This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Wouldn't it be great if the ukc database supported voting on P grade (or S grade for deep water solos, or movie rating for US routes).
For those of you who don't know the system. It's the missing 3rd piece of info in a climbing grade. P1 = safe as houses, P3 = don't fall off and P2 is in between... quite simple eh.
I reckon quite a few of us are a fan of the P grade in the Yorkshire guide. Why hasn't the rest of the country adopted it? It's more work for guidebook authors for a start, but what better place to start gathering the info than on UKC.
To anticipate a predictable response: "read the guidebook to find out the nature of the route..." yes, but that information is unstructured. Database information is more useful if it's structured, as any techy will tell you.
I'm sure there will be objections. Please discuss. Please also contribute even if you have no more to say than 'good idea' ... you never know, it might happen if we do (please ukc crew
For those of you who don't know the system. It's the missing 3rd piece of info in a climbing grade. P1 = safe as houses, P3 = don't fall off and P2 is in between... quite simple eh.
I reckon quite a few of us are a fan of the P grade in the Yorkshire guide. Why hasn't the rest of the country adopted it? It's more work for guidebook authors for a start, but what better place to start gathering the info than on UKC.
To anticipate a predictable response: "read the guidebook to find out the nature of the route..." yes, but that information is unstructured. Database information is more useful if it's structured, as any techy will tell you.
I'm sure there will be objections. Please discuss. Please also contribute even if you have no more to say than 'good idea' ... you never know, it might happen if we do (please ukc crew
In reply to Stone Muppet: I dont see why this is necessary. It should be pretty obvious if it safe/chop/neither.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
IMO its a crap system. P2 especially tells you absolutely nothing (it might be safe, it might not, you might break your leg/neck or you might not....).
IMO its a crap system. P2 especially tells you absolutely nothing (it might be safe, it might not, you might break your leg/neck or you might not....).
In reply to Stone Muppet: I thought the combined adjectival and technical grades did much the same thing, so a VS4b will be more dangerous than a VS4c which will be more dangerous than a VS5a. But as they don't have adjectival grades on Moderates I'm perhaps not the best person to comment.
In reply to Steve John B:
I agree, I'm looking at my first E1 soon at 5a. I know its going to be more dangerous than HVS 5a, but not too much (if at all) harder technically. Maybe more sustained. The adjective and tech grades give a pretty good sliding scale of skill vs balls required for me, dont see the need for anything else.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I thought the combined adjectival and technical grades did much the same thing, so a VS4b will be more dangerous than a VS4c which will be more dangerous than a VS5a. But as they don't have adjectival grades on Moderates I'm perhaps not the best person to comment.
I agree, I'm looking at my first E1 soon at 5a. I know its going to be more dangerous than HVS 5a, but not too much (if at all) harder technically. Maybe more sustained. The adjective and tech grades give a pretty good sliding scale of skill vs balls required for me, dont see the need for anything else.
Wait wait wait wait
hold on, please,
*** this isn't meant to be a debate on the UK grading system ***
...plenty of those around already! If you want to discuss that can of worms there are _plenty_ of other threads on the topic.
I'm suggesting a UKC feature. There is a difference.
And of course it isn't necessary! UKC isn't necessary either, but that doesn't seem to stop us using it
In reply to Stone Muppet: For some time I have liked the idea of dropping the "protectability" element of the adjective grade so that for example the E would represent an E for effort as many people seem to think already. A suffix of 0,1, 2, 3, 4 etc. would represent the protection potential. This could be applied to both sport and trad so for example most sports routes would get a 0 as they are very well protected. A few sports routes might warrant a 1 if there are hard moves above a ledge or spaced bolts.
But in all honesty the UK system has worked well for many years and I don't really see any need to change it. I have however often applied the above system to routes I have done just for fun and I think it works quite well. I am also not sure that UKC is representative of the climbing community and those who do not join in are in affect being disenfranchised so I would say leave well enough alone.
Al
But in all honesty the UK system has worked well for many years and I don't really see any need to change it. I have however often applied the above system to routes I have done just for fun and I think it works quite well. I am also not sure that UKC is representative of the climbing community and those who do not join in are in affect being disenfranchised so I would say leave well enough alone.
Al
In reply to Stone Muppet: I have found it pretty useless. I can think of a few P3 climbs in Yorkshire at HVS 5b that are safe as houses. Surely something that was not safe would be graded E2 5b or even E3 5b depending on seriousness?
In reply to Stone Muppet: I dont get it. Surely if you want a 'safe' VS you would go in at the higher end of the technical grades? I dont see why you need another grade to say what you should already be able to work out. I think it is a debate on the UK grading system because you are proposing to add another grade to it?
In reply to EeeByGum:
To me that highlights how useful it would be if ukc let you vote on the P grade to share that opinion
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I have found it pretty useless. I can think of a few P3 climbs in Yorkshire at HVS 5b that are safe as houses.
To me that highlights how useful it would be if ukc let you vote on the P grade to share that opinion
In reply to Cheese Monkey:
Apologies if I phrased that bit wrong. I am proposing that UKC lets you vote on the P grade or equivalent. That might also be useful for any guidebook author thinking of including such info in their book. But I didn't mean to suggest everyone should do that.
It's a feature suggestion. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it (not all of us aspire to climb Everest!). Some of the forums on this site, for example, I have never used, though that doesn't mean I sit around slagging them off...
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I think it is a debate on the UK grading system because you are proposing to add another grade to it?
Apologies if I phrased that bit wrong. I am proposing that UKC lets you vote on the P grade or equivalent. That might also be useful for any guidebook author thinking of including such info in their book. But I didn't mean to suggest everyone should do that.
It's a feature suggestion. Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it (not all of us aspire to climb Everest!). Some of the forums on this site, for example, I have never used, though that doesn't mean I sit around slagging them off...
In reply to Stone Muppet:
P Grades are being dropped from the next edition of the Yorkshire Gritstone guide.
P Grades are being dropped from the next edition of the Yorkshire Gritstone guide.
In reply to Toreador:
Nooooo! Another defeat of common sense.
Doubtless the UK will soon be abandoning S grades for deep water solos as well, and the US abandoning movie ratings. Sigh.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet)
>
> P Grades are being dropped from the next edition of the Yorkshire Gritstone guide.
>
> P Grades are being dropped from the next edition of the Yorkshire Gritstone guide.
Nooooo! Another defeat of common sense.
Doubtless the UK will soon be abandoning S grades for deep water solos as well, and the US abandoning movie ratings. Sigh.
In reply to Stone Muppet: I'm still not seeing why it's massively better than the combined tech grade plus adjectival grade? That's how I'd normally judge how dangerous something is. (Arguably sport grade plus adjectival grade would be more use for this, but that would getting into general arguing about grading again...)
In reply to GrahamD: I'm with yuo on that but I don't think that those who have expressed their (mis)understanding of UK grades to me have done so in that way.
Al
Al
In reply to Steve John B:
I thought that until I did a VS4b with loads of gear last week, found that because it was VS4b with lots of gear means its a sustained 4b, so therefore, you still can't judge the safety of a route necessarily by the current english grading system.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I thought the combined adjectival and technical grades did much the same thing, so a VS4b will be more dangerous than a VS4c which will be more dangerous than a VS5a. But as they don't have adjectival grades on Moderates I'm perhaps not the best person to comment.
I thought that until I did a VS4b with loads of gear last week, found that because it was VS4b with lots of gear means its a sustained 4b, so therefore, you still can't judge the safety of a route necessarily by the current english grading system.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
I think the tide of public opinion is against you.
> (In reply to Toreador)
> [...]
>
> Nooooo! Another defeat of common sense.
>
> [...]
>
> Nooooo! Another defeat of common sense.
>
I think the tide of public opinion is against you.
In reply to Ramblin dave and Staceyjig:
It's an addition to the system. As you all see, some people think it's better. Others don't. There are other threads on this!! (e.g. a recent one started by numpty here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=458789)
I'm not saying anyone should use it if they don't want to, I'm saying that for those who *do* (don't worry I wouldn't make it mandatory through legislation...) it would be nice to have a voting option in the database.
It's an addition to the system. As you all see, some people think it's better. Others don't. There are other threads on this!! (e.g. a recent one started by numpty here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=458789)
I'm not saying anyone should use it if they don't want to, I'm saying that for those who *do* (don't worry I wouldn't make it mandatory through legislation...) it would be nice to have a voting option in the database.
In reply to Stone Muppet: Always found P grades useless.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think they'd be useful if applied correctly. But they haven't been, so are worse than useless.
> Always found P grades useless.
I think they'd be useful if applied correctly. But they haven't been, so are worse than useless.
In reply to staceyjg:
A bit off topic, but 4b is a grade you would normally associate with HS climbing (if guide book writers didn't have an apparent blind spot for the HS grade) - even when its sustained. I'm genuinely stumped to think of a VS 4b (that should be VS rather than HS) that warrents that grade for being sustained.
For me benchmark HS 4b would be Diedree Sud and Central Groove - both of which are pretty sustained 4b.
In any case I think the 'missing' information is to be found either by looking at the route or in the guidebook description. Its hard to see how you could ever be surprised about the nature of a correctly graded and documented route.
A bit off topic, but 4b is a grade you would normally associate with HS climbing (if guide book writers didn't have an apparent blind spot for the HS grade) - even when its sustained. I'm genuinely stumped to think of a VS 4b (that should be VS rather than HS) that warrents that grade for being sustained.
For me benchmark HS 4b would be Diedree Sud and Central Groove - both of which are pretty sustained 4b.
In any case I think the 'missing' information is to be found either by looking at the route or in the guidebook description. Its hard to see how you could ever be surprised about the nature of a correctly graded and documented route.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
P grades are rubbish. VS4b VS4c VS5a thats all I need to know, if it`s not the route is incorrectly graded.
P grades are rubbish. VS4b VS4c VS5a thats all I need to know, if it`s not the route is incorrectly graded.
In reply to GrahamD:
Of course. Did I suggest otherwise? See my comment in the OP about structured information and databases.
> In any case I think the 'missing' information is to be found either by looking at the route or in the guidebook description.
Of course. Did I suggest otherwise? See my comment in the OP about structured information and databases.
In reply to sjc:
What grade would you give to a route that is 4c to leave the ground, and is then unprotected 4a/b until the top?
Does VS 4c tell you all you need to know?
> VS4b VS4c VS5a thats all I need to know
What grade would you give to a route that is 4c to leave the ground, and is then unprotected 4a/b until the top?
Does VS 4c tell you all you need to know?
In reply to Toreador:
I feel that guide books can deal with that in the description. "Tricky start then easier bold climbing to the top"
The blanket P thing not sure which way round it goes, but for the sake of arguement, P1 fall and you die, is just a psychological extra baggage for me.
I feel that guide books can deal with that in the description. "Tricky start then easier bold climbing to the top"
The blanket P thing not sure which way round it goes, but for the sake of arguement, P1 fall and you die, is just a psychological extra baggage for me.
In reply to GrahamD:
The Smile is given E1 as a fairly well-protected (but long and pumpy) sequence of 5a moves. Would you argue that well-protected 5a should be HVS regardless of pumpiness? If not, then why not a well-protected but sustained VS 4b?
The Smile is given E1 as a fairly well-protected (but long and pumpy) sequence of 5a moves. Would you argue that well-protected 5a should be HVS regardless of pumpiness? If not, then why not a well-protected but sustained VS 4b?
In reply to Stone Muppet:
And with a loud pop everyone disappeared up their own ar*eholes.
Grades are only a guide. Get over it.
And with a loud pop everyone disappeared up their own ar*eholes.
Grades are only a guide. Get over it.
In reply to sjc:
So when you said "VS4b VS4c VS5a thats all I need to know" you were fibbing
"VS 4c P3" would save a lot of ink...
> I feel that guide books can deal with that in the description
So when you said "VS4b VS4c VS5a thats all I need to know" you were fibbing
"VS 4c P3" would save a lot of ink...
In reply to DaveHK:
No they're not. They're also the mainstay of these forums.
> Grades are only a guide
No they're not. They're also the mainstay of these forums.
In reply to Toreador:
I think that for the subtle bits the guidebook description is good and I enjoy reading them.
> (In reply to sjc)
> [...]
>
> fibbing
>
>
LOL > [...]
>
> fibbing
>
>
I think that for the subtle bits the guidebook description is good and I enjoy reading them.
In reply to Removed User:
That must have hurt, unless it was very soft sandstone. Sand, even
> I once kicked the fcuk out of a Mod 1b P3...
That must have hurt, unless it was very soft sandstone. Sand, even
In reply to crossdressingrodney:
The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
But the P adds nothing. A climb graded HVS 5b which is HVS 5b needs nothing more. If the climb is a Yorkshire HVS 5b death route with no gear, it should be graded E3 5b, not HVS 5b P3. It works everywhere else. I don't know why Yorkshire is an exception despite starting climbing there myself.
> To me that highlights how useful it would be if ukc let you vote on the P grade to share that opinion
But the P adds nothing. A climb graded HVS 5b which is HVS 5b needs nothing more. If the climb is a Yorkshire HVS 5b death route with no gear, it should be graded E3 5b, not HVS 5b P3. It works everywhere else. I don't know why Yorkshire is an exception despite starting climbing there myself.
In reply to Stone Muppet: If you're implying I was slagging off the whole P grade thing, you need to re-read what I have said....
However, its a pointless idea that I can see absolutely no need for. Clearly it hasn't worked in the past, so I doubt very much it will work in the future.
However, its a pointless idea that I can see absolutely no need for. Clearly it hasn't worked in the past, so I doubt very much it will work in the future.
In reply to GrahamD: Fairy steps? VS 4a admittedly
As for P grades, at first I thought it was a good idea but then decided no, why would you need them, bring a bit of adventure into your day if you can't read the route from the ground and check the guide book. On multipitches though I would like some indication per pitch how badly protected it is going to be as a technically easier pitch might be much more scary or badly protected than the crux pitch but since the adjectival grade is for the totality of the route it won't register there.
As for P grades, at first I thought it was a good idea but then decided no, why would you need them, bring a bit of adventure into your day if you can't read the route from the ground and check the guide book. On multipitches though I would like some indication per pitch how badly protected it is going to be as a technically easier pitch might be much more scary or badly protected than the crux pitch but since the adjectival grade is for the totality of the route it won't register there.
In reply to Stone Muppet: I think for bold routes the use of a scull and cross bones would be better, it might stop routes becoming to polished!
In reply to Hannes:
Fairy steps gets VS because there is no gear, not for being sustained and loads of effort.
Fairy steps gets VS because there is no gear, not for being sustained and loads of effort.
In reply to GrahamD:
Also, I think most people would assume that VS 4a is going to be dead scary, and a route being sustained rather than dangerous isn't going to be a particularly unpleasant surprise.
Agree on DWS grades, though. That seems to be a whole other thing because most DWS that I've seen have only been listed with a tech grade and an S grade, and the safety as a DWS is basically not related to the protectability...
Also, I think most people would assume that VS 4a is going to be dead scary, and a route being sustained rather than dangerous isn't going to be a particularly unpleasant surprise.
Agree on DWS grades, though. That seems to be a whole other thing because most DWS that I've seen have only been listed with a tech grade and an S grade, and the safety as a DWS is basically not related to the protectability...
In reply to Stone Muppet: Sounds really silly to me. Someone might fall off a route and get killed. Another person might fall of the same route, at the same place, in a similar way and not get hurt at all.
In reply to Gob_Stopper: I would have thought that if the grading system had to be changed it would be better to have a scale of the POTENTIAL for protecting. P1, P2, P3 is too absolute and still has limitations.
Al
Al
Just because a system has been badly implemented in the past, doesn't mean it couldn't be implemented well in the future.
Given the reaction here regarding 'P' grades maybe I shouldn't have proposed them specifically. What I'm on about is any type of 'safety' grade at all - whether it's P1/P2/P3, S0/S1/S2, /R/X or even the presence/absence of a fluttery heart symbol.
Plenty of people seem to think such grades are useful (though none of you are on this thread obviously...) due to their repeated inclusion in numerous guidebooks worldwide! Most of the criticisms of them are moot so far as I'm concerned, because what I'm suggesting is that it would be nice were UKC to allow you to vote on an existing grade scale - just like it already does for grades other than safety grades. For example, I know some contributors to this forum think we should drop the UK tech grade, or star ratings - but we can still vote on tech grades and star ratings on UKC - which is great for those of us who find them occasionally useful despite their flaws, right?
Still, in response to the criticisms of P grades themselves (which are moot in any case...)
1. "they have been horrendously misapplied in the past" see comment about how that doesn't mean they have to be in the future
2. "it's possible to fall off a P1 and still die" yes and it's possible for someone usually comfortable at E2 to fall off a VS but that hardly causes us to abandon grades altogether
3. "stop whinging and be more adventurous" you don't have to read the UKC database if you don't want, dude, I'm not an officer of the helmet police come to restrict your right to take risks!
4. "read the route description" I answered this one above, as did someone else. also, ukc is a database (which is more useful if it contains properly encoded information) and doesn't always have route descriptions anyway.
...honestly sometimes I feel like I'm being trolled Seriously, I'm actually surprised nobody else thinks it's a good idea, maybe just got an unrepresentative sample of you today Right screw this let's go to Pembroke have a good weekend all!
Given the reaction here regarding 'P' grades maybe I shouldn't have proposed them specifically. What I'm on about is any type of 'safety' grade at all - whether it's P1/P2/P3, S0/S1/S2, /R/X or even the presence/absence of a fluttery heart symbol.
Plenty of people seem to think such grades are useful (though none of you are on this thread obviously...) due to their repeated inclusion in numerous guidebooks worldwide! Most of the criticisms of them are moot so far as I'm concerned, because what I'm suggesting is that it would be nice were UKC to allow you to vote on an existing grade scale - just like it already does for grades other than safety grades. For example, I know some contributors to this forum think we should drop the UK tech grade, or star ratings - but we can still vote on tech grades and star ratings on UKC - which is great for those of us who find them occasionally useful despite their flaws, right?
Still, in response to the criticisms of P grades themselves (which are moot in any case...)
1. "they have been horrendously misapplied in the past" see comment about how that doesn't mean they have to be in the future
2. "it's possible to fall off a P1 and still die" yes and it's possible for someone usually comfortable at E2 to fall off a VS but that hardly causes us to abandon grades altogether
3. "stop whinging and be more adventurous" you don't have to read the UKC database if you don't want, dude, I'm not an officer of the helmet police come to restrict your right to take risks!
4. "read the route description" I answered this one above, as did someone else. also, ukc is a database (which is more useful if it contains properly encoded information) and doesn't always have route descriptions anyway.
...honestly sometimes I feel like I'm being trolled Seriously, I'm actually surprised nobody else thinks it's a good idea, maybe just got an unrepresentative sample of you today Right screw this let's go to Pembroke have a good weekend all!
In reply to Stone Muppet:
It's not that everyone chucks themself at 4a or 5b or whatever without caring how well protected it is, it's that the adjectival grade already seems to work fine as a 'safety grade' for most people most of the time. Introducing a specific 'safety grade' seems to turn the adjectival grade - which is the traditional foundation of UK grading system - into a way of telling whether or not a route is unusually sustained and pumpy.
If anything it'd make more sense to introduce a 'sustainedness grade' than a 'safety grade'. (Or use sport grades instead of UK tech grades. But that's wandering waaay off topic.)
DWS is an entirely different kettle of fish, obviously.
> Given the reaction here regarding 'P' grades maybe I shouldn't have proposed them specifically. What I'm on about is any type of 'safety' grade at all - whether it's P1/P2/P3, S0/S1/S2, /R/X or even the presence/absence of a fluttery heart symbol.
It's not that everyone chucks themself at 4a or 5b or whatever without caring how well protected it is, it's that the adjectival grade already seems to work fine as a 'safety grade' for most people most of the time. Introducing a specific 'safety grade' seems to turn the adjectival grade - which is the traditional foundation of UK grading system - into a way of telling whether or not a route is unusually sustained and pumpy.
If anything it'd make more sense to introduce a 'sustainedness grade' than a 'safety grade'. (Or use sport grades instead of UK tech grades. But that's wandering waaay off topic.)
DWS is an entirely different kettle of fish, obviously.
In reply to Stone Muppet: firstly climbing a route should have an element of the unknown...
also what if there was an E1 with a 5c but well protected. Above was 4c/5a climbing which was poorly protected and good warrent a ground fall if you blew it. Would this get E1 5c p1 or p3?
It just overcomplicates things - look at a route, climb it and use your experience and skills to do this safely... or back off.
also what if there was an E1 with a 5c but well protected. Above was 4c/5a climbing which was poorly protected and good warrent a ground fall if you blew it. Would this get E1 5c p1 or p3?
It just overcomplicates things - look at a route, climb it and use your experience and skills to do this safely... or back off.
In reply to GrahamD:
err it tells you you might get hurt - like you said - think of it as amber!
The system works well enough - whether you need it is another matter.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet)
>
> IMO its a crap system. P2 especially tells you absolutely nothing (it might be safe, it might not, you might break your leg/neck or you might not....).
>
> IMO its a crap system. P2 especially tells you absolutely nothing (it might be safe, it might not, you might break your leg/neck or you might not....).
err it tells you you might get hurt - like you said - think of it as amber!
The system works well enough - whether you need it is another matter.
In reply to Rory Shaw:
You're right, P grades have their flaws. Add that to the list of moot criticisms
That's all very well on grit but for loads of routes round here you have no idea looking from the ground as to whether or not there's any gear up there.
> also what if there was an E1 with a 5c but well protected. Above was 4c/5a climbing which was poorly protected and good warrent a ground fall if you blew it. Would this get E1 5c p1 or p3?
You're right, P grades have their flaws. Add that to the list of moot criticisms
> It just overcomplicates things - look at a route, climb it and use your experience and skills to do this safely... or back off.
That's all very well on grit but for loads of routes round here you have no idea looking from the ground as to whether or not there's any gear up there.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
In regards to DWS yes, it would be nice to be able to vote on S grade on UKC, (and implement them properly into the database - which moderators currently can't do).
In regards to DWS yes, it would be nice to be able to vote on S grade on UKC, (and implement them properly into the database - which moderators currently can't do).
In reply to Stone Muppet: surely thats the adventure of climbing - if you want to know ab down and have a look. If it E1 and you have climbed lots of E1's you should have the skills/experience to climb it/fall of 'safely' or back off.
A p1 suggests that a route is safe - does that take into account a fall down a ledgey slab, bouncing on blocks on low grade routes?
Too many factors to take into account. you can make a route 'safe; by climbing it well, putting in good gear where you can, making use or rests, having good leading strategies and knowing when to back of/push on
A p1 suggests that a route is safe - does that take into account a fall down a ledgey slab, bouncing on blocks on low grade routes?
Too many factors to take into account. you can make a route 'safe; by climbing it well, putting in good gear where you can, making use or rests, having good leading strategies and knowing when to back of/push on
Thinking about your example, it might be a good candidate for P2. Though shock horror, P grades - just like all other grading systems we use - have their limitations. There you go, there's the adventure you wanted... I'm not calling for a tabular breakdown of how hard the climbing you have to do on each P level is... yet ;-p
In reply to GrahamD:
How about:
Blue Sky at Saddle Head
Square Chimney & Whisky Crack at Almscliff
Amazon Crack at Burbage North
Notice Board Crack at Brimham
The Onedin Line at Jack Scout Crag
Nea on Clogwyn Y Grochan
Stuka on Lundy
Chieftan at Fairhead
Supernatural at Carn Gowla
None of those get VS for being bold...
To be honest I think you'll find that they're both fairly high in the grade...
> (In reply to staceyjg)
>
. I'm genuinely stumped to think of a VS 4b (that should be VS rather than HS) that warrents that grade for being sustained.>
How about:
Blue Sky at Saddle Head
Square Chimney & Whisky Crack at Almscliff
Amazon Crack at Burbage North
Notice Board Crack at Brimham
The Onedin Line at Jack Scout Crag
Nea on Clogwyn Y Grochan
Stuka on Lundy
Chieftan at Fairhead
Supernatural at Carn Gowla
None of those get VS for being bold...
>
> For me benchmark HS 4b would be Diedree Sud and Central Groove - both of which are pretty sustained 4b.
> For me benchmark HS 4b would be Diedree Sud and Central Groove - both of which are pretty sustained 4b.
To be honest I think you'll find that they're both fairly high in the grade...
In reply to GrahamD:
why is that E1 ? its protected very well, and the moves at the end were more like f6a-f6a+ so HVS 5b would make more sense.
> (In reply to crossdressingrodney)
>
> The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
>
> The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
why is that E1 ? its protected very well, and the moves at the end were more like f6a-f6a+ so HVS 5b would make more sense.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
I think the example above prooves they can work quite well - the question is do you actually want them cluttering up the place?
> (In reply to Rory Shaw)
> [...]
>
> You're right, P grades have their flaws. Add that to the list of moot criticisms
>
> [...]
>
> You're right, P grades have their flaws. Add that to the list of moot criticisms
>
I think the example above prooves they can work quite well - the question is do you actually want them cluttering up the place?
In reply to dror:
Because it has a number of 5a moves on it and it's very sustained/pumpy. I have no idea what you think the sport grade it would get if it were bolted has anything to do with anything. If the moves at the end were 5b, then it'd be top end E1, no?
> (In reply to GrahamD)
> [...]
>
> why is that E1 ? its protected very well, and the moves at the end were more like f6a-f6a+ so HVS 5b would make more sense.
> [...]
>
> why is that E1 ? its protected very well, and the moves at the end were more like f6a-f6a+ so HVS 5b would make more sense.
Because it has a number of 5a moves on it and it's very sustained/pumpy. I have no idea what you think the sport grade it would get if it were bolted has anything to do with anything. If the moves at the end were 5b, then it'd be top end E1, no?
In reply to Rory Shaw:
part of the problem is that too many people don't seem to know what P grades mean
from the Yorks Grit guide, in bold face type
"P1 does not guarantee that a leader won't hit the ground if he falls"
also
"the following is a guide to the possible consequences of a leader fall"
so your ledgey slab may well get P2 if the block bouncing was from high enough to cause serious damage.
i think they are modestly useful. i wouldn't lose any sleep if they weren;t there, but i do look at them, especially if i'm thinking of a route near my (very modest) limit
give that ROckfax effectively adopted them (the fluttery symbol seems to me to be equivalent to a P3), there must be some demand for them out there
i probably would have a look at the voting for a route here if the function existed, as i will sometimes look at peoples comments for similar info. but i;ve managed without it till now, so i suppose, in the end, i'm not that bothered either way...
> A p1 suggests that a route is safe - does that take into account a fall down a ledgey slab, bouncing on blocks on low grade routes?
>
>
part of the problem is that too many people don't seem to know what P grades mean
from the Yorks Grit guide, in bold face type
"P1 does not guarantee that a leader won't hit the ground if he falls"
also
"the following is a guide to the possible consequences of a leader fall"
so your ledgey slab may well get P2 if the block bouncing was from high enough to cause serious damage.
i think they are modestly useful. i wouldn't lose any sleep if they weren;t there, but i do look at them, especially if i'm thinking of a route near my (very modest) limit
give that ROckfax effectively adopted them (the fluttery symbol seems to me to be equivalent to a P3), there must be some demand for them out there
i probably would have a look at the voting for a route here if the function existed, as i will sometimes look at peoples comments for similar info. but i;ve managed without it till now, so i suppose, in the end, i'm not that bothered either way...
> Too many factors to take into account. you can make a route 'safe; by climbing it well, putting in good gear where you can, making use or rests, having good leading strategies and knowing when to back of/push on
In reply to victim of mathematics:
-- so i guess i dont understand the uk grading system.. cos from what i understood you have a technical grade and danger/protection grade, but you mixed them together in your explanation. when would a route be HVS 5b then ?
> (In reply to dror)
> [...]
>
> Because it has a number of 5a moves on it and it's very sustained/pumpy. I have no idea what you think the sport grade it would get if it were bolted has anything to do with anything. If the moves at the end were 5b, then it'd be top end E1, no?
> [...]
>
> Because it has a number of 5a moves on it and it's very sustained/pumpy. I have no idea what you think the sport grade it would get if it were bolted has anything to do with anything. If the moves at the end were 5b, then it'd be top end E1, no?
-- so i guess i dont understand the uk grading system.. cos from what i understood you have a technical grade and danger/protection grade, but you mixed them together in your explanation. when would a route be HVS 5b then ?
In reply to Stone Muppet:
Num Num does not like to be spoon fed too much information by route guides.
He likes the occasional nasty surprise. That's what he goes climbing for.
Num Num does not like to be spoon fed too much information by route guides.
He likes the occasional nasty surprise. That's what he goes climbing for.
In reply to dror:
You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
As for the P grade, I'm undecided - its use in the Yorks grit guide is too inconsistent to be of use. The fluttery heart symbol used by Rockfax is fine if you are a wall-bred climber but if you have served a climbing apprenticeship then it's inconsistent as well and I tend to ignore it.
ALC
You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
As for the P grade, I'm undecided - its use in the Yorks grit guide is too inconsistent to be of use. The fluttery heart symbol used by Rockfax is fine if you are a wall-bred climber but if you have served a climbing apprenticeship then it's inconsistent as well and I tend to ignore it.
ALC
In reply to GrahamD:
Sunset Slab at Froggatt.
> (In reply to crossdressingrodney)
>
> The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
>
> The Smile is a great example of E1 5a but I cannot think of an equivalent at VS 4b - can you ? I know in principal it is possible but I cannot think of an example.
Sunset Slab at Froggatt.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
it's the relationship between the tech and adjecteval grade that gives you the clue/information on seriousness/how sustained the route is etc
> (In reply to dror)
>
> You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
>
> The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
>
>
> You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
>
> The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
>
it's the relationship between the tech and adjecteval grade that gives you the clue/information on seriousness/how sustained the route is etc
In reply to Bulls Crack:
thats exactly why i said that if a route has good pro all the way that is not hard to place, and just a f6a+ move at the end, then shouldnt it be HVS 5b rather than E1 5a ?
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
> it's the relationship between the tech and adjecteval grade that gives you the clue/information on seriousness/how sustained the route is etc
> [...]
>
> it's the relationship between the tech and adjecteval grade that gives you the clue/information on seriousness/how sustained the route is etc
thats exactly why i said that if a route has good pro all the way that is not hard to place, and just a f6a+ move at the end, then shouldnt it be HVS 5b rather than E1 5a ?
In reply to a lakeland climber:
-- a sport grade isnt always 'overall' sometimes its only about the hardest move. there are many sport routes that are 20 meters of f6a with one move of f6c.
in that case its graded f6c, not f6b or lower.
you cannot have an overall grade that incorporates two parameters, mathematically it would not be accurate many times.
> (In reply to dror)
>
> You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
>
> The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
>
>
> You're right, you don't understand the UK grading system!
>
> The adjectival grade is not a danger grade but the overall grade in the same way that the sports grade is.
>
-- a sport grade isnt always 'overall' sometimes its only about the hardest move. there are many sport routes that are 20 meters of f6a with one move of f6c.
in that case its graded f6c, not f6b or lower.
you cannot have an overall grade that incorporates two parameters, mathematically it would not be accurate many times.
In reply to dror:
What's a F6a+ move?
Depends how strenuous it is and how easy the rest of the route is and whether the move is 5a or 5b!
What's a F6a+ move?
Depends how strenuous it is and how easy the rest of the route is and whether the move is 5a or 5b!
In reply to dror:
You certainly can't have an overall grade that just has 1 parameter and fortunately maths has nowt to do with it!
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
> [...]
>
> you cannot have an overall grade that incorporates two parameters, mathematically it would not be accurate many times.
> you cannot have an overall grade that incorporates two parameters, mathematically it would not be accurate many times.
You certainly can't have an overall grade that just has 1 parameter and fortunately maths has nowt to do with it!
In reply to Al Evans:
Yep, well known for its sustained but well protected difficulties...
I guess any VS 4b gritstone crack would fit the bill but RH Crack at Brimham is the first to spring to mind. Toil and Trouble in Pembroke is another. There are loads.
P grades were a nice idea but ultimately a bit pointless - the best thing about them was the line in the old guide about it being an open ended system with the potential for higher P grades, as there will always be someone who'll claim that they could have died more.
> Sunset Slab at Froggatt.
Yep, well known for its sustained but well protected difficulties...
I guess any VS 4b gritstone crack would fit the bill but RH Crack at Brimham is the first to spring to mind. Toil and Trouble in Pembroke is another. There are loads.
P grades were a nice idea but ultimately a bit pointless - the best thing about them was the line in the old guide about it being an open ended system with the potential for higher P grades, as there will always be someone who'll claim that they could have died more.
In reply to dror:
1) It doesn't make sense to talk about a single move having a french sport grade.
2) Whether The Smile gets 5b or 5a as it's technical grade depends solely on how hard the hardest move is (as a clue, it's 5a).
3) Your assessment seems to completely ignore how strenuous/sustained the route is, which is a major contributing factor in determining the adjectival grade. The gear might be brilliant and obvious, but if the route is long, and there are no rests, then this has to be factored into the equation.
4) Your statement about two-parameter grades makes no sense. a) because it assumes there is such a thing as a mathematically accurate grade (which there isn't) and b) because of course you can have an overall grade which takes into account any number of parameters (for example, a sport grade factors in how technically difficult the hardest move is, as well as how sustained the difficulties are, and how pumpy the route is).
Try and think of it like this: The adjectival grade is an overall measure of the seriousness of the route, both in terms of difficulty and danger. The technical grade, whilst contributing to the adjectival grade, is included seperately to give a little bit more information.
1) It doesn't make sense to talk about a single move having a french sport grade.
2) Whether The Smile gets 5b or 5a as it's technical grade depends solely on how hard the hardest move is (as a clue, it's 5a).
3) Your assessment seems to completely ignore how strenuous/sustained the route is, which is a major contributing factor in determining the adjectival grade. The gear might be brilliant and obvious, but if the route is long, and there are no rests, then this has to be factored into the equation.
4) Your statement about two-parameter grades makes no sense. a) because it assumes there is such a thing as a mathematically accurate grade (which there isn't) and b) because of course you can have an overall grade which takes into account any number of parameters (for example, a sport grade factors in how technically difficult the hardest move is, as well as how sustained the difficulties are, and how pumpy the route is).
Try and think of it like this: The adjectival grade is an overall measure of the seriousness of the route, both in terms of difficulty and danger. The technical grade, whilst contributing to the adjectival grade, is included seperately to give a little bit more information.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Overgraded HS 4b (it was severe when I first did it and I thought it fair at the grade, for Almscliff! Significantly easier than Parson's Chimney)
Overgraded HS 4b
Is graded VS 4b for being bold surely? With a large cam it's HS 4b.
Not done any of your other suggestions.
The two I can think of are Nameless One at Rob's Rocks, and The Nose at Stanage - both have plenty of gear, but overhang slightly and there's no good rest point from which to place it. But IO'm quite sure someone will disagree
> > I'm genuinely stumped to think of a VS 4b (that should be VS rather than HS) that warrents that grade for being sustained.
> Square Chimney & Whisky Crack at Almscliff
Overgraded HS 4b (it was severe when I first did it and I thought it fair at the grade, for Almscliff! Significantly easier than Parson's Chimney)
> Amazon Crack at Burbage North
Overgraded HS 4b
> Notice Board Crack at Brimham
Is graded VS 4b for being bold surely? With a large cam it's HS 4b.
Not done any of your other suggestions.
The two I can think of are Nameless One at Rob's Rocks, and The Nose at Stanage - both have plenty of gear, but overhang slightly and there's no good rest point from which to place it. But IO'm quite sure someone will disagree
In reply to Anonymous:
-- what is there to understand ? just been climbing sport routes for 10 years.. thats how people grade them mr rocket scientist.
> (In reply to dror)
> [...]
>
> It appears as well as not understanding the UK grades you also don't understand Sport grades.
> [...]
>
> It appears as well as not understanding the UK grades you also don't understand Sport grades.
-- what is there to understand ? just been climbing sport routes for 10 years.. thats how people grade them mr rocket scientist.
In reply to Pagan:
Twin Crack Corner at Standing Stones is a classic at VS 4b. Super protected but sustained.
Twin Crack Corner at Standing Stones is a classic at VS 4b. Super protected but sustained.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
- yeah but maths has everything to do with a 2 parameter function not representing either of them accurately.
> (In reply to dror)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> You certainly can't have an overall grade that just has 1 parameter and fortunately maths has nowt to do with it!
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> You certainly can't have an overall grade that just has 1 parameter and fortunately maths has nowt to do with it!
- yeah but maths has everything to do with a 2 parameter function not representing either of them accurately.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
-- i perfectly understand the technical grade you repeated what i said about that. i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently. many times a sustained f6a is just f6a, other times someone give it a f6a+ or even f6b if there is a more difficult clip. so the adjective grade can also be like that - different people emphasize different things.
btw, the smile has plenty of rests if i recall, and very easy placements.
yeah sure it aint math, i said math because 2 parameters in one function can mean many things depends how you weigh them.
> (In reply to dror)
>
> 1) It doesn't make sense to talk about a single move having a french sport grade.
> 2) Whether The Smile gets 5b or 5a as it's technical grade depends solely on how hard the hardest move is (as a clue, it's 5a).
> 3) Your assessment seems to completely ignore how strenuous/sustained the route is, which is a major contributing factor in determining the adjectival grade. The gear might be brilliant and obvious, but if the route is long, and there are no rests, then this has to be factored into the equation.
> 4) Your statement about two-parameter grades makes no sense. a) because it assumes there is such a thing as a mathematically accurate grade (which there isn't) and b) because of course you can have an overall grade which takes into account any number of parameters (for example, a sport grade factors in how technically difficult the hardest move is, as well as how sustained the difficulties are, and how pumpy the route is).
>
> Try and think of it like this: The adjectival grade is an overall measure of the seriousness of the route, both in terms of difficulty and danger. The technical grade, whilst contributing to the adjectival grade, is included seperately to give a little bit more information.
>
> 1) It doesn't make sense to talk about a single move having a french sport grade.
> 2) Whether The Smile gets 5b or 5a as it's technical grade depends solely on how hard the hardest move is (as a clue, it's 5a).
> 3) Your assessment seems to completely ignore how strenuous/sustained the route is, which is a major contributing factor in determining the adjectival grade. The gear might be brilliant and obvious, but if the route is long, and there are no rests, then this has to be factored into the equation.
> 4) Your statement about two-parameter grades makes no sense. a) because it assumes there is such a thing as a mathematically accurate grade (which there isn't) and b) because of course you can have an overall grade which takes into account any number of parameters (for example, a sport grade factors in how technically difficult the hardest move is, as well as how sustained the difficulties are, and how pumpy the route is).
>
> Try and think of it like this: The adjectival grade is an overall measure of the seriousness of the route, both in terms of difficulty and danger. The technical grade, whilst contributing to the adjectival grade, is included seperately to give a little bit more information.
-- i perfectly understand the technical grade you repeated what i said about that. i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently. many times a sustained f6a is just f6a, other times someone give it a f6a+ or even f6b if there is a more difficult clip. so the adjective grade can also be like that - different people emphasize different things.
btw, the smile has plenty of rests if i recall, and very easy placements.
yeah sure it aint math, i said math because 2 parameters in one function can mean many things depends how you weigh them.
In reply to Stone Muppet:
Hmm... I'm not sure I'm into having a third grade attached to a route, but when reading the logbook entries on here I'm doing so because I'm interested in the opinions of others who have climbed the route in question. How about a slightly more qualitative system, based on the RockFax symbols that many will be familiar with anyway, or something similar. That way folk could say by checking the box if they though that a route was fluttery, sustained, pumpy, technical etc. at the same time as voting on the grade & quality?
Hmm... I'm not sure I'm into having a third grade attached to a route, but when reading the logbook entries on here I'm doing so because I'm interested in the opinions of others who have climbed the route in question. How about a slightly more qualitative system, based on the RockFax symbols that many will be familiar with anyway, or something similar. That way folk could say by checking the box if they though that a route was fluttery, sustained, pumpy, technical etc. at the same time as voting on the grade & quality?
In reply to Removed User:
And with loads of resting places. Classic overgraded HS 4b
> Twin Crack Corner at Standing Stones is a classic at VS 4b. Super protected but sustained.
And with loads of resting places. Classic overgraded HS 4b
In reply to dror:
Then why are you suggesting The Smile might be 5b?
i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently. many times a sustained f6a is just f6a, other times someone give it a f6a+ or even f6b if there is a more difficult clip.
Well I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm no sport climber, but I'm fairly sure that sport grades are meant to take sustainedness of difficulties into account. By your logic a sport route consisting of easy climbing with one English 5a move would get the same grade as another where every move was 5a, and that is surely not true? If you're climbing places where the routes are graded like that, then I would suggest that whoever is grading them has got it wrong.
Either you remember wrongly, you're super-fit, or you're trying to show off (or some combination of these things). There aren't really any rests (although there's quite a few disappointing half-rests which just allow you to get more pumped whilst you kid yourself into thinking you're recovering). I didn't lead it, but the gear seemed fine, but it's sufficiently sustained that that isn't really the problem.
Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesn't make any sense, it would seem that your mistake is in trying to look at this like a mathematical function where you plug in some factors and out pops a grade. If that was the case, then why are people still arguing about the grade of Three Pebble Slab?
> -- i perfectly understand the technical grade you repeated what i said about that.
Then why are you suggesting The Smile might be 5b?
i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently. many times a sustained f6a is just f6a, other times someone give it a f6a+ or even f6b if there is a more difficult clip.
Well I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm no sport climber, but I'm fairly sure that sport grades are meant to take sustainedness of difficulties into account. By your logic a sport route consisting of easy climbing with one English 5a move would get the same grade as another where every move was 5a, and that is surely not true? If you're climbing places where the routes are graded like that, then I would suggest that whoever is grading them has got it wrong.
> btw, the smile has plenty of rests if i recall, and very easy placements.
Either you remember wrongly, you're super-fit, or you're trying to show off (or some combination of these things). There aren't really any rests (although there's quite a few disappointing half-rests which just allow you to get more pumped whilst you kid yourself into thinking you're recovering). I didn't lead it, but the gear seemed fine, but it's sufficiently sustained that that isn't really the problem.
> yeah sure it aint math, i said math because 2 parameters in one function can mean many things depends how you weigh them.
Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesn't make any sense, it would seem that your mistake is in trying to look at this like a mathematical function where you plug in some factors and out pops a grade. If that was the case, then why are people still arguing about the grade of Three Pebble Slab?
In reply to victim of mathematics:
--- it is true, you can check sport routes all over europe. even worse - they sometimes keep the same grades like they were in the 80's (in france), when there were no hard grades, so 6a+ then would get 6b+ today.
-- show off by saying i did an E1 ? im not that dumb... (and saying it should get 5b and not 5a is showing off ??)
back to the point ... thats exactly what i mean ! one person finds a rest where another missed it. and on other routes the other climber manages to rest on an overhang since he goes to the gym a lot, while the first climber gets pumped. its not very objective saying there are only half rests. but we can both agree there are loads of placements.
--- im saying that two parameters describe best two other parameters and not four or ten...
but my main point is that if im climbing trad i would personally prefer an overall danger grade than overall technical grade, or mixture of the two, since :
1. everyone wants to get back in one piece rather than complete a route. (a strong beginner in the outdoors wouldnt want dangerous routes , and there are pretty dangerous E1's sometimes. old threads as placements , etc..)
2. its more objective to evaluate overall danger than something like sustainability. (like I claimed above).
3. it makes more sense (to me..) to separate technical difficulty from the placements aspect.
> (In reply to dror)
>
> [...]
>
> Then why are you suggesting The Smile might be 5b?
>
-- cos if i recall the end has some technical move. >
> [...]
>
> Then why are you suggesting The Smile might be 5b?
>
> i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently. many times a sustained f6a is just f6a, other times someone give it a f6a+ or even f6b if there is a more difficult clip.
>
> Well I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm no sport climber, but I'm fairly sure that sport grades are meant to take sustainedness of difficulties into account. By your logic a sport route consisting of easy climbing with one English 5a move would get the same grade as another where every move was 5a, and that is surely not true? If you're climbing places where the routes are graded like that, then I would suggest that whoever is grading them has got it wrong.
>
>
> Well I'll hold my hands up and admit that I'm no sport climber, but I'm fairly sure that sport grades are meant to take sustainedness of difficulties into account. By your logic a sport route consisting of easy climbing with one English 5a move would get the same grade as another where every move was 5a, and that is surely not true? If you're climbing places where the routes are graded like that, then I would suggest that whoever is grading them has got it wrong.
>
--- it is true, you can check sport routes all over europe. even worse - they sometimes keep the same grades like they were in the 80's (in france), when there were no hard grades, so 6a+ then would get 6b+ today.
> [...]
>
> Either you remember wrongly, you're super-fit, or you're trying to show off (or some combination of these things). There aren't really any rests (although there's quite a few disappointing half-rests which just allow you to get more pumped whilst you kid yourself into thinking you're recovering). I didn't lead it, but the gear seemed fine, but it's sufficiently sustained that that isn't really the problem.
>
> [...]
>
> Either you remember wrongly, you're super-fit, or you're trying to show off (or some combination of these things). There aren't really any rests (although there's quite a few disappointing half-rests which just allow you to get more pumped whilst you kid yourself into thinking you're recovering). I didn't lead it, but the gear seemed fine, but it's sufficiently sustained that that isn't really the problem.
>
> [...]
-- show off by saying i did an E1 ? im not that dumb... (and saying it should get 5b and not 5a is showing off ??)
back to the point ... thats exactly what i mean ! one person finds a rest where another missed it. and on other routes the other climber manages to rest on an overhang since he goes to the gym a lot, while the first climber gets pumped. its not very objective saying there are only half rests. but we can both agree there are loads of placements.
>
> Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesn't make any sense, it would seem that your mistake is in trying to look at this like a mathematical function where you plug in some factors and out pops a grade. If that was the case, then why are people still arguing about the grade of Three Pebble Slab?
> Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesn't make any sense, it would seem that your mistake is in trying to look at this like a mathematical function where you plug in some factors and out pops a grade. If that was the case, then why are people still arguing about the grade of Three Pebble Slab?
--- im saying that two parameters describe best two other parameters and not four or ten...
but my main point is that if im climbing trad i would personally prefer an overall danger grade than overall technical grade, or mixture of the two, since :
1. everyone wants to get back in one piece rather than complete a route. (a strong beginner in the outdoors wouldnt want dangerous routes , and there are pretty dangerous E1's sometimes. old threads as placements , etc..)
2. its more objective to evaluate overall danger than something like sustainability. (like I claimed above).
3. it makes more sense (to me..) to separate technical difficulty from the placements aspect.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
-- why not ? if you have two parameters and one output, the relation between the parameters within the evaluation matters, since you may emphasize them differently every time. (every time different people grade different routes.) while having just one parameter leads to less variability between evaluations. (like in just evaluating the hardest technical move.)
> Ignoring the fact that this sentence doesn't make any sense,
-- why not ? if you have two parameters and one output, the relation between the parameters within the evaluation matters, since you may emphasize them differently every time. (every time different people grade different routes.) while having just one parameter leads to less variability between evaluations. (like in just evaluating the hardest technical move.)
In reply to Cheese Monkey:
Seems to me you've not fully understood the uk grading system vs 5a is not necessarily any safer than vs 4a as it could be a vs 4a route just with one well protected 5a move in it for example at the start.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I dont get it. Surely if you want a 'safe' VS you would go in at the higher end of the technical grades?
Seems to me you've not fully understood the uk grading system vs 5a is not necessarily any safer than vs 4a as it could be a vs 4a route just with one well protected 5a move in it for example at the start.
In reply to dror:
Just because some fa have misgraded routes and they haven't yet been regraded yet you can't dismiss the whole system of grading sport routes. Sport climbs are graded for how the route feels to lead considering all factors except danger after you have the route wired. So the hardest move and how sustained the route is are the main factors which are considered.
> (In reply to victim of mathematics)
> [...]
>
> -- i perfectly understand the technical grade you repeated what i said about that. i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently.
> [...]
>
> -- i perfectly understand the technical grade you repeated what i said about that. i do not agree that there is a convention on sport grades that they factor how sustained a route is with the technical grade, you can do that in many ways, and indeed people grade sport routes differently.
Just because some fa have misgraded routes and they haven't yet been regraded yet you can't dismiss the whole system of grading sport routes. Sport climbs are graded for how the route feels to lead considering all factors except danger after you have the route wired. So the hardest move and how sustained the route is are the main factors which are considered.
In reply to Stone Muppet: In reply to Stone Muppet: I personally think we should just move to a sport grade system with an extra protection attribute say a number between 0 and 10, where each number has a qualified description. Something like 0 no protection, 10 well protected throughout and 5 maybe adequate protection to avoid hitting very large ledges or the ground, protection no further than feet level at the start of crux sequences. Some runouts of up to 5 meters.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
-- im not dismissing the whole system, just saying the grading varies a lot in respect to different crags, and even if graded correctly you dont know what to expect just by one number, so while sport climbing doesnt have serious consequences if you fall, in trad it may be different if you dont have the available info about the danger factor in the grading.
> (In reply to dror)
> [...]
>
> Just because some fa have misgraded routes and they haven't yet been regraded yet you can't dismiss the whole system of grading sport routes. Sport climbs are graded for how the route feels to lead considering all factors except danger after you have the route wired. So the hardest move and how sustained the route is are the main factors which are considered.
> [...]
>
> Just because some fa have misgraded routes and they haven't yet been regraded yet you can't dismiss the whole system of grading sport routes. Sport climbs are graded for how the route feels to lead considering all factors except danger after you have the route wired. So the hardest move and how sustained the route is are the main factors which are considered.
-- im not dismissing the whole system, just saying the grading varies a lot in respect to different crags, and even if graded correctly you dont know what to expect just by one number, so while sport climbing doesnt have serious consequences if you fall, in trad it may be different if you dont have the available info about the danger factor in the grading.
In reply to dror:
It seems all this has come about due to two revolutions in climbing that have occurred at around the same time as grading systems developed.
The first revolution was in the 1970s when training became more climbing specific and the current two tier UK grading system came about. It focussed on the technical aspect as that was being advanced at the time.
The second revolution was in indoor walls where technique, strength and stamina could be improved in safety. When this group of climbers moved outdoors they were more concerned with safety. So where the "old guard" just got on with it and could quite happily cope with moderate run-outs, the new group couldn't.
As I wrote above, a lot of routes that get a fluttery heart in the Rockfax guides just feel OK to me, I'm quite happy doing crux moves several metres out from gear.
ALC
It seems all this has come about due to two revolutions in climbing that have occurred at around the same time as grading systems developed.
The first revolution was in the 1970s when training became more climbing specific and the current two tier UK grading system came about. It focussed on the technical aspect as that was being advanced at the time.
The second revolution was in indoor walls where technique, strength and stamina could be improved in safety. When this group of climbers moved outdoors they were more concerned with safety. So where the "old guard" just got on with it and could quite happily cope with moderate run-outs, the new group couldn't.
As I wrote above, a lot of routes that get a fluttery heart in the Rockfax guides just feel OK to me, I'm quite happy doing crux moves several metres out from gear.
ALC
In reply to Stone Muppet:
Regarding your original question (remember that everyone? The one about a feature change?) - I wouldn't really want this. It seems people are confused enough already about how grading works without introducing more complexity to argue about.
Regarding the entirely predictable grade system debate that has ensued:
1. The thread is an interesting case study of an OP expecting support and the impact on them when the world doesn't agree with something that "makes sense to them".
2. *Some* climbs will always confound any particular system - a climb with a safe 5b move at the very bottom and then 40m of unprotected 4a is what adjectival grade? However, "Some" is a minority. I think the currrent system does a good job for 80%+ (maybe 90%+) of climbs. Most efforts to up that percentage seem to cause as many issues as they solve, so I end up in the laissez faire camp.
3. Look at the rock, look at the grade, look at the description, decide what sort of experience you want, climb carefully.
J
Regarding your original question (remember that everyone? The one about a feature change?) - I wouldn't really want this. It seems people are confused enough already about how grading works without introducing more complexity to argue about.
Regarding the entirely predictable grade system debate that has ensued:
1. The thread is an interesting case study of an OP expecting support and the impact on them when the world doesn't agree with something that "makes sense to them".
2. *Some* climbs will always confound any particular system - a climb with a safe 5b move at the very bottom and then 40m of unprotected 4a is what adjectival grade? However, "Some" is a minority. I think the currrent system does a good job for 80%+ (maybe 90%+) of climbs. Most efforts to up that percentage seem to cause as many issues as they solve, so I end up in the laissez faire camp.
3. Look at the rock, look at the grade, look at the description, decide what sort of experience you want, climb carefully.
J
In reply to dror:
I think maybe we should all just go out climbing?
> (In reply to victim of mathematics)
>
> [...]
>
>
> -- why not ? if you have two parameters and one output, the relation between the parameters within the evaluation matters, since you may emphasize them differently every time. (every time different people grade different routes.) while having just one parameter leads to less variability between evaluations. (like in just evaluating the hardest technical move.)
>
> [...]
>
>
> -- why not ? if you have two parameters and one output, the relation between the parameters within the evaluation matters, since you may emphasize them differently every time. (every time different people grade different routes.) while having just one parameter leads to less variability between evaluations. (like in just evaluating the hardest technical move.)
I think maybe we should all just go out climbing?
In reply to Steve John B:
I want to cry when I read responses like this. P grades are a bit crap because they only differentiate between 'safe', 'a bit dodge' and 'dodge'. If it had more intervals, say 1-5, It could be a good system. Alas, as the post I quoted shows, the general climbing public are too dense/unwilling to try and understand even the most basic of systems.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet) I thought the combined adjectival and technical grades did much the same thing, so a VS4b will be more dangerous than a VS4c which will be more dangerous than a VS5a. But as they don't have adjectival grades on Moderates I'm perhaps not the best person to comment.
I want to cry when I read responses like this. P grades are a bit crap because they only differentiate between 'safe', 'a bit dodge' and 'dodge'. If it had more intervals, say 1-5, It could be a good system. Alas, as the post I quoted shows, the general climbing public are too dense/unwilling to try and understand even the most basic of systems.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
A bit like this then?
For some time I have liked the idea of dropping the "protectability" element of the adjective grade so that for example the E would represent an E for physical effort as many people seem to think already. A suffix of 0,1, 2, 3, 4 etc. would represent the protection potential. This could be applied to both sport and trad so for example most sports routes would get a 0 as they are very well protected. A few sports routes might warrant a 1 if there are hard moves above a ledge or spaced bolts.
Al
> (In reply to Steve John B)
> [...]
>
> I want to cry when I read responses like this. P grades are a bit crap because they only differentiate between 'safe', 'a bit dodge' and 'dodge'. If it had more intervals, say 1-5, It could be a good system. Alas, as the post I quoted shows, the general climbing public are too dense/unwilling to try and understand even the most basic of systems.
> [...]
>
> I want to cry when I read responses like this. P grades are a bit crap because they only differentiate between 'safe', 'a bit dodge' and 'dodge'. If it had more intervals, say 1-5, It could be a good system. Alas, as the post I quoted shows, the general climbing public are too dense/unwilling to try and understand even the most basic of systems.
A bit like this then?
For some time I have liked the idea of dropping the "protectability" element of the adjective grade so that for example the E would represent an E for physical effort as many people seem to think already. A suffix of 0,1, 2, 3, 4 etc. would represent the protection potential. This could be applied to both sport and trad so for example most sports routes would get a 0 as they are very well protected. A few sports routes might warrant a 1 if there are hard moves above a ledge or spaced bolts.
Al
In reply to Bulls Crack:
-- good advice
> (In reply to dror)
> [...]
>
> I think maybe we should all just go out climbing?
> [...]
>
> I think maybe we should all just go out climbing?
-- good advice
In reply to Stone Muppet:
I think other posters have made it pretty clear that a protection grade isn't really necessary for UK routes, and so neither is a voting system on the quality of protection.
However, I do think Stone Muppet's suggestion has a lot of value for trad routes everywhere else (and there are a lot of routes outside the UK!)
I'm currently living in South (West) Germany, which is a good example. The local climbing is single pitch, the local grading is UIAA. Most of the routes have bolts... but they are often 'sportingly' bolted; sometimes there is the chance to place more pro, sometimes there isn't and you just have to take the run-out (which is occasionally the height of Stanage to the first bolt!) None of this can be taken into account with the UIAA grade, so here a protection grade would be useful to visiting British climbers.
I think other posters have made it pretty clear that a protection grade isn't really necessary for UK routes, and so neither is a voting system on the quality of protection.
However, I do think Stone Muppet's suggestion has a lot of value for trad routes everywhere else (and there are a lot of routes outside the UK!)
I'm currently living in South (West) Germany, which is a good example. The local climbing is single pitch, the local grading is UIAA. Most of the routes have bolts... but they are often 'sportingly' bolted; sometimes there is the chance to place more pro, sometimes there isn't and you just have to take the run-out (which is occasionally the height of Stanage to the first bolt!) None of this can be taken into account with the UIAA grade, so here a protection grade would be useful to visiting British climbers.
In reply to Ben1983:
-- why ? isnt it safer to fall on a run out bolt (if it aint a grounder) than fall on a bad pro that might result in injury ?
how have posters made it clear that a protection grade is not required in the uk ? enlighten me.
> (In reply to Stone Muppet)
> I think other posters have made it pretty clear that a protection grade isn't really necessary for UK routes, and so neither is a voting system on the quality of protection.
>
> However, I do think Stone Muppet's suggestion has a lot of value for trad routes everywhere else (and there are a lot of routes outside the UK!)
>
> I'm currently living in South (West) Germany, which is a good example. The local climbing is single pitch, the local grading is UIAA. Most of the routes have bolts... but they are often 'sportingly' bolted; sometimes there is the chance to place more pro, sometimes there isn't and you just have to take the run-out (which is occasionally the height of Stanage to the first bolt!) None of this can be taken into account with the UIAA grade, so here a protection grade would be useful to visiting British climbers.
> I think other posters have made it pretty clear that a protection grade isn't really necessary for UK routes, and so neither is a voting system on the quality of protection.
>
> However, I do think Stone Muppet's suggestion has a lot of value for trad routes everywhere else (and there are a lot of routes outside the UK!)
>
> I'm currently living in South (West) Germany, which is a good example. The local climbing is single pitch, the local grading is UIAA. Most of the routes have bolts... but they are often 'sportingly' bolted; sometimes there is the chance to place more pro, sometimes there isn't and you just have to take the run-out (which is occasionally the height of Stanage to the first bolt!) None of this can be taken into account with the UIAA grade, so here a protection grade would be useful to visiting British climbers.
-- why ? isnt it safer to fall on a run out bolt (if it aint a grounder) than fall on a bad pro that might result in injury ?
how have posters made it clear that a protection grade is not required in the uk ? enlighten me.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Is that not enough?
> (In reply to Steve John B)
> [...]
P grades are a bit crap because they only differentiate between 'safe', 'a bit dodge' and 'dodge'. > [...]
Is that not enough?
In reply to Franco Cookson:
'cos our's is at least as good if not better....makes way for Mick
> (In reply to Al Randall)
>
> Why not just use the american system?
>
> Why not just use the american system?
'cos our's is at least as good if not better....makes way for Mick
In reply to Bulls Crack:
What about routes that have very safe hard bits and extremely dangerous easy bits?
What about routes that have very safe hard bits and extremely dangerous easy bits?
In reply to Bulls Crack:
I agree. I think our system is perfect, I was merely pointing out that Al was advocating a change of our system into something identical to the american.
I agree. I think our system is perfect, I was merely pointing out that Al was advocating a change of our system into something identical to the american.
In reply to Al Evans:
But Sunset Slab isn't sustained, is it ? there are loads of VS 4bs that are a bit delicate or thin but I can't think of any that are pumpy and sustained -is 4b simply not a grade you can get pumped at ?
But Sunset Slab isn't sustained, is it ? there are loads of VS 4bs that are a bit delicate or thin but I can't think of any that are pumpy and sustained -is 4b simply not a grade you can get pumped at ?
In reply to GrahamD: Elitist! Think of all the fat knackers and part timers!
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Don't we have words to help us cope with this eventuality?
I don't see that giving something as subjective as danger a spuriously accurate numerical value is very helpful. Especially as it doesn't tell me anything that isn't clear already.
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> What about routes that have very safe hard bits and extremely dangerous easy bits?
>
> What about routes that have very safe hard bits and extremely dangerous easy bits?
Don't we have words to help us cope with this eventuality?
I don't see that giving something as subjective as danger a spuriously accurate numerical value is very helpful. Especially as it doesn't tell me anything that isn't clear already.
In reply to Dave Garnett: But to today's "sound bite" generation that requires everything to be categorised, Drummond's system would be better than "hard crux followed by easier but unprotected moves"
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...