UKC

The UK grading system

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Bob 22 Oct 2003
Following on from the "English grades are crap" thread which appears to have degenerated somewhat. Here is a non jaundiced view and recent history of the UK grading system.

In the beginning there was the adjectival grade. This covered everything that could affect the grade of the route: technical difficulty; exposure; protection (or lack of it); quality of rock; etc. Through the early post WW2 years various new adjectival grades were added to extend the system: Hard Very Severe; Extremely Severe; Exceptionally Severe. These grades were still all encompasing. There were one or two attempts to introduce numerical systems but these never really became popular except on Southern Sandstone where top-roping was the norm so there was little need to account for lack of protection or danger.

During the 1970's as a more athletic climber emerged on the scene, it became apparent that further extension to the grading system was needed: the Extreme grade was becoming too broad. Note that Exceptionally Severe never really caught on. With Pete Livesey's ascents of Footless Crow and Right Wall the pressure on the Extreme grade became too much. Cenotaph Corner and Right Wall were both given the same grade!

The answer came from a Carlisle climber, Pete Botterill who proposed that the then current Extreme grade be subdivided into five numbered grades: Extremely Severe 1; etc. The current state of the art was to be given Extremely Severe 5. The novel part of Pete's system was that future, harder, climbs would simply increment the number part, but still be "Extreme" climbs. With time of course, the grades contracted to E1, E2, and so on.

The "new" grading system was still all encompassing, i.e. it included technical difficulty, boldness, and all the other factors. What was also gaining acceptance around the same time was the splitting out of the technical difficulty into its own grade.

This of course was the numeric system. And it was not long before climbers realised that particular overall grades tended to have the same technical grade. So an E1 would typically be 5b technically, E2 => 5c and so on both up and down the grades.

Note that the grade was still: VS, HVS, E1,.... So to grade a route E2 5c is wrong: the route is graded E2 and it has a technical difficulty of 5c.

Around the same time this happened, people like Pete Livesey and Ron Fawcett began making rock climbing trips to France where another grading system was beginning to emerge, what is now known as the French or Sports grade. This simply states the difficulty of climbing from the start of the pitch to the top excluding all other factors. Whether a pitch is pumpy or technical is irrelevant.

Pete Livesey made the connection of subtracting 2 from the French grade to get the UK technical grade so F6a <=> 5b. This was fine for the grades at the time where F7a or so was the maximum and 6b was the hardest UK technical grade.

However if Pete had made the link between the French grade and the overall UK grade it would have made more sense. If we accept that routes with a technical grade of 5b with reasonable or good gear are usually E1 in overall standard; and ignore the +/- of the French system; we have:

E1 <=> 6a
E2 <=> 6b
E3 <=> 6c
E4 <=> 7a
E5 <=> 7b
E6 <=> 7c
E7 <=> 8a
E8 <=> 8b
E9 <=> 8c
E10 <=> 9a

Which overall seems to fit much better (at least to me) as E7 has usually been stated as being equivalent to 8a and both 9a and E10 are at the cutting edge of what is currently being achieved.

But back to my original point, what does E1 (5c) mean? Well it is an E1 that is technically harder than the average though by definition that means that something else has to be "easier", usually the gear is better or the difficulties are short lived. The converse is also true: an E1 (5a) may be sustained or bolder than normal. These may equate to F6a+ and F5c/6a respectfully though the lack of gear on the latter would be unnerving to someone used to bolts.

The interplay between the two parts of the UK grade is rich and provides a lot of information to those looking at it. Whether a route/pitch is bold or sustained is usually obvious when looking at it and with some experience it is rarely too far out. There are regional variations of course: Lakes routes are often bold for their grade; Welsh ones less so but more technical.

OK, enough. discuss.

Bob
sharkey 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

d'ya know what, for the first time, i think i vaguely understand the grading system

beanies off to ye for that fine effort, even more so cos you mentioned southern sandstone :oD
Anonymous 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

The problem with the British grading system is that it doesn't apply to the climb, it applies to an onsight-lead. It's meaningless if you solo, top-rope, headpoint, lead it onsight but with the gear in place, eventually it lead clean after a couple of falls, or do anything other than lead it onsight. A good grading system should tell you how hard the CLIMBING is, and not be specific to a particular style of ascent. That's why the French grade is often applied to trad route grades - people want to know how hard the actual climbing is.
OP Bob 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Anonymous:

Well climbing is about stepping into the unknown, both mental and physical, so a grading system for the on-sight is ideal. ?

Bob
 Fiend 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

> The interplay between the two parts of the UK grade is rich and provides a lot of information to those looking at it.

What is there to discuss. Nice history, nice line reiterating how good our grading system is. But can you please slap down that Anon a bit, thanks.
 Jus 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

Thank you, Bob, for that most interesting history lesson.

Anonymous 22 Oct 2003
In reply to anon: I disagree it *DOES* tell you how hard the climbing is, thats what the tech grade is for. BUT it ALSO tells you how bold the climbing is, this means that it shits all over any other grading system about.

Doug
 220bpm 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:
Aaahhh I see (said the blind man).......

Nice piece of work sir!
Mark Wood 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

Thanks for that, & nicely put!
 Jus 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Anonymous:

It's the best grading system in the world.

Not forgetting V-grades.
 sutty 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

That should be put in the Articles section on here for others to be pointed at in future.
 kevin stephens 22 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:
.
>
> Pete Livesey made the connection of subtracting 2 from the French grade to get the UK technical grade so F6a <=> 5b. This was fine for the grades at the time where F7a or so was the maximum and 6b was the hardest UK technical grade.
>
> However if Pete had made the link between the French grade and the overall UK grade it would have made more sense.

The UK tech grade still applies to the hardest move, whereas the French grade can nclude a pump factor for sustained moves at a slightly easier standard. Hence the combination of Uk ajectival and tech grades gives a more complete picture
In reply to kevin stephens:

Yawn, yawn re. the grading system debate, but I quite like the idea of using BOTH the English and French technical grades on certain routes that are very sustained (eg. The File, The Rasp, Cemetary Gates, London Wall etc etc). The mere presence of the French grade would tell you in advance that it was this kind of route - but I say keep the English grade too, for informative as well as patriotic reasons. The English grade will still tell us, in theory (ha, ha), exactly how hard the hardest move on the route is, irrespective of length, exposure or danger.
 Doug 23 Oct 2003
In reply to bob
Didn't Tech grades get used before E grades ? Paul Nunn's Peak guide (with Adjectival & tech grades) was my first taste of the system but I think it was also used in a Cloggy guide much earlier. I think Nunns book was published before nthe article on E grades in Mountain (but both were a long time ago)
 Matt 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:
Good bit of history there Bob. I think people should just accept the system how it is. There are obviously (with hindsight) more complete ways of grading a route but how far do you go? You can grade hardest move, overall difficulty, boldness, quality of rock and don't forget the star (quality rating) of the climb overall. But then it just gets silly, you'd be climbing a 5b-F6a-B1-5-***.

Obviously this is being extreme and most people may argue for simply a french grade with the addition of a grade for boldness, but then there are problems with this. People argue that it is difficult to grade the absolute difficulty of a move using an english tech grade, well yes it can be but this also applies to french grades. If a climb has a single hard move it can get the same french grade as a sustained pitch with lots of slightly easier moves. So in this way (if the protection can be assessed from the ground) then a uk adj + tech provides more information.

The second problem i could forsee with the addition of a french grade would be the potential for beginners to hurt themselves. Taking Bobs example of F6a = average E1. Would we really want people fresh out of the wall (where its easy to climb 6a) attempting to lead E1 straight away?

Due to the lack of bolts on most UK crags its appropriate that we have a different grading system to reflect this. It really isn't that hard to understand, and unless we really want absolutely all doubt on what a climb might involve removed why bother adding more grades. After all these new grades would not be any less subjective than the ones we have already.
 Stuart S 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

Nice post - very clealry written, and also mirroring my interpretation of the grading system and the relationship between UK and French grades.
Stu Tyrrell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob: In the Old Days, the thought of doing an XS, would make you want to crap!

Then the gear wasnt like it is now, harness, nuts etc.

Stu
OP Bob 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Indeed, I am "fortunate" not to remember those days.

To other respondents:

When I wrote: "Note that the grade was still: VS, HVS, E1,.... So to grade a route E2 5c is wrong: the route is graded E2 and it has a technical difficulty of 5c." I was also intending to say that the technical part of the grade is not removed from the overall grade.

Tech grades were around for some years before E grade. The current system started in the early 1960's I believe. However there were other systems around as early as the 1930's. The common acceptance of tech grades only really began in the 1970's though (away from Southern Sandstone).

I agree that going from a wall F6a to an E1 would be somewhat shocking! However going from F6a inside to F6a outside is also a big jump and those grades really are meant to be equivalent!

Bob

Dave Hunter, Rock + Run 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

Great post Bob.

'I agree that going from a wall F6a to an E1 would be somewhat shocking! However going from F6a inside to F6a outside is also a big jump and those grades really are meant to be equivalent!'

one big difference is that holds outside are not colour coded so there is some doubt as to what to use. Chalk does the same job as colour coding, but only to an extent as it often gets patted about fairly liberally in the search for the correct hold.
 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:

Another difference is that bolts can seem a long way apart outside !
Stu Tyrrell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob: XX's gave you yellow fever!

Stu
OP Bob 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Sure you do not mean Glandular Fever?



Bob
Woker 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Dave Hunter, Rock + Run:
Another big difference is outside you have to use your feet in very different ways to inside as they rely on friction much more. Also holds inside tend to be of a certain type unlike outside where they vary more, especially across rock types.
 Offwidth 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

The thing is that by introducing the extemes at a time that technological advances made climbing hard routes much safer and quite a bit easier the adjectival grades became locked in. Then disproprotionate changes in protection got overlooked, especially on less popular low grade routes or the committes favorites (that they all had wired). Hence, the biggest problems with modern UK grades are of their own making, the system is great but it is has not been consistently applied. Even Gordon who is one of the most experienced climbers here did not appear to realise HVS 4c could mean a safe pump fest when its perfectly obvious a pumpy protectable highly sustained 4c should be HVS.
In reply to Offwidth:
>Even Gordon who is one of the most experienced climbers here did not appear to realise HVS 4c could mean a safe pump fest when its perfectly obvious a pumpy protectable highly sustained 4c should be HVS.

Do you know of one like that though? I've never come across one, it would just be known as a tough, sustained VS. I know it happens much more with E grades, but with HVS you don't have E for effort (yeah - I know there is no E in HVS but you see what I mean...).

Maybe its wrong, but lower grades seem to only use the high adjective grade/lower tech grade to show danger, not sustainedness.

In reply to TobyA:

Of course I realise that HVS 4c could in theory mean a pump fest but as you say TobyA it's a very rare beast so it is not the normal inference for that grade (usually implies lack of pro). Searching for examples ... very difficult. We've all agreed that the File doesn't make the grade, but is simply top end VS; and Cemetary Gates would be a bit harsh at HVS 4c, though possibly true. Maybe E1 4c? Bond Street? A bit harder than 4c at crux. Jean Jeannie? Doesn't warrant HVS.

Like you, TobyA, I'm stuck!
Woker 23 Oct 2003
In reply to TobyA:
rubbish just look at all the well protected HS 4a's and VS 4b's on grit, that's whay they are graded as such
In reply to Woker: Haven't done so many grit routes of that grade so can't comment the VS 4bs I've done in Scotland that come to mind tend to be rather nerve wracking affairs though. But what about a safe but pumpy HVS 4c? Like I said I can't think of one, Gordon can't either...
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Woker:
Yes plenty of pumpy HS 4a and VS 4b but not many HVS 4c. There's Great Harry - but Rockfax has downgraded that to VS. And I think Crabbie's Crack at 3rd Cloud is HVS 4c. I can't remember noticing any others.
 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to TobyA:

Finale Groove and Quality Street are two safe pumpy HVS 4Cs that spring to mind. None on grit
johncoxmysteriously 23 Oct 2003
In reply to GrahamD:

Clawtrack at Sharpnose is another.
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to TobyA:

> when its perfectly obvious a pumpy protectable highly sustained 4c should be HVS.

> Do you know of one like that though? I've never come across one,

Well here's an explanation which should offend someone: 4c moves are just too easy to be pumpy, however much 4c you string together.

Actually contradicting myself ... though it's the exception that proves the rule ... I think I've seen Magical Mystery Tour at Berry Head get HVS 4c (in its maximum swimming form).
 John Gillott 23 Oct 2003
In reply to GrahamD:

Having done it the other w/e, I really think Great Western at Almscliffe ought to be HVS 4c. No 5a moves really, just quite a few tiring 4c ones.
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes but but its traditional for all routes at Sharpnose to be graded one notch too high ... to reward us for making the effort to get there.
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:
> 4c moves are just too easy to be pumpy, however much 4c you string together.

But only if 4c isn't your limit. You might as well say that everything 4c or below should be graded VDiff asd it's so easy.

In any case, there are loads of routes grade VS 4b because they're supposed to be strenuous.
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

There's a difference between difficult and strenuous. A 4c move that involves pulling hard enough to get tired is probably 5a.

> You might as well say that everything 4c or below should be graded VDiff asd it's so easy.

I suspect some simplification of that kind is highly likely over the next 10-20 years as wall-training becomes ubiquitous. There was all sorts of hair-splitting around the lower grades like Hard Diff, Mild Severe, etc that has essentially fallen out of usage already.
johncoxmysteriously 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:

Only right. With those scary cows on the approach path an' all.

In reply to your last post: Uh-oh. Elitism alert. Prepare to repel flamers. I predict Offwidth leading the charge.
 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:
>
> Well here's an explanation which should offend someone: 4c moves are just too easy to be pumpy, however much 4c you string together.


I agree with your reasoning but I think the limit is probably closer to 4b. This means that you shouldn't get well protected Vs 4bs no matter how long (they should be HS 4b) and well protected HVS 4cs need to be long in order to be sustained enough. There are still relatively few well protected E1 5as but E2 5b is getting pretty common.
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Prepare to repel flamers

No, it's far too obvious a troll for that
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I was perfectly serious. Graham might be right that 4b is the highest aerobically-unchallenging grade rather than 4c but the principal is the same.
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:

I challenge anyone to outline in words the movement involved in a 4b move on any named route, then explain coherently why they couldn't repeat that same movement for a full rope-length.
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to GrahamD:
> This means that you shouldn't get well protected Vs 4bs no matter how long (they should be HS 4b)

I agree with you (to an extent). But there are dozens of them, probably hundreds. Off the top of my head:

Right-hand crack (Brimham)
Central Crack (avoiding direct finish) (Brimham)
Gladiator (Penyghent)
Stable Cracks (Shining Clough)
Himmelswillen (Wharncliffe)
SOS (Agden Rocher)
Gargoyle Flake (Bamford)
Big Ben (Bamford)
Twin Cracks (Bamford)
The Nose (Stanage)
Inverted V (Stamage)
Mutiny Crack (Burbage N)
Brooks' Layback (Burbage N)
Greeny Crack (Burbage N)
Left Embrasure (Dovestone Edge)
Velvet Cracks (Gardoms)
and of course
Night Watch (Whitestonecliffe)
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:
> explain coherently why they couldn't repeat that same movement for a full rope-length

Lack of (a) fitness, (b) confidence, and/or (c) experience.
johncoxmysteriously 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:

Really? OK. Stick hand in crack, arrange to make perfect handjam as per, say, Outlook Crack. Place two smears, pull up briefly and skip up to perfect ledgey foothold.

Now imagine removing the perfect ledgey foothold and just making the first, brief pullup. Hold and repeat for a ropelength, pausing to place gear as appropriate. I’d say even the aerobically-mighty TFK might find himself a little out of breath.

All depends what exactly you call a move, of course, but then hey, what doesn’t?
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Can I put my feet in the crack or would that make it 4c?
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Additionally if you remove the finishing hold on the first move, you've made that first move harder. Surely the set-up, reorganisation of limbs and body AND finish holds are all implicit parts of the 'move'?
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:
If your limit is 4b, then you're going to want to place more gear on a 4b route than if you're (for example) an E5 leader. To keep stopping and placing gear makes the route more strenuous than if you can just keep moving. Also, if 4b is your limit your definition of what constitutes a good rest point is going to be different.
Woker 23 Oct 2003
In reply to GrahamD:
"4c moves are just too easy to be pumpy, however much 4c you string together. "

Oh come on how long could you hang on to some overhanging 4a holds, as this is not an infinite period of time they must have got too pumpy for you....
Stu Tyrrell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob: STONEY - Pearly Gates VS 4C, is one with exposure and should be HVS 4c.

Stu

AndyM 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Anonymous:

If you can't make the neccessary mental adjustment from the on-sight grade to soloing, top-roping etc I suugest you eat a lot more fish.

Excellent initial thread - our system is the best.
 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

You've been doing your research with that list. I used the word 'should' rather than is, though. I don't see why routes like inverted V, for instance, warrant a grade harder than Central Groove (Dewerstone)which is pretty spot on HS 4b. Other routes like Himmelswillen are arguably harder than 4b.
 tobyfk 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Woker:

> Oh come on how long could you hang on to some overhanging 4a holds,

Where are these hypothetical holds? Can you find them on an actual route.


 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Woker:

Obviously if you choose to hang off holds half way through a move, you can make any route strenuous. My point is though, it is very rare that 4a or 4b moves do not start and terminate in a rest position and certainly not a whole routes worth. I'm sure there may be an exception but I can't think of one off hand.
pmc 23 Oct 2003
In reply to tobyfk:
Bovine, Nant Gwynant HVS 4C but the final pitch has mainly 4b or less moves up a steep, overhanging?, wall that can tire you in far less than a rope length.
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2003
In reply to GrahamD:
> You've been doing your research with that list
Not really, they're just routes I've done this year. Some have been regraded in Gritfax, eg Mutiny Crack HS 4b, Himmelswillen VS 4c. But apart from that, I agree that they should all be either VS 4c or HS 4b.
I'm just intrigued as to why there appear to be very few strenuous HVS 4c's.
 Offwidth 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I apologise as I appear to have mis-represented you. The lack of HVS 4c routes is not an issue if the rocktype doesnt lend itself to that. Sand Buttress gets HVS 4c for stamina but I think its nearer VS 5a. Grit does seem to have more E1 5a and E2 5b routes which are stamina tests. Pembroke, Gogath and other high steep places with big holds are the obvious home of this sort of thing.

As for the elitist arguments I dont see too much change at the top: if we could use a time machine and put some of the pioneers on grit E5 slabs with modern sticky rubber (after a few months bouldering to get used to the limits of friction) I think we would see a fair few onsights and no-one has onsighted E8 yet.
 GrahamD 23 Oct 2003
In reply to pmc:

Bovine is HVS 5b,4b though
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> I apologise as I appear to have mis-represented you. The lack of HVS 4c routes is not an issue if the rocktype doesnt lend itself to that. Sand Buttress gets HVS 4c for stamina but I think its nearer VS 5a.

Sand Buttress for stamina??????? I don't remember it being remotely strenuous, except for a funny move over the final bulge (which can be avoided by a variation on the R by the unsporting.) I've never understood why this route is still given HVS. Obviously before Friends etc. it was badly protected, but it's fine now. Just a very pleasant VS 4c.

Richie Guest 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
> (In reply to Woker)
> Crabbie's Crack at 3rd Cloud is HVS 4c

Good job too, otherwise you might make the mistake of thinking you`d be alright on it 8-)
 Chris H 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Richie Guest:
I would say that the layback pitch on Anvil Chorus, Bos should be HVS 4c. Loads of gear, but easy to fall off at the top if you have spent too much time placing it. Fallen off too much to be VS.
 Andy2 23 Oct 2003
In reply to Chris H: Sorry - I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean the hand-jamming pitch? The one up the big corner?

 Offwidth 24 Oct 2003
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm afraid it must be stamina as the pro is really good. Your right about VS and I'd be happy with hard 4c but the top of the initial crack is hard work. The top is amazing but only 4b moves on hidden jugs.

Sad no-one's biting on my counterattack 'troll'. I do think people seriously underestimate the strength boldness and technique of some of the pioneers. This all ties in my my low grade arguments as I think most extemes are more likely to be overgraded than undergraded and diffs the other way. Bring them to the 21st century at their best, train them up on some boulders in modern kit, get them to watch hard grit and explain the changes in grading rules and I think some very big grades would go onsight.
In reply to Offwidth:

Perhaps most amazing of all at Black Rocks is Puttrell's Stonnis Crack, (slightly undergraded I think at Severe 4a)
 Offwidth 24 Oct 2003
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Maybe its HS but its nothing like the worst sandbag there: try Garden Wall Traverse S , Tree Crack at 4a, East Crack at D or South Corner at VS 4a.
 GrahamD 24 Oct 2003
In reply to Chris H:


> I would say that the layback pitch on Anvil Chorus, Bos should be HVS 4c. Loads of gear, but easy to fall off at the top if you have spent too much time placing it. Fallen off too much to be VS.

Mainly by people trying to layback it rather than a combination of layback, jam, bridgeing and resting.

 tobyfk 24 Oct 2003
In reply to Offwidth:
> Sad no-one's biting on my counterattack 'troll'. I do think people seriously underestimate the strength boldness and technique of some of the pioneers. This all ties in my my low grade arguments as I think yada yada yada

Perhaps no one's biting because 1. they agree with you but 2. fail to see the connection with the topic?
OP Bob 29 Oct 2003
In reply to sutty:

I've now added the original posting to my web site. I have added one or two things and corrected one or two others. The link is http://www.aqvi55.dsl.pipex.com/climb/uk_grades.htm

Bob
 sutty 29 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

Straight to the point, loads fast and links work.

You could add that list of stuff you carry in your sack sometime to show people what to aspire to when fit.

Just realised, it loads faster than my links page, I must them into folders sometime
OP Bob 29 Oct 2003
In reply to sutty:

I'll do that the next time I update the pages later on this week.

Bob
OP Bob 29 Oct 2003
In reply to sutty:

Oh, and if you have any links to similar stuff or suggestions or corrections, let me know.

Bob
 sutty 29 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:

I scanned it for spelling mistakes but did not notice any, of course I can't spell some words myself, have a dictionary handy for when I am not tired.

What sort of stuff do you want, lots of links to websites stored on here for climbing and accomodation etc.
OP Bob 30 Oct 2003
In reply to sutty:

I was meaning links for other explanations of the UK grading system or if you knew of articles about it. For instance, I'm sure that there was an article about introducing E-grades in Mountain but do not have copies going back that far.

Bob
 Doug 30 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob:
Written by Pete Botteril with a list of suggested e grades for the a selection of routes in the Lakes, N Wales, Scotland & maybe elsewhere. Can remember buying it so maybe late 70s.

Probably still have it, but its in storage somewhere back in Scotland
OP Bob 30 Oct 2003
In reply to Doug:

If you find it, I could do with a photocopy, e-mail me and I'll send you my address.

Bob
 andy 30 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob: Didn't Ed write one in Crags, or was Botterill's article in there? I used to have virtually all 30-odd copies of Crags (including the tabloid sized no.1), but mrs andy chucked them away during one house move, I think.
OP Bob 30 Oct 2003
In reply to andy:

It could have been Ed, I have all the Crags magazines at home so I'll check tonight.

Bob
 andy 30 Oct 2003
In reply to Bob: You been going through our bins again?
OP Bob 30 Oct 2003
In reply to andy:

Damn, I thought that my elvish overcoat would hide me

Bob

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...