UKC

Tried The Right Unconquerable (HVS 5a) last weekend. Found it f***ing hard. Recon I could have got it clean if it was bolted.

In reply to David Staples:
Wind up?

In reply to David Staples:

You weren't by any chance down the pub before you wrote that were you?

In reply to David Staples:

I thought the ethics were well established. No staples on grit.

In reply to David Staples:

Or to paraphrase you aren't good enough

In reply to David Staples:

Perhaps a better etiquette might be for people to leave Right Unconquerable until they've onsighted Left Unconquerable. This might help prevent further damage to the flake. It seems to me that a strikingly lovely route is being systematically destroyed.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:
As is any fragile flake on grit. Heaven Crack is another recent victim. Its not just flakes either: on the softer rock grit crags, breaks and key crack sections on classics that take lots of falls and rests are really suffering (look at Topsail, Sail Buttress and Orpheus Wall). The prevalent modern attitude that its OK to 'go for it' on classics and probably fail (at the expense of the rock) is one we will in time regret. Climbers should be using lesser routes for pushing their limits, not damaged classics. I'd go as far as to consider a voluntary ban on cams on classics at some crags like Birchen where the damage is already awful.

Mmm, I think this problem can be fixed using a discrete sign at the bottom of the climb saying:

"Falling on this climb is not allowed. Even though it has bomber gear, please do not disrespect the rock by falling and damaging the flake that runs across most of the length of the route.

Additionally if you have bad footwork, please choose a non-starred climb, as any additional polish, from inaccurate feet will not be tolerated.

On seconds, thoughts, why don't you just climb another HVS, this one has a nasty top out anyways?"

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, sustainability is becoming a big issue in the Peak, not just on lower-grade routes. Once this Climb Britain business has been sorted out I'd like to see it as a main agenda item to discuss suggestions for conserving the rock/routes for future generations.

Cheers Graham

In reply to Graham Hoey:

Conserving the rock by not climbing it now so that people can climb in the future? Seems a little bit strange to me.

Correct me if I am wrong, however the rock cycle is pretty clear. Every piece of rock we climb on is constantly changing. Holds fall occassionally (in some places more often than others), the rocks change. We are just lucky to enjoy it in a brief period.

Polish on popular routes seems inevitable to me, it's irreversible, once again correct me if I am wrong. Other than not placing cams behind hollow or unstable flakes, which is a huge hazard anyways, that should be frowned upon, I don't see what else it can be done.

It is very possible that I am wrong though.

I do think though that people looking to push their grade, should have inspiring targets with fantastic lines to aim for for their first VS, HVS,E1,E4...whatever and not a crappy route you might want to forget about right after you did it.

In reply to Mick Ward:


I'm not sure what happened to the flake, but I'd guess general wear and tear on the route is partly down to shear traffic, partly because it's very pumpy for HVS and plenty of leaders might end up dogging it/falling off, and partly down to the second not being up to it, and dogging up it, and slipping off the smears multiple times.

But it's not just at punter level, look at the flake on Parthian Shot and the ball-nut slot on The Promise. Are the worst offenders actually the wads?

But it won't be a problem for long, now climbing's in the Olympics everybody will be so psyched to train hard, nobody will be dogging anything in future.

In reply to zmv:
The damage is almost never from a climber with good form. The major damage on grit in the peak is chronologically from the old use of nailed boots (most of the lower grade polish), climbing with dirty footwear or on soft wet rock (Newstones , Bridestones), inappropriate toproping where the climber isnt close to being up to it (Downhill Racer is my usual complaint) and most, recently overbrushing (mainly bouldering) and cams (numerous flakes and severe damage on some soft rock classics like Topsail). There are a few rarer issues around damaged nut placements and weighted ropes running over rock (Roaches Lower Tier right or say the rock above Gaia... that was so rough once it trashed one of my club ropes ). The sustainability message is just a series of common sense rules: always use clean shoes, avoid delicate problems when damp, don't wire brush grit, save the classic leads until you are more than likley to be successful and try to avoid any eroded placements.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Those smears are a complete non-issue for anyone with even basic HVS layback ability on grit. Anyone struggling with the smears there shouldn't be on the route.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Pumpy for a HVS, you are joking!

In reply to Offwidth:


I think it's a bit harder than you're making out. Sometimes the second isn't up to it, I would guess that's quite common on a solid HVS.


Sometimes hard to know until you're on it. Yes, if it's well beyond you think twice about it, but I wouldn't be as absolute as that.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


You know I'm not. I suspect that's just a boast.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Right Unconquerable is a classic example of a great route to be saved up until you're going strongly enough to cruise it on sight. Then it's a wonderful experience. Certainly not a route to be pushing your standard on, thrashing around, resting on gear etc.

In reply to Mick Ward:



Well said Mick.

Why can't folk just wait till they're good enough to make a solid onsight?

All this bollocks about working and headpointing 50 year old mid grade routes, is just that - bollocks!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I do agree to some extent. When a route isn't a total battle I can enjoy it more and savour the experience and the climbing, being boxed and flinging gear in isn't always that much fun. Sometimes hard to judge though. I'm off to Heptonstall tomorrow, the home of Forked Lightning Crack. But how hard will it be? To honest I haven't got a clue, so might save it. But I expected Regent Street to be more of a fight, but I was very comfortable, and I savoured every inch of it. So what should I do tomorrow? I could spoil the experience of a classic onsight experience, or have the best day ever...until the next best day ever.

I wish there was some science to knowing how things will go, but there isn't.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I don't think a route should EVER be 'a total battle' or about 'being boxed and flinging gear in.'


I think the best thing is to just drop your grade very slightly and do loads of VS jamming, laybacking etc. It's called training I don't think climbing is ever about having huge doubts you'll get up something.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:



It's actually very simple and straightforward. If you're comfortable onsighting E2, and you're also ok onsighting thuggish E2 hand and arm gritstone cracks, you should be OK. If you're not, then you probably won't be.

That's what grades and route description's are for.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I've done it on lead and second quite a few times over the years. Im sticking with my view: its a undercut to layback power issue then a pump issue then a rounded top-out test. Friction is simply not an HVS problem as your feet are almost flat on the wall . I'm speaking as someone who is hardly solid at HVS on grit. There are loads of VS layback cracks where you have to be more careful with footwork. Here are just a few if people want to use them as a qualifier test:

Layback Crack (VS 5a)

Downes' Crack (VS 5a)

Beech Layback (VS 5a)

In reply to zmv:

Hi,
I never suggested not climbing routes to conserve them. As Ofwidth says its's all about common sense.
At Burbage South there's a route where you step right off a boulder (above a drop) to a crack. At the start of the traverse is a break which is getting trashed by people putting in cams and the placements will soon go. If you 'dare' try to step right (it's not hard) you can place a bomber 'overhead' wire in the crack. Also, I've lost count of the number of good nut slots I've seen over the past two years that are being opened out and weakened by the loss of the surface patina, purely by the unneccesary use of cams which by their mode of use and movement create more wear than nuts.
In reply to other comments, there's nothing wrong in pushing your grade, but if you get to the point that you're getting nowhere and your multiple attempts are starting to cause damage (on the rock and/or the placements) then it is time to give up, get better and come back later for the sake of the route and other, more capable, climbers' enjoyment rather than trash it for future generations. The surface on everyone's favourite grit E8 is getting broken open by repeated top-roping and is now sandy. I could go on with many more examples of damage caused to classic gritstone routes of all grades - it's just depressing.
There is no doubt that we all have an impact when we climb a route, even if we flash it on-sight, but there are measures we can take that minimise our impact and we owe it to future generations to pass on our limited resource in as good a condition as possible.

In reply to Offwidth:


Well, for the first couple of hard layback moves (a psychologically committing moment) the wall is sloping away from you a bit, so it needs good footwork, not just a matter of strength/pump.

In reply to Graham Hoey:






Very well said Graham. It might not be popular with certain people, but it needs saying.

In reply to Goucho:

I might be having a shot in the dark here, but are the dislikers on this thread, people to whom climbing a route in good style is an alien concept?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Don't you now.

I've had a few battles, and I'm sure I'll have a few more. As will a lot of other climbers. I got into a real battle with an HVS at Stanage recently, it was very unexpected, but it happened. Sometimes there's a very fine line between a comfortable ascent and a real battle. One bad judgement, the wrong size wire, a few moments of doubt, straying off line.


Not sure why the word 'huge' got inserted into this discussion.

In reply to Goucho:


So you're saying if I'm comfortably onsighting routes that are similar in difficulty and style, then I should be okay? If I'd done loads, I wouldn't really be in much doubt.


Life doesn't seem always to be that simple. There are some routes route where the crux is supposed to be 4b that I still find hard. I don't always understand why.

It gets E3 in the new guide BTW.

In reply to Offwidth:


Of course you should, it's subjective isn't it.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Pretty much so. It's one of the advantages of getting plenty of diverse mileage in at one grade, before moving onto the next


Unfortunately, that's a problem with you (and the rest of us) not the actual route.


Wear 2 thick jumpers and it'll come down to E2 again

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Cruising Right Unconquerable in great style should be seen as a mandatory, for the simple reason that climbing it any other way, completely ruins the whole point of both the route and the experience.

In reply to Goucho:


It's not really a problem, just one of the things that makes climbing what it is, and probably something to accept and learn from. If every lead was predictable, I don't think the good days would feel as sweet. So maybe I'm glad it isn't all that scientific after all.

Hi, these are all sensible comments.

Maybe a solution might be to make sure everyone is sensible might be on particular routes to leave a sensible advice piece as part of the guidebook description.

Something along the lines of "Please if possible, protect the middle section with the nut overhead rather than a cam in flake unless mandatory".

Happy climbing.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


In which case you're not pushing your limit and comfort zone. If you casually cruise the route, then it is well within your comfort zone...

Not that climbing well within your comfort zone is a bad thing... But unless you really push your self, how the heck do you know where your limit is?

I find that the most memorable OS I've done have nearly always being a total battle and gettin' to the top, clippin' the anchor or gettin' to a rest after all the hard climbing has been a complete nightmare due to fatique...

In reply to Goucho:


Yes, my view exactly.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Never let the old guard try to tell you what the point is. Or anyone for that matter. Although I'm no spring chicken, I'm a youth in climbing terms.

If you're not causing excessive wear, chipping, bolting inappropriately, or top-roping , then it's all good isn't it?

In reply to HeMa:

A VW Beetle's top speed is also it's cruising speed


Why does climbing have to be about pushing your limits? Enjoying your climbing doesn't have to be about how close to falling off you can get.


I find mine are the ones where I did it in good style. I'd sooner climb an easier route in good style than wobble up a harder one like Forest Gump having a stroke.

In reply to Goucho:

It doesn't have to be about pushing your limits... But then again it doesn't have to be about casually cruisin' something easy either. People value different things, and they have their right to do so. You just made the normal 'my view is the only correct one' statement... So I made the opposing one.

As Alex Lowe said, the best climber is the on who's having the most fun. It can be whilst toproping, soloing, casually leading or after a long redpoint effort. It's up to them to decide, and not others. Neither you or me.


Whops... I originally replied to Gourdon... Not Goucho. That said, the core what I wrote still stands.

In reply to Goucho:

"Why does climbing have to be about pushing your limits? Enjoying your climbing doesn't have to be about how close to falling off you can get."

Climbing doesn't really have to be anything you don't want it to be. I have total respect for people enjoying cruising routes one after the other enjoying the experience.

I love doing that as well. However, pretty soon, it gets boring to me if I do it for more than 1 session a week. Some people getting a lot of enjoyment going close to their limit or trying to push above it. Again, nothing wrong with that either.

In reply to HeMa:


Style is style, irrespective of trends or generations


Absolutely. Unless one persons approach and style risks f*cking it up for others - eg: repeated top roping/working of classic routes, placing cams in fragile flakes etc etc.

In reply to zmv:




Each man to his own. I've done a reasonable amount of 'pushing my limits' over the years, but you can push your limits without taking the big ride everytime.

A lot of this pushing till you fall off attitude has come from sport climbing. Unfortunately, comparing sport to trad is not comparing apples to apples.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
"I think it's a bit harder than you're making out. Sometimes the second isn't up to it, I would guess that's quite common on a solid HVS.


Sometimes hard to know until you're on it. Yes, if it's well beyond you think twice about it, but I wouldn't be as absolute as that."

Its absolutely not harder than I am making out, its a hugely travelled, tightly established HVS crux. One big issue I see is many people claiming HVS ability on grit are just kidding themselves (I'm only a fairly solid VS leader and yet have onsighted a very large number of HVS classics and more low extremes, that suited me, than I can remember). A weaker HVS climber might struggle a little for power and a shorter HVS climber has more sustained moves to get established beyond the overlap but it just won't be the smears that limit them if they have HVS abilities. When onsight leading, as Gordon says, the moves here are quite committing, as you do need high feet and some sustained power and its unclear how many moves will be required before you get to the next half rest and runner.

Oh and if you are going to quote me, please don't clip and misrepresent what I said (ie I said struggling with those smears.... as its possible for an HVS climber to struggle for other reasons; thats part of the great character of the route).

In reply to Offwidth:

Now I've totally lost track of what you're on about.

You seem to be saying you know exactly how hard it is, and any deviation from that is just wrong, and that's objective reality, and you can prove it. Anyway, feel free to shoot me down and have the last say...

EDIT: You did remind me of this video though:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69738

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Sorry I was in the middle of editing the post.

In essense it's a very well established HVS, the climbing at that point is obvious with no exceptional issues (like unusual reach or especially powerful... I think those VS climbs I listed are as hard on the crux moves), so anyone regularly leading HVS of this style should have no problems . Could they fall off? Sure: they might be tired, conditions could be shit, they could make a mistake, they could be exaggerating their ability.

Although grades are subjective the moves on particular styles of routes match in a semi-objective sense (they give a consitent linear progression of difficulty); and large vote numbers confirm an average good to a quarter grade, so if you can't do such styles you are not a solid HVS leader at the style.

EDIT Scoop Wall is not that controversial just borderline E2/3 on a lower consensus.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=11497

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I must say I do agree mate. There are edges all the way up for the feet, the laybacking is relatively short and there is even a hands off rest if you know where to look. When I lead it I found the top out more pumpy than the rest of the route combined, well dodge!! lol

In reply to Offwidth:


Was referring to an overly scientific approach to grading, not whether it's this grade or that.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

My point is it's actually the other way round...grading although subjective has benchmarks... RU is a well known benchmark grit HVS of its type, the less scientific bit about grades is how we all match up to it in detail. Yet if you fail only seconding in average or good conditions and when going reasonably well (without weird mishap) it IS clear you are a distance from being an HVS leader of the type.

Scoop Wall in contrast was benchmark top end E2 and the checking indicated it had got harder (as happens on Limestone much more than on gritstone, through decaying pegs and increasing polish) and recent voting is much more split on what is the correct side of the border. It was funny to take the piss about grading arguments (as the BMC sketch did) but an honest approach was taken (with the route placed pretty much at the bottom of the E3 graded list).

In reply to Offwidth:

Bloody hell, are you still going. :P


I aint getting into that again.

In reply to Goucho:


Maybe they're just people who don't like busybodies telling them whether they should be climbing certain routes or not?

In reply to BarrySW19:


Point well missed.

Nobody is telling them what routes to climb, just that it might be an idea to have slightly better odds of success than 50/50 and to not selfishly trash classic routes.

Classic and important routes like Right Unconquerable can do without people who's egos are far greater than their climbing ability.

In reply to Goucho:


It's got nothing to do with ego, it's about what people find enjoyable. I fell three times on Right Unconquerable and I still enjoyed having a go at it. But, feel free to report me to the Rock Police.

In reply to BarrySW19:

Well as long as you enjoyed yourself that's all that matters. The future of our classic grit routes is plainly safe in your hands.

And of course, well done for having a go and being so proud of failing so many times on a mid grade route first climbed in 1949. All that indoor wall training is obviously starting to pay dividends.

And, I bet it was a cam you fell off repeatedly onto as well?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Yes things have changed. Writing guidebooks and club involvement means you get to watch and know a lot of climbers. Way more climbers seem incapable of moving confidently above gear now than when I started in the 1980s and it's more common that people look aghast at those of us regularly soloing at Birchen (a standard lowish risk climbing game for locals) This was increasingly obvious in 2010 where in the BMC description of Topsail we included the text: "the big worn cam placement on the roof is eroding rapidly : please don't use it". I've seen several people read it and plain ignore it. I'm pretty sure the easy classic VS tick is more part of that than it should be. There are also reminders of cam damage for Orpheus Wall. On p.10 in BMC Froggatt we wrote "Gritstone-this precious rock. Climb the route as it is. Do not be tempted to shape it to suit your inadequate skills. Brushing with anything other than a toothbrush to remove excess chalk is rarely necessary. Once the hard exterior layer is removed the softer sandstone interior erodes very rapidly. Please don't repeatably brush sandy sections as you will just make it worse. Perhaps try a different climb. Please don't climb with dirty feet. Avoid grit when it is damp. Be careful of the damage done with protection- see cam damage at Birchen." The same message is expanded in Bouldering Notes and Access and Conservation over the next few pages. The latest Eastern Grit has strengthened similar messages and now has warnings on the same two Birchen routes.

Further back, before my time and pre- cams, grit protection was harder, back further it was only chocks, threads, boulders and trees and ' the leader shall not fall' was an important maxim for good reason. Climbers were forced into better risk assessment. Climbing has morphed and the positives should be that protection should allow more exposed risk taking (with the greater chance of a safe fall); but this in my opinion has too often led to a misunderstanding of risk and the skills in assessing it; the next runner gets too much focus in its own right as opposed to it's context. Runners are placed a little too regularly (and with less skill), sometimes even if it increases risk of a fall (eg in positions that are strenous to hold and clip; or on a zig-zagging rope to gain slight increments on protected height at the expense of drag and side forces; or placed from standing on flat crag bases where its simply not possible to halt a ground fall but very possible to increase drag that will hinder the climbing above). Boldness and soloing within ones limits and working weaknesses are so important... if people aspire to push themselves, especially on bigger routes, they need the head game and wide skill set and the focus.

In bouldering honeypots, if anything, things are even worse. Pristine problems that I climbed in the early 1990s are now trashed. A combination of dirty feet, overbrushing, hopeless technique and use of damp rock, being the main culprits. I can see the surface going from many punter problems over the next decade when just a decade before only a handful of problems were affected.

I don't mind people having safer fun... just the opposite, but picking routes that are clearly too hard and resting (and grinding) on a trashed cam placement (they should have ethically avoided) seems pointless and highly selfish. This certainly isn't just fun climbers either: the Downhill Racer problem of hopeless climbers flailing and polishing up the route is very much led by climbers who should know better, pushing less skilled pals.

I'm of the same mind as Graham Hoey... we need a new focus and a bigger BMC push on grit ethics before the damage becomes appalling.

In reply to Offwidth:


Though part of that is correct grading. Orpheus Wall is not HVS, unless the climber is tall or has above-HVS strength, and can use those to just reach through. Most HVS leaders will not be able to work out and onsight those moves before the pump sets in and they find themselves "resting (and grinding) on a trashed cam placement", and yet surely it is ethical for a HVS leader to attempt to onsight a climb graded HVS?

In reply to Offwidth:
>
Agreed, but surely these developments are largely a function of indoor wall climbing and sport climbing? People simply take the redpointing ethic for these activities and transfer them to trad routes to which they can be appiled. ie. single pitch and with gear to fall on to and rest on.
The old ethic was generally to try something if one had a good chance of success and to give up after a a a failure or two. Now it seems to be to try something in the full knowledge one is unlikely to onsight it, but then keep dogging it until it can be redpointed. I'm am not sure if this "mew normal" is down to ignorance, the grade chasing ethic, or watching too many videos of stars redpointing grit E9s. Probably a bit of all three but it needs to be reversed before the rock is irreversibly damaged. Does the BMC have much chance of reversing it? Maybe ethicsneed to be conveyed along with instruction courses?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Well there's no real reason to rest on the gear at that point, you can stand in balance with your hands on the break with the gear. It's not a great rest but it's sufficient to recover enough to down climb to the ground for a proper rest.

Someone's going to get a shock when the cam pings one day whilst they're resting on it or lowering from it.

In reply to BarrySW19:


If you were as good at climbing as you are at completely missing the point, you might have got up RU.


I'm more than happy to lose that one, at least it means there wasn't the need for you to use a car jack to retrieve your jammed cam.

In reply to Mark Collins:
I was drunk. Love to start a good ukc argument now and again.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Top banter

In reply to David Staples:

Was kind of hoping this guy was at the top.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c1/c1a281294218e1cb2a34d010df150160cbed46d21142...

In reply to Offwidth:


It is, just at times I feel like we've been over the ground so many time, it loses it's point a bit. Or the fun of discussion is lost.

If you don't understand why benchmarks don't work, all hope is lost.

I didn't do Fork Lightning Crack anyway, out of respect for the rock, obviously not because I was intimidated by it.

In reply to BarrySW19:


Now why do I feel unsurprised that your profile begins thus: 'Mostly indoor only climber so far...' Yes, you've ventured into the outdoors and good on you. But (I suspect) the problem is this: you're taking indoor values and projecting them on the outdoors. And, whether I'm right or wrong about you, again (I suspect) many others are doing likewise. And yes, I can see why.

If you're down at the wall and you think having a go at the red route with purple spots is going to be 'enjoyable', you get on it. If it doesn't prove 'enjoyable', you lower off and maybe have a go at the pink one with blue spots. It doesn't really matter because they're going to be re-set next month anyway. And there's f*ck all commitment.

But, jump into the Tardis and vroom back say four decades to 1970 something. You aspire to the Unconquerables. You know Brown did them onsight over 25 years previously with no gear. Yes, your gear's better but not by much. If you've read your 'Hard Rock' (and you have), you'll note that, for Perrin, it's a love affair with a frisson of fear and you'll be running it out up that flake. So you'll stand at the bottom and ask yourself, "Am I good enough?" You're measuring yourself against Perrin and Brown and all those others who committed. And, if you commit and fail, not only have your failed but there's a fair old chance it's gonna hurt. Are you going to leave the ground? Well, are you?

But hey, we're back in 2016. You can cam your way out of trouble, you can bail at any point. But Right Unconquerable ain't the the red route with purple spots or the pink one with blue spots. It's not renewable. It can't be re-set.

If you take indoor values to the outdoors, you will f*ck the outdoors and you will negate the value of the experience. Yes, you might have 'fun', about as much fun as munching on a Big Mac.

'She can't be chained to a life
where nothing's won and nothing's lost
at such a cost...'

Mick

In reply to Postmanpat:
I don't think it's especially due sport climbing - people have been flogging away at routes for as long as I can remember ( 30 years) bese it's so safe. Maybe walls have played a part by making routes like this accessible to most everyone.

I guess the big difference to ye olde days is that the RU can be very effectively stiched up by modern pro, the only limit being you wallet and ability to carry the junk. The axiom of ' the leader musnt fall' has real relevance to this route and the similar.

Perhaps in the ethics part we need to point out that while the grit is special it is only a hard sandstone, and like other sandstones need care.

**Disclaimer - I've only done it once and didn't especially rate it. Liked the LU tho'.....

In reply to Mick Ward:
But hey, we're back in 2016. You can cam your way out of trouble, you can bail at any point. But Right Unconquerable ain't the the red route with purple spots or the pink one with blue spots. It's not renewable. It can't be re-set.



Well said sir!

In reply to Mick Ward:









Most excellent post Mr Ward.

When I first led it back in the early 70's, I was standing at the bottom psyching myself up for it (and yes, I had done its sister earlier that day - and yes, she was easier) when a large man with a beard and a warm smile walked past, looked up at the flake, looked at me and said "do it justice youngster, it's more than just a route, it's a piece of history, and there's only one way to climb it - with courage and heart."

That day was my first meeting with Nunn the bear, and also, as I sat at the top a few minutes later, the day I began to understand what climbing on grit was really all about.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are we talking about you or the route?

Orpheus Wall (HVS 5c)

The votes indicate top HVS. The route is HVS in all modern guides. For the BMC position the route is honestly graded at the top of the HVS list for onsight according to the experiencd team opinions; it wasn't a statement that I regarded as a clear sandbag like say Masochism or Teck Crack (look at the logbooks for those) nor even a probable E1 due to polish like Chequers Crack (again check out the logbook) . I don't think an E1 grade would reduce traffic... such upgrades tend if anything to attact more kudos for a higher graded tick (3 Pebble was more popular when it went to E1 and I don't think its less popular when EG downgraded it?) and encourage grade creep. The BMC and EG guides warn the climber about the challenge (so the HVS leader clearly knows if it suits their style) and the problems with erosion.

The thugs way is one tough obvious and well protected 5c move that certainly is reach dependant but the easier 'trick' way isn't so much, as short climbers get easier leverage to get into position, if of course they see the trick. It is tough for the very short but far from the worst example on the break-to-break work required on gritstone. There are lost of other short crux, well protected or start move, HVS 5cs in the guide. Most HVS leaders will get a few goes before they tire and its not so hard to down climb cleanly, rest, and try again as a normal onsight allows.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think indoor climbers are part of the problem but of those I've witnessed and politely challenged on such routes outdoor novices are the minority and are normally apologetic and willing to learn: the majority are experienced climbers, usually sheepish or rude (indicating they know the score but didn't care enough). Downhill Racer is pretty much all climbers who should know better, encouraging those with no real chance on classic hard 6a slab. To me the message for the transition to the outdoors is OKish but we do need improvements for both groups more so for the experienced if anything.

The issues with cam damage is well known elsewhere in the world and needs to be more clear in the UK, especially on softer grit (but even some Stanage classic VS climbs are showing signs of surface loss in key break placements).

In reply to David Staples:

There's actually some important issues being raised on this thread. Dogging on cams and other gear is trashing routes - there's a big difference between an unexpected fall, lowering off and abseiling for gear and dogging your way up a route, trashing placements and resting your way up. It is selfish and it does need a lot more publicity; it's not about what I want on the day, it's about conserving the rock and the routes so that other people can enjoy them too in the future. There's no shame in downclimbing and coming back another day, there's no shame in not being able to onsight steep routes of grade X Y or Z, the only shame is for your own ego and to be honest there's a little too much private ego in society at the moment and we could all do with a little more humility about our own abilities.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
We will have to agree to disagree. All my grading is benchmarked... yes benchmarks can shift if the rock changes or protectability changes (and slowly over time with grade creep) but without the anchoring of benchmarks to allow us to adjust our relative varied skill sets to what we mean by grades I think all grading is lost. To grade well in guidebook work we need to learn to recognise an average climber response and apply that even if our particular skills make it feel easier or harder.

Best of luck next time on FLC.

In reply to Offwidth:


Thanks. I did Senility (what a great route), but really Thin Red Line was main objective, and I got that done, in good style!!!, after that my psych ran out a bit. Fully satisfied, and not overly tired for a Monday morning at work.

In reply to Offwidth:


It's HVS because it has bomb-proof gear at waist level at the hard bit. That's entirely appropriate as the grading system works. But the move (unless tall or unusually strong for a HVS leader) is much harder than usually found on an HVS. This combination means that HVS leaders will often dangle on the gear. If one were to rank it according to how likely someone is to onsight it then it'd be ranked with a lot of mid or upper E1s.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


This is the only really logical way to grade, given the purported style of ascent being assessed. However, in practice it seems rarely if ever to be strictly applied to 'problem' routes with well-protected, very hard cruxes. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the same grade is quoted regardless of the style of ascent, and leading an E2 6b after quite a few tries is still acknowledged as doing the route, which is E2 6b (even though few climbers not regularly onsighting E4 would be expected to get up it onsight.) It's a compromise really, even though most people don't seem to acknowledge it as such.

In reply to David Staples:

What a grim thread. I haven't read every post, but a sample from key contributors seems to have the flavour of wise old men solemnly telling less experienced climbers that it is a great sin for them to fall off on trad, or to even enter territory that might challenge them. The suggestion being that if you can't cruise a route then you have no place being on it. What nonsense.

I can understand the particular plight of this route, but if we're not allowed to try hard on trad routes then how is anybody supposed to improve, or even find out what level they are steady at? Somebody mentioned that doing lots of routes within your onsight limit was training. I would call it consolidating (a worthy and essential activity in it's own right). Training should take your current level and make it better, and nobody ever got stronger from doing lots of moves that they could do first time.

I remember The Right Unconquerable being a big lead. The notorious difficulty, the history, the weight of doubt, but I got on it and did it and the experience was all the better for it not being a foregone conclusion. I suppose I ought to have been flogged. My mate seconded it and then led it afterwards on my gear. He tumbled off Great Western a couple of months later after pumping out trying to pull through to the pinnacle (his last gear was at the junction with Crack of Doom. What a peel!). I suppose he ought to have been flogged as well. If somebody had approached me and politely pointed out that I was not ready to climb the route because there was doubt in my mind as to whether I could do it I would have been angered, chastened, and wholly disappointed with climbing.

In reply to Will Hunt:

And here I was thinking this post would disappear off the bottom with maybe just a few replies. I almost always go for a route with the onsight in mind (As I am sure most others do) but in this case pumped out trying to fiddle my third cam in and had to sit on it for about a minute before dashing up to the top. The "I could av go it clean if it were bolted" bit was a tongue in cheek joke. Love how a simple jokey post about failing on a route turns into a massive ethics debate. At least I am keeping UKC happy with all the traffic

In reply to Will Hunt:

>
Who said that? They said one should have a reasonable hope or expectation of completing it free, not a likelihood of not completing it and then the intention to dog it to death. Always best to read a thread before joining it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Cheeky bugger. It's intended as HVS as an onsight: our team all knew very clearly what that meant. I'm pretty sure most of those voting also know what onsight means and the other guidebook publishers. You seem to be muddling onsight climbing with onsight climbing in a single push . Cruxy routes and trick moves often need a feeling out approach with tactical retreats. If the same moves had a less reasonable retreat from the crux it would be E1. If the moves were reached after more sustainded climbing it might be harder still. Its not either in this case, so its top end HVS. Given the risk levels on HVS and the way we can sometime misread routes one would hope that solid HVS onsight climbers have the technical ability to to pull off 5c moves.

Falls will happen but people dangling around on gear are not ready for the route either in terms of skill sets or tactics or both (and given the warnings and 5a down climb have less than ideal ethics). I'm hardly a solid HVS climber but do have a wide skill set at lower grades and I sussed it out after a few unweighted retreats without dangling on the cams.

In reply to john arran:
In my wide experience of bad grades on grit upto E2 the exact opposite was way more often the problem: the sandbag route was graded for technical ability typical for the adjectival grade as opposed to proper full adjectival issues. When only high performers grade lower grade routes for guidebook chapters that's what can happen ... the boldness or exposure of a crux becomes fun and not something to be nervous about when pushing ones adjectival limits (to add insult to injury in the old days, such routes were often described as pleasant... eg Jitter Face "pleasant" VD* Stanage 1989..."bold" HS 4a* Stanage 2007) . Even when its not the case (what E2 6b route are you thinking of ... Easy Picking? ) its usually not a big misgrade nor a big risk issue. UK grading is a wonderful thing and the HVS 5c rock puzzle of Orpheus Wall down the road from the near solo HVS 4b of Sunset Slab, is to me (operating with excitement onsight around those grades) demonstrating correct use of the full breadth of the system. In the higher E grades it sadly breaks down as the tech grades for 6b and above are just way too wide.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Only a few posts seem to imply that. I'm happiest for the route to have a fighting chance but not when the climber is so deluded about chance it's similar to trying to make a fortune on scratch cards, especially when they inevitability end up dogging tough but damaged routes.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well let's see. Consulting UKC logbooks and adding up the "dogged" and "DNF" ascents we have:

Accepted Mid-HVS routes with 3% to 5% dogged/DNF (e.g. Queersville, Paucity, Great Portland St, Cave Arete, Chequers Buttress).

Slightly harded options at around 6% to 7% dogged/DNF (e.g. Zapple, The Scoop).

Upper-HVS routes with about 8% to 10% dogged/DNF (e.g. Eliminator, Maupassant, Great Friday, Suicide Wall, Right Unconq).

Occasional strenuous, well-protected stiff-HVS routes causing more trouble at 13% to 15% dogged/DNF (e.g. Bond Street, Peapod, Terrezza Crack).

Then we have Orpheus Wall at a 27% dogged/DNF.

(Which way exceeds the dogging rate on Chequers Crack and Teck Crack!)

I submit that this is only graded HVS because it is very safe for a HVS leader to try, not because of where it would rank on a list of a HVS leader's likelihood of onsighting it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Rhetoric... its nearly always those out of their depth and lazy climbers at a friendly lower grade venue. Writing the crag up, and watching what goes on there - time and time again (sometimes soloing up and down the bottom bit to clear the cams in the break people lowered off rather than taking them out and downclimbing) - makes it painfully obvious. For some reason your hard time on this route has made you immune to acceptance of the majority evidence elsewhere so you are fitting what remains to your own narrative (like a creationalist flailing at evolution ). I've never in decades seen neophyte HVS leaders on Teck Cradk (rarely seen anyone on it in fact) and few on Chequers Crack (a route which fights back from the first moves)

It's a trick move E0 with protected at your waist that you can wander up to and back down from as many times as you like; so fair at the top of the HVS graded list. It's not especially sensible to compare it to RU: in the US a 4m crux and the top one move beyond would be a boulder problem.

In reply to David Staples:

Great Troll, they're about to break into an anti-creationist flame war

In reply to Offwidth:

I looked at Topsail last year and was saddened by the huge scar under the overhang, caused by cams. I always used a sling thread just below the lip. Shame.

In reply to David Staples:

This whole business about Topsail is a bit confusing. Is the damage not just from it being a worn placement on a soft crag where the patina has worn away? A well placed cam that doesn't walk in its placement shouldnt cause any more wear than a nut - which I can actually imagine being more destructive if it's tugged (even gently) into place and then tugged out again afterwards.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Not at all but I found it an easy layback and I'm hardly the strongest around.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not sure how your response really relates to my point. Never mind, I'm not convinced it needs more explanation so I'm happy leaving it there.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Lots of people seem to tug cams though, even though it rarely helps.....

In reply to Lion Bakes:


You hardly have to be 'the strongest around' to find a steep HVS easy, people regularly warm up on routes I'd struggle to lead. And finding a route easy doesn't mean you can't appreciate it might be not that easy for others, taking into account the grade.

Did you really think I was joking? I really doubt it, and saying a relatively steep and sustained HVS is pumpy (check the logbook comments, or watch people climbing it) was hardly a ridiculous thing to say was it? So your choice of phrasing seemed odd, and seemed boastful.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Hardly, just can't believe your calling it pumpy. I'm a girl and even I found it easy if that makes you feel better. You clearly have poor technique on grit, don't worry you'll get better with practice.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I think I'll let that comment speak for itself.


My technique is what it is, I try to improve but I don't get hung up on whether people think my technique is good or bad, it's generally improving and I'm enjoying my climbing. And you clearly assumed that because I can appreciate a route is pumpy for the grade, I got pumped on it, or found it hard. I didn't say that, so I suspect your judgement was clouded by eagerness to express how easy you found it. Which was my original point. But you seem to making silly comments now, so I won't continue.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I agree RU is pumpy FOR HVS. I pumped out last time I tried it. Left Unconq is much easier FOR me.

In reply to Lion Bakes:

I've done about 20 HVS mostly grit, few E1s. RU probably the most pumpy out of them, found the direct top-out pumped after all the laybacking nails (and fell off it - my deepest apologies for abusing your rock)

But I'm just a boy what would I know

In reply to Goucho:


Because it's circular logic. Adherence to the onsight ethic, rightly or wrongly, is why the average grade in the UK is Hard Severe ( or thereabouts ).

That said, there are plenty of routes to have a go at without needing to dog the classics.

In reply to Offwidth:

Out of interest, is it better to ground up a safe trad route or headpoint it? I tend to do neither because I am scared of falling off and I get bored top roping a route more than once for a headpoint. I have a lot of friends who do both however. I had always assumed GU was more accepted, but that would do more damage to the gear placements?

In reply to Lion Bakes:
' just can't believe your calling it pumpy.'

Hmm, that's a pretty silly comment. It's an overhanging layback with a hard mantel at the end, that's pretty much the definition of pumpy.

FWIW Brown was asked how hard he found the mantel on the FA and his reply was 'not at all - but I was a bag of muscle in those days.' The implication being that if he hadn't been, then he too would have found it strenuous.

In reply to Calum Wadsworth:


Am I missing the irony here? Have you considered the possibility of leading a grade you can actually do?

In reply to Calum Wadsworth:
I don't see any issue with either game (any in fact) as long as the climber respects the rock. Ground-up is normally regarded as a better style but it like any form of climbing can be abused (as it often is, even on lower grades like Orpheus Wall). It's not so much falling as how often and on what quality of placements. So yes, if a route is really hard for the climber and on delicate gear I'd prefer to see the route headpointed or left until they got better for the GU. Downhill Racer too often sees the opposite problem... 'headpoint' abuse with bad style polishing marginal holds. I dont know exactly where we should draw the line in each case but the extremes are clear enough. For instance it's sad to see a climber (even if sarcastically) apologising for falling off the top of RU (acceptable ethics)...through the doggers with dodgy ethics to the seriously unethical scum who used a car jack to recover a cam and broke the lower flake.

In reply to Offwidth:


Is that an urban myth, or a fact? I know it was speculated about at the time; does anybody know the truth of the matter?

In reply to planetmarshall:


You mean the same as 30 years ago?

Funny how a predominantly on sight ethic never seemed to hold back my peer group, most of of whom operated in the E4 - E7 range, and many of whom despite being old knackered has beens, can still knock out around E4+ on a good day?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Wash your mouth out with soap! How are people supposed to rack up the E numbers in their UKC logbooks if they have to limit themselves to routes they're actually capable of climbing?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I think it was either a car jack or tyre lever that was used to apply outward presure to the flake, which unfortunately went a bit wrong. Possibly more stupid f*cker than deliberate vandal?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

No irony, I was just asking "out of interest" as I don't do either very often because I tend to climb grades I can actually do. However in the circles I move in a lot of people like to push their grade, be it going ground up or headpointing, I just wanted to know the stance on what was more acceptable, as in the same way as dogging a route can wear out gear placements so could repeatedly falling of the same crux move and lowering back the the ground before the next try. It seemed a relevant question with all this talk of people not being allowed to try routes they may dog.

Offwidth, thanks for the answer it seems my thinking is fairly similar to yours

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I saw him doing it again with ease at the age of nearly 66 (in Sept 1996). He paused for a minute, got his hands in a classic fingertip-to-fingertip mantelshelf position, and then just kind of rolled over the top. I was taking pictures from about 10 feet away, so saw it very closely.

In reply to Goucho:


I'm speculating, obviously. I haven't done the research to really know the factors that drive difficulty standards in the UK. However I think it's reasonable to suggest that perpetually saving climbs for a day that might never come is a less effective strategy for improvement than a willingness to climb routes with no guarantee of success.

I can't speak for your peer group, but if the recent spate of climbing biographies is anything to go by, there's no shortage of 'knackered old hasbeens' who didn't give a stuff about the onsight ethic, and they're certainly climbing a lot harder than E4.

All that said I am largely playing devil's advocate anyway, since in my own climbing I respect the onsight ethic, even if in my heart of hearts I know it's all a bit bonkers.

In reply to Calum Wadsworth:


Sorry, I read your post as excluding the middle ground!

I guess it depends how far you want to push your grade and how quickly but I think there's a difference between climbing and specifically training for a particular route. It seems to me that a steady progression of onsight leading is not only quite effective (as well as being traditional) but is also fairly enjoyable in its own right...

I don't want to sound more of a dinosaur than I am but it's pretty obvious that the sort of aggressive grade-pushing attitude that's appropriate for sport climbing isn't such a good idea for trad. Repeated falling and over-reliance on trad protection damages the placements and risks a serious fall, endless toproping spoils the holds for others who might only need to use them once.

In reply to Goucho:

Assuming there is a higher proportion of bumblies year-on-year (seems like it, myself included) - how come, is society more risk averse? Did you have to be more into climbing to get into climbing when it was less accessible? Was it all because of Thatcher cancelling dole?

I think I bumble because I lack ambition and am allergic to training but that's probably just me

There still are some hard climbers obviously, just asking in general

In reply to planetmarshall:



In some ways it can be hard to separate one's true feelings about things from one's indoctrination, or received 'wisdom'. I've been climbing for nearly twenty years now and definitely privilege the 'onsight' above all other styles. For me it's the most satisfying, but I acknowledge that part of that is also the cultural 'pedestal' effect of the onsight. For example, I really enjoyed climbing Left Wall onsight: the moves, the position, managing the ropes, managing the pump etc etc, but part of the pleasure came from knowing it's a route that a lot of folks fall off, so a true onsight is on a 'pedestal', and my success is more valuable in light of others' failure, in the context of a climbing culture that privileges the onsight. Like I say, untangling those two pleasures is tricky (and probably unnecessary) and a bit bonkers.

So, do I really prefer the onsight, or am I just indoctrinated by decades of UK climbing culture?!?

In reply to planetmarshall:

It's not about a guarantee of success - there's really no such thing in climbing - but it is about playing percentages.

In other words, having a go at route you have an 80% chance of success on, is completely different to going for a route where your chances are at best 50/50 and at worse nothing more than a wild shot in the dark fantasy punt.


Again, there's a huge difference between a top climber pushing boundaries, or someone who onsights E3 working an E4 or soft E5, and a wannabee punter who's best onsight is VS, working an E2?


At the end of the day, you're right, it doesn't matter how you get your pleasure in climbing, as long as it doesn't have a negative and adverse effect on either other climbers or the routes themselves.

In reply to planetmarshall:



~I think the average grade is HS because the average punter simply doesn't get out enough, and also have an improvement method, irrespective of ethics.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

From the UKC logs, the route has been logged as dogged 189 times, plus 66 DNF, in total about 10%.

I'm very much in the "on sight" style of climbers but I have had my fair share of failures. However, where classic routes are concerned I aim to have a higher level of confidence that I'm up to it before trying them, largely because I want to get the on sight. This often means leaving a route many years before getting on it (I on-sighted Left Wall a few weeks ago, 33 years after first walking under it!).
How climbers learn their trade has changed over the years and I think maybe educating newer climbers with an awareness of the issues is required, this could be done through Climb Britain, Guides, Guidebooks...

In reply to trouserburp:


I don't think we were any less risk averse back in the day, I just think we understood and were more accepting of the kind of risk which is inherent in a sport like climbing - maybe it was a cultural thing? And as with everything, cultural reference points change from generation to generation.


There is nothing wrong with not wanting to climb harder. This in my view is one if the biggest problems with wall bred climbers. Everything is measured in numbers, so numbers become the most important aspect of the culture. In a wall environment that's perfectly understandable and logical - at the end of the day, indoor climbing is just vertical gymnastics - but it completely misses so much of what makes climbing such a wonderful HOBBY.

The problems arise when that indoor wall culture is carried over to the outdoor trad climbing. I think the biggest challenge both ethically and environmentally that climbing faces (bearing in mind that in the UK we have a finite and limited natural resource of crags) is finding a way to bridge the gap between the very different cultures of indoor and trad.

In reply to Goucho:

Hi G

Tried not to get involved but this thread has got me intrigued about why RU is thought of as so hard.

Must have done it 10+ times, might have to do it again.

I only layback as a last resort. Can only remember true laybacking on 4 routes, Waverley Wafer, Wheat Thin, something at Indian Creek and T Rex.

RU has footholds and jams most of the way, whats the problem?

Use the footholds, lean away a bit and place a few hexes or large wires. Benchmark HVS 5a surely.

In reply to Rick Graham:


Probably explains why you jammed it then.

In reply to Rick Graham:







Hi Rick

Waverley Wafer and Wheat Thin, now you're talking

Yes I don't know why folk find it a tough route - though maybe benchmark grit HVS 5a crack climbs are to wall bred climbers, what kryptonite is to superman - pointing the average wall bred sport climber operating at 6b/c at Robin Hoods Right Hand Buttress Direct might make interesting viewing?

Personally I've always found it a wonderful, flowing romp of joyous movement up one of the most delicious flakes on grit, with bomber gear (even before cams) plenty of footholds (especially for the left foot on the front of the flake) and good resting places. The finishing mantle is the perfect icing on a perfect cake.

It's everything that's brilliant about grit climbing. In fact I think I need to get back up north soon and do it once more.

In reply to Goucho:

Is that a date?

In reply to Rick Graham:


Could be?

I've not been back to my old stamping grounds for what seems an eternity, and I'm trying to plan a long trip in September to include grit (Derbyshire, Staffs & Yorkshire) Wales, Lakes and Scotland.

Just waiting for Mrs G to confirm dates when she's off on her annual trip to Oz, and then it's hopefully playtime

In reply to David Staples:

If people want to push their grade rather than have an experience, either by dogging/yo yoing a route or head pointing, they should do it on a less frequented route, not a fragile classic like RU

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Nothing wrong in a genuine HVS contender getting inspired by and trying RU.

In reply to Goucho:

I seconded RU last summer, and was quite glad I hadn't tried leading it when I got to the top out! I jammed most of it, like Rick was saying, which I much prefer to laybacking but still thought it was tough for HVS - I had onsighted a number of classic grit HVSs that summer.

Anyway, my main point was to support what Planetmarshall said above - having lived and climbed in another country, and climbed with climbers from lots of different nationalities, I would say the onsight ethic (along with trad) definitely keeps the average grade of UK climbers down. I've spent years 'leaving routes for when I'm better' before realising there's a good chance I'm not going to get any better, and I should give these routes ago if the gear is OK or if a friend wants to lead them and I can second. I fell off Terrezza Crack, which is annoying as I did the move ok second go (need to go back and do it from the ground sometime!) but at least I tried. These discussions about cam/nut wear on classic grit routes is fair, but it's actually only a tiny percentage of routes - around the UK and the world there seem to be far more routes where the cracks are getting bunged up with gunk again or lichen is covering holds.

In reply to GrahamD:
Not if they are a genuine contender, but there is if they expect to have to rest on runners or choose to head point it. It's just too fragile for that kind of treatment.

In reply to Goucho:


I'm not going to get involved on the ethics (not to mention style) of headpointing mid-grade classics, but if you think that working routes - indoors or out - is just about ticking bigger numbers then you're missing the point pretty spectacularly.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Considering the fact that average wall bred/sport climbers don't seem to be able to translate their wall/sport grades onto trad - and we are talking about working trad routes here - and that it's especially true of those operating at the 6b - 7a sport grade - which equates to about E3 - E5 in terms of technicality and physicality) - I'd be genuinely interested in you expanding on that?

Sits back, pours glass of rather fine red wine, and waits for the inevitable

In reply to Goucho:



I understand your comments but personally think 6b-7a relates to more like E2-E4.

In reply to Rick Graham:


Yes you could be right.

Translating sport grades into trad grades always catches me out - especially when I'm on the second bottle of Shiraz

In reply to Goucho:

Shiraz? I have not even had a cup of tea yet!

6b-7a relates to more like E2-E4 is probably correct for trad bred climbers taking up sport after it was invented.

Sports bred climbers possibly find E1 like a 6c. HTMS

In reply to Goucho:


Okay, so, first a disclaimer - I'm a hillwalking type who got into climbing as the extension of rambling by other means - hence the username - and am generally happiest doing long easy mountain routes where top-rope practice or spending hours repeatedly falling off a single move would be as unnecessary even if it was possible. I'm not the ideal person to hold forth at length about the pleasures of hard redpointing.

But that said, I climb indoors quite a bit (I live in East Anglia, it's that or the telly after work...) and enjoy bouldering outdoors when I get the chance, and I have got some idea of the satisfaction of working problems. And it has very little to do with saying "yeah, get me, I did a 6A" - particularly in Font (or at my local wall, come to that), where it'd be more like "yeah, get me, I did a ludicrously undergraded 3+", and a lot more to do with the process of taking something that initially seems so hard that it might as well be impossible, and then gradually and with some amount of mental effort unlocking the hidden features of the rock or the subtleties of mechanics and movement that make it seem improbable, and then possible, and then done. At the risk of going all Californian and "yeah it's kind of like yoga, maaan", it's a process of developing an intuitive physical understanding of something; a process which is quite unlike most other things that you do - it reminds me a bit of aikido, although I sucked at that as well - and which can be very rewarding if you're wired the right way.

But yeah, not just about ticking bigger numbers.

In reply to Rick Graham:


I'm nursing a buggered knee (again) - paying for all those years of alpine decents - and Mrs G is at dog training class, teaching the dogs how to use fire arms and throwing knives, so I thought sod it


I've done plenty of of E5's that I'd reckon equate to around 7a sport in terms of technical and physical though.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



I do get this when it comes to bouldering and sport, I just don't see it the same for trad, other than going for the grade tick, but maybe it's just me

In reply to Ramblin dave:

If someone wants to tick a route like RU or Orpheus Wall with fairly battered/fragile gear placements but isn't fairly certain they could onsight it, it would be better for the rock if they head pointed it than dogged it ground up and risked trashing those placements further.

In reply to Sam Beaton:


For the rock, the best thing would be that no one ever climbs it again... next in line is a perfect flash (no mockin' around)... a headpoint (toprope once to dial the moves and check the gear) would be the 3rd.

Fallin' on the gear is the worst, no matter what ethic one follows (for gear placements, that is). Resting on gear really isn't that bad unless the rock is really fragile.