UKC

James Pearson has made a repeat of Franco Cookson's E11 route Immortal, at Maiden's Bluff, North Yorkshire.

Read more

Who moved Sandy Crag!

I don't know what's more impressive, the route or being so psyched in those bloody freezing conditions! Great that JP is now a fully established elder statesman of trad dishing out juicy downgrades to young whippersnappers (sort of).

A lesson in downgrading without downgrading 😂

I think it's so cool that we have James and Franco in the trad scene in UK, both bring so much in their different ways. Yes we know grades at that level will always be contentious, but I think that's slightly beyond the point. I think Franco has put the Moors in the map, and it's cool that JP has gone to repeat it. I think James specially is probably the best all-round trad climber in UK at the moment in my view. 

I'd add a grade or two if I'd had Joe Cocker blaring out when I was trying to concentrate

It's also good that Steve MaClure and Neil Gresham were there too - demonstrates that people are interested in what Franco's been doing.

Steve is up that way quite a bit I think, being from North Yorkshire himself. I remember seeing him have a toppy on one of Franco's routes (think it was Sky Burial). 

Totally agree. And regardless of grade, I imagine Franco will be happy to see some of his Moors lines getting attention.

Could UKC stop publishing big grade numbers in headlines? Specifically in circumstance where they are just a proposal from one person. Or more specifically if there is a small consensus, not just revert to the higher grade for a clickbait title.

I feel this just encourages people to push big grades about, and also encourages a culture where the grade becomes the important thing, rather than the route being the star. 

In the case of this route, only two people have led it, the first proposed E11, the second insinuated that for him it was less than E11, so why does UKC revert to E11 in the headline, other than to use that big number to inflate the headline or the route.

It was similar recently with Angus and James' repeats of Eternal Fall, Both felt it not to be E9, so as a consensus the majority think lower. Yet the big grade was used in the news headline. 

I guess potentially if these routes weren't these particular grades, then it would change whether they actually make it into the news or not. E.g there isn't a news report every time Simba's Pride gets done, which could be a comparable line/standard to Eternal Fall?

I know this is a wider issue, but I personally am increasingly of the opinion that E grades are just fairly pointless in the upper ends. I personally think they could be ditched in favour of a french grade and then an attached difficulty scale such as the 'd' points as described by James himself in his latest Nugget podcast. I don't think the grades would sound quite as exotic and would perhaps draw the attention away from the grade and bring the quality of the route to the fore.

Tribe is a great example of a route that hasn't been given an E grade, and it just doesn't need one. Would be suitors probably know enough about it, and I think it has a good reputation as a hard trad route.

Anyway, great effort James committing to heading up there in pursuit of repeating the route and finding out for yourself what they are all about. 

Ed

Because its only proposed grade is E11, by Franco, and like it or not, people are interested in the ascent of hard climbs with impressive grades

In that case then is not false if people are interested in it based on it having a high grade if it actually isn’t that grade? 
 

I would disagree that the only proposed grade is E11. I think James gave enough opinion to deduce that he would give it a lower E grade if he had to be pinned down to it. 

interesting, not listened to this as assumed it would essentially be a rehash of the Careless Talk one. This seems a bit at odds with his article on here making it clear that he thought his latest Annot thing was E12 and the reasons why. 

yeh he essentially goes into the way it comes up with the E grade, and it basically comes to having to put in the French grade and the d points. Seems a bit silly if both ways you have to know all of that to come up with the E grade or to work out what the E grade means work backwards to get a French grade and D rating because they tell you more. 
he actually says in the pod, when questioned, he doesn’t really know why he gave it an E grade because he doesn’t really use them. To him Bon Voyage was 9a with a D rating of 2.5 I think he said .  

I’m sure if he really thought about it he could come up with some reasons for giving it the biggest UK trad grade!!

Rightly or wrongly, grades provide context, and - in my opinion - omitting them from the title removes a fairly essential piece of information. However, your next question - which is what grade a route actually is (and what we report) - is more complex to answer.

In the case of Immortal, Franco graded it E11 and James said it "felt too chilled for it to be E11". In the face of that I don't see how we could have run with anything other than E11 in the title, because it's a 50/50 split, so not overwhelming odds in favour of an actual downgrade - that'll require further ascents to confirm. 

Eternal Fall is potentially a little different given that it received its 2nd and 3rd ascent - both of which suggested E8 (as opposed to E9). Maybe that was something we should have addressed within the title, but these sorts of things are always easy to say in hindsight. As for why we reported on this as opposed to Simba's Pride, the reason is quite simple: these are the 2nd and 3rd ascents of a recent route, which was - up until this point - graded E9. Will we report on subsequent ascents now that it's been repeated, and is E8, probably not.

Tangents aside, titles are intended to be a summary. We tend to keep ours quite short, including all the basics, which tends to be athlete, route, grade (or, to be more precise, the grade that's most commonly accepted for that route) and as/where appropriate further notes on style (i.e. onsight, flash etc...). Exceptions occur, and interestingly - given your reference to Tribe - we did something different back when that was first climbed and repeated, as we used "Jacopo Larcher climbs contender for world's hardest trad route", partly because in the absence of a grade we needed to contextualise how meaningful an ascent this was, and I suspect we're all in agreement that "Jacopo Larcher climbs Tribe" doesn't do it the justice it deserves.

I think the other thing to mention is that we have a pretty broad readership. Many, like you and I, are fully into it. We know who Franco is, what he's done, and we know who James is and what he's done too, so we don't need the grade to be in the title because we know that - and many other details - already; however, it would be wrong of us to assume that this goes for everyone. 

The only grade suggested is E11. Pearson has said its soft maybe but not suggested an alternative so E11 would be it until Pearson says otherwise!

We could go into the interpretation and subtleties of his wording, and I'll concede that he hasn't actually given a grade. But "too chill for E11" to me reads it wasn't E11 for him. By default, it reads more as any grade from E10 or below, rather than soft E11. Unless James wanted to put a grade out, then we won't know for sure.

In response to Rob's comment how they could not have gone with anything other than E11 for this, I would disagree but that depends on the above comments I've made on what we can conclude from James' comments. The adverb 'too' suggests its not. If the wording was fairly or quite chill for E11, then that could have allowed for soft E11. 

The fact of going into all this detail of grade debate, to me highlights how annoying the emphasis of grades can be. I'm a guilty and becoming a victim of my own frustrations. 

Would James have gone to try this route in the first place if Franco had only given it E9?

Would he have gone to do it if Franco said it was a cutting edge level of climbing and boldness and a really high quality route?

Would he have gone to do it if Franco said it was a cutting edge level of climbing and boldness but not a very good climb?

Would any of that matter? Surely James's reason for doing it is entirely up to James. The fact that it was put up by one of the UK's best trad climbers, and described at the time (grade or otherwise) as being one of the hardest things he'd done, makes a repeat ascent very newsworthy indeed. Grades are simply an attempt to quantify difficulty and nobody expects them all to remain unchanged once a consensus emerges.

I, for one, was glad of the grade in the title of this thread. It helped me to remember which route it was referring to, as I wouldn't have placed it just by the name itself.

https://www.instagram.com/p/C2hSMzMNjWD/?igsh=eGl3MGYxMGU0bWZ1

Of tangential relevance to the grade debate - 10 minutes to link it on a top rope (I'm assuming that's what "a sequence done in one" is) for Steve Mac.

A grade has to be in the headline of a significant ascent. James hasn't offered a grade, just implied that it's lower than E11. So a possible headline of 'James Pearson climbs Immortal, Suggests easier than given grade' is not only a crap headline but also click-batey in the theme of downgrading. Downgrading is so hot right now and I'd be much less happy about seeing it in headlines than a proposed grade; contentious or not. 

As for James' motivation for climbing it, he is one of the best trad climbers in the world and has climbed a lot (most?) other routes of E10 or harder in the UK. This one is a short sandstone outcrop climb (his speciality?) and is probably about 3 hours drive from where he was staying. He tends to tick a hard route when he's back here on a break (see Harder, Faster & Parthian Shot).

The interest in repeating the route is surely also increased by it's prominence in the BritRock film.  I'm pretty sure that even if Franco hadn't ventured a grade, having it in there, with a  statement like 'I know it's very hard, but I can't grade it' would have given it an appeal.

Thanks for chipping in Rob, always value your contributions on these debates. I completely agree there was no other grade you could have used with Immortal. And also that titles are a summary, where the grade is a useful way of giving as much information in as few characters as possible. 

But I think your example of 'Jacopo Larcher climbs Tribe' is interesting, because I don't feel it's inadequate at all. If UKC is doing an article about an ascent then it must be very hard/significant - you don't need to know who Jacopo is to get this. You could therefore omit grades from these headlines without sacrificing much information, and it might have a positive influence on climbing culture.

I think most here probably agree that an excessive focus on grades is a slightly negative aspect of contemporary climbing culture. And that outlets like UKC choosing to omit them in their headlines could help to reduce that focus over time. It's an idea worth considering or experimenting with in my opinion. 

I also wonder, if people have to click through to get the bit of info they really want, does that mean more people click through? Or have you already experimented with this and found the opposite? 

Thanks,

Conor

Tricky one this. Do you believe that the role of media/journalism is to...

(a) Provide the information that people want/need, or

(b) Influence what people think about to match what the media owner/editor thinks they should think about?

Yes, I could probably argue both sides, but (b) outside of explicit editorials, is fraught with ethical issues. 

It may be of some relevance, though the route sounds at the bolder end of the scale, so is going to be radically different on lead compared to toprope. I would guess that in sport climbing terms it's going to be fairly easy for Steve, but that's only half the challenge with many of these type routes.

So looking back to what was said on the first ascent, it's short lived (=bouldery, which ties in with the video of Pearson on IG where it's about 6-7 moves to get to what might be a better hold) and "as hard as any of the physically safe outcrop E10s in the UK", or words to that effect. I don't know entirely what routes Franco had in mind, but if I think of the steep E10 in Pembroke (Chorazon) that's supposed to be 8b+. Googling suggests Equilibrium is mid-8s. So very bouldery mid-8? 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CX0zC6YNuAv/?igsh=bDhldHFocXR6cm40

Well, obviously I have absolutely no idea of the sport grade, so can't say much there. But it does sound like a bold route.

Fair question. I would say there's no neutral option - either you include something or you exclude it - both are active choices that influence what people think.

A broadsheet will omit certain gory details from a headline on a crime story, while a tabloid will include them. If you ran a controlled test on both headlines, you'd find that the tabloid headline is what most people 'want'. Does that mean the tabloid is impartial and the broadsheet trying to influence what people think? 

Secondly I don't think of a climbing website in the same category as news organisations in terms of impartiality requirements.

And thirdly UKC has made a deliberate (and IMO worthwhile) effort to influence climbing culture when it comes to issues around diversity, disability etc. Choosing not to put grades in headlines would be a much less overtly editorial move IMO.

I think whatever grade it settles at, and whatever the quality of the route is, ultimately good effort Franco putting your neck out there on what looks like a tricky sequence of moves in a scary position. And good effort James for getting involved to go and repeat it. 

Chicken or egg? - is Franco good at this bold sort of stuff because he's found loads of it up in the NY Moors, or does Franco find loads of this bold sort of stuff in the NY Moors because he's good at it?

as usual, it is all about the grade...

I don't know how true it is but he said in his talk I went to in Hathersage that him and his mates found they could tick big grades without being very good climbers if the routes they picked were dangerous. 

Couldn't go to his talk, but being able to do dangerous routes is also an aspect of being a good climber; it's not just physical abilities that count, especially in trad. You don't need all the aspects of being an all-round great climber to be a good climber.

I'm sure Franco knows this. I suspect when they were relatively new climbers, UK climbing was in a "all good climbers are strong" phase. The last time "weak" climbers were considered good was probably when Johnny Dawes was in his prime.

I don't understand why anyone would risk their lives to lead-climb a small wall that can be easily top-roped.

On a big Dolomites wall, for example, lead climbing is a necessity. But on a small crag, why not just drop a rope from the top and enjoy the climb? There is no need to climb from the bottom.

Your failure to understand it doesn't relate to whether others should be doing it

Yeah someone go tell all those idiots at Stanage that they can walk round the side and drop a rope down. It's embarrassing that they haven't checked to be honest!

lead climbing at Stanage on mid-grades can be explained as practice on how to use the gear, in preparation for multi-pitch routes.

But intentionally risking death on non-existing gear on very difficult routes: what is the purpose?

Are ye soft in the 'ead lad?

So, why are they doing it?

The uncertainty of gear and the consequences of failure are the point of trad climbing. It gives a far greater experience than sport climbing or even multipitch routes in the dolimites that are basically clip ups on threads and pegs. 

Just because you can't see this, doesn't mean others won't 

Didnt they use a hell of a lot more pads than the FA? 

They also took what looked like a bit of a cop-out (but may not in fact be any different in difficulty) finish to the side of the prow. 

'If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know'

You clearly have no idea of the feeling of being in complete control on something that has the potential to hurt you. 

'swing'

This gives a bit more detail about both issues. It doesn’t categorically say he topped it from here (I.e. up the left arete) but I’d assume so! https://www.instagram.com/p/C19TwNtt5CO/?igsh=aTFudWV3bHRwZmdq

Have you time travelled here from the 1900s?

Challenge, fun, athletic achievement, chasing the flow, deep play, they were crap at footy at school and thought this might impress the girls, existential ennui, toxic masculinity... So many possibilities!

Ah yes. Its all training for the greater ranges isn't it 

Interesting philosophical question* why do needlessly risky things in the mountains when you could just smash in a load of fixed gear to make it super safe? Or get your sherpa team to fix lines from the top? Or just walk round the back? Or just stay in bed? 

* well its not really but I'll humour it out of politeness 

Ok, all. Thank you for the various replies. I understand some of the reasons:

Toxic masculinity:  disagree (as also ladies do it).

Being in absolute control of something that can hurt you: disagree; if you are in complete control, then why all the crush pads at the bottom? 

Impress the ladies: does it work?

Doing it just for the challenge: ok - it makes sense - a personal choice. 

Makes it a better overall experience: many of these short ground-ups are rehearsed many times in top rope, then a lot of crash pads placed at the bottom, then all the gear, the fear of falling.....it looks a lot of faffing around for an enjoyable experience?

Also: if the ''E'' grade relates to the potential consequences of a fall: shouldn't the route be downgraded a bit for each crush pad added at the bottom? (if you reduce the risk, you reduce the ''E'' grade...).

I may be wrong but overall, to me it looks more about chasing fame and sponsors rather then personal enjoyment.

If you want to check whether you're wrong or right, why not work a bold and dangerous grit route at the limit of your technical ability, then solo it above a couple of mats, and see whether you enjoy it? It's not really that much faffing and you don't need a partner. Set up a top rope and shunt for the practice. Then carry a couple of mats in yourself. I've done this frequently at my punter grades of low to mid extremes, and find it an extremely satisfying experience. It's not just for the elite.

Wouldn't this be enough to end the debate?

If people do the faff, and say that it was still a better overall experience, then you kinda have to believe them, right? That's not to say you might disagree, so you wouldn't want to expose yourself to that risk, but they find it better, so they do it.

The grade has already taken that into account. Franco used pads, and gave it E11 even with those pads. Why would you reduce it, other than with an educated understanding of the gear/risk/difficulty involved - of which none of us in this thread are in a position to comment?

It seems clear that you're very out of the loop when it comes to trad, and bold trad at that. There are hundreds, thousands, of people in Britain doing bold routes for their physical ability level, who get a great amount of satisfaction and enjoyment out of it. To suggest it's all about chasing fame and sponsors is pretty naive I'm afraid.

Yeah. When I was climbing that VS in trad style, I was sure that sponsors would come running. They must have missed me somehow...

1800s more like

You missed out because its the best thing ever.

If you don't know or appreciate the feeling of pulling your best moves above gear, then you just don't know. 

Weak, technically brilliant and often very bold. As well as Franco and Dawes, Jules Lines springs to mind. 

Interesting that Johnny Dawes and Julian Lines are also two members of the very small elite literary band of climbers who have written autobiographies with genuinely original style, as opposed to the rather prosaic majority. I wonder if there's a correlation? Based on Franco's writings so far, I reckon he has the potential to join them.

Thank you all.

I am getting into my time machine now and travel back to 1800s.

Does anyone wants an iPhone? ...There will be no signal back there. I mean: then.

I have never used pads on a route. I consider it to be cheating.

...or solo it without pads...

In my logbook I'd record it as "sent" if I used pads and "solo" if not. But the poster I was responding to had specifically referred to pads. Anyway, we all have our own little rules by which to play our gloriously weird game.

Strange. There's multiple photos in your gallery of you climbing above some pads. I'm assuming you photo-shopped them in?

What would you think to someone who onsighted or went ground up with pads on something you did in headpoint style but without pads. Which is cheating more?

Why? That's a bit like saying cams are cheating. 

Where? Maybe bouldering but never on a route. Ever.

No it's not. Gear placements are dictated by what the rock gives you, you can stack a load of pads anywhere you want.

Why climb anything it's safer to stay indoors.

OK, a bit niche, but whatever. Personally I regard headpointing as cheating, but realise this is pretty backwards! (And why I never climb harder than E4). I love both my ankles and a bit of paddage on sketchy grit onsights. A pad has become a stand part of my rack for grit, allthough I would probably ditch it if I worked stuff first.

Exactly. On no account should these people be admitted to the Alpine Club! 

...which demonstrates how the UK grading system falls down - the lack of a 'seriousness' rating (like the PG/R/X used in the YDS) facilitates this conflation of difficulty and danger.

The sensible thing would be to compare it to routes described as 'hard grit' - Parthian Shot, Gaia, New Statesman, The Promise, Equilibrium etc.  The 'skillset' required to do those (technical ability + mental ability) is different to doing something longer in Pembrokeshire or the mountains which are generally safer.

Of course it is. But many of those aren't E10, nor "physically safe" (depending on where you define the end of "safe")...

Fair enough. We're all playing our own silly game

That's not only true of the top grades!

It sounds like every one of the E2s I managed to do, none of them had 5c moves on them!

Is it harder to do the same route with good protection or with hardly any protection?

I think we all could agree it's harder with less protection. And harder = more difficult.

The only confusion arises when people mistakenly assume that 'difficulty' relates only to the physical challenge and not also to the mental one.

Great ethical debate! Surely you could argue that rock doesn’t actually have any protection - we create bits of kit that fit the requirements. No rock actually has a cam or a nut on it, it has a placement which we then create a piece of gear to fit to keep up safe. In which case the distinction of bringing up some deliberately designed bits of metal to fit the rock to keep us from breaking our legs becomes quite blurry from carrying up a bit of foam and putting it on the ground to stop us breaking our legs…

In terms of accusing people of cheating, to my mind you lost me with the headpointing. Abbing down and practising a route to death is so obviously an ethical compromise you can’t then point fingers at people using pads. Ned’s ground up of Samson above pads is as (or way more) impressive than someone headpointing it in my view. 

But surely a route with perfect protection has a reduced grade so if you brought  enough pads (giant catch net) you could make it as safe as toproping. Blurry indeed.

Do you think falling off near the top of a highball or route onto pads hurts more or less than falling on a toprope?

Surely this would be classed as a highball boulder problem not a route though? Also even with a lot of pads falling off proper highball is pretty sketchy!

I appreciate there is a blurry line I.e things like Endless flight which people couldn't agree on but that is really relevant here. I would love to see the pad stack to make Immortal safe!

Does anyone?

Has it occurred to you that other people may derive personal enjoyment from performing in stressful or dangerous situations?