
Ditto people's ages. An "eighteen year old" has lived between 18.0 and 18.9 years, not between 17.5 and 18.5 years.
Thus, if you had a group of nine 18-yr-olds and one 17-yr-old, and asked what the average age was, by your method you'd average to 17.9 and then declare that the "average" member was a 17-yr-old.
> Call me conventional but that is how decimal numbers work.
We use the "truncation" rather than "rounding" system for lots of things, for example time. The year 2015, for example has a midpoint of 2015 and 6 months, not 2015 plus nothing. If someone said "it happened in 2015" you would not interpret that as happening between July 2014 and June 2015.
If you were giving time as decimal (which of course people do for all sorts of calculations) you take that into account.
Ditto people's ages. An "eighteen year old" has lived between 18.0 and 18.9 years, not between 17.5 and 18.5 years.
Thus, if you had a group of nine 18-yr-olds and one 17-yr-old, and asked what the average age was, by your method you'd average to 17.9 and then declare that the "average" member was a 17-yr-old.
Post edited at 11:33
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Err... < Starts counting on fingers. Gives up. Scratches head... >
Mick
> Climbing + Mathematics. What's not to like?
Err... < Starts counting on fingers. Gives up. Scratches head... >
Mick
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It works Tom's way but not in the sense the Lakes guide uses it and so he's probably overlooked he has confused himself with his own definitions. If one defines mid E2 as E2.0 his answer of E1.75 is a quarter up the E2 band.
It works Tom's way but not in the sense the Lakes guide uses it and so he's probably overlooked he has confused himself with his own definitions. If one defines mid E2 as E2.0 his answer of E1.75 is a quarter up the E2 band.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There's also, of course, the nice extra complication that an 18-year-old is actually in their 19th year, just as persons in the first year of their lives are 0 years old.
> Ditto people's ages. An "eighteen year old" has lived between 18.0 and 18.9 years, not between 17.5 and 18.5 years.
There's also, of course, the nice extra complication that an 18-year-old is actually in their 19th year, just as persons in the first year of their lives are 0 years old.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
In this decimal grading system, it should really start at E0.
Seeing as Mild VS is barely used now, maybe HVS should be dispensed with and be replaced with E0.x?
In this decimal grading system, it should really start at E0.
Seeing as Mild VS is barely used now, maybe HVS should be dispensed with and be replaced with E0.x?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
(9 * 18 + 17) / 10 = 179/10 = 17.9 rounds up to 18 under the normal rules for decimal numbers.
It's the guys that think you can truncate decimals without messing things up that have the problem with that example.
If they want their interval system to work when they are calculating means they'd need to do something like:
18 means somewhere between 18 and 19 so use 18.5 as the decimal equivalent.
17 means somewhere between 17 and 18 so use 17.5 as the decimal equivalent.
(9 * 18.5 + 17.5)/10 = 184/10 = 18.4 truncate to 18.
> Thus, if you had a group of nine 18-yr-olds and one 17-yr-old, and asked what the average age was, by your method you'd average to 17.9 and then declare that the "average" member was a 17-yr-old.
(9 * 18 + 17) / 10 = 179/10 = 17.9 rounds up to 18 under the normal rules for decimal numbers.
It's the guys that think you can truncate decimals without messing things up that have the problem with that example.
If they want their interval system to work when they are calculating means they'd need to do something like:
18 means somewhere between 18 and 19 so use 18.5 as the decimal equivalent.
17 means somewhere between 17 and 18 so use 17.5 as the decimal equivalent.
(9 * 18.5 + 17.5)/10 = 184/10 = 18.4 truncate to 18.
In reply to Rick Graham:
I've always felt that if the E system had been used from the outset the way it was intended - open ended - we might not have the issues we have, of any given E grade covering routes of varying degrees of difficulty within it.
It might mean that Left Wall gets E5, Right Wall E8 and Echo Wall up around E17, but would that actually matter?
As others have pointed out, grades are nothing more than a way of classifying one routes level of difficulty in comparison to another.
You could replace E grades with the names of fish, so Left Wall was graded Trout, Right Wall Haddock, and Echo Wall Sturgeon, it still wouldn't alter the difficulty of the routes themselves.
I don't care whether your route Fear and Facination is graded E5, or Salmon, I want to hopefully do it this year simply because it's obviously a superb route and experience, and for me, that's the whole point of climbing - it's the route and the experience, not the grade.
I've always felt that if the E system had been used from the outset the way it was intended - open ended - we might not have the issues we have, of any given E grade covering routes of varying degrees of difficulty within it.
It might mean that Left Wall gets E5, Right Wall E8 and Echo Wall up around E17, but would that actually matter?
As others have pointed out, grades are nothing more than a way of classifying one routes level of difficulty in comparison to another.
You could replace E grades with the names of fish, so Left Wall was graded Trout, Right Wall Haddock, and Echo Wall Sturgeon, it still wouldn't alter the difficulty of the routes themselves.
I don't care whether your route Fear and Facination is graded E5, or Salmon, I want to hopefully do it this year simply because it's obviously a superb route and experience, and for me, that's the whole point of climbing - it's the route and the experience, not the grade.
1
1
In reply to Lusk:
Well, I sort of agree with you that HVS means 'E0' but, of course, one can't call oneself an extreme leader until one's climbed a full-grade E1 (rather than a route that in some respects is 'getting towards' E1)
BTW, I've always regarded HVS as a full grade anyway, as I think most people do, and not simply a further gradation of the VS grade. (Whereas HS is not a separate grade from Severe, but simply a hardish Severe.)
> In this decimal grading system, it should really start at E0.
> Seeing as Mild VS is barely used now, maybe HVS should be dispensed with and be replaced with E0.x?
>
Well, I sort of agree with you that HVS means 'E0' but, of course, one can't call oneself an extreme leader until one's climbed a full-grade E1 (rather than a route that in some respects is 'getting towards' E1)
BTW, I've always regarded HVS as a full grade anyway, as I think most people do, and not simply a further gradation of the VS grade. (Whereas HS is not a separate grade from Severe, but simply a hardish Severe.)
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That's perhaps one reason why we don't arrive at consensus on grades through messing around with decimals. In the real world 75% in your example think E2, a significant majority, therefore the route is listed at E2.
> So four people estimate E2, E2, E2, E1 - the average is 7/4 = E1.75 as a decimal grade. Round that normally you get E2, truncate it you get E1. The result should be E2.
>
>
That's perhaps one reason why we don't arrive at consensus on grades through messing around with decimals. In the real world 75% in your example think E2, a significant majority, therefore the route is listed at E2.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
in your opinion!
> (Whereas HS is not a separate grade from Severe, but simply a hardish Severe.)
in your opinion!
1
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Maybe 1% of climbers using a hypothetical decimal system would say that E2.8 would seem to intuitively represent a low-mid E3.
> Call me conventional but that is how decimal numbers work. Nothing but confusion will result from switching between conventional decimals which everyone learns at school and some kind of rank order and using exactly the same E notation for both of them. Maybe 1% of people using the system will actually understand what is happening.
>Maybe 1% of climbers using a hypothetical decimal system would say that E2.8 would seem to intuitively represent a low-mid E3.
In reply to Lusk:
I start at E -5 (Mod), so E -4 (Diff), E -3 (Vdiff), E -2 (S) E -1 (VS) E0 (HVS). This means that climbing anything below HVS messes up my lifetime E-point total (which, after all, is what is really going to count when it comes to the final reckoning on one's death bed) so makes me pull myself together and get on something harder.
> In this decimal grading system, it should really start at E0.
I start at E -5 (Mod), so E -4 (Diff), E -3 (Vdiff), E -2 (S) E -1 (VS) E0 (HVS). This means that climbing anything below HVS messes up my lifetime E-point total (which, after all, is what is really going to count when it comes to the final reckoning on one's death bed) so makes me pull myself together and get on something harder.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You are missing the point! The estimates would also be decimal, so if all are middle of the grade, we get (3x2.5+1.5)/4 = 2.25. (ie lowish E2). We only get (3*2.0+1.0)/4 = 1.75 (ie highish E1) when nobody thought higher than bottom end E2 and one person thought bottom end E1, so fair enough.
> So four people estimate E2, E2, E2, E1 - the average is 7/4 = E1.75 as a decimal grade. Round that normally you get E2, truncate it you get E1. The result should be E2.
You are missing the point! The estimates would also be decimal, so if all are middle of the grade, we get (3x2.5+1.5)/4 = 2.25. (ie lowish E2). We only get (3*2.0+1.0)/4 = 1.75 (ie highish E1) when nobody thought higher than bottom end E2 and one person thought bottom end E1, so fair enough.
Post edited at 22:00
In reply to Mick Ward:
So I think your reply re Cemetery Gates means we ought to have a decimal system added to the
star system as well to be with it. Then you could combine them and make a further modal, mean, or what have your of the two systems. Wouldn't that be fun?
So I think your reply re Cemetery Gates means we ought to have a decimal system added to the
star system as well to be with it. Then you could combine them and make a further modal, mean, or what have your of the two systems. Wouldn't that be fun?
Post edited at 22:11
In reply to Robert Durran:
I don't think so The suggestion I was responding to in my original post was to increase 'accuracy' by calculating a mean of suggested grades in the normal 'interval' style system which results in a decimal answer and truncating the decimal bit to get a 'more accurate' grade in the original system. If you do that the result will be wrong.
Yes - exactly, that's what I was trying to say a few posts ago. When you start with 'interval' grades you need to convert to 'proper' decimals before you do the mean calculation or, equivalently, round rather than truncate the result of the computation.
> You are missing the point!
I don't think so The suggestion I was responding to in my original post was to increase 'accuracy' by calculating a mean of suggested grades in the normal 'interval' style system which results in a decimal answer and truncating the decimal bit to get a 'more accurate' grade in the original system. If you do that the result will be wrong.
> The estimates would also be decimal, so if all are middle of the grade, we get (3x2.5+1.5)/4 = 2.25. (ie lowish E2). We > only get (3*2.0+1.0)/4 = 1.75 (ie highish E1) when nobody thought higher than bottom end E2 and one person thought bottom end E1, so fair enough.
Yes - exactly, that's what I was trying to say a few posts ago. When you start with 'interval' grades you need to convert to 'proper' decimals before you do the mean calculation or, equivalently, round rather than truncate the result of the computation.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Increasing precision does not increase accuracy. If I say a climb is E3, and you say it is E3.4, and it is actually E3.3, you have arguably provided a less accurate answer than me. I have just claimed a lower precision.
Incidentally, if you are going to use numbers with discrete steps which fall exactly on 0.5 (e.g. the 0.1 steps suggested here), you should consider rounding-to-even rather than rounding-up. The rule you learn in school to round 0.5 up is neither the only rounding rule nor the 'correct' one... if you round to even then you round every other 0.5 up or down, which avoids adding an overall upwards bias to your rounding.
Or maybe we are massively overthinking this? :P
As already pointed out by several people, we could define the 'E2' grade (which is currently at least a category, not a number) as either E2.0 to E2.999...9 (where the second number is actually a number while the first is a category), or as E1.5000...1 to E2.4999...9 (and specify a rounding rule to deal with E2.5). Both are equally valid approaches, both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is 'wrong'.
Personally I think the whole thing is mad; by all means solicit higher precision numbers from people to get better grade estimates, but then average them down to a reasonable level of precision when you actually publish the guide - almost certainly not 10 distinct subgrades!
PPS as any good scientist knows, a number without error limits is meaningless. Decimal numbers are often assumed to have an implied precision from the number of decimal points e.g. E3 is +/- 1, E3.5 would be +/- 0.1, but really I would like to see E2.7 +/- 0.3 before I was happy...
> I don't think so The suggestion I was responding to in my original post was to increase 'accuracy' by calculating a mean of suggested grades in the normal 'interval' style system which results in a decimal answer and truncating the decimal bit to get a 'more accurate' grade in the original system. If you do that the result will be wrong.
Increasing precision does not increase accuracy. If I say a climb is E3, and you say it is E3.4, and it is actually E3.3, you have arguably provided a less accurate answer than me. I have just claimed a lower precision.
Incidentally, if you are going to use numbers with discrete steps which fall exactly on 0.5 (e.g. the 0.1 steps suggested here), you should consider rounding-to-even rather than rounding-up. The rule you learn in school to round 0.5 up is neither the only rounding rule nor the 'correct' one... if you round to even then you round every other 0.5 up or down, which avoids adding an overall upwards bias to your rounding.
Or maybe we are massively overthinking this? :P
As already pointed out by several people, we could define the 'E2' grade (which is currently at least a category, not a number) as either E2.0 to E2.999...9 (where the second number is actually a number while the first is a category), or as E1.5000...1 to E2.4999...9 (and specify a rounding rule to deal with E2.5). Both are equally valid approaches, both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is 'wrong'.
Personally I think the whole thing is mad; by all means solicit higher precision numbers from people to get better grade estimates, but then average them down to a reasonable level of precision when you actually publish the guide - almost certainly not 10 distinct subgrades!
PPS as any good scientist knows, a number without error limits is meaningless. Decimal numbers are often assumed to have an implied precision from the number of decimal points e.g. E3 is +/- 1, E3.5 would be +/- 0.1, but really I would like to see E2.7 +/- 0.3 before I was happy...
Post edited at 13:43
In reply to djwilse:
Why not use Eulers equation e^(n mod 2)*i*pi=-1 (n=1,2,3,.....) then we can go round in circles.
Why not use Eulers equation e^(n mod 2)*i*pi=-1 (n=1,2,3,.....) then we can go round in circles.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I would argue they are not equally valid as the second is incorrect. E1.5000.....1 is not E2, it's E1.
> As already pointed out by several people, we could define the 'E2' grade (which is currently at least a category, not a number) as either E2.0 to E2.999...9 (where the second number is actually a number while the first is a category), or as E1.5000...1 to E2.4999...9 (and specify a rounding rule to deal with E2.5). Both are equally valid approaches, both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither is 'wrong'.
I would argue they are not equally valid as the second is incorrect. E1.5000.....1 is not E2, it's E1.
2
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Yes. Like you said in the middle of your post "E2 is a category not a number" my point was that you can't blithely go and calculate means based on the 2 in E2 like you were dealing with a number because the category is a range of numbers. If you want a number to plug into the mean calculation for someone 'voting' E2 it should be 2.5, the midpoint of the range, not 2.0.
> Or maybe we are massively overthinking this? :P
Yes. Like you said in the middle of your post "E2 is a category not a number" my point was that you can't blithely go and calculate means based on the 2 in E2 like you were dealing with a number because the category is a range of numbers. If you want a number to plug into the mean calculation for someone 'voting' E2 it should be 2.5, the midpoint of the range, not 2.0.
Post edited at 17:18
In reply to galpinos:
Why not? Just to check, you are referring to the E2 = E2.0 to E2.999(...)9 scheme?
If you round 0.50000(insert near-infinite number of zeros here)1 to a whole number, the answer is always 1, because 0.50000(...)1 > 0.5.
If you round 0.49999(insert near-infinite number of nines here)9 to a whole number, the answer is always 0, because 0.49999(...)9 < 0.5.
If you round exactly 0.5 to a whole number then you have a problem because both 0 and 1 are equally valid choices. A common choice is to always round up _BUT THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR THIS_. It is just a convenient choice. It has the disadvantage that it biases your sample to higher numbers.
Another perfectly valid choice is to round down, or to round to zero (which only makes a difference for negative numbers) so that 0.5 -> 0. Finally you can round away from zero which, for positive numbers, is the same as rounding up. You can even just round 0.5 up or down at random; all of these are equally correct (or indeed equally wrong).
Another scheme is to round to even, so 0.5>0, 1.5>2, 2.5>2, 3.5>4 etc, which avoids biasing your (uniformly distributed data) up or down. While no more 'correct' than the other schemes this property may often prove useful. You should select a rounding scheme based on your needs, not just what you were taught in school
> I would argue they are not equally valid as the second is incorrect. E1.5000.....1 is not E2, it's E1.
Why not? Just to check, you are referring to the E2 = E2.0 to E2.999(...)9 scheme?
If you round 0.50000(insert near-infinite number of zeros here)1 to a whole number, the answer is always 1, because 0.50000(...)1 > 0.5.
If you round 0.49999(insert near-infinite number of nines here)9 to a whole number, the answer is always 0, because 0.49999(...)9 < 0.5.
If you round exactly 0.5 to a whole number then you have a problem because both 0 and 1 are equally valid choices. A common choice is to always round up _BUT THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR THIS_. It is just a convenient choice. It has the disadvantage that it biases your sample to higher numbers.
Another perfectly valid choice is to round down, or to round to zero (which only makes a difference for negative numbers) so that 0.5 -> 0. Finally you can round away from zero which, for positive numbers, is the same as rounding up. You can even just round 0.5 up or down at random; all of these are equally correct (or indeed equally wrong).
Another scheme is to round to even, so 0.5>0, 1.5>2, 2.5>2, 3.5>4 etc, which avoids biasing your (uniformly distributed data) up or down. While no more 'correct' than the other schemes this property may often prove useful. You should select a rounding scheme based on your needs, not just what you were taught in school
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. E1.5 would be a mid-grade E1 so never E2. E1.9 would still be E1, albeit a hard one.
I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. E1.5 would be a mid-grade E1 so never E2. E1.9 would still be E1, albeit a hard one.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Have you got nothing better to do.
It was my system FFS. E2 was defined as E2.000 to E2.999. There was agreement and no argument in the 80's.
It worked very well as a tool for creating the graded lists which was its original purpose.
Start another system if you want.
Have you helped with any guidebooks?
Have you got nothing better to do.
It was my system FFS. E2 was defined as E2.000 to E2.999. There was agreement and no argument in the 80's.
It worked very well as a tool for creating the graded lists which was its original purpose.
Start another system if you want.
Have you helped with any guidebooks?
In reply to Michael Gordon:
It's all so subjective it's basically pub reckoning , as some guide books admit. If a route is 'your type of climbing ' it will be easy , if not , it will be hard ! The stats in the thread are correct but cannot apply to something with so much variability. This is part of the joy of climbing and something a generation of 'plastic coloured hold indoor climbers' may not understand. I quite like the +- grades as it gives the general consensus of a group ( of likely well lubricated individuals down the pub) . A grade cannot be scientific as we are all different sizes and shapes etc but gives an over all considered opinion. Winter grades are worse. Grade 5 in good nick is an easy solo, grade 3 in poor nick is a potential death route. Just go out and enjoy
It's all so subjective it's basically pub reckoning , as some guide books admit. If a route is 'your type of climbing ' it will be easy , if not , it will be hard ! The stats in the thread are correct but cannot apply to something with so much variability. This is part of the joy of climbing and something a generation of 'plastic coloured hold indoor climbers' may not understand. I quite like the +- grades as it gives the general consensus of a group ( of likely well lubricated individuals down the pub) . A grade cannot be scientific as we are all different sizes and shapes etc but gives an over all considered opinion. Winter grades are worse. Grade 5 in good nick is an easy solo, grade 3 in poor nick is a potential death route. Just go out and enjoy
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
I probably wasn't clear, I prefer your system!
I was making fairly unimportant points about rounding. Your system neatly avoids this by not requiring rounding, unlike the other system proposed in this thread.
I probably wasn't clear, I prefer your system!
I was making fairly unimportant points about rounding. Your system neatly avoids this by not requiring rounding, unlike the other system proposed in this thread.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Rereading I think you are right; I was examining the (potentially nasty) consequences of the other system. I just got a bit over-excited thinking about rounding. After 90 posts I don't think there is probably anything constructive left to post though...
Rereading I think you are right; I was examining the (potentially nasty) consequences of the other system. I just got a bit over-excited thinking about rounding. After 90 posts I don't think there is probably anything constructive left to post though...
In reply to Rick Graham:
The thing is it's so obvious and easy to use; and I think many climbers have been using the same system (to one decimal point) for decades. Thus I would say that Vector is around E2.7 and Left Wall E2.8 or even E2.9. Cenotaph Corner would probably be regarded by most people as around E1.9. The Left Unconquerable, about E1.3. Cemetery Gates (if we call HVS 'H1') somewhere between H1.8 or E1.1. Right Unconquerable about H1.8, Peapod about H1.9. (BTW, one could just as well, with tongue firmly in cheek, convert the H1 grade to the E0 grade. Then Peapod E0.9. ... OK, I can't resist temptation: 3PS, E0.8
Of course, these are not real grades – there's no such thing, written into the rock as it were – but how I found them on particular days, in particular conditions, when I was at particular levels of fitness. I imagine the consensus wouldn't be far off these, though.
> Have you got nothing better to do.
> It was my system FFS. E2 was defined as E2.000 to E2.999. There was agreement and no argument in the 80's.
> It worked very well as a tool for creating the graded lists which was its original purpose.
The thing is it's so obvious and easy to use; and I think many climbers have been using the same system (to one decimal point) for decades. Thus I would say that Vector is around E2.7 and Left Wall E2.8 or even E2.9. Cenotaph Corner would probably be regarded by most people as around E1.9. The Left Unconquerable, about E1.3. Cemetery Gates (if we call HVS 'H1') somewhere between H1.8 or E1.1. Right Unconquerable about H1.8, Peapod about H1.9. (BTW, one could just as well, with tongue firmly in cheek, convert the H1 grade to the E0 grade. Then Peapod E0.9. ... OK, I can't resist temptation: 3PS, E0.8
Of course, these are not real grades – there's no such thing, written into the rock as it were – but how I found them on particular days, in particular conditions, when I was at particular levels of fitness. I imagine the consensus wouldn't be far off these, though.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Thanks for that. Gordon and Andrew.
In 1985, I did consider if E2 went from 1.5 to 2.5 for about five seconds, soon settled on the sensible option.
I have not changed my mind since
> The thing is it's so obvious and easy to use;
Thanks for that. Gordon and Andrew.
In 1985, I did consider if E2 went from 1.5 to 2.5 for about five seconds, soon settled on the sensible option.
I have not changed my mind since
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...