UKC

Yes. Another grade thread. There have been a lot recently. 

As these threads, videos and discussions have developed... the only thing that seems clear to me is a lack of a universal clarity when it comes to the English system. And that... I'm finally admitting to myself... is a fatal flaw.

Take the debate recently at the higher end. It seems we can't agree on anything. Some want to make it more formulaic. Others want to leave room for nuance. Some want it for the onsight. Some argue this isn't consistent throughout. Etc etc etc. But the thing is... these aren't your average folks pottering around. These are people forging the way. And all that seems clear is they're all singing from different hymn sheets. Subjectivity is one thing... but different systems entirely under one roof? Really? 

I have been a long time advocate of the English system. But is it time we threw in the towel? Is it just too unnecessarily opaque? Is this the 'imperial measurement system' of the climbing world. Should we adopt the French system plus a 'danger grade'. S0 - S3 as per deep water solo? Do we want newcomers to the sport learning the imperial system? Or the metric system?

Find me a news article that discusses a new trad route of any difficulty and doesn't break it down with a French grade and comment on the danger in the body. If the English system is so good... why do we need this? If the French system plus a 'danger grade' were standard... would the body contain English grades to make it clearer? I'd wager not...

But what about the nuances? What about the route with one unprotected high hard move? Well, what about them? Does the English system really make that much clearer by giving a higher E grade? I personally think not.

A nice traditional curiosity. Perhaps. But a strong and (as close to as can be) standardisable system moving forward... I think not.

I have to admit it folks. I've been turned.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I think the E grade works just fine for the vast, vast majority of routes. I’ve never read any other better option and don’t see any problem with sport or boulder grades been talked about when a useful addition.

Are sport grades broken because people add font / v grades into the discussion? 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

No

In reply to jezb1:

Could the same not be applied to the imperial measurement system in 1965? 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I think a point that's often missed, as it's not very sexy, is actually British grades work very well up to mid to high E grades. A lot of the confusion seems to be about big grades, which allthough fun to have some armchair views on, doesn't really affect 90% of climbers.

H grades, or the width of English 6b is good chat on a gloomy march afternoon but how many climbers does it really affect? Not many

So no, I think E grades, and the wider British system works fine. 

In reply to ebdon:

I would have agreed, but then a friend made the point that E3 was once cutting edge too...

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

The reason so many people, myself included, are protective over E grade sis because they do a great job in capturing elements of a climbing experience that other grades do not. A climbing experience inherently is subjective and the E grades, for all their flaws, provide a decently accurate representation, at least in my limited experience.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I suspect when E3 was cutting edge it was graded 'xs' or somthing and a sensible grade emerged over the next few years. 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Not given it any thought, other than climbing not being remotely important to anything much and a plethora of measurements being fundamental to daily life.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Thankfully here in Scotland there is nothing harder than VS so we don't have any problems with grading.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

E grades allow people to work their way up through the grades to a respectable standard without having to become good at climbing. I think that's why they're so popular. Their use is not so much to describe the route as to mark the achievement. 

Sport climbing grades mostly just demonstrate how crap you are! 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

No.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

No.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Why for heaven's sake. NO!

In reply to ebdon:

I think E grades as an overall measure of the challenge faced are great, and the only reason they're even discussed is the somewhat illogical insistence on it being a measure of onsight difficulty, when really there are so many people headpointing nowadays, on plenty of mid-grade routes and lower grades too, that the distinction really should be allowed to blur, or even to be recognised as headpoint grades. This is how sport grades generally work and it really isn't a problem.The number of routes that would be notably misgraded (i.e. out by more than one grade) would be absolutely tiny, and I think hardly any of them would be in the mid E-grades or easier (so most people would notice no difference).

But then what would we argue about instead?

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Is it time to let the E grade die?

-no

In reply to john arran:

Again, this is another problem that arises from people singing off different hymn sheets. I don't think I've ever graded a trad route for an onsight. It doesn't make any sense to me.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Do you grade E1s for the redpoint?

In reply to Andy Moles:

For how many E1s would there be a difference?

In reply to john arran:

Ad absurdum, but insert E5 if you prefer.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Yes, just because I did it badly doesn't mean it's E6.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Oh right. Wow. You are definitely in a small minority if you are an experienced UK trad climber and think that E5s are graded on the assumption that the route will be worked.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

You are misunderstanding how it works. Just because I tried it when unfit and got nowhere doesn't make it E6 either. It is a population, not a personal thing.

In reply to oureed2:

These two sentences seem to contradict each other.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Okedoke then, here's what I suggest:

Stop doing whatever it is that you've been doing to keep it alive, and wait. 
(Maybe don't hold your breath though.)

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Same argument Streaky Desroy made in the Royal Oak in Leeds in the mid-80s, when they then introduced P grades in the Yorkshire Gritstone guidebook.

It didn't stick then, it won't now. Many love are flawed quirky E-grades.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Interesting. 

I'd say grading for the onsight is how it feels when you onsight it. Surely? But how something feels on the onsight is far more subjective than how it feels after a bit of working. It all depends on how well you climb it, how well you're going that day. 

If it's a population thing then fine. Perhaps three people who onsighted it and used the same poor beta thought the route E3. But does that mean those who fell off, found the hidden undercut and then went to the top can't comment on the grade? Logic says no... they cannot comment. If this is the case then surely UKC needs a function to stop people suggesting a grade if they didn't onsight it. And then the age old question of the big as yet not onsighted grades?

The reality is... people don't grade for the onsight. 

But if I am misunderstanding then I'm keen to hear why. And if I'm misunderstanding after 20 years of it... it can't just be me can it? I've definitely never misunderstood 5.12b R.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Of course it is. Always has been. And that surely goes for all grading systems, whether typically graded for onsight or redpoint.

Pretty questionable logic. Would you try to apply the inverse? Hard sport routes are typically graded for the redpoint, does that mean anyone who flashes one is unqualified to comment on the sport grade?

Grading is always difficult and somewhat subjective. Consensus will always be king and any one person's opinion will always be flawed. But it's far from impossible for people to make a decent effort at estimating, even if they have to take into account that their experience may be atypical in some way. That could be failing at the onsight as you describe, or it could be knowing that only their extraordinary height allowed them to reach past a nasty crimp to a jug.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

More like grading for before you try to onsight it. Because it is assumed up to a certain grade that that is how routes will be approached. A grade is not meant to describe your experience, it's meant to inform you what to expect in advance.

And for this reason yes, even if you fall off or practice the route first you can use your imagination to judge what the route should be graded for future prospective ground-up ascentionists.

It's not necessarily easy, but just because grading for a redpoint is easier does not mean it's more useful, if it's not how people are attempting the climb.

Bottom line, grades are for before the route, not during or after it.

In reply to Luke90:

Yes, I wasn't contesting that at all. But clearly those who have onsighted x route are a significantly smaller pool than those who have not. I have always argued that grading a route accurately is best done by those for whom the route is nearest their limit. Not the folks who are strong enough to onsight. Regardless of type of climbing. Except it would seem... trad climbing.

Unqualified? Not at all. Inaccurate. Undeniably. Flashing something makes it incredibly hard to tell how hard something is in my opinion. In my own experience I'm way more likely to undergrade something if I flash it. For sure. The number of times I've flashed something to near the end, dropped it... considered it soft... thought it'd go next go... then not got back to my highpoint speaks for itself. I doubt I'm the only one.

But in the trad example... if the grade is for the onsight, then by definition you cannot comment if you didn't onsight it. So is your example actually an inverse? Nothing about sport grades say you can't grade if you onsight. But that said in my opinion, as above... an 8c climber will struggle to tell 7a from 7a+. A 7a+ climber will have a much better idea yet only one of those two is likely to onsight.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I think once you’ve failed a fair few E4s and onsighted a fair few E3s, I’d say you’re in a pretty good position to assess the grade. 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

With experience, combining how it feels to you with other factors will give you an estimate of the grade (see below).

It is an inverse measure of the proportion of the climbing population who could onsight it.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Perfectly reasonable opinion.

But now you're taking an opinion and proclaiming it as part of a definition. That's nonsense. You might find it more challenging to offer an accurate grade, but you're not unable to comment. And there are all kinds of other reasons why any one person might struggle to accurately grade something, which is why it's all about consensus rather than any one person's opinion.

The symmetry between offering a redpoint grade for something you flashed and offering an onsight grade for something you worked is that both are possible to do but both are probably a little more challenging to infer accurately.

In either case, it makes sense to grade for the way the majority of the routes are typically attempted, which for higher sport grades tends to be redpoint and for most trad grades tends to be onsight.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Despite what John Arran says about grading for the onsight being illogical (?), it's the only sensible way of doing it for normal grades (outwith the top end). If a route is nearly always attempted onsight, and most of those doing it in that style think it's E6 but a couple of folk headpointing it think it's E5, then guess what, it's E6. Grades are meant to be a measure to inform folk whether they should try something or not. If they fail to do that because you've graded for the easiest sequence which most don't figure out onsight, then that's no help to anyone. 

In reply to Luke90:

See I'd argue, for example, that forcing yourself to ignore a hidden hold after working a route and grading it for the onsight assuming most people will struggle to find it would be fairly uncommon.

Curious as to why you say only higher sport grades are redpoint grades and not all sport grades? I'd also say sport routes are in the vast majority attempted onsight too... no?

In reply to Luke90:

This.

A.k.a. "this is how hard you'll probably find it."

In reality, as I mentioned above, there will be precious few cases where the two approaches would notably differ. For these relatively rare cases, a simple mention (or suitable icon) that it's "hard to onsight" or "easier when you know the trick" would be enough.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Does it follow then that headpoints do not get the E grade. And perhaps an H grade is a good idea after all?

In reply to Luke90:

This ^

...but the tricky bit is in the overlap between dominant styles, which in trad terms probably gets going around E5, peaks at E6, continues to some degree at E7 and diminishes steeply through the grades above.

It is a bit of a niche issue, but having done a couple of new routes that I would include in John Arran's 'precious few cases', the lack of a recognised solution bugs me.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Achievements don't have to be impressive. They can be unexceptional personal goals which you've managed to accomplish.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I wouldn't suggest for a second that people would actively avoid using the hold. But it wouldn't be rocket science to ponder how hard it would have been to find on the onsight. And in fact their experience of failing to find it onsight is a valid part of the consensus on the grade, to counterbalance some of the people who lucked out and stumbled upon it implausibly quickly.

Rockfax say they give sport grades for the onsight at lower grades and for redpoint at higher grades. And they also reckon that's typical for most guides. I don't climb enough sport to have much of an opinion.

https://rockfax.com/climbing-guides/grades/#:~:text=Onsight%20or%20Redpoint

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

No, in my opinion. Most of the time the grade just reflects how people attempt the route. Onsight up to a certain point, headpoint after that. I've no problem with the E tag continuing to be applied at the top end, though some do.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Out of interest, what solution did you apply to your grading? I'd be tempted to say grade for the onsight since getting that wrong could be much worse.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Interesting that you start your thesis by discussing the debates about the very highest grades. At these grades, the debate is perfectly legitimate and necessary. But to project the problems of grading at E9 and above onto the routes climbed by the other 99% of us is a major non sequitur; we´re grateful for having two separate but linked pieces of information in the grade before we attempt something, and the UK grading system works at our levels; it gives us a pretty good idea of what´s to be expected, both physically and in terms of risk.

You talk about standardization. But to make that applicable, the styles of climbing would have to be standardized too, worldwide, and that would be both incredibly sad and impossible. Put bolts in Valkyrie (HVS 5a) and give it a grade of F5b for a lead first practised on toprope; that´d work, that´d be the logical extension of your suggestion. Everything standardized, wherever you go, worldwide. Great.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

In the most awkward case, a slash grade.

I felt that for a proper onsight, it would be worth E7, but knowing a few 'tricks' (blind or unusual gear and a couple of non obvious moves) make it a bit of a gift of a headpoint at E7, more like a punchy E6.

I would imagine any repeat attempts if they happen will involve inspection at least, but that could be slightly less likely to be the case if I'd just given it E6, and then I'd have felt that I might be sandbagging.

There's also the fact that it's harder than I could onsight myself, which makes all this harder to judge.

For the relatively small number of routes like this, I think just having an H grade in brackets, like E7 (H6) is not a bad solution. Though maybe above E7 it makes more sense if it's the other way around, because on sight attempts are so rare, and anyone who is making them is likely to establish whether the route is suited to that before they have a go.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

...or this:

Just give E7+ routes that don't get on-sighted a French grade and a danger grade, because if you're going to check it out and work it anyway, the E grade is not that useful. Anyone in the minority who does try it on sight can propose an E grade if they wish.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I love E grades. For a punter trad climber who climbs nearly everything onsight at a pathetically low standard for 30 years they are great. I have a 5 minute attention span and only want pleasure so the 3 go’s  I had on my best ( and only)  Redpoint  day were so frustrating as an experience. 

Your log book lists 10 or so trad climbs most extremely hard and only one onsight. I guess we are very different climbers and the E grade is as rubbish for you as it is great for me.

I suspect there are more climbers on here similar to me so I don’t think they will agree with your experiences. 
 

Which climbs did you find the E grade made it difficult for you to enjoy and how could another  system helped you? 
 

In reply to rurp:

Sorry just heading to the airport... but to be clear... my logbook is definitely not reflective. I log barely anything.

Have done plenty of onsighting over the years too.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Can there be a new forum for these grade discussions so they can be hidden.

In reply to fammer:

It's a good shout, then if I feel like spending some time going around in familiar circles I can just go for a walk and get some exercise.

In reply to fammer:

Maybe every topic could have its own forum. You know, with a title so you don't have to open it if it doesn't interest you. It could be called a thread or something.

In reply to fammer:

If climbers didn't talk about grades, what would they talk about? The weather?

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Suspect it's worked perfectly well for most people, for most of the time for a very long time. 40+ years climbing I've never really had an issue with it!  It might not work occasionally  if you knew nothing about the route beforehand, didn't read the guidebook but just knew the grade but who does that in this information age? 

In reply to Andy Moles:

Sorry Andy. Can't really say I follow this. I'd have said a grade is a mark of the experience you had relative to other experiences. How the word 'relative' here is defined is the issue we're discussing. Your definition... to me... is hard to understand and so I cant really comment. Perhaps I'm a bit thick! Entirely possible.

Btw: you're not the Andy Moles of Anna Moles brotherly fame are you?! Vaguely remember she had a brother who was getting in to climbing back in 07 when I met her first. Asked if I'd climb with him. Could that be you?!

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I really don't understand all this recent turmoil about the grading system. Seems to be a small group of high-end climbers grumbling about compression at the top end of the scale, which if that's the case is the fault of the upper echelons of the climbing world putting up hard routes and seemingly being afraid of sticking their neck out and giving it a higher grade. Most of us mortals operate much further down the scale and it all makes perfect sense. I've grown up with the system and I understand how it works. I feel confident getting on something new, having read the guidebook description and grade, because the grade system has always worked and I've only rarely been caught out by something feeling way off the given grade. I've only rarely dipped my toe into E1, but the British system works for me.

In reply to Abu777:

It follows Dave Mac's video which to me demonstrated nobody at the top really agrees. And so the English system doesn't seem to make much sense when pushed to a limit.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I think it boils down to the fact that sport routes (with french sport grades) are graded for the easiest sequence. This does not even consider the style you climb it, only it reflects how hard it is physically using the easiest sequence.

But the common rule seems to be, that lower end sport climbs (I'd day up to around f7) are often considered so "easy" that finding the easiest sequence is often a moot point. Ergo the grade is for Onsight. But once we get into "real climbing", the easiest sequence really does matter (if you're near your limit). So often these routes are "graded" for RP or flash. But as said, they are all really graded for the easiest sequence, style has no effect).

Sometimes there are hints in the guidebook, that perhaps this route is hard to on sight (tricky crux with hidden holds, and or complex sequence)... but strictly speaking that is not needed.. People do however value OS more than a redpoint, because it is more demanding.  And quite often this is how people warm up on newer crags... on sight a bunch of easier routes. Then start the redpointing efforts on their goal.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

For the very few people climbing the grades that he was talking about, it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to scrap a whole system which works ok for the vast majority. I find it hard to believe that anyone climbing above E7 isn't fully aware of how hard a route is likely to be before they decide to try it.

Maybe a couple of years of reverting to XS with no tech grades would make E grades look better?

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I've been a one man/small and confused minority for more than 45 years years then - or not. You are quite an advanced troll. Good effort.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer: How would you propose to grade everything from VDiff to E7? I think that at the very highest grades any system will struggle as personal preference and strengths will colour opinion at the limit .

The two part UK grade system works pretty well. I personally think it would be even better with the UK tech replaced with a 'sport ' grade, but trying to capture all the nuances of a climb in a twop art grade will always struggle . That's why when you get so many 'extra' bits of info tacked onto a single grade i.e. the R or X grade tacked onto 5.12b, but even the 5.12 B bit doesn't tell you if it's pumpy, tech tricky, hidden holds, rock quality etc.

Have you done enough trad in a 'trad' style, i.e. onsight to have an opinion based on experience? More time puntering required?

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Octavias? 

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

The very same! 

Trying to think how to put this differently...Maybe it would be clearer if instead of saying 'graded for the on-sight' we said 'graded for the on-sight attempt'.

Fundamentally, what is a grade for? It's to give as accurate an idea as possible of how hard a climber should expect a route to be before trying it, so they can decide whether it's an appropriate challenge for them. If we assume that most climbers are going to try said route without practising it first (which is the default assumption in UK trad at most grades), then it makes sense to offer a grade that is appropriate to that approach.

Obviously not everyone is always going to agree, and on some routes for various reasons the experience of difficulty might be more variable than others. That's why you want to establish a consensus, so that the expected difficulty matches the experienced difficulty for at least a majority of climbers.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Sounds like a 'them' problem. I can't imagine people getting on an E11 without researching the route as much as possible, it's not as though they're glimpsing a guidebook and stepping up to the onsight. It's just a totally different sort of undertaking. No point throwing out the grading system to account for a tiny minority issue that people operating at that level have worked around anyway.

In reply to Andy Moles:

That's an interesting case; thankyou for the explanation. It does highlight the awkwardness of grading around that level.