UKC

In May we reported that Dave Pickford climbed a new route at St Govan’s Head in Pembroke, The Brothers Karamazov which Dave gave E9 6c.

Dave Birkett soon repeated it thinking it was soft for the grade. This has been confirmed by Neil Mawson who repeated The Brothers Karamazov on Friday the 19th October.

Read the full story at: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
They don't call him "Awesome Mawson" for nothing.
Anyway, nice spin Mick; a headline that should have read "Neil Mawson repeats, etc..." is instead "neil Mawson downgrades...".

In reply to Serpico:

Not my headline I'm afraid.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Sorry, I was mislead by the "By Mick Ryan" at the end of it.

In reply to Serpico:

Twas the headline Neil sent in. To be sure the point was made presumably.

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

The point and the history so far, from Dave's ascent, to Dave B's repeat (with video) and comments, to Dave P's justification, to Neil Mawson's ascent are quite clearly documented and referenced (linked) in the news report.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=10&year=2007#40726

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: What is the significance of this downgrading from E9 to E8? Does it mean that it would no longer be the hardes route in pembrokeshire?

In reply to Ackbar:


It is an interesting story.

Dave Pickford establishes one of Pembrokes hardest routes.

A grade of E9 is proposed by Dave Pickford. He gives his reasons for this grade.

It has two repeats, both think it is E8. Both give reasons for their proposed grade.

Consensus with three ascents, E8.

Further, Neil Mawson improves the style of ascent by placing gear on the lead and not placing the peg.

Our beloved yet flawed grading system in action.

No idea what the hardest route is in Pembroke....you talking boldest, hardest move, most sustained or perhaps a combination?

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
what e9s are left in pembroke now that mawson's put this and chupacabra down to e8? i can only think big issue...

In reply to abarro81: Just Big Issue left, I think. Nobody seems to want to downgrade that.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Mick - I see that the news item has an amalgam quotation from Dave Pickford's original comments (which were, in fact, spread over a few paragraphs).

I can imagine that the way the whole news item has been written could lead some UKC soap-boxers/idiots out there to question Dave P and his grading etc. It would have certainly happened if this had been a news item about a John Dunne route downgraded from E9 to E8!

So I think it would have been better to have included Dave P's final words too (see below), as they show he was more than willing for good old British concensus to prove otherwise on the E9 grade:

"It remains however for other climbers to decide if this is an accurate guide to how difficult the route would be for an onsight ascent. This, after all, is what our excellent UK grading system was designed for in the first place."

Great effort by Neil M.

In reply to Cusco:



What's that saying that is currently trendy on chat forums???

"No shit Sherlock!" ah that's it.......

The Ent ™

In reply to Cusco:


Space constraints but it is linked for all to read.

So Dave P gives E9 for an onsight ascent, perhaps meaning that for him it was E8 lead. So Dave P cannot say that he has established an E9.

Birkett and Mawson come along and give an E8 grade...for an onsight, which neither of them did. Is this an onsight grade they proposed and their actual ascents were actually E7 for them?

This grading for an onsight AFTER you have top roped a climb is pure bullshit.

The only way you grade a route for an onsight ascent is if you have onsighted the route. Any other grade is hypothetical and.............hype.

However, we like big grades: climbers like big grades, magazines and websites like big grades, first ascensionists like big grades, filmmakers like big grades, the sponsors like big grades and of course so do professional climbers.

No one has yet climbed E11, if Dave M graded Rhapsody for an onsight ascent.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: 'No one has yet climbed E11, if Dave M graded Rhapsody for an onsight ascent'

I don't think anyone has climbed E9 yet on that basis, have they?

In reply to Cusco:



Soap-boxers/idiots? Really. The cornerstone of our grading system is concensus and onsight. Too bloody right the top grades should be questioned.



Try two E10's downgraded to E8....at the very least.

In reply to John2:

Not sure. But what we are talking about is the very basis of our grading system - which according to some is grading for an onsight.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Yup. Including you guidebook writers (thankfully).

That's the way it works, it's amazingly simple: Grades are given for an onsight ascent, either you climb it at that grade (onsight) or at an easier equivalent (worked).

Climbers doing first ascents might work a route (with good reason as it offsets the challenge of it not being an established route) and then give it a grade for a hypothetical onsight so it fits in with the rest of the grading system.




(Incidentally, talking about E11, the consensus seems to be that working a route knocks two grades of the onsight grade....so in headpointing E11, Dave Mac was doing the equivalent to onsighting an E9...)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: 'what we are talking about is the very basis of our grading system - which according to some is grading for an onsight'

Exactly. There seem to be two different views as to what the E grade refers to. Mawson is saying that Brothers Karamazov is E8 because it's only F7C+ to top rope - well isn't The Indian Face only F7B+? And he downgraded Chupacabra because he discovered while prepractising a runner placement that Bransby had missed.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus among the climbers who operate at that level as to what the E grade refers to.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


No, meaning that for him it felt as hard or harder than other routes he had climbed in a similar style.

All the Daves (and Neils) have enough experience of onsighting and headpointing at high levels to be able to give a route a reasonably accurate onsight grade, irrespective of the style in which it was established.

And you like to stir up controversy and trash peoples reputations to drum up business for the website. What about the responsibility that the first ascentionist has not to undergrade? Many of these routes are being attempted onsight, the climber makes a decision to commit to the moves based on what grade the route is given and what grade they believe through experience they're capable of. When they find themselves in an irreversible position on a route that's graded E8 when it's actually E9 but the first ascentionist didn't want to risk the wrath and ridicule of Mick Ryan and associated armchair pundits of UKC it'll be a sad day for UK climbing and a good news story for Mick.

In reply to Fiend:


Where did you get that from? This knocking two grades off if you've top roped it first -


So what future for the E11 brand? And has anyone trademarked it yet?

In reply to Serpico:


What about the responsibilty that the first ascensionist has to overgrade?

In reply to Serpico:


E9's and above being attempted onsight? Are you sure about that?

Try E7 and E8 maybe and decisions to "commit to moves" are not only based on the grade but on the observations of the climber, using their eyes.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Bransby attempted Impact Day onsight when it was given E9.


You can only see so much, and you certainly can't see the tops of holds, and whether they're incut or slopers. I've slapped for many a hold that wasn't as good as it looked from below. And then there's cracks that look good from below but turn out to be blind or flared when you get to them. You trust that the FA has got the grade right and that you're capable of climbing that grade.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I'd have deleted that post as well if I was you.

It doesn't just apply to E9s. The FA should give the grade that he or she honestly believes it to be without having to worry about the abuse they could receive on some random internet forum.

In reply to Serpico:

Just the one then?

Also Jordan Buys on Carmen Picasso, previously graded E9 but now E8.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=03&year=2007#34585

Any more?

Sounds like The Brothers Karamazov stands a good chance of an onsight with two quick repeats........and then there is the video of Dave Birkett on it - which of course any onsight suitor must not watch!

In reply to Serpico:

Grades are questioned far more openly now, and by the peers of those climbing at the upper limits, as well as by anyone else.

Get used to it.

This example, The Brothers Karamazov is an excellent one: all three ascensionists of this route contributed directly to this "random internet forum" called UKClimbing.com which has the biggest climbing readership in the UK.

And you Serpico have also lent your wisdom to it.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Overgrading never hurt anyone (physically).

In reply to Serpico:

The fact is that you give a route the grade you think it is. If it subsequently gets downgraded then so be it. If the FA is "worrying" about it being downgraded, they've probably overgraded it and they know it! And unless your name is Dave MacLeod, there's a good chance you might have got it wrong if you're grading E9.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Mick - think you've got the wrong end of the stick of my post. I wasn't questioning anyone's right to question climbers' grading of climbs.

I just thought the news item as written could be viewed as quite negative against Dave P. as it reads something like:

'Dave P's route is downgraded. One shit hot guy found it soft touch. Now another says the same. So read between the lines.'

To some on this site, I'm sure that would equate to 'Dave P is an overgrading eejit who's falsely and deliberately claimed a big number to (a) suit his ego or (b) make headlines or (c) both'.

Given Dave's comments about the grading in his original quote, that seems to be the last thing on his mind.

Otherwise, you having a bad day today? Chill out and don't get so worked up!

In reply to Cusco:



There's no reading between the lines. The lines are all there, straight from the mouths, all three of them.

Climber A thought Route to be E9. Climber B and C repeat Route and both think E8. All climbers report their activities to climbing media and make comment on the grade of the route - all enjoy the route because it is a good one.

The only negative is the route getting its grade reassessed

Simple really. As I said, it is how our grading system works. This time in a quite transparent manner.

The difference these days is that these deliberations actually get reported almost instantly...warts and all. Many take umbrage at this as in the past, in the print mags, very few actually got the full story and climbers could basically say what they wanted without being questioned. Now they are questioned: ascents are applauded publically and by all who care too, and if someone assess a grade wrong, even with good reason, that foible is exposed.

If someone thinks that headpointing an E7 that has been ground upped (and anyway most think is E6) is lame, you can say so, you can even question the news editor if he has run that ascent as news.

Negative, positive or neutral it is all part of the game we play, and as such is fun.

M

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:



I concur. In the original news item there is no controversy. Dave Pickford was slightly out with his grade estimate, so what??

In reply to Fiend: i think Mick just wanted an argument as nobody's questioned whether his stuff is newsworthy for a day or two and it's taken him by surprise!

In reply to abarro81:


Try discussion or even better dialogue!

In reply to abarro81:

I know, it's all a bit odd, all the main page news items are actually news for a change!

I can just see the next one "Chief Inspector Tw*t Of The Ethics Police shows seal of approval for UKC news items - read the full story on www.ukblah.com"

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Well first off good effort downgrading it. Much easier to remain silent and let everyone think you've climbed an E9 than speak out and risk some flak. And I like the title. Downgrading is news these days since so little of it seems to happen.

On the question of the 'onsight' grade of a route...

It's a bit confusing since the term comes from sport climbing and not from British trad. I think British trad grades are for ground up ascents, rather than no falls, no knowledge ascents. Hard new trad routes have for years been done with falls and yo-yoing and even dogging without placing more gear.

Abbing down and pre-practicing moves on serious routes is obviously going to a totally different prospect to a ground up ascent. And this is where the confusion comes in for grading of headpointed routes.

However I think those who have climbed them should be able to work out how hard they'd be for a ground up ascent. And as long as people don't go thinking they're an E9 climber when they've headpointed an E9 (or whatever) in that style there shouldn't be a problem.

In reply to stp:

Downgrading happens all the time. Headpointers use it to make themselves feel big rather than letting grades grow upwards in a logical manner.

Conversely, Indian Face was the first E9 but there are still very few people ready to stick their neck out to repeat it whilst other E9's getting repeated and downgraded with tedious regularity.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread...