This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I have a proposal: multi-pitch routes should get an adjectival grade per pitch. This would be more useful for deciding who leads which pitch than the current system of tech grade only.
e.g. Suicide Wall (E1 5c) Is pitch 3 an HVS-ish pitch or an E1-ish pitch?
Is there any reason why the norm has become tech grade but not adjectival grade? To me if I were only to get one piece of information about the pitch it would be adjectival grade.
Suicide wall 5c, S,HS,HVS,E1,VS
e.g. Suicide Wall (E1 5c) Is pitch 3 an HVS-ish pitch or an E1-ish pitch?
Is there any reason why the norm has become tech grade but not adjectival grade? To me if I were only to get one piece of information about the pitch it would be adjectival grade.
Suicide wall 5c, S,HS,HVS,E1,VS
10
7
In reply to bigbobbyking:
The more I think about it the more the British grading system is utterly hopeless. You are correct E3 5b,5c is a disaster of a grade. In the case we don't know if the route is E3 due to unprotected 5b climbing on pitch 1
Your idea might work although you might as well through a tech grade for each pitch as well
But I think that probably we need to have a more fundamental rethink of our grading
I'd start by saying use French grades for every pitch. I'd probably bin the overall adjectival grade. The like the Americans I would either describe the run outs or perhaps use a level of protection grade. I'd bin the Adjectival grade as rather than being a source of information they have become an objective in themselves and they are seen as a reward for poorly protected climbing. What you need to know is it's 5b with no protection. Calling it E3 as well adds no information but sugests a pre agreed level of achievement. But I accept that not many will agree with me
The more I think about it the more the British grading system is utterly hopeless. You are correct E3 5b,5c is a disaster of a grade. In the case we don't know if the route is E3 due to unprotected 5b climbing on pitch 1
Your idea might work although you might as well through a tech grade for each pitch as well
But I think that probably we need to have a more fundamental rethink of our grading
I'd start by saying use French grades for every pitch. I'd probably bin the overall adjectival grade. The like the Americans I would either describe the run outs or perhaps use a level of protection grade. I'd bin the Adjectival grade as rather than being a source of information they have become an objective in themselves and they are seen as a reward for poorly protected climbing. What you need to know is it's 5b with no protection. Calling it E3 as well adds no information but sugests a pre agreed level of achievement. But I accept that not many will agree with me
6
27
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Well, no. E1 5b and E4 5b can both be 5b with no gear, but a whole load of other info is contained within the adj grade.
As for the OP, yes, it's sometimes annoying that multipitch routes don't tell you how hard each pitch is, but we cope somehow.
> What you need to know is it's 5b with no protection. Calling it E3 as well adds no information but sugests a pre agreed level of achievement. But I accept that not many will agree with me
Well, no. E1 5b and E4 5b can both be 5b with no gear, but a whole load of other info is contained within the adj grade.
As for the OP, yes, it's sometimes annoying that multipitch routes don't tell you how hard each pitch is, but we cope somehow.
11
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill): Correct - I don't
The main problem with the British grading system is its misuse (which is probably the main problem with any grading system). Any 2-part grade (e.g. adj + tech, or USA 5.x + R/X etc) will potentially give more information than a 1-part grade.
With multi-pitch UK routes the idea of E3 5b,5c would give you enough info when combined with the description. E.g. the description would likely point out that the 5b was bold, unprotected, etc. However with the advent of better topo pictures/diagrams and some topo only guides this is less the case.
So I think the OP's idea to give adj + tech grades to all pitches makes good sense; i.e. E3 5b, E2 5c. The problem then comes if the overall route grade is considered harder than any individual pitch.
Would an E2 5c, E2 5b, E2 5c, E2 5b maybe be worth E3 overall because of the sustained nature of the whole climb.
No system is perfect, it's meant to be a guide to tell you whether the route is within your capabilities and whether you're likely to struggle or have an easy day out
The main problem with the British grading system is its misuse (which is probably the main problem with any grading system). Any 2-part grade (e.g. adj + tech, or USA 5.x + R/X etc) will potentially give more information than a 1-part grade.
With multi-pitch UK routes the idea of E3 5b,5c would give you enough info when combined with the description. E.g. the description would likely point out that the 5b was bold, unprotected, etc. However with the advent of better topo pictures/diagrams and some topo only guides this is less the case.
So I think the OP's idea to give adj + tech grades to all pitches makes good sense; i.e. E3 5b, E2 5c. The problem then comes if the overall route grade is considered harder than any individual pitch.
Would an E2 5c, E2 5b, E2 5c, E2 5b maybe be worth E3 overall because of the sustained nature of the whole climb.
No system is perfect, it's meant to be a guide to tell you whether the route is within your capabilities and whether you're likely to struggle or have an easy day out
8
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I would say no but mainly on the basis that the system seems to have worked perfectly adequately for several generations of climbers. The only change to it which I did think was justified was the addition of E1, E2 , E3 etc. I have never found any problems with deciding who should lead each pitch based on the current system nor have I been unable to decipher what was likely to be in store. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and certainly not in the grades the majority climb at. If those climbing the harder grades, and by this I mean above E5, have issues I see no reason why they cannot supplement the existing system without compromising what many have managed to get their heads round up till now.
Added to this you would have to introduce another grade for the whole climb.
Al
I would say no but mainly on the basis that the system seems to have worked perfectly adequately for several generations of climbers. The only change to it which I did think was justified was the addition of E1, E2 , E3 etc. I have never found any problems with deciding who should lead each pitch based on the current system nor have I been unable to decipher what was likely to be in store. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and certainly not in the grades the majority climb at. If those climbing the harder grades, and by this I mean above E5, have issues I see no reason why they cannot supplement the existing system without compromising what many have managed to get their heads round up till now.
Added to this you would have to introduce another grade for the whole climb.
Al
Post edited at 18:20
7
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Bit harsh! Like any system, UK trad has its limitations, but it still contains more information than any other. E3 5b 5c tells you quite a lot, actually, but it doesn't tell you precisely the mix of parameters that combine to make the E3 bit - of course it doesn't. No system can, not unless we want ungainly, multi-element grades that give a numerical rating to each parameter in turn: boldness, sustainedness, cruxiness, hard-to-read moves, loose rock, etc, etc. Fortunately, we also have route descriptions!
> The more I think about it the more the British grading system is utterly hopeless. You are correct E3 5b,5c is a disaster of a grade. In the case we don't know if the route is E3 due to unprotected 5b climbing on pitch 1
Bit harsh! Like any system, UK trad has its limitations, but it still contains more information than any other. E3 5b 5c tells you quite a lot, actually, but it doesn't tell you precisely the mix of parameters that combine to make the E3 bit - of course it doesn't. No system can, not unless we want ungainly, multi-element grades that give a numerical rating to each parameter in turn: boldness, sustainedness, cruxiness, hard-to-read moves, loose rock, etc, etc. Fortunately, we also have route descriptions!
5
1
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Maybe read the guidebook to get more of an idea?
Chris
> The more I think about it the more the British grading system is utterly hopeless. You are correct E3 5b,5c is a disaster of a grade. In the case we don't know if the route is E3 due to unprotected 5b climbing on pitch 1
Maybe read the guidebook to get more of an idea?
Chris
25
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I'm not sure you could do this in all places. After all the situatation and security of the belays forms part of the overall assesment of the difficulty/seriousness of a route - is it part of the pitch below or the one above ?
On balance I've never really thought the current system hasn't worked for me even when the party is not well matched in ability.
I'm not sure you could do this in all places. After all the situatation and security of the belays forms part of the overall assesment of the difficulty/seriousness of a route - is it part of the pitch below or the one above ?
On balance I've never really thought the current system hasn't worked for me even when the party is not well matched in ability.
1
In reply to Michael Hood:
Good point. Also there is enough potential for disagreement as it is without guidebook authors having to consider the consensus on trad grades for every pitch!
In practice when the crux pitch is a bold but less technical pitch, this is usually mentioned in the route description.
> The problem then comes if the overall route grade is considered harder than any individual pitch.
> Would an E2 5c, E2 5b, E2 5c, E2 5b maybe be worth E3 overall because of the sustained nature of the whole climb.
>
>
Good point. Also there is enough potential for disagreement as it is without guidebook authors having to consider the consensus on trad grades for every pitch!
In practice when the crux pitch is a bold but less technical pitch, this is usually mentioned in the route description.
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
The grass is always greener ! fundamentally we have a 2 parameter grading system that works better than some other combinations of 2 parameters for some routes and not as well on others. Overall, though, I'd say if a route is VS I'd know at a glance whether it was in my ability or not which is something I couldn't say with the YDS
The grass is always greener ! fundamentally we have a 2 parameter grading system that works better than some other combinations of 2 parameters for some routes and not as well on others. Overall, though, I'd say if a route is VS I'd know at a glance whether it was in my ability or not which is something I couldn't say with the YDS
In reply to GrahamD:
Yes, another good point
> After all the situatation and security of the belays forms part of the overall assesment of the difficulty/seriousness of a route - is it part of the pitch below or the one above ?
>
>
Yes, another good point
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I think that keeping in mind that the supposedly easier pitches on a route, may be less well protected than those on a route of a lower grade, may be a good idea.
I think that keeping in mind that the supposedly easier pitches on a route, may be less well protected than those on a route of a lower grade, may be a good idea.
4
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Personally I think it's a good idea, this of course is down to the guide books.
I think it should be something like this:
Angle's Eye - HVS 5b
Pitch1 - HVS 5b
Pitch2 - VS 4b
Pitch3 - S 4a
Why, because seeing a '4b' for the second pitch might tempt the second on pitch 1 to lead pitch 2, but maybe that climber is only used to leading HS and will find pitch 2 quite scary?
Personally I think it's a good idea, this of course is down to the guide books.
I think it should be something like this:
Angle's Eye - HVS 5b
Pitch1 - HVS 5b
Pitch2 - VS 4b
Pitch3 - S 4a
Why, because seeing a '4b' for the second pitch might tempt the second on pitch 1 to lead pitch 2, but maybe that climber is only used to leading HS and will find pitch 2 quite scary?
Post edited at 20:25
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
A couple examples of this
1. Rowland's guide to Cornwall. This puts the pitch that creates the technical pitch grade that lies be adjectival grade in bold. E.g. E2 5a, 5b. If this was an E2 5a pitch followed by an E1 5b, the 5a would be in bold. Simple.
2. My traverse of Boulder Ruckle. The guide to this has adjectival grades for all pitches, as some are easy but not best led my someone unused to the Ruckle.
I think the adjectival grade thing is fab. I did Astral Stroll down in Cornwall yesterday. This is HVS climbing in an E1 situation. The British system handles this so much better than other systems. I guess the guide book could say 5a climbing but serious. But this isn't reflective of the situation. It isn't serious, in that it is loose or run out, but you probably do need the skills of an E1 climber to do it safely. Being able to climb one technical grade harder would not help, you need all round E1 skills
> I have a proposal: multi-pitch routes should get an adjectival grade per pitch. This would be more useful for deciding who leads which pitch than the current system of tech grade only.
A couple examples of this
1. Rowland's guide to Cornwall. This puts the pitch that creates the technical pitch grade that lies be adjectival grade in bold. E.g. E2 5a, 5b. If this was an E2 5a pitch followed by an E1 5b, the 5a would be in bold. Simple.
2. My traverse of Boulder Ruckle. The guide to this has adjectival grades for all pitches, as some are easy but not best led my someone unused to the Ruckle.
I think the adjectival grade thing is fab. I did Astral Stroll down in Cornwall yesterday. This is HVS climbing in an E1 situation. The British system handles this so much better than other systems. I guess the guide book could say 5a climbing but serious. But this isn't reflective of the situation. It isn't serious, in that it is loose or run out, but you probably do need the skills of an E1 climber to do it safely. Being able to climb one technical grade harder would not help, you need all round E1 skills
In reply to David Coley: Your point 1 - the bold typeface idea - simple and effective.
Your point 2 - probably very valid for that because no-one's going to do it in one go anyway.
Your point 2 - probably very valid for that because no-one's going to do it in one go anyway.
In reply to springfall2008: See tmawer's point just above yours which answers the VS/HS bit of Angel's Eye.
In reply to David Coley:
A lot of alpine rock guidebooks use two UIAA grades, one for the physical difficulty of the climbing and one for the overall commitment level of the route combining protection, remoteness, bigness, routefinding etc.
For example the Messner on the first Sella Tower at VI-/VI+, giving a clear indication that the leader would really want to have a fair bit in hand at VI-. I'm reliably informed that it's about E2 5b, which would tally quite well. Versus the Schubert on the Ciavazes at VI/V+ - technically a bit harder, but short, well protected, obvious line, easy descent (etc).
Personally I'm with Ampthill. I'd be in favour of French grades for the climbing and American style R/X for seriousness.
A lot of alpine rock guidebooks use two UIAA grades, one for the physical difficulty of the climbing and one for the overall commitment level of the route combining protection, remoteness, bigness, routefinding etc.
For example the Messner on the first Sella Tower at VI-/VI+, giving a clear indication that the leader would really want to have a fair bit in hand at VI-. I'm reliably informed that it's about E2 5b, which would tally quite well. Versus the Schubert on the Ciavazes at VI/V+ - technically a bit harder, but short, well protected, obvious line, easy descent (etc).
Personally I'm with Ampthill. I'd be in favour of French grades for the climbing and American style R/X for seriousness.
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
I will. I've done two "E3"s. One is a poorly protected 5b slab Wipe Out (E3 5b), the other is a mildly runout sport route Goose Creature (E3 6a). Neither remotely resembles proper E3 trad climbing.
> I'd bin the Adjectival grade as rather than being a source of information they have become an objective in themselves and they are seen as a reward for poorly protected climbing. What you need to know is it's 5b with no protection. Calling it E3 as well adds no information but sugests a pre agreed level of achievement. But I accept that not many will agree with me
I will. I've done two "E3"s. One is a poorly protected 5b slab Wipe Out (E3 5b), the other is a mildly runout sport route Goose Creature (E3 6a). Neither remotely resembles proper E3 trad climbing.
In reply to springfall2008:
>Why, because seeing a '4b' for the second pitch might tempt the second on pitch 1 to lead pitch 2, but maybe that climber is only used to leading HS and will find pitch 2 quite scary?
Oh dear. Isn't rock climbing supposed to be 'quite scary'?
>Why, because seeing a '4b' for the second pitch might tempt the second on pitch 1 to lead pitch 2, but maybe that climber is only used to leading HS and will find pitch 2 quite scary?
Oh dear. Isn't rock climbing supposed to be 'quite scary'?
2
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
First of all, everyone who has travelled a fair bit KNOWS that the UK system is superior to any other in use for trad. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Having said that, I see nothing wrong in principle with extensions to the system, be they adjectival grades for each pitch or French grades for harder routes. And having said that, I don't think I've ever felt the need for pitch adjectival grades in addition to the guidebook text.
First of all, everyone who has travelled a fair bit KNOWS that the UK system is superior to any other in use for trad. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Having said that, I see nothing wrong in principle with extensions to the system, be they adjectival grades for each pitch or French grades for harder routes. And having said that, I don't think I've ever felt the need for pitch adjectival grades in addition to the guidebook text.
9
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
It can be hard enough for guidebook authors to agree on the overall grade and technical grade for a route, to then have to decide on a pitch adjectival grade as well would be a mammoth task for a mountain crag area where multi pitch is the norm, it would magnify the amount of work that volunteers would have to do while not necessarily adding any more accurate information. Grading is not an exact science, it is a dark art, there are so many variables on the rock, add in the natural variability of the human condition and you have the ideal cocktail for a lifetime of bar room discussions! This is why trad climbing is an adventure sport and, as with all routes, if you don't fancy it back off, it will still be there tomorrow.
No grading system is perfect, and there have been many attempts to refine the system, Menlove Edwards used a typically idiosyncratic system in his Cloggy guide of 1944. Ed Drummond proposed a complex grading system in the late 60's, he tried to address more of the variables than the grading system of the day (remember the top grade was Extremely Severe with the odd Exceptionally Severe in some guidebooks and technical grades were in their infancy), the unwieldy result was still-born. Details can be found at http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=434858.
Personally I find the American YDS system to be a bit unhelpful and tries to do too much with a number and a letter or two. A pitch could be (5).10a R/X and have the 10a moves off the deck then no runners on 30m of (5).3 , alternatively at the same grade it could be 30m of (5).3 with no gear then the (5).10a moves at the top - the same grade but very different experiences - I'd solo one but not the other. From my experience the R or X is independent of the technical grade, it tells you there is a serious section where falling isn't advised. In the UK we can suggest very different grades for these scenarios, VD 5b for the one with the hard start or E something 5b for the one with the hard finish, plus the magic words so carefully crafted by the guide writer will normally give you an indication of the nature of the challenge.
The key thing is to go out and have fun, after all it is only a game that we are playing.
It can be hard enough for guidebook authors to agree on the overall grade and technical grade for a route, to then have to decide on a pitch adjectival grade as well would be a mammoth task for a mountain crag area where multi pitch is the norm, it would magnify the amount of work that volunteers would have to do while not necessarily adding any more accurate information. Grading is not an exact science, it is a dark art, there are so many variables on the rock, add in the natural variability of the human condition and you have the ideal cocktail for a lifetime of bar room discussions! This is why trad climbing is an adventure sport and, as with all routes, if you don't fancy it back off, it will still be there tomorrow.
No grading system is perfect, and there have been many attempts to refine the system, Menlove Edwards used a typically idiosyncratic system in his Cloggy guide of 1944. Ed Drummond proposed a complex grading system in the late 60's, he tried to address more of the variables than the grading system of the day (remember the top grade was Extremely Severe with the odd Exceptionally Severe in some guidebooks and technical grades were in their infancy), the unwieldy result was still-born. Details can be found at http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=434858.
Personally I find the American YDS system to be a bit unhelpful and tries to do too much with a number and a letter or two. A pitch could be (5).10a R/X and have the 10a moves off the deck then no runners on 30m of (5).3 , alternatively at the same grade it could be 30m of (5).3 with no gear then the (5).10a moves at the top - the same grade but very different experiences - I'd solo one but not the other. From my experience the R or X is independent of the technical grade, it tells you there is a serious section where falling isn't advised. In the UK we can suggest very different grades for these scenarios, VD 5b for the one with the hard start or E something 5b for the one with the hard finish, plus the magic words so carefully crafted by the guide writer will normally give you an indication of the nature of the challenge.
The key thing is to go out and have fun, after all it is only a game that we are playing.
6
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I can honestly say that in 35 years of using the British grading system it has caused me feck all problems. The U.K. Trad grade plus a guidebook (the usual pairing) plus a modicum of common sense ( clearly less common) gives great flexibility and usually more than adequate information.
I can honestly say that in 35 years of using the British grading system it has caused me feck all problems. The U.K. Trad grade plus a guidebook (the usual pairing) plus a modicum of common sense ( clearly less common) gives great flexibility and usually more than adequate information.
12
In reply to bigbobbyking:
the route (swr1) is E2 5c. Simple. The grades of E2 and 5c are typically tied, so it's neither an easier E2 5b without protection, or a well protected E2 6a.
The pitch that is 5a, it's clearly easier than the crux and should present no problems to the 5c leader. If there is anything unusual about it, like no gear/run out, it would be referenced in the description, even then as a stand alone pitch it would be graded e1 5a, which should present no problems to a E2 5c leader.
The combination of E2 5c, and a pitch by pitch description has to be sufficient. If not then that's probably an indication to look for something easier or more straight forward. Route descriptions, diagrams, topos and books have changed massively, people survived these routes for decades, when in many cases a route description might just say "XS, take a obvious crack above and follow the natural line to the top. Limited gear "
> e.g. Suicide Wall (E1 5c) Is pitch 3 an HVS-ish pitch or an E1-ish pitch?
the route (swr1) is E2 5c. Simple. The grades of E2 and 5c are typically tied, so it's neither an easier E2 5b without protection, or a well protected E2 6a.
The pitch that is 5a, it's clearly easier than the crux and should present no problems to the 5c leader. If there is anything unusual about it, like no gear/run out, it would be referenced in the description, even then as a stand alone pitch it would be graded e1 5a, which should present no problems to a E2 5c leader.
The combination of E2 5c, and a pitch by pitch description has to be sufficient. If not then that's probably an indication to look for something easier or more straight forward. Route descriptions, diagrams, topos and books have changed massively, people survived these routes for decades, when in many cases a route description might just say "XS, take a obvious crack above and follow the natural line to the top. Limited gear "
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Point about the belays is being a major part of the route is good - I hadn't thought of that. To those who say the guide book description will make it obvious: I still don't agree. Using my example of suicide wall again here is the description of pitch 3:
"3) 5a, 15m. Follow flakes leftwards across the wall above the Pedestal and move up to a wide break and good cams. Traverse the break left a short way until it is possible to gain a small ledge and belay below a smooth groove."
So nothing to suggest an E1 leader will find anything untoward, but an HVS leader?
Clearly no grading system will be able to capture the full range of variation in every pitch. I just don't see why we've settled on giving a technical grade per pitch but not adjectival. All the arguments deployed against the adjectival grade per pitch could equally be used against the tech grade per pitch.
Point about the belays is being a major part of the route is good - I hadn't thought of that. To those who say the guide book description will make it obvious: I still don't agree. Using my example of suicide wall again here is the description of pitch 3:
"3) 5a, 15m. Follow flakes leftwards across the wall above the Pedestal and move up to a wide break and good cams. Traverse the break left a short way until it is possible to gain a small ledge and belay below a smooth groove."
So nothing to suggest an E1 leader will find anything untoward, but an HVS leader?
Clearly no grading system will be able to capture the full range of variation in every pitch. I just don't see why we've settled on giving a technical grade per pitch but not adjectival. All the arguments deployed against the adjectival grade per pitch could equally be used against the tech grade per pitch.
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Will you be giving up your day job so that you can do all the work needed for this across the UK?
I think essentially you always need to use your judgement. The more detail you add, the greater the risk that you add precision at the expense of accuracy.
> I have a proposal: multi-pitch routes should get an adjectival grade per pitch.
Will you be giving up your day job so that you can do all the work needed for this across the UK?
I think essentially you always need to use your judgement. The more detail you add, the greater the risk that you add precision at the expense of accuracy.
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
It's pretty clear an HVS leader will be fine isn't it?
1. The overall grade of the route is E1. It's clearly long (5 pitches as described here) and it includes a 5c pitch described as 'very hard, but well-protected'. If any of the other pitches were 5b or a handful for 5a, the overall grade would probably be E2. The chances are that a 5a pitch will be steady at HVS.
2. The description for pitch 3 includes 'flakes', 'wide break', 'good cams'. The traverse is described as short. Does that imply it's going to be bold or poorly protected for leader or second? There is a clue that you need 'to gain a small ledge', so if you have a particular phobia of mantelshelves you might want to bear that in mind.
3. Finally, you can always look at it when you get there. If you don't fancy leading it, presumably you both reckon you can get up a 5c pitch so nobody's going to have too much of an epic seconding 5a even if does include a short traverse.
Guidebook writers are generally kind and considerate souls who will drop pretty heavy hints if there's something out of the ordinary you should be aware of. If you see 'all parties should be competent at the grade' or ' take care to protect the traverse' or 'sustained interest' you have been warned!
> "3) 5a, 15m. Follow flakes leftwards across the wall above the Pedestal and move up to a wide break and good cams. Traverse the break left a short way until it is possible to gain a small ledge and belay below a smooth groove."
> So nothing to suggest an E1 leader will find anything untoward, but an HVS leader?
It's pretty clear an HVS leader will be fine isn't it?
1. The overall grade of the route is E1. It's clearly long (5 pitches as described here) and it includes a 5c pitch described as 'very hard, but well-protected'. If any of the other pitches were 5b or a handful for 5a, the overall grade would probably be E2. The chances are that a 5a pitch will be steady at HVS.
2. The description for pitch 3 includes 'flakes', 'wide break', 'good cams'. The traverse is described as short. Does that imply it's going to be bold or poorly protected for leader or second? There is a clue that you need 'to gain a small ledge', so if you have a particular phobia of mantelshelves you might want to bear that in mind.
3. Finally, you can always look at it when you get there. If you don't fancy leading it, presumably you both reckon you can get up a 5c pitch so nobody's going to have too much of an epic seconding 5a even if does include a short traverse.
Guidebook writers are generally kind and considerate souls who will drop pretty heavy hints if there's something out of the ordinary you should be aware of. If you see 'all parties should be competent at the grade' or ' take care to protect the traverse' or 'sustained interest' you have been warned!
Post edited at 10:10
3
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I don't see any harm in fully grading each pitch but for the extra work required. Then again I've coped with the existing system for years by simply using the text, my eyes and experience, sometimes leading pitches on routes that carry a headline grade way out of my league when they look reasonable. As best I can recall it's not gone wrong yet.
jk
I don't see any harm in fully grading each pitch but for the extra work required. Then again I've coped with the existing system for years by simply using the text, my eyes and experience, sometimes leading pitches on routes that carry a headline grade way out of my league when they look reasonable. As best I can recall it's not gone wrong yet.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
The number of routes where the current system is weak is very small, so changing all routes to help with very few seems unnecessary. That said, whenever we do a big-wall free route we always give adjectival pitch grades as well as technical ones, as it just seems to make more sense thinking about a long route being a succession of single pitch routes, each graded accordingly. I'm never a fan of trying to encode grade information in text - particularly when it's likely to be used by non-English native speakers, so a good compromise may be to parenthesize any particular pitch grades that are likely to be very different to what you would expect from the technical grade. E.g. My Route E5 5a, 5c, (E4)6a
The number of routes where the current system is weak is very small, so changing all routes to help with very few seems unnecessary. That said, whenever we do a big-wall free route we always give adjectival pitch grades as well as technical ones, as it just seems to make more sense thinking about a long route being a succession of single pitch routes, each graded accordingly. I'm never a fan of trying to encode grade information in text - particularly when it's likely to be used by non-English native speakers, so a good compromise may be to parenthesize any particular pitch grades that are likely to be very different to what you would expect from the technical grade. E.g. My Route E5 5a, 5c, (E4)6a
4
In reply to john arran: Or as someone above suggested, to typeface the 5c in bold to indicate that the E5 comes from that pitch - I'm presuming it's from that pitch and that the 5a pitch is not E5 5a death on a stick
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Why stop at multipitch routes ?
Elergy (Roaches) is E2 5c, but the 5c bit is E1 (well protected traverse) and the E2 bit is only 5b (runout slab). So you could say that our grading system is rubbish because it doesn't cope with such anomalies.
Or you could lower your expectations of the grading system, and accept it is merely an approximation, a brief indicator, a best guess. There are far too many factors in play for it to be anything more.
For further reading, search for threads on Three Pebble Slab !
Why stop at multipitch routes ?
Elergy (Roaches) is E2 5c, but the 5c bit is E1 (well protected traverse) and the E2 bit is only 5b (runout slab). So you could say that our grading system is rubbish because it doesn't cope with such anomalies.
Or you could lower your expectations of the grading system, and accept it is merely an approximation, a brief indicator, a best guess. There are far too many factors in play for it to be anything more.
For further reading, search for threads on Three Pebble Slab !
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
That sentence does not say; committing, bold, technical, sustained, awkward, or anything about the line being hard follow, so I would just presume standard 5a.
It even says 'good cams' which would provide some assurance that if you were swinging leads, the weaker party would be ok, as long as they were a regular 5a leader.
I find 99% of books well written, with plenty of clues in the descriptive language, try using a French guide, I've had some that have less words for 6 or 7 pitches than your example for just 1 pitch in a UK guide.
> "3) 5a, 15m. Follow flakes leftwards across the wall above the Pedestal and move up to a wide break and good cams. Traverse the break left a short way until it is possible to gain a small ledge and belay below a smooth groove."
> So nothing to suggest an E1 leader will find anything untoward, but an HVS leader?
> So nothing to suggest an E1 leader will find anything untoward, but an HVS leader?
That sentence does not say; committing, bold, technical, sustained, awkward, or anything about the line being hard follow, so I would just presume standard 5a.
It even says 'good cams' which would provide some assurance that if you were swinging leads, the weaker party would be ok, as long as they were a regular 5a leader.
I find 99% of books well written, with plenty of clues in the descriptive language, try using a French guide, I've had some that have less words for 6 or 7 pitches than your example for just 1 pitch in a UK guide.
Post edited at 10:48
In reply to tmawer:
Exactly. Going back to the example given, an E3 5b 5c, anyone with a modicum of experience at trad should know that it's very possible that the 5b pitch is bold. If the party includes a climber who can't cope with bold moves at 5b, and the guidebook description doesn't reassure on this point, then perhaps it's not such a good choice of route for that party. Expecting the grade alone to supply that depth of information is completely unrealistic.
> I think that keeping in mind that the supposedly easier pitches on a route, may be less well protected than those on a route of a lower grade, may be a good idea.
Exactly. Going back to the example given, an E3 5b 5c, anyone with a modicum of experience at trad should know that it's very possible that the 5b pitch is bold. If the party includes a climber who can't cope with bold moves at 5b, and the guidebook description doesn't reassure on this point, then perhaps it's not such a good choice of route for that party. Expecting the grade alone to supply that depth of information is completely unrealistic.
2
In reply to Chris the Tall: Got to disagree with you here; on Elegy (no "r" in it) I think the 5c bit is only worth HVS (or maybe E0 at a push)
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Chop routes/pitches gather reputation, as do sandbags. Your quest parallels a motive that many of us feel at times, but there is enough info circulating between topos, UKC logs, this forum and others ... and discussion is a sociable plus. And as we all know tech grades are subjective according to reach/flexibility etc
If it were all completely defined there would certainly be less adventure. I frequently encounter anomalies despite 'best' research but they rarely block success - more often make for a good yarn later in the pub.
Chop routes/pitches gather reputation, as do sandbags. Your quest parallels a motive that many of us feel at times, but there is enough info circulating between topos, UKC logs, this forum and others ... and discussion is a sociable plus. And as we all know tech grades are subjective according to reach/flexibility etc
If it were all completely defined there would certainly be less adventure. I frequently encounter anomalies despite 'best' research but they rarely block success - more often make for a good yarn later in the pub.
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I always thought the tiered system was there to add a sense of adventure? The grade works fine for me. I spend a lot of time fishing for info beforehand...a process I deeply enjoy. Route descriptions, in several editions, online votes on UKC, discussions with other who did it...and also love of the unknown. I will occasionally seek routes who have never been done by anyone I know on purpose! Proper adventures.
So for me, no point in changing it if it ain't broken.
I do see your point of view and agree there is probably something in it but I disagree with you on wanting to change it.
I always thought the tiered system was there to add a sense of adventure? The grade works fine for me. I spend a lot of time fishing for info beforehand...a process I deeply enjoy. Route descriptions, in several editions, online votes on UKC, discussions with other who did it...and also love of the unknown. I will occasionally seek routes who have never been done by anyone I know on purpose! Proper adventures.
So for me, no point in changing it if it ain't broken.
I do see your point of view and agree there is probably something in it but I disagree with you on wanting to change it.
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Just to add to the confusion, sometimes the overall route grade is harder than that of the hardest pitch. Generally it's only on long routes with several hard pitches, so more commonly overseas on bigger crags. A good example is The Scoop; the hardest pitches are E6 in isolation but the chances of onsight success of the whole route for a typical E6 leader would be minimal, so how can it still be E6? I used to think the same for Naked Edge in Eldorado many years ago; with 3 or 4 contrasting E4 pitches it seemed much more like an E5 outing. I'm guessing that something like The Quarryman might be in the same category too, as the possibility of anyone onsighting the whole route seems very much more remote than that of anyone doing pitches in isolation, which by definition would mean it's harder.
Just to add to the confusion, sometimes the overall route grade is harder than that of the hardest pitch. Generally it's only on long routes with several hard pitches, so more commonly overseas on bigger crags. A good example is The Scoop; the hardest pitches are E6 in isolation but the chances of onsight success of the whole route for a typical E6 leader would be minimal, so how can it still be E6? I used to think the same for Naked Edge in Eldorado many years ago; with 3 or 4 contrasting E4 pitches it seemed much more like an E5 outing. I'm guessing that something like The Quarryman might be in the same category too, as the possibility of anyone onsighting the whole route seems very much more remote than that of anyone doing pitches in isolation, which by definition would mean it's harder.
2
In reply to john arran:
I've occasionally wondered whether the adoption of an alpine-type overall grade - ie ED1,2,3,etc/ED-,ED,ED+,ABO-,etc - would work on these longer routes, with each pitch getting a full UK adj+tech grade; although I'm possibly thinking more of the sort of stuff you've done in Venezuela and long routes in various parts of Africa than further confusing things here in the UK! But maybe it could work on the longer routes in Scotland. To be of much use it would need to correlate with how such grades are already used on alpine rock routes and in The Dolomites, and I've no idea how consistently these are applied.
I've occasionally wondered whether the adoption of an alpine-type overall grade - ie ED1,2,3,etc/ED-,ED,ED+,ABO-,etc - would work on these longer routes, with each pitch getting a full UK adj+tech grade; although I'm possibly thinking more of the sort of stuff you've done in Venezuela and long routes in various parts of Africa than further confusing things here in the UK! But maybe it could work on the longer routes in Scotland. To be of much use it would need to correlate with how such grades are already used on alpine rock routes and in The Dolomites, and I've no idea how consistently these are applied.
In reply to bpmclimb:
I disagree. The route is probably getting it's E3 grade for the 5c pitch, not the 5b pitch - E3 5c is more or less solid mid ground E3 - so the 5b pitch could be anything from HVS to E2, or E3 because its bold?
Multi-pitch routes are graded for the hardest pitch(s) and IMHO the UK system is as good as it gets - it's positively forensic in detail compared to the YDS system, which even after hundreds of routes over the years, can still baffle me to distraction
> Exactly. Going back to the example given, an E3 5b 5c, anyone with a modicum of experience at trad should know that it's very possible that the 5b pitch is bold. If the party includes a climber who can't cope with bold moves at 5b, and the guidebook description doesn't reassure on this point, then perhaps it's not such a good choice of route for that party. Expecting the grade alone to supply that depth of information is completely unrealistic.
I disagree. The route is probably getting it's E3 grade for the 5c pitch, not the 5b pitch - E3 5c is more or less solid mid ground E3 - so the 5b pitch could be anything from HVS to E2, or E3 because its bold?
Multi-pitch routes are graded for the hardest pitch(s) and IMHO the UK system is as good as it gets - it's positively forensic in detail compared to the YDS system, which even after hundreds of routes over the years, can still baffle me to distraction
1
In reply to summo:
Your reply reads as if you've missed OP's point about choosing who leads which pitch. A 5a tech grade could conceivably range from VS to E2 and should arguably pose no challenge to that E2 5c leader in any case. That climber probably doesn't have any need for more information.
However, mixed ability partnerships are quite common (arguably every partnership is mixed ability because no two people are identical) so the weaker partner might well be unable to decide whether the 5a pitch was within their ability or not. If I was eyeing up that route as the weaker climber, I might like to establish whether or not swinging leads is a good idea and adjectival grades for each pitch (or perhaps just the more ambiguous ones) might help that decision. I don't think that's an indication that the partnership is choosing an over-ambitious route, lots of people are perfectly capable of competently seconding far tougher pitches than they would ever consider leading.
I think it's a great idea and I'd love to see it gradually appear in guidebooks. Your point about route descriptions being much more sparse in the distant past is valid but I don't think it should be used as an argument to restrict information today. You could argue that we don't need guidebooks at all because somebody made the first ascent with no information but most people appreciate having a bit more to go on.
Your reply reads as if you've missed OP's point about choosing who leads which pitch. A 5a tech grade could conceivably range from VS to E2 and should arguably pose no challenge to that E2 5c leader in any case. That climber probably doesn't have any need for more information.
However, mixed ability partnerships are quite common (arguably every partnership is mixed ability because no two people are identical) so the weaker partner might well be unable to decide whether the 5a pitch was within their ability or not. If I was eyeing up that route as the weaker climber, I might like to establish whether or not swinging leads is a good idea and adjectival grades for each pitch (or perhaps just the more ambiguous ones) might help that decision. I don't think that's an indication that the partnership is choosing an over-ambitious route, lots of people are perfectly capable of competently seconding far tougher pitches than they would ever consider leading.
I think it's a great idea and I'd love to see it gradually appear in guidebooks. Your point about route descriptions being much more sparse in the distant past is valid but I don't think it should be used as an argument to restrict information today. You could argue that we don't need guidebooks at all because somebody made the first ascent with no information but most people appreciate having a bit more to go on.
In reply to Luke90:
I'd have thoughts about swinging leads on a 5a was the least of the worries for a mixed ability group - having to follow the 5c crux traverse would be the bigger concern. Point being is that if a non E2 climber is on an E2 there are loads of judgement calls the team has to be prepared to make and giving the misleading impression that they are actually on a mini embedded VS is potentially dangerous.
I'd have thoughts about swinging leads on a 5a was the least of the worries for a mixed ability group - having to follow the 5c crux traverse would be the bigger concern. Point being is that if a non E2 climber is on an E2 there are loads of judgement calls the team has to be prepared to make and giving the misleading impression that they are actually on a mini embedded VS is potentially dangerous.
2
In reply to Luke90: The actual route in question (Suicide Wall) is probably not a good example for this argument since the 5a pitch can be pretty well seen from the pedestal belay and you would be able to see whether you fancied it or not. It's got gear and the wide horizontal crack eats friends so is easy enough to bail from. The only bit you can't tell is that (apparently - I bailed before I got there cause it was wet) the belay is not great.
Personally, I think I'd try and run the 5a & 5c pitches together to avoid any possibility of a factor 2 fall.
Personally, I think I'd try and run the 5a & 5c pitches together to avoid any possibility of a factor 2 fall.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
You and Michael both raise valid points about Suicide Wall being a less than ideal example. I climbed it a few years ago but don't remember it very well. Or, rather, my clearest memories are of the mantel onto the questionable belay and beginning the following pitch and I can't recall much about the rest of the climbing. Though I did think it was E1 rather than E2.
In any case, I didn't choose it as an example, just continued to use it since it was already under discussion.
I don't think per-pitch adjectival grades would lead to dangerous misunderstandings, any more than having big multi-pitch mountain routes graded V-Diff. Anyone sufficiently experienced to consider them will probably understand that the requirements aren't quite the same as a single pitch V-Diff at Stanage. Some idiots might occasionally not appreciate that but that's the nature of climbing. We can't completely remove the risk of misinterpretation.
I do think it's possible for a team, together, to have enough ability and experience to safely tackle, for example, an HVS multi-pitch whilst one of the team members might only be happy to lead up to maybe HS. In that fairly common case, I think per-pitch adjectival grades would help the team to sometimes choose pitches for the weaker member to lead. Obviously, that person would still require some skills and experience that are specific to multi-pitch and a more serious situation but the extra grading info would assist the team's decision making.
You and Michael both raise valid points about Suicide Wall being a less than ideal example. I climbed it a few years ago but don't remember it very well. Or, rather, my clearest memories are of the mantel onto the questionable belay and beginning the following pitch and I can't recall much about the rest of the climbing. Though I did think it was E1 rather than E2.
In any case, I didn't choose it as an example, just continued to use it since it was already under discussion.
I don't think per-pitch adjectival grades would lead to dangerous misunderstandings, any more than having big multi-pitch mountain routes graded V-Diff. Anyone sufficiently experienced to consider them will probably understand that the requirements aren't quite the same as a single pitch V-Diff at Stanage. Some idiots might occasionally not appreciate that but that's the nature of climbing. We can't completely remove the risk of misinterpretation.
I do think it's possible for a team, together, to have enough ability and experience to safely tackle, for example, an HVS multi-pitch whilst one of the team members might only be happy to lead up to maybe HS. In that fairly common case, I think per-pitch adjectival grades would help the team to sometimes choose pitches for the weaker member to lead. Obviously, that person would still require some skills and experience that are specific to multi-pitch and a more serious situation but the extra grading info would assist the team's decision making.
In reply to aln:
I don't think it's meant to be scary, that's more of a personal thing, some people like to be scared and some don't. If you are a confident leader in that grade then I don't think you should be scared so much?
I don't think it's meant to be scary, that's more of a personal thing, some people like to be scared and some don't. If you are a confident leader in that grade then I don't think you should be scared so much?
In reply to cathsullivan:
If the UK climbing web site had grade voting button per pitch then it would be easy to gather this info...?
If the UK climbing web site had grade voting button per pitch then it would be easy to gather this info...?
1
1
In reply to springfall2008:
Dear god no
> If the UK climbing web site had grade voting button per pitch then it would be easy to gather this info...?
Dear god no
3
In reply to bigbobbyking:
In my v humble opinion there has always been too much talk about grades. They've always been various heaps of bollocks, at most moderately useful, never to be taken too seriously. What baffles me is why it was never much of a problem in 'the old days' (e.g late 60s), and we never talked about them very much (we'd talk about technical grades much more than adjectival). Why was it never much of a subject? I don't know. I guess we really were more interested in the climbs than in tick lists.
In my v humble opinion there has always been too much talk about grades. They've always been various heaps of bollocks, at most moderately useful, never to be taken too seriously. What baffles me is why it was never much of a problem in 'the old days' (e.g late 60s), and we never talked about them very much (we'd talk about technical grades much more than adjectival). Why was it never much of a subject? I don't know. I guess we really were more interested in the climbs than in tick lists.
Post edited at 00:12
3
3
In reply to Trevor Langhorne:
I've seen climbs (say in the Adirondacks) graded like: 5.10a (5.6R, 5.2X). This lets me know the 5.10 climbing is well protected, there is run-out climbing at 5.6 and below, and long unprotectable sections at 5.2 and below.
So, climb 1 you list would be 5.10a (5.3X) (or, depending on how much unprotected 10a off the deck, maybe 5.10a R (5.3X)), while the second would be 5.10a X.
> Personally I find the American YDS system to be a bit unhelpful and tries to do too much with a number and a letter or two. A pitch could be (5).10a R/X and have the 10a moves off the deck then no runners on 30m of (5).3 , alternatively at the same grade it could be 30m of (5).3 with no gear then the (5).10a moves at the top - the same grade but very different experiences - I'd solo one but not the other. From my experience the R or X is independent of the technical grade, it tells you there is a serious section where falling isn't advised. In the UK we can suggest very different grades for these scenarios, VD 5b for the one with the hard start or E something 5b for the one with the hard finish, plus the magic words so carefully crafted by the guide writer will normally give you an indication of the nature of the challenge.
I've seen climbs (say in the Adirondacks) graded like: 5.10a (5.6R, 5.2X). This lets me know the 5.10 climbing is well protected, there is run-out climbing at 5.6 and below, and long unprotectable sections at 5.2 and below.
So, climb 1 you list would be 5.10a (5.3X) (or, depending on how much unprotected 10a off the deck, maybe 5.10a R (5.3X)), while the second would be 5.10a X.
1
In reply to dagibbs:
Also seen quite often the topos (drawings) actually pointing out how hard certain section of a pitch is and also if it is bold (R) or really bold (X). This is something that I've never seen on UK guidebooks.
> I've seen climbs (say in the Adirondacks) graded like: 5.10a (5.6R, 5.2X). This lets me know the 5.10 climbing is well protected, there is run-out climbing at 5.6 and below, and long unprotectable sections at 5.2 and below.
> So, climb 1 you list would be 5.10a (5.3X) (or, depending on how much unprotected 10a off the deck, maybe 5.10a R (5.3X)), while the second would be 5.10a X.
Also seen quite often the topos (drawings) actually pointing out how hard certain section of a pitch is and also if it is bold (R) or really bold (X). This is something that I've never seen on UK guidebooks.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: A reflection of changes in western society I'm afraid; i.e. more consumerist & sound bites.
1
In reply to Luke90:
I'd agree that the combination of HVS climber and HS climber would not be that uncommon nor would it be uncommon for the HS leader to want to lead a pitch. What I would dispute is that the lack of pitch grades prevents them from doing that. The information is usually there either by reading the guide or by looking at the route. IE it forces the team to make their own decisions bearing in mind that they are, when all said and done, on an HVS and not a HS
> I do think it's possible for a team, together, to have enough ability and experience to safely tackle, for example, an HVS multi-pitch whilst one of the team members might only be happy to lead up to maybe HS. In that fairly common case, I think per-pitch adjectival grades would help the team to sometimes choose pitches for the weaker member to lead. Obviously, that person would still require some skills and experience that are specific to multi-pitch and a more serious situation but the extra grading info would assist the team's decision making.
I'd agree that the combination of HVS climber and HS climber would not be that uncommon nor would it be uncommon for the HS leader to want to lead a pitch. What I would dispute is that the lack of pitch grades prevents them from doing that. The information is usually there either by reading the guide or by looking at the route. IE it forces the team to make their own decisions bearing in mind that they are, when all said and done, on an HVS and not a HS
3
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Grades are primarily there to give an indication of how likely you are to get up a route in good order. That is what this thread is about - nothing to do with tick lists at all. What is wrong with that?
Of course the UK adjectival grade is, as far as I am aware, the only grade used which reflects the overall challenge of a trad climb and is therefore a fair measure of kudos for the onsight as well for those bothered about that sort of thing.
> In my v humble opinion there has always been too much talk about grades.............. I guess we really were more interested in the climbs than in tick lists.
Grades are primarily there to give an indication of how likely you are to get up a route in good order. That is what this thread is about - nothing to do with tick lists at all. What is wrong with that?
Of course the UK adjectival grade is, as far as I am aware, the only grade used which reflects the overall challenge of a trad climb and is therefore a fair measure of kudos for the onsight as well for those bothered about that sort of thing.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I agree that the combination of a tech grade, description and observation might often be enough to ascertain quite a bit of information but surely if you're arguing that's enough to judge a particular pitch then it should also be enough to judge a single-pitch climb and therefore guide books don't really need adjectival grades at all. We could just make do with tech grades and route descriptions for everything. Which, I suppose, we could but I'm sure the adjectival grades would be sorely missed. That's my point really. Per-pitch adjectival grades definitely aren't necessary or essential, otherwise they'd have been widely used before now. They just might be a helpful additional piece of information that we could, and did, cope without but would be missed if we were used to them and then lost them.
I agree that the combination of a tech grade, description and observation might often be enough to ascertain quite a bit of information but surely if you're arguing that's enough to judge a particular pitch then it should also be enough to judge a single-pitch climb and therefore guide books don't really need adjectival grades at all. We could just make do with tech grades and route descriptions for everything. Which, I suppose, we could but I'm sure the adjectival grades would be sorely missed. That's my point really. Per-pitch adjectival grades definitely aren't necessary or essential, otherwise they'd have been widely used before now. They just might be a helpful additional piece of information that we could, and did, cope without but would be missed if we were used to them and then lost them.
2
First of all thanks to everyone who disagreed with me. No one has been rude to me an achievement on the Internet
In reply to summo:
> the route (swr1) is E2 5c. Simple. The grades of E2 and 5c are typically tied, so it's neither an easier E2 5b without protection, or a well protected E2 6a.
But this statement is incorrect isn't it. E2 5b can be really well protected or not. It might be alot of hard to sequence 5b moves with good gear.
E2 5c might be a 5c move to get off the ground or by a runner. But it doesn't mean the route doesn't contain less well protected 5b climbing or badly protected 5a climbing
I think worse than the current grading system is the way that it is described to people as E1 6a means well protected. I suppose they might notice before they set up Incursion direct at Stanage that this isn't true but it illustrates the point
Would it be better if we used technical grades which reflected the technical difficulty of the whole pitch rather just the hardest moves. I mean of course French grades. The loss of UK adjectival grades would have the benefit of 6a meaning one less thing within UK grading
In reply to bigbobbyking:
I haven't read the whole thread, but the current system works just fine for me. An overall grade with individual tech grades, along with a guidebook description tells me all I need to know whilst keeping some sense of adventure and unknown - perfect.
I haven't read the whole thread, but the current system works just fine for me. An overall grade with individual tech grades, along with a guidebook description tells me all I need to know whilst keeping some sense of adventure and unknown - perfect.
1
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Whilst you are correct, it doesn't discount the OP's point in anyway if it did what's the point in grades in the first place. Sure some common sense needs to be applied however the information would be useful. Personally I would find an adj grade per pitch useful for some routes in Scotland. For example as a VS/HVS leader (hard or very bold HVS might be too much for me even on a good day) can I swing leads on the needle on the shelter stone with an E1 leader?
Whilst you are correct, it doesn't discount the OP's point in anyway if it did what's the point in grades in the first place. Sure some common sense needs to be applied however the information would be useful. Personally I would find an adj grade per pitch useful for some routes in Scotland. For example as a VS/HVS leader (hard or very bold HVS might be too much for me even on a good day) can I swing leads on the needle on the shelter stone with an E1 leader?
Post edited at 18:19
In reply to Goucho:
I agree with all that; so I'm not sure what it is that you disagree with ... ??
> I disagree. The route is probably getting it's E3 grade for the 5c pitch, not the 5b pitch - E3 5c is more or less solid mid ground E3 - so the 5b pitch could be anything from HVS to E2, or E3 because its bold?
> Multi-pitch routes are graded for the hardest pitch(s) and IMHO the UK system is as good as it gets - it's positively forensic in detail compared to the YDS system, which even after hundreds of routes over the years, can still baffle me to distraction
I agree with all that; so I'm not sure what it is that you disagree with ... ??
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Yes. And if you are feeling good the Needle Crack has to be one of the best HVS pitches out there.
> For example as a VS/HVS leader (hard or very bold HVS might be too much for me even on a good day) can I swing leads on the needle on the shelter stone with an E1 leader?
Yes. And if you are feeling good the Needle Crack has to be one of the best HVS pitches out there.
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Yes, it typically means a boulder problem start on a single pitch route where hopefully you look up to view the rest of the pitch before commencing...
>
> I think worse than the current grading system is the way that it is described to people as E1 6a means well protected.
> I think worse than the current grading system is the way that it is described to people as E1 6a means well protected.
Yes, it typically means a boulder problem start on a single pitch route where hopefully you look up to view the rest of the pitch before commencing...
In reply to Michael Hood:
Nah, the factor 2 fall is fine. Survivable, anyway. Well, on one occasion, I was belaying and we didn't both die.
> Personally, I think I'd try and run the 5a & 5c pitches together to avoid any possibility of a factor 2 fall.
Nah, the factor 2 fall is fine. Survivable, anyway. Well, on one occasion, I was belaying and we didn't both die.
In reply to Luke90:
Which is fine, although sometimes I do feel like just as there is (correctly) an upgrading of hard routes (i.e. E2, E2, E2, E1 might get E3 overall) there is sometimes a downgrading of easy routes - a route that is D, D, VD, S 4a, VD, S 4b (avoidable), D, D might get VD when it is actually at least S 4a if not S 4b for the one-move wonder in the middle of a 150m route. It can be easy to miss a 4a move (i.e. not VD) in a sea of 3b/3c...
If any individual pitch would get harder than VD if it was a single pitch then the whole route must get harder than VD. The adjectival grade should be the minimum of the pitch grades at the very least!
> I don't think per-pitch adjectival grades would lead to dangerous misunderstandings, any more than having big multi-pitch mountain routes graded V-Diff. Anyone sufficiently experienced to consider them will probably understand that the requirements aren't quite the same as a single pitch V-Diff at Stanage.
Which is fine, although sometimes I do feel like just as there is (correctly) an upgrading of hard routes (i.e. E2, E2, E2, E1 might get E3 overall) there is sometimes a downgrading of easy routes - a route that is D, D, VD, S 4a, VD, S 4b (avoidable), D, D might get VD when it is actually at least S 4a if not S 4b for the one-move wonder in the middle of a 150m route. It can be easy to miss a 4a move (i.e. not VD) in a sea of 3b/3c...
If any individual pitch would get harder than VD if it was a single pitch then the whole route must get harder than VD. The adjectival grade should be the minimum of the pitch grades at the very least!
1
1
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
The great strength of the UK system is the adjectival grade - it reflects the overall challenge of the climb )and therefore of kudos earned); a well rounded climber should be able to onsight pretty much any route of a particular grade and less well rounded climbers can adjust up or down to reflect their strengths or weaknesses.
Replacing the UK tech grade with a French grade would work ok for me. The adjectival grade is the baby and the tech grade is the bath water. A French grade alone is daft for trad.
> Would it be better if we used technical grades which reflected the technical difficulty of the whole pitch rather just the hardest moves. I mean of course French grades. The loss of UK adjectival grades would have the benefit of 6a meaning one less thing within UK grading.
The great strength of the UK system is the adjectival grade - it reflects the overall challenge of the climb )and therefore of kudos earned); a well rounded climber should be able to onsight pretty much any route of a particular grade and less well rounded climbers can adjust up or down to reflect their strengths or weaknesses.
Replacing the UK tech grade with a French grade would work ok for me. The adjectival grade is the baby and the tech grade is the bath water. A French grade alone is daft for trad.
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
The great strength of the U.K. System is the interplay between the tech grade and the adjectival grade. Like it or not moves have technical difficulty and sport grades only work if the route is homogenous not cruxy like so many trad routes
I do however have a handy system based on the tech grade for converting to sport!
The great strength of the U.K. System is the interplay between the tech grade and the adjectival grade. Like it or not moves have technical difficulty and sport grades only work if the route is homogenous not cruxy like so many trad routes
I do however have a handy system based on the tech grade for converting to sport!
2
In reply to Bulls Crack:
True, French works better for some routes and UK tech better for others. I'd have no objection to whichever is more useful for a route or both.
> The great strength of the U.K. System is the interplay between the tech grade and the adjectival grade. Like it or not moves have technical difficulty and sport grades only work if the route is homogenous not cruxy like so many trad routes.
True, French works better for some routes and UK tech better for others. I'd have no objection to whichever is more useful for a route or both.
1
In reply to Bulls Crack:
+1
Between them they tell you an awful lot about what you're likely to encounter (plus reading the description of course).
> The great strength of the U.K. System is the interplay between the tech grade and the adjectival grade.
+1
Between them they tell you an awful lot about what you're likely to encounter (plus reading the description of course).
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
I think UK tech works just as well (great!) on homogeneous routes. Provided you know if it's e.g. pumpy and well protected or bold and slabby (which the french grade wouldn't tell you anyway) then E2 5b, E3 5c etc tell you pretty much what the route will be like.
I think UK tech works just as well (great!) on homogeneous routes. Provided you know if it's e.g. pumpy and well protected or bold and slabby (which the french grade wouldn't tell you anyway) then E2 5b, E3 5c etc tell you pretty much what the route will be like.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
Although you can generally tell by e.g. standing at the bottom and looking up.
> Provided you know if it's e.g. pumpy and well protected or bold and slabby (which the french grade wouldn't tell you anyway)
Although you can generally tell by e.g. standing at the bottom and looking up.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Steady on! That old system is widely considered broken nowadays
> Although you can generally tell by e.g. standing at the bottom and looking up.
Steady on! That old system is widely considered broken nowadays
In reply to Bulls Crack:
If it's multi-pitch you are unlikely to be able to see much on anything but the first pitch from the ground..!
If it's multi-pitch you are unlikely to be able to see much on anything but the first pitch from the ground..!
In reply to springfall2008:
Of course, quite often you may not want to see the whole route very well from the ground, or know much about it beforehand. AKA an adventure. Some people actually enjoy making first ascents where they may know v little about the route in advance. One regret I have is that I did not make more first ascents, just a handful of quite minor things in south Wales, and a couple of occasions in the Alps when the ground I was on (when I'd lost the route) felt unclimbed and probably was.
Of course, quite often you may not want to see the whole route very well from the ground, or know much about it beforehand. AKA an adventure. Some people actually enjoy making first ascents where they may know v little about the route in advance. One regret I have is that I did not make more first ascents, just a handful of quite minor things in south Wales, and a couple of occasions in the Alps when the ground I was on (when I'd lost the route) felt unclimbed and probably was.
2
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Why don't we give every move it's own technical and adjectival grades? We could then completely eliminate the adventure element of trad.
Why don't we give every move it's own technical and adjectival grades? We could then completely eliminate the adventure element of trad.
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
Well we don't change leads between moves but we do between pitches...
Well we don't change leads between moves but we do between pitches...
Post edited at 16:54
1
In reply to bpmclimb:
Completely unrealistic? I don't see why. Yes, anyone with trad experience will know that the 5b pitch MIGHT be bold. But grading the individual pitches E3 5b, E2 5c will reveal that it definitely is - while grading them HVS 5b, E3 5c will reveal that it definitely isn't. Not at all unrealistic and very helpful if the less competent partner is contemplating leading the 5b pitch. I'm with the OP on this and look forward to a guidebook experimenting with this additional information. We have a full UK 2 dimension grade per pitch on single pitch crags - why not on multi-pitch crags?
Martin
> Exactly. Going back to the example given, an E3 5b 5c, anyone with a modicum of experience at trad should know that it's very possible that the 5b pitch is bold. If the party includes a climber who can't cope with bold moves at 5b, and the guidebook description doesn't reassure on this point, then perhaps it's not such a good choice of route for that party. Expecting the grade alone to supply that depth of information is completely unrealistic.
Completely unrealistic? I don't see why. Yes, anyone with trad experience will know that the 5b pitch MIGHT be bold. But grading the individual pitches E3 5b, E2 5c will reveal that it definitely is - while grading them HVS 5b, E3 5c will reveal that it definitely isn't. Not at all unrealistic and very helpful if the less competent partner is contemplating leading the 5b pitch. I'm with the OP on this and look forward to a guidebook experimenting with this additional information. We have a full UK 2 dimension grade per pitch on single pitch crags - why not on multi-pitch crags?
Martin
2
In reply to Martin Hore:
Not necessarily. There are factors other than boldness which determine the adjectival grade, and what I meant is that it is completely unrealistic to expect any grading system to separate out these factors, and indicate the significance of each. Your E3 5b pitch could be super-sustained, which would strongly contribute to the E grade. And in any case, boldness that merited E3 5b would be bound to get a mention in the route description, so nobody's getting cheated out of that information anyway.
> Completely unrealistic? I don't see why. Yes, anyone with trad experience will know that the 5b pitch MIGHT be bold. But grading the individual pitches E3 5b, E2 5c will reveal that it definitely is -
Not necessarily. There are factors other than boldness which determine the adjectival grade, and what I meant is that it is completely unrealistic to expect any grading system to separate out these factors, and indicate the significance of each. Your E3 5b pitch could be super-sustained, which would strongly contribute to the E grade. And in any case, boldness that merited E3 5b would be bound to get a mention in the route description, so nobody's getting cheated out of that information anyway.
In reply to Martin Hore:
Having said that, I wouldn't strongly object to the idea - if it became the norm in future guidebooks, perhaps in brackets after the tech grade and length, as an approximate indicator of overall difficulty of that pitch.
There would be a huge amount of work involved though, for guidebook writers across the UK, appraising all those thousands of pitches with the new procedure in mind. After all, if you're going to give that sort of information you have to be confident in its accuracy.
Having said that, I wouldn't strongly object to the idea - if it became the norm in future guidebooks, perhaps in brackets after the tech grade and length, as an approximate indicator of overall difficulty of that pitch.
There would be a huge amount of work involved though, for guidebook writers across the UK, appraising all those thousands of pitches with the new procedure in mind. After all, if you're going to give that sort of information you have to be confident in its accuracy.
In reply to radddogg:
Yawn.
Why don't we leave the guidebooks at home and just get on whatever lines we like the look of and hope for the best? Presumably because pretty much all of us like a bit more information and a bit less adventure than that...
Suggesting that a slightly different combination of information would be useful in some circumstances hardly seems like the death knell of adventure climbing.
> Why don't we give every move it's own technical and adjectival grades? We could then completely eliminate the adventure element of trad.
Yawn.
Why don't we leave the guidebooks at home and just get on whatever lines we like the look of and hope for the best? Presumably because pretty much all of us like a bit more information and a bit less adventure than that...
Suggesting that a slightly different combination of information would be useful in some circumstances hardly seems like the death knell of adventure climbing.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...