UKC

Following on from some great discussion in the Jakes Rake thread I had to ask this one.

Yesterday I headed to Dewerstone, hoping to find a partner at the crag, as our club was climbing there.  No one I knew about so I thought why not warm up by soloing/scrambling Mucky Gully.  I have used it to warm up on in the past, but always alt leads with a partner.  I took my scrambling rope a few slings and big cams to be on the safe side and wore my rock shoes.  

It was a very different experience to lead climbing the route, not really what I was expecting.  I felt I needed to place a few cams and regroup before the short section bellow the Chock stone.  

All in all. It was a worthwhile experience, but I'm not sure I will be repeating the exercise.  I found myself out of my comfort zone. I simply didn't enjoy it like I normally do on that wonderful little route. 

So for me Mucky Gully will remain a climbing route. But where is the crossover point between soloing a climb and scrambling or are they the same thing?

Good question, especially when an experienced climber decides that a scramble justifies a rope and runners.

So you self belayed?

Nope my rope never came off my back. I rested and regrouped while attached directly to a few slings for a short while, at one point. 

It defies definition. You know it when you see it.

There are some pointers though. A climb is where the usual presumption would be to use a rope and runners, and if someone chooses to solo that is a deliberate choice not to use them. A scramble is where the presumption would be to go unroped, even for someone without a climbing background, but you might take a rope and some gear as a precaution.

Continuity may also play a part.  I'd usually expect a scramble to comprise fairly short sections of difficulty interspersed with easier bits and even walking.  Extended continuous climbing, even if not difficult, suggests a rock climb.  But there are plenty of exceptions in both categories.

It is of course a grey area, and many scrambles are also graded Mod or Easy rock climbs. Diff and above is definitely proper climbing - an experienced climber might well choose to solo, but you wouldn't expect a non-climber to tackle a Diff unroped.

I've always found the definition of scrambling extremely fuzzy. One person's scramble is another person's climb. 

For what it's worth, I'd personally view anything up to about UIAA II/III- a scramble and anything over that a climb. Furthermore, there's the footwear test. 

Can I do it in approach shoes or boots? If no, it's a climb. If yes, but large parts are too steep/complicated to move together or solo, it's also a climb. If yes and most/all of it can be done soloing or moving together, it's a scramble. 

the Inn Pinn is about where the crossover is?

Some climbs have both scrambling grades and climbing grades, its all subjective as with most climbing. Learn to use your own judgement, if you feel you need a rope, use one, if you feel you need climbing shoes, use them, your supposed to be enjoying yourself after all 

Scrambles:

Tryfan and Bristly

Crib Goch

Aonach Eagach 

Jack's Rake

Curved Ridge

Rock Climbs:

Lliwedd West Butttess 

Tower Ridge

The Cioch

Broad Stand

Mucky Gully

...probably.

Don't repeat it. And don't get out of your comfort zone unless you're above at least three bomber wires (or equivalent) or at least two bolts.

Maybe better to consider the commonality rather than the difference? Both can get you killed. 

Mick 

I scramble up tors whilst out walking a lot more than I climb.  Having now soloed in my rock shoes something I have lead in trainers, I learnt a fair bit about the difference for me, at that level of difficulty.  It was mostly the sustained level of concentration required. That took away much of the fun.

As others have said scrambling you can often take an alternate route and avoid the crux should you wish.  I suspect there may even be a few out there who actually could walk up mucky gully or rather climb it without using their hands.  Any takers?

For me it's a lot about how sustained and consistent the route is.

Example.  Nor Nor Buttress (G3) has bits of technical climbing which are harder than anything on (say) Idwal Ordinary Route (D) but which are interspersed with some easy stuff and some walking.  

This is why you have to be quite careful on some G3 scrambles as they may well have VD  type moves on them 

In reply to Steve Crossley:

I think you misread the post?

Well said. I have vivid memories of NNB alone in approach shoes without a rope, and have backed off some of the G3s on Glyder Fach.

All scrambles are climbs. I think that claiming otherwise is simply a sort of grade snobbery. 

Yes. Whymper knew this, Scrambles Amongst the Alps  definitely includes climbing

I hesitate to respond to such a skilled controversialist as yourself, but would you really call Striding Edge a climb? Or the Long Leachas, or the NE ridge of Angel's?

I've always assumed that a 'scramble' is something most people do unroped whereas a 'climb' is something which most people rope up for. That allows for 'climbs' occasionally being soloed by confident folk and 'scrambles' occasionally being done using ropes by nervous types (e.g. guided Munro baggers in the Cuillin).

This pragmatic definition does mean that the technical grade that divides scrambles from climbs depends on the population that frequents them. Climbers' unroped descent routes (e.g. that nasty gully off the Mot) can be quite hard compared to 'scrambles' on what are mainly hillwalker terrain (like Helvellyn).

I always thought the typical definition was that a scramble requires hands predominantly for balance, while a climb requires hands for upward progress. Still not perfect, but better than rope use which is perhaps more about confidence than objective difficulty. 

Couldn’t say why I thought that was the typical definition though! Must have come across it somewhere

Yes, it's strange how people always seem to want precise definitions for many abstract concepts, when the English language just doesn't work like that.

Though, surely it's fairly obvious that once a moderately experienced, competent rock climber needs a rope on a 'scramble', it's a rock climb?

But the fuzziness of the border is similar to that between walking and scrambling.

Arguably someone doesn’t need a rope until they exceed their ability and fall off, which potentially sets the upper limit of “scrambling” pretty high.

More seriously, abstract concepts only derive meaning from a process of negotiation between those using them. If people didn’t discuss and broadly agree definitions then the concept, and associated language, would be meaningless. Just because there isn’t a concrete definition doesn’t mean there isn’t value in discussing what something means.

As an example, it’s meaningless me saying I’m going to climb a “promble” if we haven’t got a shared understanding of what that means. That applies regardless of whether a “promble” refers to something abstract or concrete. Abstract concepts typically require more discussion in order to be meaningful, not less, so it seems understandable for people to want to talk about them. 

Well meant advice, but when alone we each need to make our own choices on risk and learn from the outcomes. I learnt not to do that again any time soon.  

Indeed they can.

Oh, so you used some aid. 😉

This is kind of my line of thought. Can I take my hands and not fall: it's a scramble. If taking my hands off means I plummet to somewhere between minor injury and certain doom: it's a climb (and if I'm on it something has gone seriously wrong!).

As others have said, a lot of interesting and entertaining posts in this thread and in the one about Jock’s Rake. Most of the posters seem to be experienced climbers and/or scramblers. I am not a climber. I have tried a few routes described as scrambles but generally not enjoyed them due to the exposure.

I may be wrong, but the one thing which climbs have in common is that at the end of the climb you are higher than where you started. This applies to sea cliffs, quarries, the great ridges of Ben Nevis, whatever. Of course, there may be some down climbs involved in getting up.

This also applies to a lot of routes described as scrambles. – Tryfan North Ridge, the Bristly Ridge, Curved Ridge, etc.

However, a lot of routes described as scrambles are not about ascent. They are along narrow ridges and at the end of the scramble you might even be lower than the point at the start of the scramble. Some examples are Striding Edge, Sharp Edge, Crib Goch, the CMD Arête, the Aonach Eagach, the Fasarinen Pinnacles of Liathach, etc. Of course, there are a lot of ups and downs while scrambling along the ridges.

As for scrambling grades, I don’t know how Striding Edge and Crib Goch can both be described as Grade 1 scrambles. Crib Goch is much harder and much more exposed.

Which dictionary/source are you using?

If scrambles are climbs, why are not all scrambles in all guidebooks.  I'm sure many climbers would consider many the lolwer grades scrambles.  Its not an objective description but more a relative one.  Not snobbery.

Its a bit like the definition of a ship or boat.  You can put a boat on a ship, but you cannot put a ship on a boat.

If you only use legs your walking.

If you use hands your climbing, only the grade of difficultly varies. 

Scrambling, grades, climbing... all just terms we've added to try to classify levels of difficulty.

When does a walk become a jog, a jog become a run, a run a sprint? A snooze a sleep?

Which works fine until your first trip to Ailefroide, where you can take your hands off in many places and not plummet anywhere, but you are very much not on a 6b scramble!

I personally like the definition of expectations of rope versus no rope; whether you are doing something that most experienced people would do without a rope, or you're making a conscious decision to climb something that most competent parties would rope up on. If it appears in a climbing guidebook with a climbing grade, I'd probably also call it a climb by default.

Yes. Wittgenstein's argument.

Jogging/running is a great example the way most people use those words.

In a technical sense though, there's a clear distinction between walking/running (which includes all forms of running: you are running if both feet are ever off the ground at the same time. 
Walking if one foot lands before the other lifts.

You might be walking up a climb though.  There were rumours a few years ago that Johnny Dawes was working on a guidebook called "Extreme Walks in the Peak District".  (Walks graded up to about E1 ish.)

Thanks for the story. I'll be controversial now.... although the formal classification is the scrambling overlap starts at grade 2 and goes up to 3S (and in climbing terms goes from easy to diff)..... I'd say scrambling depends on talent and how well you are going on the day. It's where someone is completely comfortable moving on climbing terrain unroped. Just like the feel of lead grades can vary for an individual from day to day and depend on the character of a climb, so do scrambling grades. If uncomfortable on a scramble, get out the rope and protect it.

I'd agree with Robert excepting some things occasionally described as easy scrambles are really exposed walks (like Striding Edge).

That works at the individual level, but it doesn't help to decide whether a particular route should be classified as a climb or a scramble. Of course talented climbers may be able to treat low-grade climbs as scrambles, but that doesn't alter how the route itself should be regarded.  I had the shine taken off one of my early VS leads when I then watched someone use it to descend. (Facing out. Wearing trainers. With the laces undone. The bastard.)  It's still always going to be a rock climb though.

Even at the individual level, I feel there's a psychological difference between unroped scrambling and soloing even an easy climb. Mentally, the approach is somehow different, although both may be equally serious. On a climb, I'd be worried about not being able to do the moves. On a scramble, I'd be more worried about poor or greasy rock, or relying on vegetation for holds. 

Absolutely.  I'd still think of the route as a scramble though.

So much depends, though, on whether you're coming at the middleground of scrambling from a climbing or walking direction. If you're like Russell on this thread, or Mike Peacock on the Jack's Rake thread, or me, then you're highly unlikely to be able to "get out the rope" because you won't have one in the sack and you quite possibly won't even own one (I don't).

I agree that Striding Edge is mainly an exposed walk, but for a lot of people (including my better half - a Lakes girl born and bred - who found it quite worrying and unenjoyable) it is very definitely a scramble, especially the little chimney near the Helvellyn end which more people seem to go down than up even though up Swirral, down Striding is almost certainly the easier way to do the standard round.

As I said on the other thread quite a few climbers started as mountain walkers and then scramblers. I carried a confidence rope on scrambles before I climbed because the scrambling guides said I might need one at times and I soon discovered they were right (albeit only occasionally).

I have no intention to belittle anyone who gets a degree of vertigo on an exposed walk... I still get that at times... most recently following a footpath under Iron crag near Thirlmere, on a narrow grass track across a sloping hillside, at times close to a big vertical drop to the river below.  A lovely walk up this valley (for those who can cope with the exposure):

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/128581

For non-climbers who worry about exposure on mini/easy scrambles, there seems to be a big divide between up/down stuff and sideways stuff. Again my better half doesn't like sideways exposure - which is why she found Striding Edge (and Swirral before it, although to a lesser extent) worrisome, and which is why she's never likely to go near Sharp Edge which feels like half a grade more serious. But I've been with her on the summit rocks of Pike of Stickle and the Duddon Harter Fell and she's been fine on those, because they're up/down scrambles rather than sideways/flat. I'm the other way around - on a bad day I'll back off all manner of little (and embarrassingly easy) rock steps (eg one just below the top of Glaramara), but I'll go sideways across messy rubbishy exposed stuff (although I didn't all fancy the diagonal-sideways-ness of Jack's Rake, as I said on the other thread).

Dunno quite why that is - just personal preference/worries, I guess. We have a friend, hugely experienced (all the standard Scottish rounds, 14K+ Wainwrights etc) who doesn't at all like going sideways on a steep hillside even with a good path across it - he'll do it, but he slows right down in the process and is visibly relieved to get to safer ground. There's no doubt that generally he's a better scrambler than me, but on that kind of stuff I can easily get 100 yards ahead of him in a couple of minutes without feeling worried at all.

That's because you're looking for an objective definition that does not exist!  There's a grey area in which the whole question of whether something is a climb or a scramble only makes sense at the individual level.  The line is fuzzy and only looks solid from a distance.

Fortunately there's no need for a precise objective definition.  There's no problem at all with some climbing routes appearing in a scrambling guidebook and vice versa.  For the writer it's a scramble if they're including it in a scrambling guide, and it's a climb if they're writing it up in a climbing guide.

For the reader of the guidebook, at that 'individual level', they just evaluate the route subjectively the same as any other - "is it worth doing and how risky is it?"

This is very much a "how long is a piece of string" question.

Speaking personally, I feel like a scramble has turned into a solo about when the grade goes from Mod to Dif. Being able to climb something without rock shoes (and without a rope) in comfort also feels like a good definition of a scramble, but, that definition is a little arbitrary and completely subjective.

I don't think the consequences of a fall factor into this at all because there are plenty of places where you can be walking on a perfect footpath and a simple trip or misstep could see you falling to your death.

My view is that the roped element doesn't really come into it.  It is a silly and somewhat arbitary definition - some good climbers will happily solo into the E grades.  There are also sport/indoor climbers out there who whilst very technically capable in their comfort zone would probably panic at soloing some of the more bold and exposed scrambles.

Steve Ashton defines one clear difference between climbing and scrambling where by the situation and overall line on the mountain is less important and where difficultly is sought out for the sake of difficulty, where as for scrambles the line and situation is of greater importance.

I agree about the element of continution though, generally on even the hardest scrambles you won't get continuous sections of more that several metres of diff/vdiff climbing.  There are of course some exceptions to this such at the initial pitch of Cneifion Arete (but then that gets a climbing grade in Rockfax anyway).

I have also noticed more overlap between the two 'disciplines', for example in Garry Smith's recent guide "North Wales Scrambles".  This inlcudes the Nor Nor Buttress at 3+ which commits to the arete section, which in Ashton's guide he states "this area of the buttress belongs to rock climbers, so deviate into the gully" -or something to this effect.  Having recently attempted it, this section would have to be of V Diff minimum in my opinion due the the exposure and difficulty to protect.  Smith also has "East Arete" on Glyder Fawr at 3+ which appears in Rockfax as  VDiff - I am pretty sure that these are the same route?  These are just a few examples where the terms between scrambling and climbing become blurred.

Personally I don't like the term "Scrambling" at all.  It sounds derogatory in comparison to what is actually involved and also sounds too much like "Rambling".  I do wonder if a better way to approach such routes would be to give a Alpine type grading and the give any specifics for tricky sections on the route.  Classic example might be on Main Gully on Glyder Fach which is in general an Easy route, but has one tricky and tough step.  In alpine terms it could get "Easy, 2"  although that may be misleading for someone who has only ever done something like Striding Edge before.  I also appreciate that by saying this I am effectively proposing descripitive and technical grades for scrambles which will make some people laugh!  The American system may be a better way to describe routes, from what I understand it is pretty much continuous from walking right through to the hardest rock climbs possible?

100% agreed. That's why I used UIAA grading in my previous post to refer to what I see as a scramble and what I see as a climb. One could also include a technical grade for the hardest individual move in the scramble, such is often done in alpine guidebooks. Then you would maybe get something like 'Moderate, III, 3c' or something.

However, I'm not sure the American system would be all that different. They distinguish between clasess, 1 being walking and 5 being rock climbing, with 6th class reserved for aid originally, and 3rd and 4th meaning exposed alpine terrain but not technically difficult. Originally, 5th class ran from 5.1 to 5.9 because that was the hardest people could envision climbing at the time of conception. But now, it's 5.15 and anything up to about 5.4/5.5 could easily be included in a scramble. 

The exact dividing line is a grey area both subjective to the person on the route and the specific route and conditions at the time.

Since anything we can decide in this thread is arbitrary and won't fit every person on every route in every condition we may as well embrace the arbitrary nature and just pick a dividing line, saying that a less serious Mod is scrambling and a more serious and sustained Mod and Diff and above is "climbing".

That's probably the best we can do as long as we explicitly recognise it's an arbitrary line and won't fit correctly a certain proportion of situations

I'm glad you've touched on this point.

When introducing someone to scrambling, I have no idea how to compare a technically easy and more or less horizontal ridge with huge exposure to a technical buttress route with short hard sections broken up by big ledges with much less exposure. I usually ask them which they think they would prefer but they often have no idea which they'd feel more comfortable with for their first outing.

In summer 2020 my partner at the time and I took her two teenage sons up Jack's Rake for their first proper scramble. We managed it fine, but I then saw a walking magazine article that suggested Striding Edge would be a better bet for children than Jacks' Rake for their first scramble because Jack's Rake would be serious to reverse if something went wrong. I'm not entirely sure about that because if a beginner froze or the weather turned half way along Striding Edge it could be potentially just as serious to escape if one's biggest fear was heights and exposure.

It's an interesting discussion but it's unlikely to come up with a definitive definition - especially when you consider that many people view Snowdon (other names available) as a "climb" where others view it as a "walk".

In the end, the difference between walk / climb / scramble is pretty much a personal one - especially taken across the population as a whole.

Would you call no hands slab problem/route variation (Dawes style) walking? I mean technically, yes. But really, no....

you can run up the polish on the start of charity to better edges at 6 or 7m. On my MIA assessment for 'entertainment' I was tasked to climb what is loosely the first pitch of yogi without hands. Just because something can be done hands free doesn't mean it's a walk. 

I wonder whether this is getting to the heart of it. A scramble can be both up and down, whereas most climbs I've done would be far more difficult to go down.

Thanks - I think differences of this sort can be quite significant for people coming at scrambling from a walking direction, perhaps more so than those coming to it from climbing. A related aspect is that "level" scrambling can be significantly harder for someone of a timid disposition if done in one direction rather than the other. I've never been on Crib Goch so can't comment on that, but I have been along Striding Edge several times, in both directions, and come the day when my anxious better half ventured on to it there was no doubt in my mind that she would find it easier/less worrying if crossing Helvellyn first, so as to be going up the little chimney rather than down it. I've heard of - and seen - various people having trouble with the mini downclimb at the "crux" if heading to Helvellyn, and for most folk it surely has to be easier going up that rather than down it. I once sat for several hours with a chap who had fallen down the chimney and jiggered his collarbone - I kept him company (after literally dozens of people had walked past him clearly in distress - but that's another story) while we waited for the MRT and the chopper to come. I basically agree with Gordon's assessment on the other thread that Striding Edge is about grade 0.5, but that doesn't mean it's still not a significant worry and achievement for many people compared with a pure walk.

Another related issue is that walker-scramblers are more likely to angle off sideways on a ridge to avoid an awkward bit, which in turn can lead to more problems - Sharp Edge is perhaps the classic example of this, with no end of rescues (or, sadly, body retrievals) having taken place in "the usual gully", into which folk descend to avoid something supposedly worse. I think a lot of walker-scramblers forget that by leaving a ridge of that sort you reduce your route options by one, given that weaving along just either side of the crest is no longer feasible.

That US translation isn't true in the SW. 5.5 (to PG) is in my experience is usually standard UK Severe but if X rated can be a bold VS. Grade 4 is almost explicitly scrambling. I found some grade 4 US descents ridiculously exposed, especially Tuolumne Fairview Dome descent. 

Personally, I think the Skye Scrambles guidebook gets the whole situation spot-on. Scrambling grades of 1, 2 and 3 are easier than Moderate, but harder than walking.

This system should be adopted elsewhere too for consistency.

It would have the added benefit of cutting out all the bullshit about some routes being both. The best example of this situation with which I am familiar is Curved Ridge on the Buachaille. The route is a Moderate rock climb, not a scramble of any grade. By the same token the normal way up Sgurr nan Gillean is a Grade 3 scramble and a bit easier than Mod.

I know many climbers tackle Mods and Diffs as though they were scrambles (soloing in big boots), but the inescapable fact is these are climbing grades.

I'm sure that the Skye Scrambles guide approach, if standardised in the UK could be very useful, preventing epics and even a few accidents.

Are you Noel Williams?

I've done Curved Ridge on my own in very favourable dry windless conditions and in those circumstances it was very much like a scramble.  Like the Inn Pin, in different conditions it could be an epic even with a rope, freezing fingers, no voice contact, words blown away with the rope ...

No longer have my old Glencoe guidebooks but wasn't it graded 'Easy' ? Whatever, I've always considered it a scramble in summer, although I've probably 'climbed' it in descent from routes on Rannoch Wall than gone up it

Scrambles are graded as are climbs. If a scramble is too hard do something easier, if too easy, go up a grade or solo rock climbs, in approach shoes, in your comfort zone to qualify as a scramble for you personally. There has to be some consistent guidance that people can relate to, so that, especially for lower grade scramblers there can be an appreciation of what to expect. I’m now 71 and have just this discovered scrambling, combined with soloing en route on days out and it’s brilliant. Surely that’s the point, enjoyment?

We need Iain Thow - often of this parish - to drop in on this thread. He's done masses of walking, scrambling (whatever that is) and climbing, to an extent and in a particular combination that possibly no one else in the country can match. Plus he's written interestingly and usefully about it.

That's strange, I found the grade conversions in Yosemite off but the other way round. 5.6-5.7 felt like severe, 5.9 felt like VS. 5.0-5.5 seemed to correspond to easy-vdiff, so definitely within the scope of UK scrambling grades depending on how sustained the route was. It's a few years since I was there though.

Which routes in Yosemite and compared to which area of UK grades? 5.9 PG crack and face there always felt solid HVS 5a to me (maybe old school YMC VS). 5.9 slab was always at least 5b and often extreme if a bit runout.

I don't remember most of the route names, just a general impression of difficulty compared to north Wales which is my benchmark. Like I say though, it was a while ago and when I was there I was climbing most days for several months so I might have just been a bit stronger. The two routes that do stand out in my memory are Snake Dike, which felt like a Severe with a hard but well bolted traverse pitch, and the Grack which felt like VDiff.

Can't agree with Snake Dyke as we felt the pitch 3, 5.7 slab crux was safe UK 5a next to a bolt (ie VS) and the dyke proper was mainly unprotected 5.3 with the odd 5.4 bit between bolt belays, so at a nominal VD technicality with no gear (ie at least top end S in UK terms). The R rating for those dyke pitches is a bit ungenerous: if you slipped and fell in the wrong places you could go 50+m down the slab.

I think the crack pitches on The Grack were a bit soft for Yosemite 5.6 but the 5.6 slab wasn't easy, overall it's way harder than UK VD, especially on the slab crux.

Lower grade welsh stuff is still a bit random: we are still ticking our way through the less popular classic sandbags. Our latest 'outing' included Africa Rib, a VD with an overhang S 4b start. We even ticked a classic during the pandemic that was arguably under-graded (Will-o-the-wisp).

Apologies to the scramblers on the thread but the causes of grading issues are often the same.... a lack of grading sensitivity and a smattering of elitism. The great thing about public internet forums and logbook votes is problems are more easily exposed. In the US they have Mountain Project and Supertopo (the Supertopo forums sadly closed a few years back as a few posters kept risking libel claims....anyone moaning about UKC moderation needs to think on that).

https://www.mountainproject.com/

http://www.supertopo.com/routebeta.html

Grading longer routes with a single short crux is always going to be tricky. Going back to scrambles, wrinkled tower and clogwyn y person both have cruxes which are about Vdiff in a position where a slip would mean death or serious injury, and yet because of the nature of the rest of the route they are grade 3 scrambles. I don't think they're undergraded because they *are* scrambles, but it illustrates that just having a single grade doesn't tell you much about the nature of the route. Like snake dike, two pitches of safe 5.7 and three or four pitches of very unsafe 5.2 somehow add up to 5.7R. Actually reading the guidebook description and feedback from other climbers in the logbooks is going to tell you a lot more about what to expect.

I thought the 5.7R bit was the move on the 1st pitch; a 4c unprotected slab move to get to the first gear in an overlap.

To Offwidth;

Would agree that the Grack was straightforward VDiff.

Don't remember anything hard about Africa Rib and Willo the wisp though. Although having soloed or done them in a rain 20 years ago is probably not the best perspective for accurate grading.

That description reminds my very much of Commando Ridge at Bossi.  There is one vdiff move right at the start, after the ledge.  To fall at that point has proven fatal though.  Maybe one or two more moves at vdiff in the entire 7 pitch route, much of which you can simply walk up.  A cracking day out though.

Wrinkled Tower (3) on the side of Tryfan will test the commitment of many climbers.  

Africa Rib has a bit of a move just getting started, the same can be said of Kirkus Direct's first 3 or 4m, but they don't reflect the grade for the rest of the route. 

I do remember that.Thought I was having a bad day...

"Reach round for a hold you cannot see whilst the rest of your body dangles over a massive drop, but the hold is definitely there!"   Exciting though, but an element of trust that the hold will be there and you will find it!  

Probably not what the general public would consider to be scrambling!

That's an outdated attitude that can get lower trad climbers in trouble. All that's needed is a few words saying the crux is short and most of the climb is easier. Fortunately most of these things are getting an upgrade in modern guides. There are plenty of routes with short stiff cruxes graded for that crux.

If the crux on Africa Rib was off flat ground maybe the grade would be justified but coming off a boulder no way. It's intimidating and exploratory HVD in my view in any case after the crux

The R rating on Snake Dyke might be for the first pitch 5.7 moves. It's also toughish smears and a bit bold to reach the bolt that protects the third pitch crux. There is no pitch at 5.2 until pitch 7 and most of the dyke has no runners between belays.

Yes, I found it exciting with a rope on. It's fairly committing too - if you were soloing and decided to back off that move you'd have to downclimb a steep wide crack over a chockstone. I think it's still a scramble though because of its context - it's a longer and devious route on a mountain that mostly avoids difficulties rather than seeking them out.

I was doing a lot of slab climbing at the time so the first pitch felt fairly easy, and while the third pitch felt hard having bomber bolts makes it hard for me to compare to trad routes. Wrt to the rest of it, I'm not sure I can really tell the difference between very low Yosemite decimal grades - there doesn't seem to be much difference between 5.2 and 5.4. I think you could definitely compare the difficulty of the climbing on the dyke itself to some parts of the Cuillin traverse that most people would solo, like say the section up An Stac. Ie, easy enough that even as a fairly crap climber and with very serious consequence I could just cruise up it without having to gird my loins for any particular move.

a bit O/T but the harder scrambles solo are a good way to concentrate the mind on trying to use your feet to best advantage.

The few times I've found myself on a scramble with both hands pulling hard on the same hold have been rather alarming and something I try very very hard to avoid

"Wrinkled Tower (3) on the side of Tryfan will test the commitment of many climbers."

As someone that only scrambles (solo), with no bouldering nor climbing experience, I find that really interesting. I'd grade Wrinkled Tower as top-end 2, and that's with a day-pack and Scarpa Rebel boots; route finding is straight forward, no technical moves and exposure ok. What makes it a 3?

Dolmen left-hand start has the dodgiest move that I can think of, but I purposefully avoid routes such as East Arete that have descriptions such as "delicate, slab climbing," that's a no go for me

It's the shuffle along the polished ledge and then the reach for the hidden jug while in a very exposed position.

I miss that bit out - too hard - and without it it's still a good scramble but defo more like G2

I don't remember not being able to see hold. It's a step out of a chimney onto a ledge, shuffle along it, and then up on jugs. And the "massive drop" is about 5m. Playful and all optional - it's entirely possible to walk around the crux.

the section in question is 6:40 onwards on here - I hope it's OK to link to Paul's excellent video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXcaI4tN1kE&ab_channel=BeyondTheTrail

I'd just call it bold, not necessarily technical, but that's what mountaineering is about, especially scrambling.

Exactly: step out of a comfy chimney onto a  ledge with a big flake for hands, shuffle along and reach up for a big jug. Maybe 5m drop below you. It's exciting as a scramble, but not so much so that it demands to be called a climb - possibly equivalent to a Diff at most. And, having done the lower section of WT, if you don't like the look of the chimney, you can walk around the whole thing up onto the North Ridge.

I would say it was grade 3, though! Lots of people would use a rope.

The whole of that 'faulty tower' is an impressive bit of rock and quite intimidating.  Being high up on the west face only adds to that.

'Intimidation' and scrambles is another convo perhaps - I still get the shivers walking over to Jack's Rake in way that's disproportionate to its difficulty 

"It's the shuffle along the polished ledge and then the reach for the hidden jug while in a very exposed position."

It certainly looks polished, but it gives plenty of grip. Holds for both hands whilst shuffling the ledge and I'd researched the route so knew of the jug to pull up and over. I actually found stepping out of the corner for the flake traverse harder to commit to, smearing is a mental challenge for me.

Climbed Wrinkled Slabs, Notch Arete, Chasm Face Route (through the mountain) and the Cneifion Arete 2 Saturdays ago, and I'd put them in that order for difficulty.

Cyfrwy Arete (via Table Direct) is another funny one, nothing difficult/technical but the "pitch" immediately after the Table is certainly exposed. I guess that I'd grade it a 3 but... it's also a really secure route.

That just shows that grades are a very personal thing. I thought the crux of wrinkled tower was harder than anything on notch arete or chasm face.

I know cyfrwy arete very well since I used to live in the area. The chimney pitch of table direct is too steep to be graded as a scramble and to my mind is definitely diff or Vdiff, and the pitch up the arete from the table gap is harder and steeper and has a couple of moves at 3/4 height on smaller holds which definitely make it a climb as well. 

"That just shows that grades are a very personal thing. I thought the crux of wrinkled tower was harder than anything on notch arete or chasm face."

Absolutely, also I'm 6ft 1" which might make some routes easier e.g. the Clogwyn y Person Arete is very straightforward. But having never rock climbed, I've always wondered how much is mental... ? B1 boots and no rope, it's all I've known.

"I know cyfrwy arete very well since I used to live in the area. The chimney pitch of table direct is too steep to be graded as a scramble and to my mind is definitely diff or Vdiff, and the pitch up the arete from the table gap is harder and steeper and has a couple of moves at 3/4 height on smaller holds which definitely make it a climb as well."

That's really interesting, I found the chimney on Table Direct akin to the one on Dolmen, steep but good holds all the way up, never insecure. Yes the pitch to gain the arete is bold, with small holds, some sloping, but I've climbed it in B2s and gloves and it's never felt risky (climbed around once in high winds though). Cyfrwy appears in 2 of my scrambling guides, and I think that that's fair, rather than it being a rock climb.

P.S. I consider myself very risk-averse and I doubt that I'd make a good rock climber, so it's a really interesting topic!

Iirc the scrambling guides with cyfrwy arete in them have a variation on the crux pitch where you trundle left where the pinnacle used to be to dodge the steep climbing.  And yes, I agree that the chimney on table direct has no moves harder than the crux of clogwyn y person, but it's much more sustained.

Yes the (updated) Cicerone guidebook details Cyfrwy Arete with/without Table Direct as well as the trundle to avoid the crux pitch, but it's included as a variation alongside the full route. I think it's in as a 3S, but the Cicerone grades are spurious: Maybe Tower Rib now a 3? And they often avoid "difficulties" that should really result in lower grades, not higher. I much prefer the Garry Smith book, grading is spot on me thinks despite some exciting moves.

The other book is "The Ridges of England, Wales and Ireland: Scrambles, Rock Climbs and Winter Routes" and I now can't remember if it's in there as a scramble or climb, probably the latter.

I love scrambling, linking routes as part of a >10 mile walk, sometimes with a snooze or swim up high, magical. But I'm seeing a lot of parties pitching grade 2 scrambles these days, never mind 3 or 3+/S... so when does a scramble become a climb, when it's roped

Most grade 3 scrambles have sections of Mod or Dif climbing. 

If it's largely a scramble with a bit of climbing, it's a scramble. If it's largely a climb with a bit of scrambling, it's a climb. Easy!

That makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. 

Lliwedd, West Peak via Bilberry Terrace.

That's one to discover what a Grade 3 scramble can be  I did it on my own, luckily on a nice sunny day, quite a few years ago now, given as Class 3(S). I remember it being very serious, totally lost near the top. 

John

As this topic proves, 'Scrambling' should be struck from the climbing dictionary. More people die on grade one scrambles than any other climbing grade. Scrambling is free soloing on lower grades. 

Aid Scrambling - Is this a new category?

The R is for 'runout'. It doesn't matter how hard the climbing is on the pitch, it means miles between gear. The middle & upper pitches (although easier than the lower ones) are still R.  That's the beauty of the US grading system - the danger grade is disconnected from the difficulty grade.

I think Yosemite grades depend on your ability to jam as there's often no alternative. If you can jam they're soft, if you can't they're not.

I think nathan79's definition needs the addition of 'in boots/ trainers & wearing a daysac' to eliminate slab climbing.  That's my take on it - I'd describe scrambling as anything below moderate in non-rockshoes wearing a small sack where I can stop at pretty much any point and take a hand (or both hands) off to take a photo.

I know the YDS system well. R doesn't mean 'miles between gear' it means gear is so spaced that consequences of a fall are likely pretty serious, taking into account what you might hit.  Many of those top pitches on Snake Dike are unprotected between possible bolted belay options so should really be R/X rated for their low grades (5.2 to 5.4). Effectively zero useful gear on much easier pitches often gets omitted from info on the bigger routes and even when included is sometimes wrong (there is a 5.3/4 pitch 5 in one of my guidebooks for Tunnel Vision in Red Rocks which was given 5.4X and felt more like 5.6 PG to me: surprisingly awkward but with spaced gear behind you on the outer wall).

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105732509/tunnel-vision#:~:text=Tunne....

Not sure why you have so much negative comment on this post.  I have often thought that your last sentence applies. 

Uk climbing grades do not appear to be applied until 3c.  Which prompts the question, which UK climbs are in the range 0a to 3b. Do we simply call these scrambles, when they would be defined as climbs, if a grade was in fact applied to them?

Having done a few scrambles/climbs yesterday as part of a notional Cuillin ridge training day and all I can add is that some bits felt like scrambling and other bits like climbing which presumably is relative to my skill level.  FWIW Chasm Face 3 (jeezus that squeeze) felt harder than Cneifon Arete D and considerably harder than Dolmne Ridge 3. NNW buttress variant 3/Diff felt just like a series of Mod - Diff pitches with some easier bits between