A Gritstone Retrospective Guest Editorial

© Ian Smith periodically run Guest Editorial articles from experienced climbers. Recently we have had pieces from climbers such as Pat Littlejohn, Dougald MacDonald and Nick Bullock. These opinion pieces are written from the heart, with passion and feeling. They are not official UKC policy, but they are of interest and value to British climbers. If you would like to work with on a guest editorial, please get in touch.

Regarded by some as being too small and just a distraction from 'proper' trad climbing, whilst at the same time, treasured by others who revel in the short solos and smeary friction climbs, gritstone, like it or loathe it, is central to the UK climbing scene. Its small stature is more than made up for by its peculiarities and often blank and gearless nature.

In this editorial article, experienced climber Graham Hoey, who has had a 35 year love affair with the gritstone edges of the Peak, explores the ever advancing style of gritstone climbing, for better or for worse...

Graham has experienced some hard grit himself, with his own ascents, on sight, up to E6, and more recently by belaying James Pearson on the first ascent of The Groove at Cratcliffe Tor.

Here he shares his opinions on the current 'state of play' on gritstone.

Graham Hoey onsighting Barbarian (E5) in 1984  © Ian Smith
Graham Hoey onsighting Barbarian (E5) in 1984
© Ian Smith

A gritstone retrospective

by Graham Hoey

With a flurry of ascents of some of grit's hardest routes, the level of gritstone climbing has recently hit new heights. Or has it? How much have on-sight standards really improved in the last twenty five years? Is the current wave of activity the tip of an iceberg of high quality ascents in good style across the entire grade spectrum? How much bolder have climbers become?

In developing this article I spoke to a number of climbers, all with a passion for climbing on gritstone and with a strong record of commitment. Dave Thomas in particular has spent considerable time thinking about the manner and psychology of bold ascents. Dave has many serious solo ascents of (protected) E6 routes to his name including Lord of the Flies, Sardine and Cave Man/Terra Cotta.

For him, “a route is not defined purely by its material nature but includes the manner or style of ascent”, what some are beginning to call 'the experience'. He argues that “The material fact of the route does not exist separately from our act of climbing it. Therefore, it only exists, along with our opportunity to emulate/surpass the achievements of our forbearers, only in the MANNER or style of our ascents. This is critical”.

Dave (like me) “draws inspiration from the actions of those before us, reflects on them and seeks to move forward”. He feels that “many climbers attempt to stand on the same pedestal as their contemporaries without considering the manner of their attaining it...and that if all they extract is the hard, material part, and not the full experience, they will never understand the journey involved in attaining the top of the pedestal”.

PHOTO: These photos are me on-sighting Barbarian at Bowden Doors in 1984. There was some debate recently (July 2007) on UKC as to whether this had been on-sighted. If I recall virtually no one thought it likely!

The challenge isn't determined by what we climb but how we climb it and we should always ask ourselves "have I really faced up to the challenge? Can I improve on the style of my ascent?” I concur with his view therefore, that most hard routes (including those on gritstone) are yet to be repeated in what used to be simply known (and clearly understood) as good style and that pre-practice and pads remove the 'soul' from a route; leaving only the 'lifeless corpse' (the soul being found in our encounter with it).

Graham Hoey finishing Barbarian (E5) in 1984   © Ian Smith
Graham Hoey finishing Barbarian (E5) in 1984
© Ian Smith
In 1986 the E8 grade (predicted for an on-sight ascent) arrived on gritstone thanks to Johnny Dawes, John Dunne and Nick Dixon. Johnny's approach to new routes in particular was inspirational. Many of the easier ones (unprotected E5 and E6) were on-sight. On his harder ones he rarely practised routes repeatedly and often only practised what he viewed as the crux and even then only briefly.

For example, on Gaia, because of his height, Johnny worked the entry move to the groove finding it English 7a; he didn't practice the upper section at all. Dharma (E7 6c) was cleaned on abseil, but no moves were attempted and he then flashed the route.

On Avoiding the Traitors (E7 6c), Johnny fell off a number of moves while on top-rope, failing to link them at all. He then elected to solo the route. It was only the photographer's request to use a rope to 'improve the photographs' that made him lead it! Most of his unprotected routes were done without any landing protection, although on Angel's Share (E8 7a) he did pile up some Birch twigs and on Charlotte Rampling (E6 6b) he tried to fabricate a 'safety net out of a rope'!

Repeating these routes in good style back then was the preserve of the truly talented, and for many years they received few, if any, such ascents. For example the 'second ascent' of Dharma followed top-rope practice.

Scroll forward 23 years, over two decades of indoor climbing walls, campus boards and red pointing; climbers have never been stronger. Have on-sight levels increased significantly? At the top level, among the masses?

Grit E4s were being on-sighted in the 1970s. E5s in the early 1980s (most quality bold E5s had been on-sighted well before the mid-1980s) and E6 by the mid-to-late 80s. They were often done mid-week, alone, on deserted edges (without shit out ropes, pads and mobile phones) and were committing experiences. I mention this because there seems to be among many younger climbers (and those new to the sport) a general lack of awareness of the style of ascents over the last 20 years.

Even now, two decades on from these ascents, why do bold routes of these grades seldom receive on-sight (padless) ascents? Furthermore, why are ascents of E6s being reported as significant? Recent examples include an ascent above pads where the E6 nature lies in the bad landing below a relatively low, unprotected crux (done ground-up padless 16 years ago), a head-point of a well-protected E6, a very minor new E6 and an on-sight of an E6 in Wales (on-sighted at least 15 years ago). Climbers even ask on forums whether certain routes of E5 have ever been on-sighted!

Graham Hoey on-sighting Great Arete in 1984  © Keith Sharples
Graham Hoey on-sighting Great Arete in 1984
© Keith Sharples
How long do we keep reporting flawed ascents? With James Pearson's recent on-sight of End of the Affair isn't it time to stop reporting ascents of this route (and others) when done in a poorer style?

How did we get to this? In 1998 the Hard Grit video was released. For the past ten years following this release, head pointing has been the predominant way of attempting the harder routes. Before long nearly every man and his dog were practising climbs on a top-rope.

Leading grades increased but what about standards or style? It was easier, and gave more kudos, to head point E8 than to on-sight bold E5s and E6s. For most climbers, applying an on-sight ethic to the harder routes was ignored. Getting better meant having to wait.

To quote Andi Turner: “It's the same old story, lines are opened after practice and the practice is justified by their difficulty. Years later the routes are flashed/on-sighted/ground-upped and we've caught up with ourselves again”.

Many even extended the head point approach to routes which are well protected! In the vast majority of cases, the top routes of the eighties were being (and are still being) ascended in worse style than when they were first done. When in the history of climbing has this ever happened, and why has this been viewed by many in the media as progress; with some of these ascents being reported as significant?

Only a few talented climbers have equalled or improved upon the efforts of the first ascentionists of these upper end routes.

An argument used to counter concerns about head pointing is that as long as it doesn't do any harm and people are honest about their ascents then it doesn't matter. But is this really the case? Unfortunately many climbers who head point repeatedly practice routes. Take a look at Kaluza Klein if you want to see what repeated top-rope practice and brushing can do. Compared to when it was first done it's trashed.

As a case study it is interesting to consider the manner of the first ascent of Master's Edge in 1983. Ron Fawcett abseiled down it and brushed Jerry Moffatt's chalk from the holds, but didn't try any moves. The protection available was an unproven prototype camming device and a tri-cam (hardly a confidence-inspiring combination!) and he didn't pad out the landing. The rock was wet at the start and on his first attempt he fell off when a damp boot slipped out of one of the shot-holes. On his second attempt he succeeded. In the past 26 years how many ascents have matched this? Perhaps more importantly, how many have attempted to match it or improve upon it?

Graham Hoey on Conan The Librarian (E6) in 1997  © Mike Waters
Graham Hoey on Conan The Librarian (E6) in 1997
© Mike Waters

Conan The Librarian - The best E6 in the country?

Graham Hoey attempting to onsight Pirhana (E6 6b)   © Keith Sharples
Graham Hoey attempting to onsight Pirhana (E6 6b)
© Keith Sharples
Then pads came along. Don't get me wrong, I think pads are great. Tom Brigg's impressive ground-up solo ascent of Renegade Master (without pre-placed wires) above a couple of pads in 2001 was a defining moment in their use.

However it took quite a time (helped by some egoless talented young Brits and some honest American visitors) for it to be finally accepted that they do reduce the E grade and challenge of specific types of gritstone routes and that the reduction is indefinable.

At long last, common sense has prevailed and bouldering grades are starting to be applied when pads are used. What I do think is important is that the use of such pads is reported accurately by the media and in guidebooks. Why are some ground-ups where pads have been used being given E grades in reports?

I read recently that “the E8, Angel's Share had been climbed ground up”. No it hasn't, not as an E8. The experience that is Angel's Share, that first realised by Johnny Dawes is not obtained above a platform of pads. Adam Long openly declared his ascent as a high ball problem, and no one watching the video of the ascent can doubt that without pads Adam would have soon been on his way to hospital.

It's been said that pads are the new cams and that not to use them is just being stupid. This is surely nonsense; isn't protection whatever is available on a route, not under it (yes, the development of cams has enabled certain routes to become easier, but the slots have to be part of the route; pads are non-discriminatory).

Such statements are attempting to redefine what bold gritstone is about, an attempt to justify what really doesn't need justifying except from a warped sense of ego. It can't change the simple fact that padded ascents are less challenging, not the full experience and not in Dave Thomas's definition 'the route'.

Now, it can't be denied that climbing above pads is good fun, and where they are similar to cams is in enabling climbers to have a better experience than top-roping along with (an indefinable) risk. Clearly, pads don't guarantee safety, but they are definitely a better bet than the ground!

PHOTO: Old School pads. Me attempting an early on-sight of Pirhana (E6 6b) in Water-cum-Jolly (1980s) above a folded karrimat. The attempt ended in hospital!

However, one of the beauties of gritstone has always been its relatively low height allowing significant doubts when doing bold routes with deck-out possibilities. Indeed, the complete challenge is in having the mental and physical abilities to overcome these doubts. I do feel it's a shame that some people are missing out on the incredible experiences these challenges represent.

Leo Houlding, reflecting on serious climbing stated (I forget the exact words) that it wasn't that feeling of danger experienced on the route that was important, but where the experience took you. If you want a full feeling of the commitment gritstone offers (which has always been an important element in gritstone climbing) why not consider ditching the pads now and again? It can rather worryingly get addictive!

By the way, pads are not a new idea; they were available in the 20th century (as mattresses) but were considered to be cheating, only a car mat, beer towel or ¼” thick karrimat considered fair sport! For example, when Pete Cresswell soloed Scritto's Republic above a landing padded out with ropes, rucksack and an abandoned car bench-seat the ascent was not felt to be particularly significant, (some may say he was ahead of his time!).

Graham Hoey on the second ascent of Hellbound E7 6b, 6b (2004)  © Mike Waters
Graham Hoey on the second ascent of Hellbound E7 6b, 6b (2004)
© Mike Waters
In 1994 Airlie Anderson used two mattresses to pad out the serious start to Masters Edge, the beginning of a trend which continues to this day.

People say this makes no difference to this route, but which section would you like to fall off least, the start or the finish? Apart from an incident where gear was placed poorly in the shot-hole, no-one has hurt themselves off the upper part, but Mike Lea ended up in hospital when he fell off the start without a pad!

Finally there's the issue of using pads for first ascents of the few remaining last great challenges. One prolific gritstone new-router from the 80s commented that

Multiple pads on first ascents would certainly piss me off because my generation could have done quite a few more new routes with pads, but left them for climbers with bigger balls in the future. I did the moves on The Promise, but didn't feel inclined to lead it. I didn't spot the runner, good effort to James for doing it without pads. I think that repeat ascentionists not using pads should have the right to rename and regrade the route.”

Should these challenges be left for those with the ability and mental strength to do them without? Would renaming and re-grading the route when repeated without pads be reasonable? What about the first on-sight repeat?

A desire to move away from head pointing towards the on-sight has led to the ground-up approach (which many older climbers would argue is nothing new!).

Coming close on the heels of an on-sight, a ground-up ascent is considered the next best thing. But how does a ground-up solo above pads compare with head pointing? Andi Turner feels that “taking multiple falls from Ulysses above pads to claim a ground-up is barely different to a head point”.

One concern I have is when ground-up attempts involve repeatedly falling onto crucial and limited gear placements. The outer skin of grit is not strong and wears away to leave soft rock. In tiny, narrow slots where the contact area is small (and hence impact pressure of falls is large) the placement will get damaged and become useless.

I heard a rumour that following repeated ground up attempts on Parthian Shot, the flake had to be eased apart to remove a stuck nut (speaking of Parthian Shot, how many ascents have matched John Dunne's original of 20 years ago?).

How different is repeatedly taking safe falls (experienced by many non-climbers as bungee jumps) from top-roping a route (which will not stress the placement(s))? How long before one of the best hard routes on gritstone becomes lost for years to come?

Graham Hoey on the girdle of Red Walls Gogarth (E4/5)  © Mike Waters
Graham Hoey on the girdle of Red Walls Gogarth (E4/5)
© Mike Waters
While ground-up leading has its place, think of the effect you may be having on the route, think of others more able than yourself and why not jack it in after a few attempts and return when you are better? It used to be called giving the rock a chance.

To conclude, gritstone routes are a finite resource, a precious environment upon which we derive our pleasure. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as much as is possible, they are preserved in a good condition for other generations to enjoy.

Regarding the style of ascent I'm not suggesting that pre-practice or using pads is disrespecting our climbing heritage in any way; the disrespect comes when climbers make false or misleading statements about their ascent or the media choose to ignore the poor(er) style of the ascent in their reporting of it.

In addition, the history (which includes improvements in the style of ascent) of a route should be respected and celebrated. This requires a thoughtful (and retrospective) assessment of ascents and the media/guidebook agencies must be more proactive in this (and climbers possibly need to be less shy!).

Surely these agencies have a responsibility to maintain and improve standards by not reporting/celebrating ascents which fail to match or improve upon the style of the original ascents? Indeed are they not slowing down or reversing progression when they do the opposite?

We must therefore distinguish carefully and recognise when ascents have been truly significant (inspirational), for example Neil Gresham on Meshuga, Toby Benham on Soul Doubt (and others), Jordan Buys, Nick Sellers and Pete Whittaker on lots and James Pearson's on-sight of End of the Affair.

Where will some of the recent impressive (ultra) highball ground-ups by Ben Bransby, Ryan Pasquill, Pete Robins, and James McHaffie et al fit into the development of gritstone climbing? With this type of ascent are we witnessing the evolution of a new style of gritstone climbing? A style which offers the opportunity to on-sight moves close to the cutting edge of technicality, but with a greater degree of safety than hitherto experienced (in a leading/soloing sense). A style whose development and history surely needs be assessed (and celebrated?) in its own right, and not in the context of padless ascents?

Also, what role will this style of ascent play in the progression of gritstone climbing within the context of what has previously been achieved? Is it a step forward, a means to an end or a temporary lateral move?

At Hen Cloud hard repeats have all but dried up, an observation Andi Turner ascribes to the difficulty of padding out routes and/or finding top-rope belays. Is this the beginning of the end of padless on-sights of bold gritstone routes?

Graham Hoey 03/02/09

Thanks to those who made comments and helped clarify my thoughts, including: Dave Thomas, Tom Briggs, Al Williams, Andi Turner, Ron Fawcett, Tom Randall and Percy Bishton.

A big thanks to Ian Smith, Keith Sharples and Mike Waters for letting me use their photos.

Graham Hoey Photo Yvonne Hoey  © As Credited
Graham Hoey climbing Strapadictomy (E5) on-sight in 1981  © John Codling
Graham Hoey climbing Strapadictomy (E5) on-sight in 1981
© John Codling
Graham Hoey has been climbing for 35 years. He is passionate about gritstone and the history and development of climbing.

He has cut his teeth on extreme routes throughout the country, leading trad routes on-sight up to E6 since 1984. This includes leads/solos of most worthwhile E5s on Peak grit. His hardest grit on-sight is the E6 Committed, which he climbed in 1986.

He has made numerous first ascents on grit including No More Excuses, DIY and Shirley's Shining Temple Direct. (Stanage).

His favourite style of climbing is adventure routes in mountains and sea cliffs. Particular ascents that stand out are early on-sight repeats of routes such as Midsummer Night's Dream (Cloggy), Cave Man (Berry Head), Ocean of Emotion (Little Orme), Guernica (Carn Gowla), Conan the Librarian - Janitor Finish (Gogarth), Meridian (Gordale), Bucket City (Dove Crag – Lakes) (all E6), Vulture (XS) - (Lleyn Peninsula).  Second ascent (after cleaning) of Hellbound (E7) North Devon (2004).

Graham has re-cleaned and re-geared a number of routes throughout the UK, and recently made the first link of Missionary/Maze girdles on Red Wall (Gogarth) to give an 8 pitch E4/5 in 2007.

Graham dallied briefly with grit headpointing in 2003 doing 7 E6's and 2 E7's – "quite good fun, but not ultimately satisfying".

He has spent 29 years working on climbing guidebooks to the Peak District.

He lives in Baslow (Derbyshire) and is married with two Offspring (E5 6b, Burbage North)... ;-)

UKC Articles and Gear Reviews by Graham Hoey

Support UKC

As climbers we strive to make UKClimbing the kind of website we would love to visit, with the most up-to-date news, diverse and interesting articles, comprehensive gear reviews, breathtaking photographs and a vast and useful logbook system. As a result, an incredible community has formed around the site - we’ve provided the framework but it’s you who make the website what it is today. If you appreciate the content we offer then you can help us by becoming an official UKC Supporter. This can be a one-off single annual payment or a more substantial payment paid monthly or yearly which includes full access to Rockfax Digital and discounts on Rockfax print publications.

If you appreciate UKClimbing then please help us by becoming a UKC Supporter.

UKC Supporter

  • Support the website we all know and love
  • Access to a year's subscription to Rockfax Digital.
  • Plus 30% off Rockfax guidebooks
  • Plus Show your support UKC porter badge on your profile and forum posts
UKC/UKH/Rockfax logo

18 Feb, 2009
YEP...close to the bone that. Slippery slope of "Ethics". A similar debate as regards to winter "ethics" ended up with both party more entrenched in their positions: on the one ends they were "elitist authoritarians" on the other "ego-rubbing philistines". Good luck to youse in the debate. I enjoyed the article and grabbed my own spade to make my trenches deeper (as I know fair well I'm right :) ).
18 Feb, 2009
-).when i repeated that route i didnt use any mats or spotters,had him taking pics definatly feel its a bigger achievment than padding it out.which i have done on other routes.i have looked down at mats sometimes and have thought tho its there to make me feel a bit better.not to do anything if i fell. me and andi often mention the likes of nadin falling off on to beer towels when we are climbing on the local crags
18 Feb, 2009
Very interesting article - makes some very interesting points about whether Ground-Up is actually better than Headpoint if you end up taking lots of falls
18 Feb, 2009
Graham, lots of sense spoken in the first half of your article, a drum I've been banging for a long time. However with style finally moving forward in the past few months - for example Johnny's ascents of Gaia and End of the Affair have finally been convincingly improved upon - I'm not sure you might be a little late! With your ground-up comments I think you're contradicting yourself a little. Is style worth improving on or isn't it? If it is then routes like Parthian are going to take a bit of effort. No, its not perfect, but it is an improvement in style, no question. The crux is a precise, awkward slap, something easily worked from above but highly likely to spit off the ground-up leader, and a great example of why ground-upping is so much harder than headpointing. Hopefully these initial ascents will be a springboard for others in even better style. Whilst on the subject of Partian, reports of the flake being 'levered apart' are greatly exaggerated, I was there. Tapping a nut key with a hex is not levering the flake off - if you placed a small wire and it held several long falls would you expect it to come out easily? On the same lines it seems myths of the flake's fragility continue to be preferred to the truth - as far back as Hard Grit Seb is on film dismissing it as something said by those who'd never actually been up there, the latest reports concur. Using potential route damage as an argument against ground-up seems plausable but goes totally against what I've seen actually happen - in my experience a climber putting style first is far more likely to treat the rock with respect. I've seen topropers kicking pebbles to check they aren't about to snap, testing poor gear with rucsacs full of rocks. Someone climbing ground-up is more likely to be treading lightly on the holds for their own good. Plus the time actually spent on the route is far less - even the ground-up sieges of Parthian you question actually saw only a few - less than ten - attempts on the crux moves, each lasting a couple of seconds. Compare this to Seb's second ascent - two years of toproping, perhaps twenty sessions, plus a similar number of falls. I don't remember him getting much stick for erosion. Finally Bouldering mats. Your article is generally as well informed as I'd expect from a gritstone legend, but I get the impression this is written from more of the perspective of the armchair critic? The majority of folk on UKC seem to continually overstate the safety given by pads. Get yourself high above a few and I suspect they won't look as reassuring as you assume. The gang spot certainly isn't anything new either - what about Johnny 'barely touching the ground in the squeeze' after falling off what became Unfamiliar? Angel's Share was never E8 (though Johnny still claims E9 7b on his site - I wonder the stick JP might get if he did this without pads and claimed THAT grade!) Bare ground, a pile of sticks (Johnny denies this incidentally) or mats can all injure. Or not - your assertion that I'd have been off to hospital without pads is nonsense. Pre-mats I fell of the top of Velvet Silence when it turned out to be covered in snow - an identical fall - and then had to land astride my camera bag. I got away without injury, and I've taken a good few similar falls. Pads might allow me to take more such falls in a day, but on the other hand I've seen shorter falls onto piles of pads result in broken ankles. Of course I'm not claiming pads don't make things safer, they do, but its not as cut and dried as folk claim. Personally I find skill in falling well and picking a landing is just as important as a pad stack. Recently the biggest stack I've ever seen was under Ulysses - probably 12 pads. Lots of suitors, only one ascent. Why? They were all f*ckin terrified. No one actually fell off the crux move, because even with the pads it was too damn intimidating. The pads were then moved under White wand and the first attempt resulted in a broken ankle. Not quite the 'may as well toprope' situation we're led to believe? This is new gear, simple as that, and the game chnges a little. trying to ignore or eliminate it is daft. I'm not old enough, but did we have these debates when cams appeared? I know we did with chalk - how many clean-hand gang members are still going, 2? The great thing about pads is they encourage an approach in more authentic style - from the bottom to the top. Without the sanctuary of a top-rope fear still ensures the rock gets the respect its deserves. At the same time they protect the ground, get rid of the old faff with muddy boots balancing on beer towels, and hopefully will save me from any more knee operations.
18 Feb, 2009
Very good article and more thoughtful than its 'advertising literature' would suggest. The key points to me are honesty about the style of ascent and doing our best not to unneccesarily damage the rock (where repeat falls on small placements are just as bad as overbrushing on headpoints). I think Graham is a little optimistic about getting much more from climbing history .... often a very murky place just where you need the most clarity.
More Comments
Loading Notifications...
Facebook Twitter Copy Email LinkedIn Pinterest