UKC

Is UKC now using + grades in the brit tech scale or are new routes ending up mistakenly with french and adjectival grades rather than bit tech and adjectival grades?

The Lord is my Shepherd (E7 6b)
Infusoria (E7 6b)
Mortal Panic (E5 6a)

I'll say in advance that I did google and look on UKC for a thread about this already but I didn't find anything. Also, subdividing the brit tech scale from about 6a upwards does seem like quite a good idea because there is such a wide range of difficulty in one grade.

In reply to henwardian:

Hmm, that's pretty strange, it's not the expected behaviour.

I'll take a look at it tomorrow.

In reply to henwardian:

It's fixed.

In reply to henwardian:

Also, subdividing the brit tech scale from about 6a upwards does seem like quite a good idea because there is such a wide range of difficulty in one grade.

I've been curious about this for a while. You hear it a lot, and it's close to being "common knowledge" - but how can one reliably tell, objectively? Could it not equally be the case that lower technical grade bands are just as wide, but it's the higher ones that get psychologically "magnified" by the harder climbers, because that's what they're focussing on?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Grades are based on noticable differences. They obviously feel wider when close to ones limits but the number of grades elsewhere spanning UK tech 6c is large. UK trad got stuck in a rut with its reluctance to accept something deserved a higher number and its all all quite funny in hindsight given UK tech evolved direct from font grades. Scottish VS was a similar problem on the adjectival front

In reply to Offwidth:


Which only implies an actual (rather than perceived) broader range at UK 6c if we accept the premise that the grades from other systems being used for comparison are evenly calibrated.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Yes, but if it is ALL the other grading systems then one suspects it's the UK tech grade, not those, which is at fault at the top end. That said, I would prefer it if this argument was made more often by those actually climbing the relevant grades, not punters like us who are really just going by second hand info/supposition.

In reply to bpmclimb:
With all due respect maybe try talking to the people who climb at these grades. UK 6c encompasses too many noticable differences and the noticable differences in the other grading systems are real and more useful. As a result, despite the labels in UK guidebooks, hardly anyone really uses UK 6c any more (the E grade and text, sometimes supplemented with sport or bouldering grades, gives the sensitivity on noticeable differences instead).

In reply to Offwidth:

Lol. UK tech 6c tells me everything in need to know on a trad route. "Top rope only". I suspect those operating at 6c trad on sight have enough experience and skills in the bag not to worry about if they are physically capable of making the move - they know they can, so hardness isn't such an issue as judgement and risk limitation. I also suspect that few people on sight totally unknown routes at 6c, they often will have a reputation, local knowledge or visible from the ground info, and that's if the guide book doesn't add meat to the bones.

In reply to Kevster:

There is no-one I know, of many who have attempted 6c onsights or ground-ups above mats, who would guarentee their physical capability on any random 6c move. Your self-contradictory but much more sensible discussion is just another way of saying what I said... UK tech 6c is almost meaningless in that being harder than 6b but easier than 7a is such a wide range. The E grade, the description, the protectabiliy and what the crux looks like (ground fall vs boulder problem start!?) its reputation and ancillary information (on sites like the one I've attached below), all taken alongside experience, are what count. This 6c tech label is simply much less useful than the information conveyed by 4c on a VS to an experienced VS leader.

http://gritlist.wikifoundry-mobile.com