This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Does anyone else find them annoying and that font grades are better suited?
In reply to pigeonjim: Aren't they both the same thing, except that V grades make beginners feel bad because V0 is actually still quite hard?
In reply to pigeonjim: Personally I'm just getting use to the font system, having been out of the loop for a while, understood the UK grades fine, but fonts were an enigma for a while, trying not to get hooked up on the V system,to much for my brain. Wish there was a consensus amongst UK guide writers, which would make it easier for all, uk grades for trads, fonts for sport.
In reply to pigeonjim:
I think once you look beyond V3/4, the V grades are very good and perhaps every bit as good as font. English tech grades seem to cover a multitude of difficulty and perhaps font does up to the 6's.
Just for the record, are we assuming that font like V addresses the hardest single move on a problem? What I find with V grades up to V3 is that a 6 move hard problem can be a V3 and likewise so can a 15 move problem with easier moves. After that it does seem to be relative to the difficulty in my humble opinion.
I think once you look beyond V3/4, the V grades are very good and perhaps every bit as good as font. English tech grades seem to cover a multitude of difficulty and perhaps font does up to the 6's.
Just for the record, are we assuming that font like V addresses the hardest single move on a problem? What I find with V grades up to V3 is that a 6 move hard problem can be a V3 and likewise so can a 15 move problem with easier moves. After that it does seem to be relative to the difficulty in my humble opinion.
In reply to pigeonjim:
I find the V system good for giving you an immediate general indication of the difficulty of a problem whereas the font allows you to understand the hardest move and is probably more discriptive by nature
I find the V system good for giving you an immediate general indication of the difficulty of a problem whereas the font allows you to understand the hardest move and is probably more discriptive by nature
In reply to pigeonjim:
I find font grades much easier to get perspective on personally.
> Does anyone else find them annoying and that font grades are better suited?
I find font grades much easier to get perspective on personally.
In reply to pigeonjim:
Would mixing the Vermin and British tech grade have any merit? I mean in similar logic to the way that different aspects of a climb are present in British trad grades.
V3 6a, for example. Just a question, I'm still not clear on the intricacies of the respective bouldering grade systems. Shoot me down if this suggestion is ridiculous.
Would mixing the Vermin and British tech grade have any merit? I mean in similar logic to the way that different aspects of a climb are present in British trad grades.
V3 6a, for example. Just a question, I'm still not clear on the intricacies of the respective bouldering grade systems. Shoot me down if this suggestion is ridiculous.
In reply to Ed Boyter: I don't think the BMC guidebook writers would shoot you down. I think V3 6a etc has merit.
And I like it when they use the nonesensical grade of V3 6b, for a high, sustained problem (Cool Running, to be precise).
All this talk of the hardest move is garbage in bouldering grades. The only system that addresses the hardest move is the Brit Tech. All bouldering grades are about the overall physical difficulty of the problem.
The thing about bouldering grades that makes them not so great is that there's no physco factor, so a highball V3 with a moody landing (which could feel E2 at least) gets the same grade as some sit-start one mover. Only experienced climbers will get up the highball while any indoor boulderer can get up the sit-start, so the grade clearly doesn't actually describe the difficulty.
For highballs, I think the Bit Adj grade (given for without mats) is most useful, e.g. NTBTA is right at E2 6a (or maybe 6b). As long as you know it's a highball, not something to take a rope on, that gives you the right info. Which is why the BMC guides rock so much - they give all sort of combinations to best describe the problem, like E2 6a (V2) and V4 (E2 6a) and so forth. Round of applause (again).
And I like it when they use the nonesensical grade of V3 6b, for a high, sustained problem (Cool Running, to be precise).
All this talk of the hardest move is garbage in bouldering grades. The only system that addresses the hardest move is the Brit Tech. All bouldering grades are about the overall physical difficulty of the problem.
The thing about bouldering grades that makes them not so great is that there's no physco factor, so a highball V3 with a moody landing (which could feel E2 at least) gets the same grade as some sit-start one mover. Only experienced climbers will get up the highball while any indoor boulderer can get up the sit-start, so the grade clearly doesn't actually describe the difficulty.
For highballs, I think the Bit Adj grade (given for without mats) is most useful, e.g. NTBTA is right at E2 6a (or maybe 6b). As long as you know it's a highball, not something to take a rope on, that gives you the right info. Which is why the BMC guides rock so much - they give all sort of combinations to best describe the problem, like E2 6a (V2) and V4 (E2 6a) and so forth. Round of applause (again).
In reply to Ed Boyter:
I think people do that, eg, here: http://www.scottishclimbs.com/wiki/Craigmore ?
I think people do that, eg, here: http://www.scottishclimbs.com/wiki/Craigmore ?
In reply to pigeonjim:
I have a different perspective on this from some that posted. As usual in climbing no concrete wrong or right just experience.
I find the font grade akin to sports grades or adjectival grade. It tells me about the over difficulty of the problem. The V grade to me seems more about the crux.
The points about lower grades are also true. V0 can be font 5 and below I think. Is that right? What about the majority of climbers, who operate font 6a and below? V grades just dont work for them at all.
I have a different perspective on this from some that posted. As usual in climbing no concrete wrong or right just experience.
I find the font grade akin to sports grades or adjectival grade. It tells me about the over difficulty of the problem. The V grade to me seems more about the crux.
The points about lower grades are also true. V0 can be font 5 and below I think. Is that right? What about the majority of climbers, who operate font 6a and below? V grades just dont work for them at all.
In reply to Ed Boyter:
We used to do this at the glasgow wall and I thought it worked well in the sense that you could work out that V3 6a was a one move wonder and V5 6a was likely to be more sustained. The Yorkshire Grit guide did the same (might still do for all I know).
> (In reply to pigeonjim)
>
> Would mixing the Vermin and British tech grade have any merit? I mean in similar logic to the way that different aspects of a climb are present in British trad grades.
>
> Would mixing the Vermin and British tech grade have any merit? I mean in similar logic to the way that different aspects of a climb are present in British trad grades.
We used to do this at the glasgow wall and I thought it worked well in the sense that you could work out that V3 6a was a one move wonder and V5 6a was likely to be more sustained. The Yorkshire Grit guide did the same (might still do for all I know).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
so I understand correctly, it could make sense to describe a problem in terms of it's moodyness / danger element (e.g. E2), it's overall difficulty (e.g. V3) and it's crux move (e.g. 6a) as Jon describes?
This makes good sense to me, because a single system for bouldering whether font or V or tech is often a little vague. I know a V3 many shy away from due to it's backward upside down dyno crux, where as the more sustained and technical V4 next to it receives more attention.
so I understand correctly, it could make sense to describe a problem in terms of it's moodyness / danger element (e.g. E2), it's overall difficulty (e.g. V3) and it's crux move (e.g. 6a) as Jon describes?
This makes good sense to me, because a single system for bouldering whether font or V or tech is often a little vague. I know a V3 many shy away from due to it's backward upside down dyno crux, where as the more sustained and technical V4 next to it receives more attention.
In reply to Fishmate:
What sort of insane sandbag venue are you climbing at?
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
I know a V3 many shy away from due to it's backward upside down dyno crux, What sort of insane sandbag venue are you climbing at?
In reply to pigeonjim:
I've used mostly the V system and it seems pretty good to me.
I think adding technical grades would be a massive and pedantic waste of time. Trad grades are supposed to give you an idea of how serious the route is. Which is just massively unnecessary in bouldering. On a route from the ground, it could be hard to accurately assess hazards.
On a boulder it's easy.
1. look at the landing
2. look at the height of the boulder.
The V grade will tell you how difficult it is. If it's too high and sketches you out, don't climb it. There's no point in giving a grade of: Facile I E2 V3 6a P2 5.11a R
You can get all the information by looking at it. All you need to know is how hard the moves are. The V grade tells you everything you could need to know.
I've used mostly the V system and it seems pretty good to me.
I think adding technical grades would be a massive and pedantic waste of time. Trad grades are supposed to give you an idea of how serious the route is. Which is just massively unnecessary in bouldering. On a route from the ground, it could be hard to accurately assess hazards.
On a boulder it's easy.
1. look at the landing
2. look at the height of the boulder.
The V grade will tell you how difficult it is. If it's too high and sketches you out, don't climb it. There's no point in giving a grade of: Facile I E2 V3 6a P2 5.11a R
You can get all the information by looking at it. All you need to know is how hard the moves are. The V grade tells you everything you could need to know.
In reply to @ndyM@rsh@ll:
on the contrary dear boy. The routes at The Reach have been set by Adam Cordell and are the best around London by far. I meant upside down as in horizontally from an overhang. Sorry if misleading, was a bit tired when posting . Definitely no sandbags up to my level and would recommend if you are in London.
But still, answer my Q, us relative newbs have to make sense of these heady concepts also.
on the contrary dear boy. The routes at The Reach have been set by Adam Cordell and are the best around London by far. I meant upside down as in horizontally from an overhang. Sorry if misleading, was a bit tired when posting . Definitely no sandbags up to my level and would recommend if you are in London.
But still, answer my Q, us relative newbs have to make sense of these heady concepts also.
In reply to Kemics:
Fair point re: hazards, although a nod towards the difficulty of crux move is surely no bad thing, so in my example above perhaps V3 6a and V4 5c would be useful?
Fair point re: hazards, although a nod towards the difficulty of crux move is surely no bad thing, so in my example above perhaps V3 6a and V4 5c would be useful?
In reply to Fishmate:
I'm not sure throwing in a British tech grade is all that useful. I know many people are very attached to them but each incremental british tech grade covers a huge range of difficulty when you get past 6a so they become a bit redundant.
The V grade also falls down around the V8 mark, hence the introduction sometimes of the V8+ grade to account for problems around font 7b+.
As with any unfamiliar grade system, it takes a bit of getting used to, however i believe the font system gives the best representation of difficulty as it has the most increments, especially at the bottom end and around the V8 mark as mentioned.
I'm not sure throwing in a British tech grade is all that useful. I know many people are very attached to them but each incremental british tech grade covers a huge range of difficulty when you get past 6a so they become a bit redundant.
The V grade also falls down around the V8 mark, hence the introduction sometimes of the V8+ grade to account for problems around font 7b+.
As with any unfamiliar grade system, it takes a bit of getting used to, however i believe the font system gives the best representation of difficulty as it has the most increments, especially at the bottom end and around the V8 mark as mentioned.
In reply to Fishmate: I don't really think there's any need for more than one grade to describe a problem, be it font or V grades, but not a british tech grade. Anything the grade doesn't tell you you can work out by looking at it, or will be in the description in a guidebook.
In reply to pigeonjim:
Font and Vermin are generally considered to be (nearly) identical - 1-1 mapping is possible. The V-grade has more recently been extended downwards with VB, V0- etc to fill in the gap below 0.
Basically, they both work equally well. V6 = Font 7a etc. I have a (slight) personal preference for the V-grade outside of Font.
Font and Vermin are generally considered to be (nearly) identical - 1-1 mapping is possible. The V-grade has more recently been extended downwards with VB, V0- etc to fill in the gap below 0.
Basically, they both work equally well. V6 = Font 7a etc. I have a (slight) personal preference for the V-grade outside of Font.
In reply to pigeonjim:
..and of course, the beloved UK tech grade is worse than meaningless for grading boulders
..and of course, the beloved UK tech grade is worse than meaningless for grading boulders
In reply to Kemics: You're absolutely right in terms of giving the correct info. But to be honest, grades also serve the function of telling us how good/rubbish we are at climbing. Which is why it makes you feel ripped-off when you climb something taking loads of skill, judgement and balls only to get told by your guidebook 'oh well done mate, you just managed a font 5+'. When some idiot in a beanie and no clothing on their top half who's climbed for about 6 months who's sitting on their massive pile of pads and managing to get themselves from there into a standing position 3 inches off the ground after spending their third 4 hour session falling off (i.e. sitting down again) and complaining that it's too warm despite the fact that it is actually -2 degrees is getting told 'yo dude, you just sent your first 7a man, you're a wad' (whatever that means).
I know this is very silly and immature, so there really is no need to point that out.
I know this is very silly and immature, so there really is no need to point that out.
In reply to Mr Plow:
And for more well travelled folk i would guess there are other systems of acending levels of difficultly which are equally easy to understand
And for more well travelled folk i would guess there are other systems of acending levels of difficultly which are equally easy to understand
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Great rant!
Reminds me of doing a route, finding it desperate and finding everyone else has written stuff like "Piss easy for the grade" in the UKC logbooks.
> (In reply to Kemics) You're absolutely right in terms of giving the correct info. But to be honest, grades also serve the function of telling us how good/rubbish we are at climbing. Which is why it makes you feel ripped-off when you climb something taking loads of skill, judgement and balls only to get told by your guidebook 'oh well done mate, you just managed a font 5+'. When some idiot in a beanie and no clothing on their top half who's climbed for about 6 months who's sitting on their massive pile of pads and managing to get themselves from there into a standing position 3 inches off the ground after spending their third 4 hour session falling off (i.e. sitting down again) and complaining that it's too warm despite the fact that it is actually -2 degrees is getting told 'yo dude, you just sent your first 7a man, you're a wad' (whatever that means).
>
> I know this is very silly and immature, so there really is no need to point that out.
>
> I know this is very silly and immature, so there really is no need to point that out.
Great rant!
Reminds me of doing a route, finding it desperate and finding everyone else has written stuff like "Piss easy for the grade" in the UKC logbooks.
V grades work well. Putting a UK tech grade is probably going to be mis-leading in a lot of cases as you may well end up with ridiculous grades like V4 (5c, 5c, 6a, 6a), if you see what I mean.
You can usually tell why something has been given it's V grade by looking at it. To take Curbar as an example;
Strawberries, V4 - you can see it's one hard move from the ground (6a as it happens although can feel harder).
Trackside, V6 - again, one really hard move (6b) which you cane stablish pretty much by looking at or trying once.
Gorilla warfare, V6 - nothinng harder than 5c/6a but lots of it which again when you look at the angle/holds is pretty obvious if you have much experience bouldering...
You can usually tell why something has been given it's V grade by looking at it. To take Curbar as an example;
Strawberries, V4 - you can see it's one hard move from the ground (6a as it happens although can feel harder).
Trackside, V6 - again, one really hard move (6b) which you cane stablish pretty much by looking at or trying once.
Gorilla warfare, V6 - nothinng harder than 5c/6a but lots of it which again when you look at the angle/holds is pretty obvious if you have much experience bouldering...
In reply to Wilbur: Agree with those problems, the Brit Tech would add no useful info (but more info).
I reckon: Strawberries V3 (6a); Trackside V4 (6b); GW V6 (6b) though. You'd have to be pretty stumpy for Trackside to actually feel V6.
I reckon: Strawberries V3 (6a); Trackside V4 (6b); GW V6 (6b) though. You'd have to be pretty stumpy for Trackside to actually feel V6.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I am quite stumpy! I think Trackside probably shld be V5 but def not V4. Strawberries i concur with V3 and GW with V6 (although there's no 6b move on it!)
I am quite stumpy! I think Trackside probably shld be V5 but def not V4. Strawberries i concur with V3 and GW with V6 (although there's no 6b move on it!)
In reply to Wilbur:
So V5 for the stumpy, and height dependent. So V4 (top-end) for the non-stumpy? I'm 5'10'' btw. I can see GW being 6a, I haven't been on it in years (why? located in a dark pit, crux is keeping a heel off the bad landing - a classic for SOBOs only IMO).
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> I am quite stumpy! I think Trackside probably shld be V5
>
> I am quite stumpy! I think Trackside probably shld be V5
So V5 for the stumpy, and height dependent. So V4 (top-end) for the non-stumpy? I'm 5'10'' btw. I can see GW being 6a, I haven't been on it in years (why? located in a dark pit, crux is keeping a heel off the bad landing - a classic for SOBOs only IMO).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...