This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Ok, I've climbed a few, not many but a few, however when I did them it was from the 1990's and onwards.
But looking at a few of the 'black and white' photos I can't help think that an 'E1' in the 70's or even early 80's was a very big thing compared to doing the same route today with more specialised protection.
Is an E1 still an E1 or just like the conversion from Imperial to decimalisation such a grade has been devalued over time?
But looking at a few of the 'black and white' photos I can't help think that an 'E1' in the 70's or even early 80's was a very big thing compared to doing the same route today with more specialised protection.
Is an E1 still an E1 or just like the conversion from Imperial to decimalisation such a grade has been devalued over time?
In reply to The Lemming: I would say if the guidebook has been updated recently then it's likely still E1.
You may wish to apply some subjective judgement on the grade if it's an old book.
You may wish to apply some subjective judgement on the grade if it's an old book.
In reply to The Lemming:
Depends, if the gear is still wires and threads then it shouldn't make any difference.
If there's a load of micro cam placements in a route now that nothing else will protect then maybe it's a candidate for downgrading.
That said, hanging around placing more gear will probably make the route more sustained or harder work (I'm thinking of stopping to place a cam on a run out layback or something similar) so where it used to get an E grade for danger, it might still apply for effort but be safer.
Depends, if the gear is still wires and threads then it shouldn't make any difference.
If there's a load of micro cam placements in a route now that nothing else will protect then maybe it's a candidate for downgrading.
That said, hanging around placing more gear will probably make the route more sustained or harder work (I'm thinking of stopping to place a cam on a run out layback or something similar) so where it used to get an E grade for danger, it might still apply for effort but be safer.
In reply to The Lemming:
So couldn't you apply the same argument to almost any grade?
Yes.
No. It cuts both ways. Some earlier HVSs etc. have quite rightfully been upgraded since the time you're talking about, so it's not all about better gear and grade creep. And, while it might get called 'middle' or even 'lower' grade these days ('middle', please!), E1 will forever be E1, just as VS is forever VS (milestone grades to the mere mortal).
> But looking at a few of the 'black and white' photos I can't help think that an 'E1' in the 70's or even early 80's was a very big thing compared to doing the same route today with more specialised protection.
So couldn't you apply the same argument to almost any grade?
> Is an E1 still an E1
Yes.
> or just like the conversion from Imperial to decimalisation such a grade has been devalued over time?
No. It cuts both ways. Some earlier HVSs etc. have quite rightfully been upgraded since the time you're talking about, so it's not all about better gear and grade creep. And, while it might get called 'middle' or even 'lower' grade these days ('middle', please!), E1 will forever be E1, just as VS is forever VS (milestone grades to the mere mortal).
In reply to The Lemming:
In my heyday I was a reasonably competent VS leader who'd sneaked up the odd HVS or three (in EB's and with no cams or micro wires) that have since been upgraded to E1 (or in one case E2). I still don't consider myself to have been an extreme leader even though the guidebook suggests I might have been.
In my heyday I was a reasonably competent VS leader who'd sneaked up the odd HVS or three (in EB's and with no cams or micro wires) that have since been upgraded to E1 (or in one case E2). I still don't consider myself to have been an extreme leader even though the guidebook suggests I might have been.
In reply to The Lemming:
Surely the point is that a 5a move is still a 5a move, but that if the move can now be protected by small cams then the adjectival grade should come down a notch, e.g., E1 becomes HVS.
-Pierre
Surely the point is that a 5a move is still a 5a move, but that if the move can now be protected by small cams then the adjectival grade should come down a notch, e.g., E1 becomes HVS.
-Pierre
In reply to Pierre Maxted:
no, you've got it the wrong way round - if the 5a move can now be protected, it stays E1 but any route which still cannot be protected gets knocked up to E2.
no, you've got it the wrong way round - if the 5a move can now be protected, it stays E1 but any route which still cannot be protected gets knocked up to E2.
In reply to Tobias at Home:
E2 5A? Few and far between - as is E1 5a. 5b surely? The E grade/s have gradually developed and settles down and many routes that were crammed into the lower grade have moved up - most deservedly so and some not (grade creep)
> (In reply to Pierre Maxted)
>
> no, you've got it the wrong way round - if the 5a move can now be protected, it stays E1 but any route which still cannot be protected gets knocked up to E2.
>
> no, you've got it the wrong way round - if the 5a move can now be protected, it stays E1 but any route which still cannot be protected gets knocked up to E2.
E2 5A? Few and far between - as is E1 5a. 5b surely? The E grade/s have gradually developed and settles down and many routes that were crammed into the lower grade have moved up - most deservedly so and some not (grade creep)
In reply to The Lemming: most of them are still protected by bog standard nuts - im no expert but these havent changed that much so its not gear that makes them seem easier. i think its walls (indoors), a rise in standards (in some areas/ways) and the fact that stuff gets communicated much more quickly (like on here) that makes E1 seem more commonplace. maybe?
In reply to Bulls Crack: it was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek but really, that is what happens - two routes, both unprotected 40yrs ago. one is protected by cams - stays the same, the other, still unprotecetd, gets knocked up a notch.
doesn't really matter either way as long as it is consistent.
doesn't really matter either way as long as it is consistent.
In reply to Tobias at Home: Hargreaves Original?
In reply to Tobias at Home: I would think a 5a move that can be easily protected would be VS. A more sustained but equally well protected 5a route HVS and the same less easily protected E1.
In reply to Tobias at Home:
It's true -- if something is well protected anyone can get on and gibber up it if they *just* have the technical ability without serious risk of death/injury. Back In The Day you had to be truly competent. Gear has brought us all up a few levels in terms of the adjectival grade.
> (In reply to Bulls Crack) it was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek but really, that is what happens - two routes, both unprotected 40yrs ago. one is protected by cams - stays the same, the other, still unprotecetd, gets knocked up a notch.
It's true -- if something is well protected anyone can get on and gibber up it if they *just* have the technical ability without serious risk of death/injury. Back In The Day you had to be truly competent. Gear has brought us all up a few levels in terms of the adjectival grade.
In reply to The Lemming: Given that the top end of the grading range is now at least E9 or 10 (can we all agree on that), then it is probably fair to say yes, E1 is still E1. At the time it was a breakthrough grade done with big boots and washing lines but is now nowhere near ground breaking, the objective danger was probably the same as a modern high-end route like one of Macleod or Pearson's routes. If Joe Brown fell off Cenotaph Corner (for example) he might have decked and likewise Macleoad from Rhapsody. Both lines were, at the time, very close to being at the absolute limit of the climbers ability, climbers that were (or are) at the cutting edge of the sport. Ethics and redpointing notwithstanding, does that mean that they are of the same difficulty? Of course not. But as the grades increase, then formerly serious climbs slide down the scale in terms of being dangerous or unprotectable. E1 now is fairly safe, but E11 is far from it. The grade hasn't changed, but it's relative position within the scale has.
In reply to hereforded:
Dont think I can agree with practically anything in this post.
I dont think decking was a real possibility on Cenotaph Corner or on Rhapsody. Neither do I agree that either route was really at the cutting edge of what was possible. I do not agree either that E1 now is necessarily safe.
> (In reply to The Lemming) Given that the top end of the grading range is now at least E9 or 10 (can we all agree on that), then it is probably fair to say yes, E1 is still E1. At the time it was a breakthrough grade done with big boots and washing lines but is now nowhere near ground breaking, the objective danger was probably the same as a modern high-end route like one of Macleod or Pearson's routes. If Joe Brown fell off Cenotaph Corner (for example) he might have decked and likewise Macleoad from Rhapsody. Both lines were, at the time, very close to being at the absolute limit of the climbers ability, climbers that were (or are) at the cutting edge of the sport. Ethics and redpointing notwithstanding, does that mean that they are of the same difficulty? Of course not. But as the grades increase, then formerly serious climbs slide down the scale in terms of being dangerous or unprotectable. E1 now is fairly safe, but E11 is far from it. The grade hasn't changed, but it's relative position within the scale has.
Dont think I can agree with practically anything in this post.
I dont think decking was a real possibility on Cenotaph Corner or on Rhapsody. Neither do I agree that either route was really at the cutting edge of what was possible. I do not agree either that E1 now is necessarily safe.
In reply to hereforded: What utter drivel. You show complete ignorance of both the climbs mentioned and the grading system.
Don't forget that a lot of routes were protected by fairly new and trustworthy pegs in the 70's and 80's and you could just "clip and go". The same routes can be way more pumpy to protect now if you are climbing responsibly.
I would agree that E1 is less of a big deal these days because climbers are fitter from using climbing walls.
I would agree that E1 is less of a big deal these days because climbers are fitter from using climbing walls.
In reply to Removed User: They may be bad examples, not being a climbing historian, but as I see it is still a valid point. The significance or meaning of a certain grade is bound to change as standards and protection improve. How else is the grading system supposed to evolve? Surely an increase in technical difficulty will devalue to a certain extent 'lesser' climbs that are no longer at the top end on the spectrum.
In reply to hereforded: You state E1 is more safe than E11. This is clearly bollocks and nullifies any argument you have.
In reply to Removed User: From the Rockfax website:
British Trad Grade - The grade is divided into two parts:
The adjectival grade (Diff, VDiff, ...to E10). This gives an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and an indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route.
The technical grade - (4a, 4b, 4c,....to 7b). This refers to the difficulty of the hardest single move, or short section, on a route.
The British Trad Grade appears to be a mystery to those used to other systems and is thought to be the most versatile system by those who use it regularly. In practice it is now only used for traditionally protected routes (routes where you hand-place your own gear or where there is only very limited fixed protection - bolts, pegs, threads).
How to recognise a dangerous route from the British Trad Grade - Any route with a high E grade and a technical grade lower than the one indicated at the top of the bar in the table above is likely to be badly protected. (eg. E1 4c, E2 5a, ... E6 6a, E7 6b). This is only a general indication though since routes can also be bold within the parmeters indicated above.
Do you know something I don't? I'm more than willing to admit that could easily be the case, but surely higher adjectival numbers mean a less protectable or more serious, and therefore dangerous route. If not than why do they exist?
British Trad Grade - The grade is divided into two parts:
The adjectival grade (Diff, VDiff, ...to E10). This gives an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and an indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route.
The technical grade - (4a, 4b, 4c,....to 7b). This refers to the difficulty of the hardest single move, or short section, on a route.
The British Trad Grade appears to be a mystery to those used to other systems and is thought to be the most versatile system by those who use it regularly. In practice it is now only used for traditionally protected routes (routes where you hand-place your own gear or where there is only very limited fixed protection - bolts, pegs, threads).
How to recognise a dangerous route from the British Trad Grade - Any route with a high E grade and a technical grade lower than the one indicated at the top of the bar in the table above is likely to be badly protected. (eg. E1 4c, E2 5a, ... E6 6a, E7 6b). This is only a general indication though since routes can also be bold within the parmeters indicated above.
Do you know something I don't? I'm more than willing to admit that could easily be the case, but surely higher adjectival numbers mean a less protectable or more serious, and therefore dangerous route. If not than why do they exist?
In reply to hereforded:
Have you read the RockFax stuff in detail? Routes of ANY E-grade can be safe or they can be serious, the tech grade/e-grade interplay is the whole point of the system.
Chris
Have you read the RockFax stuff in detail? Routes of ANY E-grade can be safe or they can be serious, the tech grade/e-grade interplay is the whole point of the system.
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs: Yes, and I've seen the same scale as the one that illustrates the above point with 'Bold' or 'Safe' at the relative end of the E number, E1 4c being dangerous or bold and E1 5c 'safe'. My point is that surely higher E numbers are GENERALLY more serious undetakings. I am well that some harder routes may be better protected than technically easier routes.
In reply to hereforded: Should read I am well AWARE that some harder routes....
In reply to hereforded: i know where you coming from.in the 50's/60's i suppose e1 was something special and something to really aim at.nowadays its the norm.
e1 is still e1 but in comparison to todays routes it is prob e6+
e1 is still e1 but in comparison to todays routes it is prob e6+
In reply to mark s:
As I understand it, in the 1950s and 60s E1 wasn't around. Today's E1s might have been XS in some places in the 1960s but in many others they remained under a catch-all VS grade for a while longer. This is why some climbs developed a big reputation, and it was important to know that reputation before attempting it rather than blindly trust the guidebook grading of 'VS'.
I think - but someone round here will know, so do say - that Scotland and Yorkshire were very reluctant to give up using a top grade of VS and embrace the E numbers, not doing so until long after other areas had embraced them.
T.
> i know where you coming from.in the 50's/60's i suppose e1 was something special
As I understand it, in the 1950s and 60s E1 wasn't around. Today's E1s might have been XS in some places in the 1960s but in many others they remained under a catch-all VS grade for a while longer. This is why some climbs developed a big reputation, and it was important to know that reputation before attempting it rather than blindly trust the guidebook grading of 'VS'.
I think - but someone round here will know, so do say - that Scotland and Yorkshire were very reluctant to give up using a top grade of VS and embrace the E numbers, not doing so until long after other areas had embraced them.
T.
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Correct, but it wasn't E numbers as such as they did not exist. It was Extremely Severe and Exceptionally Severe that seemed to be resisted.
Al
> (In reply to mark s)
> [...]
>
>
> I think - but someone round here will know, so do say - that Scotland and Yorkshire were very reluctant to give up using a top grade of VS and embrace the E numbers, not doing so until long after other areas had embraced them.
>
> T.
> [...]
>
>
> I think - but someone round here will know, so do say - that Scotland and Yorkshire were very reluctant to give up using a top grade of VS and embrace the E numbers, not doing so until long after other areas had embraced them.
>
> T.
Correct, but it wasn't E numbers as such as they did not exist. It was Extremely Severe and Exceptionally Severe that seemed to be resisted.
Al
In reply to hereforded:
Being easier than the next grade above does not make a route safe. EG, in 1970 we did a route in Scotland that had a first section of 180ft from the ground to a terrace, it was about HVD, the rest was severe. Now that first section was virtually runnerless, I managed to get one in with no stance so carried on climbing with my second doing the same. It was raining hard, luckily we both climbed VS+ normally so could manage in waterproofs and big boots, the severe climbing couple with us declined to follow.
Some say routes should stay the same grade even though they may be better protected, I disagree. Hargreaves original was originally HS with the option of one thread runner, now it is VS with several cam runners. Moyers buttress was E1 with no runners after this runner, now it has cam protection galore higher up but is still E1, crazy;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=30525
Being easier than the next grade above does not make a route safe. EG, in 1970 we did a route in Scotland that had a first section of 180ft from the ground to a terrace, it was about HVD, the rest was severe. Now that first section was virtually runnerless, I managed to get one in with no stance so carried on climbing with my second doing the same. It was raining hard, luckily we both climbed VS+ normally so could manage in waterproofs and big boots, the severe climbing couple with us declined to follow.
Some say routes should stay the same grade even though they may be better protected, I disagree. Hargreaves original was originally HS with the option of one thread runner, now it is VS with several cam runners. Moyers buttress was E1 with no runners after this runner, now it has cam protection galore higher up but is still E1, crazy;
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=30525
In reply to sutty:
> (In reply to hereforded)
>
> Being easier than the next grade above does not make a route safe. EG, in 1970 we did a route in Scotland that had a first section of 180ft from the ground to a terrace, it was about HVD, the rest was severe. Now that first section was virtually runnerless, I managed to get one in with no stance so carried on climbing with my second doing the same. It was raining hard, luckily we both climbed VS+ normally so could manage in waterproofs and big boots, the severe climbing couple with us declined to follow.
>
And you tell that to the kids today and they say.......>
> Being easier than the next grade above does not make a route safe. EG, in 1970 we did a route in Scotland that had a first section of 180ft from the ground to a terrace, it was about HVD, the rest was severe. Now that first section was virtually runnerless, I managed to get one in with no stance so carried on climbing with my second doing the same. It was raining hard, luckily we both climbed VS+ normally so could manage in waterproofs and big boots, the severe climbing couple with us declined to follow.
>
In reply to sutty:
> (In reply to hereforded)
>
> Some say routes should stay the same grade even though they may be better protected, I disagree. Hargreaves original was originally HS with the option of one thread runner, now it is VS with several cam runners. Moyers buttress was E1 with no runners after this runner, now it has cam protection galore higher up but is still E1, crazy;
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=30525
Overall I agree with Sutty (except that Moyers was VS rubbers when I did it, Last time we had this conversation Chris Craggs quoted from the guide)
It all depends on just what gear you own nowadays, if you have the perfect selection of gear it may come down in grade,With small cams for instance Fergus Grahams Direct Route is an easy VS without any use for the side runner, without its a bold HVS.
>
> Some say routes should stay the same grade even though they may be better protected, I disagree. Hargreaves original was originally HS with the option of one thread runner, now it is VS with several cam runners. Moyers buttress was E1 with no runners after this runner, now it has cam protection galore higher up but is still E1, crazy;
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=30525
Overall I agree with Sutty (except that Moyers was VS rubbers when I did it, Last time we had this conversation Chris Craggs quoted from the guide)
It all depends on just what gear you own nowadays, if you have the perfect selection of gear it may come down in grade,With small cams for instance Fergus Grahams Direct Route is an easy VS without any use for the side runner, without its a bold HVS.
In reply to hereforded:
Let's use the old standard example...... Three Pebble Slab!!!
Now in my old Derwent guide it gets HVS 5a in the following guide Froggatt it gets E1 and also in the On Peak Rock it gets E1. Now it is trending back down to HVS. How so you might ask?
I believe that it is protection. In the first guide there was a lot of grade spread, with some easier lines getting the same grade as harder lines. It seems that the decision to upgrade was on and I quote "the curious hole which provides the one and only wire runner(which always waggles out)". When I first climbed this it was indeed so and even cams (of which I had few) were impossible to seat correctly and pulled out easily. When I reclimbed it 15 years later I noticed that a cam sat quite happily in the hole. So although still run out at the top it is better protected and it is quite understandable why many would now consider it HVS.
Let's use the old standard example...... Three Pebble Slab!!!
Now in my old Derwent guide it gets HVS 5a in the following guide Froggatt it gets E1 and also in the On Peak Rock it gets E1. Now it is trending back down to HVS. How so you might ask?
I believe that it is protection. In the first guide there was a lot of grade spread, with some easier lines getting the same grade as harder lines. It seems that the decision to upgrade was on and I quote "the curious hole which provides the one and only wire runner(which always waggles out)". When I first climbed this it was indeed so and even cams (of which I had few) were impossible to seat correctly and pulled out easily. When I reclimbed it 15 years later I noticed that a cam sat quite happily in the hole. So although still run out at the top it is better protected and it is quite understandable why many would now consider it HVS.
In reply to sutty: I can see what you are saying and I agree with you about Hargreaves (not done Moyers so I don't know), if it was HS with no gear then why is it VS now it is well protected? There aren't any 4c moves on it so it is several, well protected 4b moves. Juts because it is tall for grit and feels a bit exposed at the top is no reason for it to be VS. Compared to a Welsh VS like Grim Wall at Tremadog it is very easy.
In reply to The Lemming:
What on earth does that mean?
> or just like the conversion from Imperial to decimalisation such a grade has been devalued over time?
What on earth does that mean?
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse. Slab climbs and offwidths seem to have lower grades than you might expect in early guides (cf steeper/narrower crack stuff) as climbers were good at the techniques through practice.
E1 leaders when the grade first arrived, if transported in a time-machine to the present day, would be ticking many mid extremes with modern gear. Some of those old routes are now regarded as mid extreme anyway (ie they used to be sandbags).
The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse. Slab climbs and offwidths seem to have lower grades than you might expect in early guides (cf steeper/narrower crack stuff) as climbers were good at the techniques through practice.
E1 leaders when the grade first arrived, if transported in a time-machine to the present day, would be ticking many mid extremes with modern gear. Some of those old routes are now regarded as mid extreme anyway (ie they used to be sandbags).
In reply to Offwidth:
I reckon that E1 in 1972 was about the equivalent of E4 now. I base this on the idea that,with a few exceptions (normally routes still devoid of protection or dependent on hideous offwidth techniues)the top consistent onsight grade until the Livesey revolution was E3.The top onsight grade now seems to be E6 (with occasional exceptions) so subtract two and you get E4!
Well,it's just a thought but in terms of the percentage of climbers achieving those grades in each period I would guess it's quite similar.
I reckon that E1 in 1972 was about the equivalent of E4 now. I base this on the idea that,with a few exceptions (normally routes still devoid of protection or dependent on hideous offwidth techniues)the top consistent onsight grade until the Livesey revolution was E3.The top onsight grade now seems to be E6 (with occasional exceptions) so subtract two and you get E4!
Well,it's just a thought but in terms of the percentage of climbers achieving those grades in each period I would guess it's quite similar.
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm not sure this is really true, gear improvements were incremental - there was no point when routes en masse became safer and therefore needed down-grading.
Chris
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse.
>
> The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse.
I'm not sure this is really true, gear improvements were incremental - there was no point when routes en masse became safer and therefore needed down-grading.
Chris
In reply to MattG:
There is one major problem with this. That is that when Hargreves was graded HS/S it was a major sandbag. Now it sits quite happly in the VS bracket and bares comparison with Inverted V (first climbed in the 1920's and VS in every guide since) or with such welsh VS's as Shadrach or Shadow wall. Both Hargreves and inverted V have as much 4c climbing on them as Eliminate A.
Read the article in Classic Rock on Hargreves original, it really is a classic example of how to argue against the upgrading of a well known sandbag.
> (In reply to sutty) I can see what you are saying and I agree with you about Hargreaves (not done Moyers so I don't know), if it was HS with no gear then why is it VS now it is well protected? There aren't any 4c moves on it so it is several, well protected 4b moves. Juts because it is tall for grit and feels a bit exposed at the top is no reason for it to be VS. Compared to a Welsh VS like Grim Wall at Tremadog it is very easy.
There is one major problem with this. That is that when Hargreves was graded HS/S it was a major sandbag. Now it sits quite happly in the VS bracket and bares comparison with Inverted V (first climbed in the 1920's and VS in every guide since) or with such welsh VS's as Shadrach or Shadow wall. Both Hargreves and inverted V have as much 4c climbing on them as Eliminate A.
Read the article in Classic Rock on Hargreves original, it really is a classic example of how to argue against the upgrading of a well known sandbag.
In reply to Offwidth:
Whey man, it took a lot more gradual from the 50's to the 80's for gear to improve significantly.
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse.
>
> The history of grade changes is fairly complex but overall there was a massive and delberate grade creep which occurred from the 50's to the 80's when newly protectable routes didn't get downgraded en masse.
Whey man, it took a lot more gradual from the 50's to the 80's for gear to improve significantly.
In reply to davidwright: I'd agree, Hargreaves should always have been VS, its just a safer VS now.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I thought the same but the evidence shows otherwise. Looks at the grades in guidebooks mark where nuts/hexs and cams came in and look what happened to the grades. Non-offwidth cracks and protectable faces and roofs became much safer yet the grades stayed put (some went up!!) In comparison modern grade creep seems trivial...an old VS solo (easily equivalent to a modern Extreme) becomes a protecable VS by the 80's; upgraded maybe now to a protectable HVS.
I thought the same but the evidence shows otherwise. Looks at the grades in guidebooks mark where nuts/hexs and cams came in and look what happened to the grades. Non-offwidth cracks and protectable faces and roofs became much safer yet the grades stayed put (some went up!!) In comparison modern grade creep seems trivial...an old VS solo (easily equivalent to a modern Extreme) becomes a protecable VS by the 80's; upgraded maybe now to a protectable HVS.
In reply to Al Evans:
I disagree, a route of challenge of Hargreaves with the level of protectability it had then is low end E1 4c in modern terms. Broadly most lower end E1's should be VS if changes had taken into account improving gear.
I disagree, a route of challenge of Hargreaves with the level of protectability it had then is low end E1 4c in modern terms. Broadly most lower end E1's should be VS if changes had taken into account improving gear.
In reply to Offwidth:
My point was they didn't become safer overnight.
The best of the old guys soloed a given route at VS. A few years later, it was done with a couple of threads and a machine nut or two - it was still a VS. Ten years later, wires, then chalk, then cams, then sticky rubber.
Each generation was climbing the same route, the VS but there were many more folks able to do them because of the incremental improvements in gear.
By your theory the VS should have been downgrade with each advance - they would all be Diff now!
Chris
My point was they didn't become safer overnight.
The best of the old guys soloed a given route at VS. A few years later, it was done with a couple of threads and a machine nut or two - it was still a VS. Ten years later, wires, then chalk, then cams, then sticky rubber.
Each generation was climbing the same route, the VS but there were many more folks able to do them because of the incremental improvements in gear.
By your theory the VS should have been downgrade with each advance - they would all be Diff now!
Chris
In reply to Offwidth:
>I disagree, a route of challenge of Hargreaves with the level of protectability it had then is low end E1 4c in modern terms.
Er, well I put some routes in this order of difficulty around 1960;
Balcony Buttress, HVD
Martello Buttress, Severe, with HS finish
Hargreaves, about the same but more sustained.
Wall End Slab, about Hard severe.
Wall end slab direct, HVS-E1
All routes had either no runners on one runner on at the time
Inverted V was given VS, but when the second edition of the guide came out there was discussion on whether to drop it to HS or leave it at VS, not wanting MVS grades on grit.
>I disagree, a route of challenge of Hargreaves with the level of protectability it had then is low end E1 4c in modern terms.
Er, well I put some routes in this order of difficulty around 1960;
Balcony Buttress, HVD
Martello Buttress, Severe, with HS finish
Hargreaves, about the same but more sustained.
Wall End Slab, about Hard severe.
Wall end slab direct, HVS-E1
All routes had either no runners on one runner on at the time
Inverted V was given VS, but when the second edition of the guide came out there was discussion on whether to drop it to HS or leave it at VS, not wanting MVS grades on grit.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Guidebooks are not printed overnight either. In each one previously unprotected routes became protectable yet missed significant downgrades. Yet the VS offwidth or slab routes stayed as serious as they were before.
Sticky rubber made little difference IMHO at the sub extreme grades as the old climbers were much better balance climbers on average than we are now: better footwear trades off against this.
Modern adjectival grades should be the honest current comparative difficulty of onsighting the routes. If the worsening average skills on wide cracks and slabs and improvements in protection had been taken into account an honest guidebook would be one to two grades lower thats all.
Guidebooks are not printed overnight either. In each one previously unprotected routes became protectable yet missed significant downgrades. Yet the VS offwidth or slab routes stayed as serious as they were before.
Sticky rubber made little difference IMHO at the sub extreme grades as the old climbers were much better balance climbers on average than we are now: better footwear trades off against this.
Modern adjectival grades should be the honest current comparative difficulty of onsighting the routes. If the worsening average skills on wide cracks and slabs and improvements in protection had been taken into account an honest guidebook would be one to two grades lower thats all.
In reply to Offwidth:
Such as?
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
Broadly most lower end E1's should be VS if changes had taken into account improving gear.>
Such as?
In reply to davidwright:
There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V with loads of rests on it should be anything other than HS 4b (like Central Groove or Diedre Sud). Its certainly a bad definitive VS benchmark.
There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V with loads of rests on it should be anything other than HS 4b (like Central Groove or Diedre Sud). Its certainly a bad definitive VS benchmark.
In reply to Yorkspud:
Such as any lower grade E1 you can protect now with cams nuts etc compared to the experience of the often very bold VS crack climbs of the time before such pro was available. The adjectival experience should be the same (if not easier now). This isn't just idle theoretical speculation... anyone can run their own practical: tie a bowline round your waist, put on your plimsoles and throw a few slings round your shoulder (but remember not to overgrade as you are new to the game).
Such as any lower grade E1 you can protect now with cams nuts etc compared to the experience of the often very bold VS crack climbs of the time before such pro was available. The adjectival experience should be the same (if not easier now). This isn't just idle theoretical speculation... anyone can run their own practical: tie a bowline round your waist, put on your plimsoles and throw a few slings round your shoulder (but remember not to overgrade as you are new to the game).
In reply to GrahamD:
Inverted V is a very good example for this discussion as it is a climb whose grade has not changed over 80+ years during which it has gone from being a test piece chop route, to being a safe mid-grade climb. The other point about it is that it marks the bottom end of VS, this hard or harder and it really is VS. If it feels a grade easier than say Grim Wall or Gardoms Unconquerable thats because it is, with those routes marking the top end of the grade.
Sustained 4b climbing with crux 4c moves is fairly caricteristic of VS and ought not to be confused with sustained 4a climbing with 4b crux moves which is caricteristic of HS as represented well by Diedre Sud or Main Wall. There is as much 4c climbing on Inverted V as there is on Eliminate A don't get confused by the 2 (impecably protected) 4c moves on Eliminate A being on different pitches.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V with loads of rests on it should be anything other than HS 4b (like Central Groove or Diedre Sud). Its certainly a bad definitive VS benchmark.
>
> There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V with loads of rests on it should be anything other than HS 4b (like Central Groove or Diedre Sud). Its certainly a bad definitive VS benchmark.
Inverted V is a very good example for this discussion as it is a climb whose grade has not changed over 80+ years during which it has gone from being a test piece chop route, to being a safe mid-grade climb. The other point about it is that it marks the bottom end of VS, this hard or harder and it really is VS. If it feels a grade easier than say Grim Wall or Gardoms Unconquerable thats because it is, with those routes marking the top end of the grade.
Sustained 4b climbing with crux 4c moves is fairly caricteristic of VS and ought not to be confused with sustained 4a climbing with 4b crux moves which is caricteristic of HS as represented well by Diedre Sud or Main Wall. There is as much 4c climbing on Inverted V as there is on Eliminate A don't get confused by the 2 (impecably protected) 4c moves on Eliminate A being on different pitches.
In reply to The Lemming:
Slight change of angle of topic.
I think there is this psychological idea in the UK that E (...whatever) should be hard.
Whereas if you convert it to other grade systems the people who use them don't consider that a hard level.
So really, in the bigger scheme of things E1 or E2 shouldn't be that difficult to climb. (am not saying it easy either, but the idea that because it has an E in the grade it should be damn hard is just not true if you take into account training, climbing walls, modern protection etc)
Slight change of angle of topic.
I think there is this psychological idea in the UK that E (...whatever) should be hard.
Whereas if you convert it to other grade systems the people who use them don't consider that a hard level.
So really, in the bigger scheme of things E1 or E2 shouldn't be that difficult to climb. (am not saying it easy either, but the idea that because it has an E in the grade it should be damn hard is just not true if you take into account training, climbing walls, modern protection etc)
In reply to Offwidth:
Agreed but it's just a difference in naming things. By the time E grades were becoming widely used the means to protect themhad developed too. The old timers did indeed virtually solo routes giving the experience of E1 4c etc and called them VS but that's just another example of the historic habit of reluctance to extend the system
Agreed but it's just a difference in naming things. By the time E grades were becoming widely used the means to protect themhad developed too. The old timers did indeed virtually solo routes giving the experience of E1 4c etc and called them VS but that's just another example of the historic habit of reluctance to extend the system
In reply to davidwright:
Right argument some info wrong. Inverted V has no sustained 4b climbing. It has a pushy polished start (HS in its own right) and a safe 4c corner sequence but is HVD at most from the ledge above this by the normal RH finish (cf say Heaven Crack). The argument on consensus just got it to VS (my vote is top end HS).
Right argument some info wrong. Inverted V has no sustained 4b climbing. It has a pushy polished start (HS in its own right) and a safe 4c corner sequence but is HVD at most from the ledge above this by the normal RH finish (cf say Heaven Crack). The argument on consensus just got it to VS (my vote is top end HS).
In reply to GrahamD:
But it wasn't well protected! It was quite bold before big nuts and well beforw cams.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V
>
> There is no reason, of course, why a short well protected 4b corner like Inverted V
But it wasn't well protected! It was quite bold before big nuts and well beforw cams.
In reply to Al Evans:
Now, though, there is no reason why it needs to be VS as everyone has big nuts.
Now, though, there is no reason why it needs to be VS as everyone has big nuts.
In reply to davidwright:
That rather depends on whether you think Inverted V is 4C or 4B. Fern Crack is 4C.
That rather depends on whether you think Inverted V is 4C or 4B. Fern Crack is 4C.
In reply to GrahamD:
Fern Crack 4c? Set that start 70ft up a pitch and it will be at least 5a, and at least E1.
Fern Crack 4c? Set that start 70ft up a pitch and it will be at least 5a, and at least E1.
In reply to Offwidth:
Don't know about grade creep from the 50's to 80's (I think this was more of a problem from the late 80's to late 90's). Here is a quote from the CC journal of 1964 "This article is designed to reduce the confusion of having too many climbs in the top three catagories....the number of climbs graded as VS and above (XS)is increasing so fast that the grades are becoming meaningless" From this the technical grades were born, later XS was done away with and the E was born. Problem is that for awhile XS was the hardest grade so something that now might get E5 was XS if X (at E5) was XS then Y (at E3) must be HVS and so on. From this a certain amount of up grading was inevitable when the E system took hold and for a while it seemed that each new guide book came with up grades> This seems to be settling down now. But grades will continue to go up and down as climbs and protection changes, previously bold routes may become better protected previously well protected routes may get less protected as holds and flakes break off and so forth.
Don't know about grade creep from the 50's to 80's (I think this was more of a problem from the late 80's to late 90's). Here is a quote from the CC journal of 1964 "This article is designed to reduce the confusion of having too many climbs in the top three catagories....the number of climbs graded as VS and above (XS)is increasing so fast that the grades are becoming meaningless" From this the technical grades were born, later XS was done away with and the E was born. Problem is that for awhile XS was the hardest grade so something that now might get E5 was XS if X (at E5) was XS then Y (at E3) must be HVS and so on. From this a certain amount of up grading was inevitable when the E system took hold and for a while it seemed that each new guide book came with up grades> This seems to be settling down now. But grades will continue to go up and down as climbs and protection changes, previously bold routes may become better protected previously well protected routes may get less protected as holds and flakes break off and so forth.
In reply to Pierre Maxted:
but just what is a "5a move"? Is there a list somewhere?
> (In reply to The Lemming)
> Surely the point is that a 5a move is still a 5a move,
> Surely the point is that a 5a move is still a 5a move,
but just what is a "5a move"? Is there a list somewhere?
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
A well known problem; what happened down below VS seems less well publicised. Technical grades came from Font of course via S Sandstone.
A well known problem; what happened down below VS seems less well publicised. Technical grades came from Font of course via S Sandstone.
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
The other upshot of that is a route that was regarded as a top end VS in 1960 will actually be somewhere between HVS and E2/3 in grade thus if we are looking for long term consistancy then we need a bottom end marker rather than trying to find a consensus top end marker from the days when there was no top to the VS grade. Techincal grades have become useless at the top end because of the pig headed refusal of some climbers to accept that 7a,7b or 7c actually existed.
There is also the tendancy of those who claim to be 'VS' leaders but who actually climb HVS/E1/E3 on a regular basis to regard anything that isn't virtually a sandbag as HS. As far as the OP's question is concerned E1's haven't become easier over time due to modern protection as, with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> Don't know about grade creep from the 50's to 80's (I think this was more of a problem from the late 80's to late 90's). Here is a quote from the CC journal of 1964 "This article is designed to reduce the confusion of having too many climbs in the top three catagories....the number of climbs graded as VS and above (XS)is increasing so fast that the grades are becoming meaningless"
> Don't know about grade creep from the 50's to 80's (I think this was more of a problem from the late 80's to late 90's). Here is a quote from the CC journal of 1964 "This article is designed to reduce the confusion of having too many climbs in the top three catagories....the number of climbs graded as VS and above (XS)is increasing so fast that the grades are becoming meaningless"
The other upshot of that is a route that was regarded as a top end VS in 1960 will actually be somewhere between HVS and E2/3 in grade thus if we are looking for long term consistancy then we need a bottom end marker rather than trying to find a consensus top end marker from the days when there was no top to the VS grade. Techincal grades have become useless at the top end because of the pig headed refusal of some climbers to accept that 7a,7b or 7c actually existed.
There is also the tendancy of those who claim to be 'VS' leaders but who actually climb HVS/E1/E3 on a regular basis to regard anything that isn't virtually a sandbag as HS. As far as the OP's question is concerned E1's haven't become easier over time due to modern protection as, with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1.
In reply to Offwidth:
Correct. The article mentions southern sandstone.
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
>
> Technical grades came from Font of course via S Sandstone.
>
> Technical grades came from Font of course via S Sandstone.
Correct. The article mentions southern sandstone.
In reply to davidwright:
"with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1. " eh?
"with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1. " eh?
In reply to Offwidth:
Seriously ? which book ever gave it HVS ?
> Fern Crack is definitive guide VS 5a down from definitive guide HVS 5a.
Seriously ? which book ever gave it HVS ?
In reply to sutty:
Not if it was off a very wide, flat and safe belay ledge it wouldn't.
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> Fern Crack 4c? Set that start 70ft up a pitch and it will be at least 5a, and at least E1.
>
> Fern Crack 4c? Set that start 70ft up a pitch and it will be at least 5a, and at least E1.
Not if it was off a very wide, flat and safe belay ledge it wouldn't.
In reply to Offwidth:
The use of open ended E grading is a mid-late 70's innovation, later in scotland. Up until then you see extremely severe and exceptionaly severe. Cams first became availible in around '76 or '77 they may not have been widely used but there were climbers using them. For a lot of the country the publication of guides using the E grade system post dates the introduction of cams. Let alone wires and hexes.
Moyes buttress on Gardoms edge was refered to up thread until 1996 the diffenative guide gave that as VS(rubbers) or XS. Sutty is just wrong about that route when it was first given E1 in a definative guide (and up until that time all the selected guides had a lot of idiosyncrases) it was possible to place every runner that would be placed today. Because the 1996 Chatsworth guide was the last of that series of guides to be published and the southern edges had been missed out of the previous series of guides Gardoms happend to be in the last area in England to see the introduction of E grades. In 1996 I could have bought every piece that is currently on my rack.
> (In reply to davidwright)
>
> "with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1. " eh?
>
> "with the possible exception of microcams, modern protection pre-dates E1. " eh?
The use of open ended E grading is a mid-late 70's innovation, later in scotland. Up until then you see extremely severe and exceptionaly severe. Cams first became availible in around '76 or '77 they may not have been widely used but there were climbers using them. For a lot of the country the publication of guides using the E grade system post dates the introduction of cams. Let alone wires and hexes.
Moyes buttress on Gardoms edge was refered to up thread until 1996 the diffenative guide gave that as VS(rubbers) or XS. Sutty is just wrong about that route when it was first given E1 in a definative guide (and up until that time all the selected guides had a lot of idiosyncrases) it was possible to place every runner that would be placed today. Because the 1996 Chatsworth guide was the last of that series of guides to be published and the southern edges had been missed out of the previous series of guides Gardoms happend to be in the last area in England to see the introduction of E grades. In 1996 I could have bought every piece that is currently on my rack.
In reply to GrahamD:
"Fern Crack is definitive guide VS 5a down from definitive guide HVS 5a.
Seriously ? which book ever gave it HVS ? "
Good greif!... the previous definitive one (Stanage 2002).
"Fern Crack is definitive guide VS 5a down from definitive guide HVS 5a.
Seriously ? which book ever gave it HVS ? "
Good greif!... the previous definitive one (Stanage 2002).
In reply to Offwidth:
PS I know that becuase on my fist visit to gardoms I was using a guide from the late 60's series because nothing more recent was availible and that was september 95. The current Frogget guide is now 20 years old almost the same age as the Chatsworth guide I was using that day.
PS I know that becuase on my fist visit to gardoms I was using a guide from the late 60's series because nothing more recent was availible and that was september 95. The current Frogget guide is now 20 years old almost the same age as the Chatsworth guide I was using that day.
In reply to davidwright:
I think you are wrong.
In the 1981 Derwent Valley guide, Moyer's is E1 5b and in the 1985 Derwent Gritstone guide it is also E1 5b.
Chris
>
>
> Moyes buttress on Gardoms edge was refered to up thread until 1996 the diffenative guide gave that as VS(rubbers) or XS. Sutty is just wrong about that route when it was first given E1 in a definative guide (and up until that time all the selected guides had a lot of idiosyncrases) it was possible to place every runner that would be placed today. Because the 1996 Chatsworth guide was the last of that series of guides to be published and the southern edges had been missed out of the previous series of guides Gardoms happend to be in the last area in England to see the introduction of E grades. In 1996 I could have bought every piece that is currently on my rack.
>
> Moyes buttress on Gardoms edge was refered to up thread until 1996 the diffenative guide gave that as VS(rubbers) or XS. Sutty is just wrong about that route when it was first given E1 in a definative guide (and up until that time all the selected guides had a lot of idiosyncrases) it was possible to place every runner that would be placed today. Because the 1996 Chatsworth guide was the last of that series of guides to be published and the southern edges had been missed out of the previous series of guides Gardoms happend to be in the last area in England to see the introduction of E grades. In 1996 I could have bought every piece that is currently on my rack.
I think you are wrong.
In the 1981 Derwent Valley guide, Moyer's is E1 5b and in the 1985 Derwent Gritstone guide it is also E1 5b.
Chris
In reply to Offwidth:
That upgrade certainly passed me by ! If people have gone soft on Fern crack, Is there any problem using Hawks Nest Crack as a 4c benchmark ? and in that case is Inverted V 4c or 4b ? I reckon Inverted V is 4b and so HS is a reasonable grade for it.
That upgrade certainly passed me by ! If people have gone soft on Fern crack, Is there any problem using Hawks Nest Crack as a 4c benchmark ? and in that case is Inverted V 4c or 4b ? I reckon Inverted V is 4b and so HS is a reasonable grade for it.
In reply to davidwright:
The earlier guides must have passed you by as Chris has pointed out and it wouldn't be from having been sold out and out of print out as the earlier blue Derwent guide (with limestone stuff) was still available in the late 90's.
Also Froggatt from Yarncliffe southwards is 17 and a bit years old (not 20) and I think you are wrong on your timing for E1 vs the common availabilty of cams (but I may be remembering it from MXS and will need to check).
The earlier guides must have passed you by as Chris has pointed out and it wouldn't be from having been sold out and out of print out as the earlier blue Derwent guide (with limestone stuff) was still available in the late 90's.
Also Froggatt from Yarncliffe southwards is 17 and a bit years old (not 20) and I think you are wrong on your timing for E1 vs the common availabilty of cams (but I may be remembering it from MXS and will need to check).
In reply to GrahamD: Hawk's Nest is much better.
In reply to davidwright:
Sorry incorrect the 1986 definitive Derwent guide gives it E1 5b, the 1993 "On Peak Rock" selective guide (BMC) also gives it E1 5b last guides before the Chatsworth guide
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
>> [...]
>
> Moyes buttress on Gardoms edge was refered to up thread until 1996 the diffenative guide gave that as VS(rubbers) or XS.
Sorry incorrect the 1986 definitive Derwent guide gives it E1 5b, the 1993 "On Peak Rock" selective guide (BMC) also gives it E1 5b last guides before the Chatsworth guide
In reply to The Lemming:
I'm going to be unfashionable and mention that some routes do actually get harder with time. In my opinion, the polish on Goliath's Groove for instance makes it harder (in a purely technical sense) than loads of safe E1s (and the odd E2) that I can think of. But to suggest an upgrade would probably start some sort of war...
I'm going to be unfashionable and mention that some routes do actually get harder with time. In my opinion, the polish on Goliath's Groove for instance makes it harder (in a purely technical sense) than loads of safe E1s (and the odd E2) that I can think of. But to suggest an upgrade would probably start some sort of war...
In reply to jonny2vests:
I think the so called crux start of Goliaths Groove is a not especially difficult VS offwidth in the old style and unnaffected by polish. People have different skills these days. The back and foot method is harder than it was; as a bridging problem it is solid E1.
I think the so called crux start of Goliaths Groove is a not especially difficult VS offwidth in the old style and unnaffected by polish. People have different skills these days. The back and foot method is harder than it was; as a bridging problem it is solid E1.
In reply to Offwidth:
I love Goliath's Groove, even if it did eat one of my nuts (oo er missus)
The start is hard or easy(ish) depending how you tackle it
I love Goliath's Groove, even if it did eat one of my nuts (oo er missus)
The start is hard or easy(ish) depending how you tackle it
In reply to Tobias at Home:
Surely if there were two routes - unprotected 20 years ago given E1 (or what ever grade) - one route becomes better protected with say cams (or what ever) - some ofwidth crack somewhere - then that route should be down graded - and the other route which is still unprotected stays the same grade.
Some routes however were undergraded 20 years ago - the prefix "Hard" - eg Hard Severe (in particular) and Hard VS often yielded routes with a problem grade - and rather than put them at MV or VS -- or E1, E2 or E3 - they were kept at the lower grade and sandbag folk.
Could go back to the days of just having the Extreme Grade - or even just a Scottish VS Grade - which were the top end grades - don't think so.
Routes do change with the protection available - modern selection of gear is huge compared to the tatty slings available in the 1950's - and the odd MOAC nut(and mini-MOAC) in the early 1960's
Gear can appear on a route either with new inventions or a natural changes - and the route becomes easier - and so given an easier grade. Conversely cracks can become well worn; spikes disappear; holds more polished (or disappear) etc and routes can become harder - and so given a harder grade.
If the route is the same then (in theory) it should be the same grade
Surely if there were two routes - unprotected 20 years ago given E1 (or what ever grade) - one route becomes better protected with say cams (or what ever) - some ofwidth crack somewhere - then that route should be down graded - and the other route which is still unprotected stays the same grade.
Some routes however were undergraded 20 years ago - the prefix "Hard" - eg Hard Severe (in particular) and Hard VS often yielded routes with a problem grade - and rather than put them at MV or VS -- or E1, E2 or E3 - they were kept at the lower grade and sandbag folk.
Could go back to the days of just having the Extreme Grade - or even just a Scottish VS Grade - which were the top end grades - don't think so.
Routes do change with the protection available - modern selection of gear is huge compared to the tatty slings available in the 1950's - and the odd MOAC nut(and mini-MOAC) in the early 1960's
Gear can appear on a route either with new inventions or a natural changes - and the route becomes easier - and so given an easier grade. Conversely cracks can become well worn; spikes disappear; holds more polished (or disappear) etc and routes can become harder - and so given a harder grade.
If the route is the same then (in theory) it should be the same grade
In reply to The Lemming:
In the latest issue of Climber, Jim Perrin mentions that he once soloed Spillikin on Cloggy when it was HVS 4c, whereas now it's E1 5b. He says something along the lines of that he though the original grade was appropriate and the grade creep was no doubt due people lacking cojones these days (or perhaps the route might lost a few crucial holds in the intervening period?). Can't comment on that particular route as haven't done it but it's pretty clear that the pioneers of yesteryear had pretty big cojones to be able to climb with little or no gear routes that people struggle on these days.
The average E1 is an E1 in today's money, it's just that before the advent of modern gear it was a much more serious proposition. That doesn't mean however that we need to downgrade lots of routes, as today's grades reflect today's grade standards.
In the latest issue of Climber, Jim Perrin mentions that he once soloed Spillikin on Cloggy when it was HVS 4c, whereas now it's E1 5b. He says something along the lines of that he though the original grade was appropriate and the grade creep was no doubt due people lacking cojones these days (or perhaps the route might lost a few crucial holds in the intervening period?). Can't comment on that particular route as haven't done it but it's pretty clear that the pioneers of yesteryear had pretty big cojones to be able to climb with little or no gear routes that people struggle on these days.
The average E1 is an E1 in today's money, it's just that before the advent of modern gear it was a much more serious proposition. That doesn't mean however that we need to downgrade lots of routes, as today's grades reflect today's grade standards.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I think you summed it all up very well there Chris. The routes don't get easier with technological improvements, we just have a higher number/percentage of climbers capable of achieving the standards. Our grading system has to have some rigidity to it.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> My point was they didn't become safer overnight.
>
> The best of the old guys soloed a given route at VS. A few years later, it was done with a couple of threads and a machine nut or two - it was still a VS. Ten years later, wires, then chalk, then cams, then sticky rubber.
>
> Each generation was climbing the same route, the VS but there were many more folks able to do them because of the incremental improvements in gear.
>
> By your theory the VS should have been downgrade with each advance - they would all be Diff now!
>
> Chris
>
> My point was they didn't become safer overnight.
>
> The best of the old guys soloed a given route at VS. A few years later, it was done with a couple of threads and a machine nut or two - it was still a VS. Ten years later, wires, then chalk, then cams, then sticky rubber.
>
> Each generation was climbing the same route, the VS but there were many more folks able to do them because of the incremental improvements in gear.
>
> By your theory the VS should have been downgrade with each advance - they would all be Diff now!
>
> Chris
I think you summed it all up very well there Chris. The routes don't get easier with technological improvements, we just have a higher number/percentage of climbers capable of achieving the standards. Our grading system has to have some rigidity to it.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...