This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What the hardest unprotected but short bouldering starts people would find acceptable for midgrade routes, normally if grading I'd cut off at 5b, 5c, 6a and 6b for HS, VS, HVS and E1 respectively. Obviously Verandah Buttress is infamous at HVD 5b (and left because of it) but what others are still out there?
In reply to Offwidth:
Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
In reply to leon: Yes most but not all. There are rare examples at of HS 5b eg at Birchen.
In reply to leon:
I reckon no HS climbers could do 5b moves. If you can do 5b moves you should be able to do a fair selection of E1s.
I'd knock it down two.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
> Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
I reckon no HS climbers could do 5b moves. If you can do 5b moves you should be able to do a fair selection of E1s.
I'd knock it down two.
In reply to Offwidth:
I agree with all of those apart from E1 climbers climbing 6b, E1 6a is the max I'd give.
I agree with all of those apart from E1 climbers climbing 6b, E1 6a is the max I'd give.
In reply to Offwidth:
Quality debate going on here....
It's got nothing to do with what a "HS" leader (ie. that's their max) can do as, for a standard HS, you might have to climb no harder than 4b say.
Therefore it is almost impossible to answer your question. You're asking us to define something which no one has bothered to define before. Anyone could be correct. You mighty as well say a totally safe 7a is HS (as much as 5b). And yes I clearly appreciate there's a balance of factors but the point is that no one has ever bothered to define it.
But... if you were asking me, I'd say a HS should not have any move harder than 5a, That's kind of hard but most people could do it if they tried it a couple of times. And as HS is where climbing starts to get tricky, perhaps that's the limit.
Jeez, why get dragged into this?! It's a Friday night....
Quality debate going on here....
It's got nothing to do with what a "HS" leader (ie. that's their max) can do as, for a standard HS, you might have to climb no harder than 4b say.
Therefore it is almost impossible to answer your question. You're asking us to define something which no one has bothered to define before. Anyone could be correct. You mighty as well say a totally safe 7a is HS (as much as 5b). And yes I clearly appreciate there's a balance of factors but the point is that no one has ever bothered to define it.
But... if you were asking me, I'd say a HS should not have any move harder than 5a, That's kind of hard but most people could do it if they tried it a couple of times. And as HS is where climbing starts to get tricky, perhaps that's the limit.
Jeez, why get dragged into this?! It's a Friday night....
In reply to johnl:
Or maybe two for HS and one for the rest, with grades like HS 4c and VS 5b already being quite exceptional (up here anyway)?
> I'd knock it down two.
Or maybe two for HS and one for the rest, with grades like HS 4c and VS 5b already being quite exceptional (up here anyway)?
In reply to Offwidth: I'd slide your scale down one notch - i.e. HS (5a), VS (5b), HVS (5c) E1 (6a)
In reply to Cornelius Kite:
I agree.
An interesting one is the Direct on the Mot at VS 5b. The crux is 'almost' a bouldering start - from a ledge. I do think it's slightly bold because you'd probably go straight over the ledge if you fell off but perhaps no worse than a bad landing on grit. But I've always thought of that as top end of v safe VS really and personally, at the time, I know I felt it might have warranted HVS. So I'd say no more than 5b for VS, which goes along with 5a for HS.
> (In reply to Offwidth) I'd slide your scale down one notch - i.e. HS (5a), VS (5b), HVS (5c) E1 (6a)
I agree.
An interesting one is the Direct on the Mot at VS 5b. The crux is 'almost' a bouldering start - from a ledge. I do think it's slightly bold because you'd probably go straight over the ledge if you fell off but perhaps no worse than a bad landing on grit. But I've always thought of that as top end of v safe VS really and personally, at the time, I know I felt it might have warranted HVS. So I'd say no more than 5b for VS, which goes along with 5a for HS.
In reply to JonC:
I don't think he is. Daft grades like HVS 6c exist. What he's asking is what should someone who can climb each adjective grade be able to climb as theire hardest move? The thing about the move at the bottom of the route is you get a lot of attempts at it.
I rekon most e1 climbers should be able to boulder out a 6a move off the ground. I'm not sure they could boulder 6b, if they could I rekon they'd be pretty comfy on 5c and hence be climbing e2.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
You're asking us to define something which no one has bothered to define before. >
I don't think he is. Daft grades like HVS 6c exist. What he's asking is what should someone who can climb each adjective grade be able to climb as theire hardest move? The thing about the move at the bottom of the route is you get a lot of attempts at it.
I rekon most e1 climbers should be able to boulder out a 6a move off the ground. I'm not sure they could boulder 6b, if they could I rekon they'd be pretty comfy on 5c and hence be climbing e2.
In reply to leon:
I think this depends a bit on whether you view the tech grade as purely 'extra information' or whether you view the combined grade as being a thing in itself.
If you take the 'extra information' view then yeah, HS 5b makes no sense because if you drop the 5b then you've got an HS that most HS climbers won't be able to get up.
If you view it as a thing in itself then it makes sense - if you can climb HS trad and (because you've done a lot of bouldering or sport or plastic pulling) do the odd 5b move then you can get up it, if you can do either one but not the other it'll present a problem.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
> Do you rekon most HS climbers can do 5b moves? I'd question if most people maxing out at e1 could do 6b moves as well. I'd knock it down one notch.
I think this depends a bit on whether you view the tech grade as purely 'extra information' or whether you view the combined grade as being a thing in itself.
If you take the 'extra information' view then yeah, HS 5b makes no sense because if you drop the 5b then you've got an HS that most HS climbers won't be able to get up.
If you view it as a thing in itself then it makes sense - if you can climb HS trad and (because you've done a lot of bouldering or sport or plastic pulling) do the odd 5b move then you can get up it, if you can do either one but not the other it'll present a problem.
In reply to Cornelius Kite:
There ya go , Job done
> (In reply to Offwidth) I'd slide your scale down one notch - i.e. HS (5a), VS (5b), HVS (5c) E1 (6a)
There ya go , Job done
In reply to Offwidth:
> Obviously Verandah Buttress is infamous at HVD 5b (and left because of it) but what others are still out there?
I've just remembered Flake Wall at Bowden Doors, Diff 5a and if you come off the starting moves you will hit the ground back/head first.In reply to Offwidth: E1 6b I've tried and failed as I didn't want to risk my ankles without a mat. Mounting frustration on Stanage, to me it just doesn't make sense why you give it an adjectival grade. If it is a boulder route(ish) give it an appropriate grade which is font or v-grade depending on the area and indicate in the description if is is highball. If it is a genuine route like verandah buttress then just give the tech grade and give an explanation in the description, sure the rest of the climb is a doddle but that start is horrendous and the system doesn't work for routes like it.
In reply to Offwidth:
I think somebody who is solid at E1 (or whatever) should be in with a fair shout of onsighting any route at that grade. To me E1 6b just doesn't make sense. A one move wonder route with a 6b move next to perfect gear would get E2 (maybe E3 for a non-grit route). Why does it make a difference that the move is off the ground?
I say do away with tech grades - they're more trouble than they're worth (especially at the top end). Adjectival grade and a short description e.g. 'sustained', 'bold at the start', 'cruxy move in the middle' should be enough to get people by...
I think somebody who is solid at E1 (or whatever) should be in with a fair shout of onsighting any route at that grade. To me E1 6b just doesn't make sense. A one move wonder route with a 6b move next to perfect gear would get E2 (maybe E3 for a non-grit route). Why does it make a difference that the move is off the ground?
I say do away with tech grades - they're more trouble than they're worth (especially at the top end). Adjectival grade and a short description e.g. 'sustained', 'bold at the start', 'cruxy move in the middle' should be enough to get people by...
> I say do away with tech grades - they're more trouble than they're worth (especially at the top end). Adjectival grade and a short description e.g. 'sustained', 'bold at the start', 'cruxy move in the middle' should be enough to get people by...
Good call, maybe
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm in two minds about these; I think it is daft to bump up the adjectival grade when the hard move is at ankle height (every single route on the puss buttress at Stanage) but there is a point where it gets silly. I'd probably grade the rest of the route and add a comment for the start move in the description. So, Kitten (VS5b) on the puss buttress becomes VS4c, stupid start. Or you could just say Kitten V0, highball.
Maybe the tech grade for these routes should be for the first move at a serious height or adopt the system used for solos in the forest of Dean guide where the adjectival grade is directly related to the height of the crux.
I'm in two minds about these; I think it is daft to bump up the adjectival grade when the hard move is at ankle height (every single route on the puss buttress at Stanage) but there is a point where it gets silly. I'd probably grade the rest of the route and add a comment for the start move in the description. So, Kitten (VS5b) on the puss buttress becomes VS4c, stupid start. Or you could just say Kitten V0, highball.
Maybe the tech grade for these routes should be for the first move at a serious height or adopt the system used for solos in the forest of Dean guide where the adjectival grade is directly related to the height of the crux.
In reply to Reach>Talent: I think the adjectival grade does take account of the technical grade but we choose not to use it like that. If we take a hypothetical route with a 5b move at ground level where you can damage yourself if you come off but V Diff climbing above and compare it with a similar route with a 5b move at the top but with overhead gear the first route will get a lower grade when perhaps it should be the other way around.
In reply to Offwidth:
Two near each other iirc at Stanage (Tango Buttress and Sneezy) and the hard move isn't getting off the ground. Seem to be 5a on Rockfax database today thoguh.
> (In reply to leon) Yes most but not all. There are rare examples at of HS 5b eg at Birchen.
Two near each other iirc at Stanage (Tango Buttress and Sneezy) and the hard move isn't getting off the ground. Seem to be 5a on Rockfax database today thoguh.
In reply to JonC:
I've always had issues with that grading. A 5b move on a VS must be, surely, fall-offable with pretty much no chance of anything bad happening. If you muff the 5b move on Direct route, you could easily end up missing the ledge and having a rather exciting fall.
Isn't the classic example of this Monty Python's Flying Circus at Kyloe In The Woods at VS 6b? And Marxist Undertones at the Five Clouds is somewhere between VS 5b and font 6a depending on what guide you ask (I can't see how those 2 grades are logically consistent).
> (In reply to Cornelius Kite)
>
> [...]
>
> I agree.
>
> An interesting one is the Direct on the Mot at VS 5b. The crux is 'almost' a bouldering start - from a ledge. I do think it's slightly bold because you'd probably go straight over the ledge if you fell off but perhaps no worse than a bad landing on grit. But I've always thought of that as top end of v safe VS really and personally, at the time, I know I felt it might have warranted HVS. So I'd say no more than 5b for VS, which goes along with 5a for HS.
>
> [...]
>
> I agree.
>
> An interesting one is the Direct on the Mot at VS 5b. The crux is 'almost' a bouldering start - from a ledge. I do think it's slightly bold because you'd probably go straight over the ledge if you fell off but perhaps no worse than a bad landing on grit. But I've always thought of that as top end of v safe VS really and personally, at the time, I know I felt it might have warranted HVS. So I'd say no more than 5b for VS, which goes along with 5a for HS.
I've always had issues with that grading. A 5b move on a VS must be, surely, fall-offable with pretty much no chance of anything bad happening. If you muff the 5b move on Direct route, you could easily end up missing the ledge and having a rather exciting fall.
Isn't the classic example of this Monty Python's Flying Circus at Kyloe In The Woods at VS 6b? And Marxist Undertones at the Five Clouds is somewhere between VS 5b and font 6a depending on what guide you ask (I can't see how those 2 grades are logically consistent).
In reply to Blue Straggler:
They are both 5a. Both in the guide and in real life. The crux of Tango Buttress is definitely the start, the rest is juggy (but a bit bold), and the crux of sneezy is very well protected and has a safe fall. I think top end HS is fine for the pair of them.
They are both 5a. Both in the guide and in real life. The crux of Tango Buttress is definitely the start, the rest is juggy (but a bit bold), and the crux of sneezy is very well protected and has a safe fall. I think top end HS is fine for the pair of them.
In reply to Offwidth:
I think a grade like HS 5b, E1 6b etc probably means the notion that technical difficulty is just one part of overall difficulty is a bit broken, but not badly enough to be worth worrying about. To me these grades say that overall, the route is easier than most VS / E2 (E3?) you're likely to come across, including the softish ones.
But the grade isn't some objectively measurable feature of the route, like the length in metres, it's an approximation of how hard most people will find it*. With such a large discrepancy between adjectival and technical grades, is it credible that most people would find the route easier than most VS / E2 routes? Possibly, apart from those for whom HS / E1 is their personal max.
So the acceptability of the general case doesn't really come into it. The question is "Do most people find this particular route easier overall than a softish VS / E2 ?"
*This statement may, in fact, be bollox.
I think a grade like HS 5b, E1 6b etc probably means the notion that technical difficulty is just one part of overall difficulty is a bit broken, but not badly enough to be worth worrying about. To me these grades say that overall, the route is easier than most VS / E2 (E3?) you're likely to come across, including the softish ones.
But the grade isn't some objectively measurable feature of the route, like the length in metres, it's an approximation of how hard most people will find it*. With such a large discrepancy between adjectival and technical grades, is it credible that most people would find the route easier than most VS / E2 routes? Possibly, apart from those for whom HS / E1 is their personal max.
So the acceptability of the general case doesn't really come into it. The question is "Do most people find this particular route easier overall than a softish VS / E2 ?"
*This statement may, in fact, be bollox.
In reply to robinsi197:
Not if you can't climb that hard!
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> I think a grade like HS 5b, E1 6b etc probably means the notion that technical difficulty is just one part of overall difficulty is a bit broken, but not badly enough to be worth worrying about. To me these grades say that overall, the route is easier than most VS / E2 (E3?) you're likely to come across, including the softish ones.
>
> I think a grade like HS 5b, E1 6b etc probably means the notion that technical difficulty is just one part of overall difficulty is a bit broken, but not badly enough to be worth worrying about. To me these grades say that overall, the route is easier than most VS / E2 (E3?) you're likely to come across, including the softish ones.
Not if you can't climb that hard!
In reply to johnl:
climbers or leaders?
I just lead VS but can do 5b moves no problem.
> (In reply to leon)
> [...]
>
> I reckon no HS climbers could do 5b moves. If you can do 5b moves you should be able to do a fair selection of E1s.
> I'd knock it down two.
> [...]
>
> I reckon no HS climbers could do 5b moves. If you can do 5b moves you should be able to do a fair selection of E1s.
> I'd knock it down two.
climbers or leaders?
I just lead VS but can do 5b moves no problem.
In reply to Offwidth:
it's not really bouldering unless you have a mat and /or the landing is good, the first is supposedly against the rule of leading and the latter is fairly unusual on grit. Although fair enough if the start has great gear I guess.
it's not really bouldering unless you have a mat and /or the landing is good, the first is supposedly against the rule of leading and the latter is fairly unusual on grit. Although fair enough if the start has great gear I guess.
In reply to Milesy:
> (In reply to johnl)
> [...]
>
> climbers or leaders?
>
> I just lead VS but can do 5b moves no problem.
But you are quite capable of E1, try it you might surprise yourself.> [...]
>
> climbers or leaders?
>
> I just lead VS but can do 5b moves no problem.
In reply to johnl:
I think this is the differeing definition of what a "VS leader" is. I'd describe myself as a VS leader because VS is at the top of my comfort zone, the grade I'm very shocked to fail on. The fact I've lead E1/E2 and have bouldered my fair share of moves at 6a/6b doesn't strike me as important. To me your 'grade' is the grade you'd expect to climb independent of rock type/style etc.
I think this is the differeing definition of what a "VS leader" is. I'd describe myself as a VS leader because VS is at the top of my comfort zone, the grade I'm very shocked to fail on. The fact I've lead E1/E2 and have bouldered my fair share of moves at 6a/6b doesn't strike me as important. To me your 'grade' is the grade you'd expect to climb independent of rock type/style etc.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
I've always reckoned that Direct is properly graded at VS because if you're struggling you can do various things to make the crux easier:
1) put gear on the top of the belay flakes
2) pendulum across from the top of the belay flakes
3) stand on someone's shoulder
Basically a VS leader should be able to get up it even if they don't do the 5b bit free.
> I've always had issues with that grading. A 5b move on a VS must be, surely, fall-offable with pretty much no chance of anything bad happening. If you muff the 5b move on Direct route, you could easily end up missing the ledge and having a rather exciting fall.
>
>
I've always reckoned that Direct is properly graded at VS because if you're struggling you can do various things to make the crux easier:
1) put gear on the top of the belay flakes
2) pendulum across from the top of the belay flakes
3) stand on someone's shoulder
Basically a VS leader should be able to get up it even if they don't do the 5b bit free.
In reply to johnl:
Being able to do a 5b move as a boulder problem doesn't mean a person can LEAD 5b moves though does it? The difference between HVS 5b and E3 5b supports this.
Chris
>
> [...]
> But you are quite capable of E1, try it you might surprise yourself.
> [...]
> But you are quite capable of E1, try it you might surprise yourself.
Being able to do a 5b move as a boulder problem doesn't mean a person can LEAD 5b moves though does it? The difference between HVS 5b and E3 5b supports this.
Chris
In reply to Michael Hood:
But isn't that argument total nonsense? By the same logic Dwm on Castell Cidwm should be graded HVS, not E3, since an HVS leader can aid it even if they can't do it free. If that were how grades worked then everything with a safe crux is misgraded and the system is broken beyond comprehension.
> Basically a VS leader should be able to get up it even if they don't do the 5b bit free.
But isn't that argument total nonsense? By the same logic Dwm on Castell Cidwm should be graded HVS, not E3, since an HVS leader can aid it even if they can't do it free. If that were how grades worked then everything with a safe crux is misgraded and the system is broken beyond comprehension.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
At the end of the day UK grades are for the onsight taking the hs 5b example if the landing is poor and gear must be placed if most competent HS leaders are probably going to take a leader fall then it seems rather unfair to keep the grade at HS. If the landing is good well fair enough they still have a chance of onsighting the route. Either that or we allow the use of bouldering mats in UK trad grades!
At the end of the day UK grades are for the onsight taking the hs 5b example if the landing is poor and gear must be placed if most competent HS leaders are probably going to take a leader fall then it seems rather unfair to keep the grade at HS. If the landing is good well fair enough they still have a chance of onsighting the route. Either that or we allow the use of bouldering mats in UK trad grades!
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I've lead plenty of routes with 5b and 5c moves, from HVS to E3, but still never been able to do Verandah Buttress!
> (In reply to johnl)
> [...]
>
> Being able to do a 5b move as a boulder problem doesn't mean a person can LEAD 5b moves though does it? The difference between HVS 5b and E3 5b supports this.
> [...]
>
> Being able to do a 5b move as a boulder problem doesn't mean a person can LEAD 5b moves though does it? The difference between HVS 5b and E3 5b supports this.
I've lead plenty of routes with 5b and 5c moves, from HVS to E3, but still never been able to do Verandah Buttress!
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Some interesting replies but we seem a distance from consensus which surprises me a little. Someone suggested 'combined tactics' influence things which I think certainly applies to routes like the direct on the mot but how much to hard grit starts? Often the start IS the route on a grit microroute as an example something like Danes Disgust, HS 5b, at Birchen (hence its boulder problem status as a V0 in the latest Froggatt guide). Thanks for the suggestions of other routes but I forgot to point out I'm aware of most peak grit oddities but less so elsewhere.
One final point on the HS leader cf 5b thing. Rockfax orange routes start at HS as do orange problems at 5b. HS leaders come in many forms, some are technically way more adept than others (hence I think more than 50% of rounded HS leaders will just cope with a 5b start whereas a leader who has led some HS routes but only those that suit their style probably won't).
Some interesting replies but we seem a distance from consensus which surprises me a little. Someone suggested 'combined tactics' influence things which I think certainly applies to routes like the direct on the mot but how much to hard grit starts? Often the start IS the route on a grit microroute as an example something like Danes Disgust, HS 5b, at Birchen (hence its boulder problem status as a V0 in the latest Froggatt guide). Thanks for the suggestions of other routes but I forgot to point out I'm aware of most peak grit oddities but less so elsewhere.
One final point on the HS leader cf 5b thing. Rockfax orange routes start at HS as do orange problems at 5b. HS leaders come in many forms, some are technically way more adept than others (hence I think more than 50% of rounded HS leaders will just cope with a 5b start whereas a leader who has led some HS routes but only those that suit their style probably won't).
In reply to Offwidth:
Really? Really, really?
So the adjectival grade of a route can be lower if the the crux can be overcome easily using 'combined tactics'? I've totally missed an important aspect of British grading if that's the case.
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> Someone suggested 'combined tactics' influence things which I think certainly applies to routes like the direct on the mot
>
> Someone suggested 'combined tactics' influence things which I think certainly applies to routes like the direct on the mot
Really? Really, really?
So the adjectival grade of a route can be lower if the the crux can be overcome easily using 'combined tactics'? I've totally missed an important aspect of British grading if that's the case.
In reply to Offwidth:
Seriously, guys, does it really matter one tiny, little flying, semi-flying ****?
If a route is graded HS 5b, then it's going to be blindingly, blindingly obvious what it's involved. So you can't do it? So go down the pub and moan to your mates. The purpose of a grading system isn't to grade climbers; it's to give information about a route.
jcm
Seriously, guys, does it really matter one tiny, little flying, semi-flying ****?
If a route is graded HS 5b, then it's going to be blindingly, blindingly obvious what it's involved. So you can't do it? So go down the pub and moan to your mates. The purpose of a grading system isn't to grade climbers; it's to give information about a route.
jcm
In reply to Offwidth: The problem here is simple. I've not read every post but most people seem to be looking at it the wrong way around.
What tech grade should an VS leader be able to do? etc.
Can someone who can at best lead VS do a 5c move? Who cares, plenty of strong indoor boulders can pull hard but have only lead easy grades outside due to inexperienced and fear.
What you should be asking is 'can someone who can pull 5c/6a moves on trad do VS's?' In which case it's yes in nearly every time. So if that very hard but completely safe route gets say VS 5c, HVS 6a etc Then any climber able to do the move can do VS / HVS etc.
What tech grade should an VS leader be able to do? etc.
Can someone who can at best lead VS do a 5c move? Who cares, plenty of strong indoor boulders can pull hard but have only lead easy grades outside due to inexperienced and fear.
What you should be asking is 'can someone who can pull 5c/6a moves on trad do VS's?' In which case it's yes in nearly every time. So if that very hard but completely safe route gets say VS 5c, HVS 6a etc Then any climber able to do the move can do VS / HVS etc.
In reply to Offwidth:
I guess another way of putting the point that I was making (badly) earlier is that HS 5b makes less sense if you only talk about "HS leaders", "VS leaders", "E2 leaders" etc because most HS leaders probably wouldn't be able to do it, but a lot of sense if you can talk about "HS 4c leaders" and "HS 5b leaders"...
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> One final point on the HS leader cf 5b thing. Rockfax orange routes start at HS as do orange problems at 5b. HS leaders come in many forms, some are technically way more adept than others (hence I think more than 50% of rounded HS leaders will just cope with a 5b start whereas a leader who has led some HS routes but only those that suit their style probably won't).
>
> One final point on the HS leader cf 5b thing. Rockfax orange routes start at HS as do orange problems at 5b. HS leaders come in many forms, some are technically way more adept than others (hence I think more than 50% of rounded HS leaders will just cope with a 5b start whereas a leader who has led some HS routes but only those that suit their style probably won't).
I guess another way of putting the point that I was making (badly) earlier is that HS 5b makes less sense if you only talk about "HS leaders", "VS leaders", "E2 leaders" etc because most HS leaders probably wouldn't be able to do it, but a lot of sense if you can talk about "HS 4c leaders" and "HS 5b leaders"...
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Agree that it doesn't make a whole load of difference but, firstly, if you're going to use a grading system it might as well be logical. Secondly, 5b move then scrambling could be he 5b. So could a 5b move with unprotected 4a for 10m after. Big difference to an hs leader no?
> If a route is graded HS 5b, then it's going to be blindingly, blindingly obvious what it's involved.
Agree that it doesn't make a whole load of difference but, firstly, if you're going to use a grading system it might as well be logical. Secondly, 5b move then scrambling could be he 5b. So could a 5b move with unprotected 4a for 10m after. Big difference to an hs leader no?
In reply to victim of mathematics:
The onsight grade for ground up climbing is fair at VS 5b but in an otherwise similar situations where you can't cheat this might up the adjectival grade to HVS or more. Whats the problem?
The onsight grade for ground up climbing is fair at VS 5b but in an otherwise similar situations where you can't cheat this might up the adjectival grade to HVS or more. Whats the problem?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Isn't the purpose of the grade to indicate how hard the route is compared to other routes? Can a route that is graded HVS 6c really ever be regarded as only as hard as a HVS 5a? Remove the technical grade (which we really should be able to do give the adjective is the overall difficulty) and we seem to be left with a nonesense.
It doesn't really matter I guess but it would be nice to have a grading system that was consitant and logical & wasn't so open to interpretation as the UK trad grade seems to be.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
>
> If a route is graded HS 5b, then it's going to be blindingly, blindingly obvious what it's involved. So you can't do it? So go down the pub and moan to your mates. The purpose of a grading system isn't to grade climbers; it's to give information about a route.
>
>
Isn't the purpose of the grade to indicate how hard the route is compared to other routes? Can a route that is graded HVS 6c really ever be regarded as only as hard as a HVS 5a? Remove the technical grade (which we really should be able to do give the adjective is the overall difficulty) and we seem to be left with a nonesense.
It doesn't really matter I guess but it would be nice to have a grading system that was consitant and logical & wasn't so open to interpretation as the UK trad grade seems to be.
In reply to Offwidth:
I would take it one above the 'normal' spread for the grade. For me that would go:
S 4c
HS 5a
VS 5b
HVS 5c
E1 6a
I would take it one above the 'normal' spread for the grade. For me that would go:
S 4c
HS 5a
VS 5b
HVS 5c
E1 6a
In reply to Ed Brighteldman:
The whole point here is that a 5b move then scrambling wouldn't be HS 5b - it could technically be Diff 5b. Although in practice it'd probably be treated as a boulder problem and hence graded as such.
If you insist that it's got a 5b move so it must be VS, you can't tell whether it's a 5b move off the ground followed by unprotected climbing that a 'normal' HS leader could manage on lead or a 5b move off the ground followed by unprotected climbing that a 'normal' HS leader would freak out on.
The whole point here is that a 5b move then scrambling wouldn't be HS 5b - it could technically be Diff 5b. Although in practice it'd probably be treated as a boulder problem and hence graded as such.
If you insist that it's got a 5b move so it must be VS, you can't tell whether it's a 5b move off the ground followed by unprotected climbing that a 'normal' HS leader could manage on lead or a 5b move off the ground followed by unprotected climbing that a 'normal' HS leader would freak out on.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
"What you should be asking is 'can someone who can pull 5c/6a moves on trad do VS's?' In which case it's yes in nearly every time. So if that very hard but completely safe route gets say VS 5c, HVS 6a etc Then any climber able to do the move can do VS / HVS etc."
So are you saying the starts don't count even above a crap landing, that also sounds rediculous just bacause the gear is above your head it doesn't make the moves and safer or harder than having them halfway up the route from easy ground with gear above your head (in my mind often less safe as the ground hurts)
The adj grade is supposed to describe the route as a whole as experienced by the majority of climbers. Grades are only meaningfull to compare the difficulty between climbs. Therefore the difficulty of the starting moves should be included in that. For well protected routes I think you can see it in the same light as a sport grade.
As adj grades describe the overall dificulty of a climb, if the majority of climbers would find some HS 5b harder to climb as a whole than most VS 4cs its probably the wrong grade IMO!
"What you should be asking is 'can someone who can pull 5c/6a moves on trad do VS's?' In which case it's yes in nearly every time. So if that very hard but completely safe route gets say VS 5c, HVS 6a etc Then any climber able to do the move can do VS / HVS etc."
So are you saying the starts don't count even above a crap landing, that also sounds rediculous just bacause the gear is above your head it doesn't make the moves and safer or harder than having them halfway up the route from easy ground with gear above your head (in my mind often less safe as the ground hurts)
The adj grade is supposed to describe the route as a whole as experienced by the majority of climbers. Grades are only meaningfull to compare the difficulty between climbs. Therefore the difficulty of the starting moves should be included in that. For well protected routes I think you can see it in the same light as a sport grade.
As adj grades describe the overall dificulty of a climb, if the majority of climbers would find some HS 5b harder to climb as a whole than most VS 4cs its probably the wrong grade IMO!
In reply to Offwidth:
Because the ability to cheat is not a component of the grading system as I understand it.
If a route has a bouldery start, let's say a VS with a 5b crux off the ground, then the grade should not have any relation to whether you can aid past the crux onto the rest of the route, or not. Surely? Are you saying a short 5b wall onto a 4a slab with no gear anywhere would be HVS, but a short 5b wall onto a 4c crack (which you can just about aid into from the ground) would be VS? I genuinely don't follow the logic.
Because the ability to cheat is not a component of the grading system as I understand it.
If a route has a bouldery start, let's say a VS with a 5b crux off the ground, then the grade should not have any relation to whether you can aid past the crux onto the rest of the route, or not. Surely? Are you saying a short 5b wall onto a 4a slab with no gear anywhere would be HVS, but a short 5b wall onto a 4c crack (which you can just about aid into from the ground) would be VS? I genuinely don't follow the logic.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think you are missing the point, the adj grade is supposed to describe the whole route in difficulty experienced by the majority of climbers as compared to other routes. It's a method of ranking how hard climbs are against each other.
I think the notion of an X grade leader is therefore relevent as if most competent climbers at HS can't lead an HS 5b on sight then it's probably not HS is it, whats more if most competent VS leaders find the HS 5b harder than most the VSs they lead surely its not an HS is it?
I think you are missing the point, the adj grade is supposed to describe the whole route in difficulty experienced by the majority of climbers as compared to other routes. It's a method of ranking how hard climbs are against each other.
I think the notion of an X grade leader is therefore relevent as if most competent climbers at HS can't lead an HS 5b on sight then it's probably not HS is it, whats more if most competent VS leaders find the HS 5b harder than most the VSs they lead surely its not an HS is it?
In reply to GrahamD:
I'm in full agreeance with that!
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> I would take it one above the 'normal' spread for the grade. For me that would go:
>
> S 4c
> HS 5a
> VS 5b
> HVS 5c
> E1 6a
>
> I would take it one above the 'normal' spread for the grade. For me that would go:
>
> S 4c
> HS 5a
> VS 5b
> HVS 5c
> E1 6a
I'm in full agreeance with that!
In reply to Ed Brighteldman:
No, it might as well work. Which HS 5b as a grade does.
jcm
> if you're going to use a grading system it might as well be logical.
No, it might as well work. Which HS 5b as a grade does.
jcm
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think part of the issue is the defintion (and the influence of ego): on the one hand a lot of people calling themselves rounded HS leaders are often probably more like rounded VD leaders; others have the opposite problem and get hung up on grades and are very reluctant to try anything harder than their comfort zone 'rounded' lead. To me pointed at a route at random on any rocktype you should be able to get up most of them (say 3/4)graded HS to claim the rounded grade. Saying 'I've led a HS' is very different to being a rounded HS mountain rhyolite leader which is is very different again to being a rounded HS leader. I'm just about a rounded VS leader who has led E2 (as an example) and I will get more than half short V1 5c problems within a few goes. Hence VS 5c makes sense to me as a grade for a route with a 5c start to easy climbing for the VS grade above or a 5c protected move off a ledge.
I'm also still interested in other climber's views on this.
I think part of the issue is the defintion (and the influence of ego): on the one hand a lot of people calling themselves rounded HS leaders are often probably more like rounded VD leaders; others have the opposite problem and get hung up on grades and are very reluctant to try anything harder than their comfort zone 'rounded' lead. To me pointed at a route at random on any rocktype you should be able to get up most of them (say 3/4)graded HS to claim the rounded grade. Saying 'I've led a HS' is very different to being a rounded HS mountain rhyolite leader which is is very different again to being a rounded HS leader. I'm just about a rounded VS leader who has led E2 (as an example) and I will get more than half short V1 5c problems within a few goes. Hence VS 5c makes sense to me as a grade for a route with a 5c start to easy climbing for the VS grade above or a 5c protected move off a ledge.
I'm also still interested in other climber's views on this.
In reply to Offwidth:
one problem here is that once you are strong enough sometimes more technical sequences feel easier than less technical ones. For example I very often find 4c / 5a moves on southern sandstone more reliable and easier to perform than 3x moves, yes more strenuous but more reliably predicatable that I can do them. So you may find that many people that can climb E2 5c actually find the HS 5b easier than most VS 4c's even though HS/VS leaders disgree!
one problem here is that once you are strong enough sometimes more technical sequences feel easier than less technical ones. For example I very often find 4c / 5a moves on southern sandstone more reliable and easier to perform than 3x moves, yes more strenuous but more reliably predicatable that I can do them. So you may find that many people that can climb E2 5c actually find the HS 5b easier than most VS 4c's even though HS/VS leaders disgree!
In reply to victim of mathematics:
I see it the opposite way round... the in-ability to escape a move would influence the grade upwards. In other words everything influences the adjectival grade.
I see it the opposite way round... the in-ability to escape a move would influence the grade upwards. In other words everything influences the adjectival grade.
In reply to Offwidth:
At the risk of sounding rather old, I wonder if nowadays there is a high proportion of climbers who are much better at bouldering and sport climbing than they are at trad.
20 years ago I reckon the majority of climbers did trad over everything else, and the average V5 boulderer or F6b leader could also lead E2 regularly, hence the number of responses here along the lines of “if you can climb 5b you can lead E1”.
But look at the number of profiles on here where people can boulder V5, lead F6b on a wall, but have “only” led Severe outside (for example).
Therefore, I think it is becoming quite normal for the average VS leader to be comfortable with a 5c move. Not because VS climbers have got better, but because lots of 5c climbers can now “only” lead VS.
So I am inclined to agree with your range of grades, Offwidth.
At the risk of sounding rather old, I wonder if nowadays there is a high proportion of climbers who are much better at bouldering and sport climbing than they are at trad.
20 years ago I reckon the majority of climbers did trad over everything else, and the average V5 boulderer or F6b leader could also lead E2 regularly, hence the number of responses here along the lines of “if you can climb 5b you can lead E1”.
But look at the number of profiles on here where people can boulder V5, lead F6b on a wall, but have “only” led Severe outside (for example).
Therefore, I think it is becoming quite normal for the average VS leader to be comfortable with a 5c move. Not because VS climbers have got better, but because lots of 5c climbers can now “only” lead VS.
So I am inclined to agree with your range of grades, Offwidth.
n reply to Offwidth:
What do you think the adj grade describes?
If its the route as a whole what you have to ask your self is - is the HS 5b actually easier than the majority of VS's to lead climb onsight as a whole. If the majority of climbers who can lead the majority of VS's (on that rock type and style of climbing) agree with you fair enough then it's an HS otherwise not. Simples right?
I guess the issue arises from the people who can not lead the majority of VS but can lead the majority of HS does their point of view not count if most of them can't climb the HS 5b, what do they have to compare it with?
What do you think the adj grade describes?
If its the route as a whole what you have to ask your self is - is the HS 5b actually easier than the majority of VS's to lead climb onsight as a whole. If the majority of climbers who can lead the majority of VS's (on that rock type and style of climbing) agree with you fair enough then it's an HS otherwise not. Simples right?
I guess the issue arises from the people who can not lead the majority of VS but can lead the majority of HS does their point of view not count if most of them can't climb the HS 5b, what do they have to compare it with?
In reply to victim of mathematics: I see what you're saying but in some ways Direct Route is a bit of a special case because it would still be VS even if you frigged the top bit. It never feels HVS because of the ledge, proximity of belayer, etc, even though the crux moves are now given 5b.
I think your extrapolation to "everything with a safe crux" is a bit extreme however there are several routes that have split grades:
- Llithrig HVS 5a / E1 5c
- White Slab E1 5b / E2 5c
- Also, Dwm was (is?) graded HVS for aiding the last bit as per Hard Rock.
These seem to be where there is an excessively hard crux move that can be bypassed by the traditional methods used to do the original ascent. Just thought of another one - Carnage E2 5b/6b.
I think your extrapolation to "everything with a safe crux" is a bit extreme however there are several routes that have split grades:
- Llithrig HVS 5a / E1 5c
- White Slab E1 5b / E2 5c
- Also, Dwm was (is?) graded HVS for aiding the last bit as per Hard Rock.
These seem to be where there is an excessively hard crux move that can be bypassed by the traditional methods used to do the original ascent. Just thought of another one - Carnage E2 5b/6b.
In reply to Offwidth:
So, while on the topic of quirks in our grading system, how about something like Gambit climb?, where the final pitch is about VS 5a; however one can quite easily (and far more consistently with the difficulty of the rest of the climb) avoid it eight feet to the left at about V Diff standard.
In this case, the adjectival grade of HVD/S seems to take into account that one needn't actually do the pitch as described but can easily avoid it. Is this the same principle that gives an allowance for the possibility of combined tactics on the Mot's Direct Route?
So, while on the topic of quirks in our grading system, how about something like Gambit climb?, where the final pitch is about VS 5a; however one can quite easily (and far more consistently with the difficulty of the rest of the climb) avoid it eight feet to the left at about V Diff standard.
In this case, the adjectival grade of HVD/S seems to take into account that one needn't actually do the pitch as described but can easily avoid it. Is this the same principle that gives an allowance for the possibility of combined tactics on the Mot's Direct Route?
In reply to CurlyStevo:
But that's exactly the point I'm making. If you view the adjectival grade as 'the grade of the climb' and the tech grade as 'a bit of extra information', or if you talk about "HS leaders" and think "HS 5b leaders" doesn't make sense, then "HS 5b" doesn't make much sense either.
If you view the two-part grade as 'the grade of the climb' or talk about "HS 5b leaders" then it makes perfect sense.
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
> I think you are missing the point, the adj grade is supposed to describe the whole route in difficulty experienced by the majority of climbers as compared to other routes. It's a method of ranking how hard climbs are against each other.
>
> I think the notion of an X grade leader is therefore relevent as if most competent climbers at HS can't lead an HS 5b on sight then it's probably not HS is it, whats more if most competent VS leaders find the HS 5b harder than most the VSs they lead surely its not an HS is it?
> I think you are missing the point, the adj grade is supposed to describe the whole route in difficulty experienced by the majority of climbers as compared to other routes. It's a method of ranking how hard climbs are against each other.
>
> I think the notion of an X grade leader is therefore relevent as if most competent climbers at HS can't lead an HS 5b on sight then it's probably not HS is it, whats more if most competent VS leaders find the HS 5b harder than most the VSs they lead surely its not an HS is it?
But that's exactly the point I'm making. If you view the adjectival grade as 'the grade of the climb' and the tech grade as 'a bit of extra information', or if you talk about "HS leaders" and think "HS 5b leaders" doesn't make sense, then "HS 5b" doesn't make much sense either.
If you view the two-part grade as 'the grade of the climb' or talk about "HS 5b leaders" then it makes perfect sense.
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm pretty certain that I'm a rounded VS leader by your criteria, although your definition is certainly vastly stiffer than most people would use. But your logic is a bit off. If a rounded VS leader has to be able to successfully onsight 3/4 of all VSs, you are a rounded VS leader, and you can get 50% of V1 5c problems after a few goes, then you can't onsight 3/4 of 5c boulder problems. So VS 5c doesn't make sense as a grade for you.
I don't much like VS 5b as a grade at all, but if it is going to exist then surely you can only have one 5b move, not a sequence, and is it by definition straight off the ground with a good landing? Or is it OK if it's mid-route, but with bomber overhead gear? I think the former, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm pretty certain that I'm a rounded VS leader by your criteria, although your definition is certainly vastly stiffer than most people would use. But your logic is a bit off. If a rounded VS leader has to be able to successfully onsight 3/4 of all VSs, you are a rounded VS leader, and you can get 50% of V1 5c problems after a few goes, then you can't onsight 3/4 of 5c boulder problems. So VS 5c doesn't make sense as a grade for you.
I don't much like VS 5b as a grade at all, but if it is going to exist then surely you can only have one 5b move, not a sequence, and is it by definition straight off the ground with a good landing? Or is it OK if it's mid-route, but with bomber overhead gear? I think the former, but correct me if I'm wrong.
In reply to Michael Hood:
I don't think so. If it's graded VS, then you have to be able to lead it cleanly at VS standard.
It was a little hyperbolic, yes, but I was trying to make a point.
however there are several routes that have split grades:
But all of these routes have split grades, one with aid and one without (Eroica before the peg went is another, and isn't there a classic VS with a point of aid somewhere in the Cairngorms that's E2 free - King Rat maybe?). You're saying that Direct Route should just be VS. If it got VS 4c/HVS 5b as a split grade, then that's fine, but you can't have it both ways. Either all of the routes you listed need to be downgraded, or Direct route warrants a split grade.
No?
> (In reply to victim of mathematics) I see what you're saying but in some ways Direct Route is a bit of a special case because it would still be VS even if you frigged the top bit. It never feels HVS because of the ledge, proximity of belayer, etc, even though the crux moves are now given 5b.
I don't think so. If it's graded VS, then you have to be able to lead it cleanly at VS standard.
>
> I think your extrapolation to "everything with a safe crux" is a bit extreme
> I think your extrapolation to "everything with a safe crux" is a bit extreme
It was a little hyperbolic, yes, but I was trying to make a point.
however there are several routes that have split grades:
> - Llithrig HVS 5a / E1 5c
> - White Slab E1 5b / E2 5c
> - Also, Dwm was (is?) graded HVS for aiding the last bit as per Hard Rock.
>
> These seem to be where there is an excessively hard crux move that can be bypassed by the traditional methods used to do the original ascent. Just thought of another one - Carnage E2 5b/6b.
> - White Slab E1 5b / E2 5c
> - Also, Dwm was (is?) graded HVS for aiding the last bit as per Hard Rock.
>
> These seem to be where there is an excessively hard crux move that can be bypassed by the traditional methods used to do the original ascent. Just thought of another one - Carnage E2 5b/6b.
But all of these routes have split grades, one with aid and one without (Eroica before the peg went is another, and isn't there a classic VS with a point of aid somewhere in the Cairngorms that's E2 free - King Rat maybe?). You're saying that Direct Route should just be VS. If it got VS 4c/HVS 5b as a split grade, then that's fine, but you can't have it both ways. Either all of the routes you listed need to be downgraded, or Direct route warrants a split grade.
No?
In reply to victim of mathematics: Remember that the Direct is a mountain route and the ability to escape/avoid/cheat on the crux lowers the overall seriousness of the route which is a component of the adj grade.
If the crux was not cheatable/escapable then the route would feel more serious hence possibly higher adj grade.
On a outcrop route with a bouldery start then I think your point is ok, because the escape/avoid/cheat aspect of seriousness is basically zero.
If the crux was not cheatable/escapable then the route would feel more serious hence possibly higher adj grade.
On a outcrop route with a bouldery start then I think your point is ok, because the escape/avoid/cheat aspect of seriousness is basically zero.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
But if we just say that to do the first move at a consistent grade you use combined tactics or stand on a rock, that's OK isn't it? It's an optional point of aid.
I think it's part of the charm of climbing that some people will do a hard pull to start a route (at Birchen especially), some people will need some help, while doubtless others will insist on doing the sit start!
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> Because the ability to cheat is not a component of the grading system as I understand it.
>
> Because the ability to cheat is not a component of the grading system as I understand it.
But if we just say that to do the first move at a consistent grade you use combined tactics or stand on a rock, that's OK isn't it? It's an optional point of aid.
I think it's part of the charm of climbing that some people will do a hard pull to start a route (at Birchen especially), some people will need some help, while doubtless others will insist on doing the sit start!
In reply to Ramblin dave:
the tech grade is just the hardest move. Yes as a climber considering a route the tech grade in conjunction with the adj grade can help to further identify what the route will be like.
However the adj grade ALONE is supposed to desribe the difficutly of the whole climb to lead onsight as experienced by the majority of climbers.
When grading a new route you should be considering these factors independently you shouldn't be changing the adj grade in anyway because of the tech grade you decide to give the climb. If you consider the whole route is around the same difficulty as most HS climbs to onsight it matters not if you give it 4a or 5b as a tech grade the adj grade stays the same. IMO ofcourse.
the tech grade is just the hardest move. Yes as a climber considering a route the tech grade in conjunction with the adj grade can help to further identify what the route will be like.
However the adj grade ALONE is supposed to desribe the difficutly of the whole climb to lead onsight as experienced by the majority of climbers.
When grading a new route you should be considering these factors independently you shouldn't be changing the adj grade in anyway because of the tech grade you decide to give the climb. If you consider the whole route is around the same difficulty as most HS climbs to onsight it matters not if you give it 4a or 5b as a tech grade the adj grade stays the same. IMO ofcourse.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
It's an oddity, at least UK grading can describe such things better than single dimensional grades like French ones.
Having said all that it was given VS 5a when I first did it in slippy trainers (left EBs in the hut) and I'm not sure it's worth 5b.
> If it got VS 4c/HVS 5b as a split grade, then that's fine, but you can't have it both ways.
I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
It's an oddity, at least UK grading can describe such things better than single dimensional grades like French ones.
Having said all that it was given VS 5a when I first did it in slippy trainers (left EBs in the hut) and I'm not sure it's worth 5b.
In reply to Michael Hood:
But if it's clean grade is only VS because the opportunity exists to aid it, then isn't your argument a bit circular? And shouldn't all of the other split grades you mention be brought down similarly, or is Direct Route really such a different case to them?
> (In reply to victim of mathematics)
> [...]
>
> I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
>
> [...]
>
> I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
>
But if it's clean grade is only VS because the opportunity exists to aid it, then isn't your argument a bit circular? And shouldn't all of the other split grades you mention be brought down similarly, or is Direct Route really such a different case to them?
In reply to CurlyStevo: I agree that you're correct and for "typical" technicality at a grade everything's ok. It's just when you get very technically easy or hard moves for an adjectival grade that we start talking about it.
If you're French all you can do is say "that should be 6c", "non, it's definitely 6b+" - how boring is that
If you're French all you can do is say "that should be 6c", "non, it's definitely 6b+" - how boring is that
In reply to victim of mathematics:
One 5b move off the ground into easy terrain - HS 5b. (Basically a boulder proble.
One 5b move off a ledge with easy to place gear - VS 5b. (A boulder problem on a route).
5b moves with easy to place gear - HVS 5b.
5b moves, pumpy but with gear - E1 5b.
5b moves, sustained or bold - E2 5b.
5b moves, very sustained or unprotected, E3 5b.
5b move, sustained, strenuous, hard to protect and loose - E4 5b.
..or summat like that.
Chris
>
>
> I don't much like VS 5b as a grade at all, but if it is going to exist then surely you can only have one 5b move, not a sequence, and is it by definition straight off the ground with a good landing? Or is it OK if it's mid-route, but with bomber overhead gear? I think the former, but correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I don't much like VS 5b as a grade at all, but if it is going to exist then surely you can only have one 5b move, not a sequence, and is it by definition straight off the ground with a good landing? Or is it OK if it's mid-route, but with bomber overhead gear? I think the former, but correct me if I'm wrong.
One 5b move off the ground into easy terrain - HS 5b. (Basically a boulder proble.
One 5b move off a ledge with easy to place gear - VS 5b. (A boulder problem on a route).
5b moves with easy to place gear - HVS 5b.
5b moves, pumpy but with gear - E1 5b.
5b moves, sustained or bold - E2 5b.
5b moves, very sustained or unprotected, E3 5b.
5b move, sustained, strenuous, hard to protect and loose - E4 5b.
..or summat like that.
Chris
In reply to victim of mathematics:
I go with a variant on Curly Steveo's line. Most people leading around that grade attempting an onsight will find the HS 5b easier adjectivally than a typical easy VS climb. I think its silly to disallow repeat tries on moves on hard starts onsight (just a standard variant of ground up climbing). I also can't form a 'most people' all by myself and as such I think its fine that my technical ability is a slight weakness within my guesstimate of an average of the climbing population. Hence more than 50% 5c more than 75% VS seems logical to me in that context.
I think Sam Beatons' point is valid too the profile of climbers as a whole is more cautious and technically adept than it once was.
I go with a variant on Curly Steveo's line. Most people leading around that grade attempting an onsight will find the HS 5b easier adjectivally than a typical easy VS climb. I think its silly to disallow repeat tries on moves on hard starts onsight (just a standard variant of ground up climbing). I also can't form a 'most people' all by myself and as such I think its fine that my technical ability is a slight weakness within my guesstimate of an average of the climbing population. Hence more than 50% 5c more than 75% VS seems logical to me in that context.
I think Sam Beatons' point is valid too the profile of climbers as a whole is more cautious and technically adept than it once was.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Well I can't comment above E1, but I don't think that's right.
There are a lot of routes with one 5b move with easy to place gear, and almost none of them get VS 5b. It's a very rare grade (unless you can rattle off a list and prove me wrong...)
And E1 5b does not at all imply pumpy. Or I'd never have led any!
Well I can't comment above E1, but I don't think that's right.
There are a lot of routes with one 5b move with easy to place gear, and almost none of them get VS 5b. It's a very rare grade (unless you can rattle off a list and prove me wrong...)
And E1 5b does not at all imply pumpy. Or I'd never have led any!
In reply to Michael Hood:
It can't have two grades for the same style so I assume you mean "VS 4c (with a shoulder)" or "VS 4c & A0" if you pull on a nut, and "VS 5b free"?
Chris
>
>
> I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
>
>
> I think what I'm saying is that Direct Route's split grade should be VS 4c / VS 5b.
>
It can't have two grades for the same style so I assume you mean "VS 4c (with a shoulder)" or "VS 4c & A0" if you pull on a nut, and "VS 5b free"?
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Pretty much my line too. I just wondered about the current views of others on this.
Pretty much my line too. I just wondered about the current views of others on this.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Yeah, you're right that that is the traditional meaning of it. It's kind of debatable, though, whether we're now moving to a slightly modified understanding where the tech grade is an integral part of the grade. Because, as someone said upthread, everyone knows what HS 5b means, 'normal HS leaders' are becoming a lot more diverse, and some people are finding HS 5b versus VS 5b to be a useful distinction.
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
> the tech grade is just the hardest move. Yes as a climber considering a route the tech grade in conjunction with the adj grade can help to further identify what the route will be like.
>
> However the adj grade ALONE is supposed to desribe the difficutly of the whole climb to lead onsight as experienced by the majority of climbers.
> the tech grade is just the hardest move. Yes as a climber considering a route the tech grade in conjunction with the adj grade can help to further identify what the route will be like.
>
> However the adj grade ALONE is supposed to desribe the difficutly of the whole climb to lead onsight as experienced by the majority of climbers.
Yeah, you're right that that is the traditional meaning of it. It's kind of debatable, though, whether we're now moving to a slightly modified understanding where the tech grade is an integral part of the grade. Because, as someone said upthread, everyone knows what HS 5b means, 'normal HS leaders' are becoming a lot more diverse, and some people are finding HS 5b versus VS 5b to be a useful distinction.
In reply to victim of mathematics: I think it is slightly different to the other examples I gave, all of which were originally done with aid and then freed at a significantly higher grade.
It's just that as CurlyStevo says, it feels like a VS, and the hardest move is 5b. Which has led me onto doing a little thought experiment on the top pitch of the Direct.
1. Take away the easy escape across to Western Slabs @4b - does it still feel VS? - probably yes.
2. Now take away the belay flakes (or make them much shorter); i.e. no cheating possible, only retreat - still feel like VS? - probably not.
3a. Take away the belayer so that they're now say 15' lower but you've still got gear where the belayer was - still feel like VS? - HVS now.
3b. Keep the belayer in the same position but make the ledge in the corner only 3" deep so it's harder to step/jump down - still feel like VS? - HVS now.
None of these have altered the physical aspect of the climbing, but they have altered the seriousness and hence the feel of how hard the route is overall.
It's just that as CurlyStevo says, it feels like a VS, and the hardest move is 5b. Which has led me onto doing a little thought experiment on the top pitch of the Direct.
1. Take away the easy escape across to Western Slabs @4b - does it still feel VS? - probably yes.
2. Now take away the belay flakes (or make them much shorter); i.e. no cheating possible, only retreat - still feel like VS? - probably not.
3a. Take away the belayer so that they're now say 15' lower but you've still got gear where the belayer was - still feel like VS? - HVS now.
3b. Keep the belayer in the same position but make the ledge in the corner only 3" deep so it's harder to step/jump down - still feel like VS? - HVS now.
None of these have altered the physical aspect of the climbing, but they have altered the seriousness and hence the feel of how hard the route is overall.
In reply to Chris Craggs: Yes my VS 4c part of the split meant with some form of aid (pendulum or shoulder).
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Given the number of routes so graded, how on earth can the distinction be that useful?
Anyhow, HS isn't even a proper grade to start with. It should go D, VD, S, VS, HVS, etc. Things like HVD, HS and MVS are just old ways of saying high or low in the grade (though HVD could be the old way of indicating "sandbag").
> and some people are finding HS 5b versus VS 5b to be a useful distinction.
Given the number of routes so graded, how on earth can the distinction be that useful?
Anyhow, HS isn't even a proper grade to start with. It should go D, VD, S, VS, HVS, etc. Things like HVD, HS and MVS are just old ways of saying high or low in the grade (though HVD could be the old way of indicating "sandbag").
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>Things like HVD, HS and MVS are just old ways of saying high or low in the grade
And HVS isn't?!
jcm
>Things like HVD, HS and MVS are just old ways of saying high or low in the grade
And HVS isn't?!
jcm
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'll play Canute for UKC: HS, MVS, and HVD go hence from here false grades, go now I say, goonoowllubbbalub (bubble bubble).
PS sorry HD, you really dont exist, as Rockfax says so.
I'll play Canute for UKC: HS, MVS, and HVD go hence from here false grades, go now I say, goonoowllubbbalub (bubble bubble).
PS sorry HD, you really dont exist, as Rockfax says so.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
So we should ditch the E10/E11 distinction as well?
But yeah, 'useful in very specialised cases' is not the same as 'not useful'. Although it may be the same as 'not worth losing sleep over'.
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
>
> [...]
>
> Given the number of routes so graded, how on earth can the distinction be that useful?
>
> [...]
>
> Given the number of routes so graded, how on earth can the distinction be that useful?
So we should ditch the E10/E11 distinction as well?
But yeah, 'useful in very specialised cases' is not the same as 'not useful'. Although it may be the same as 'not worth losing sleep over'.
In reply to Offwidth:
Of course Hard Diff exists - only not in our world!
Chris
>
>
> PS sorry HD, you really dont exist, as Rockfax says so.
>
> PS sorry HD, you really dont exist, as Rockfax says so.
Of course Hard Diff exists - only not in our world!
Chris
In reply to johncoxmysteriously and Offwidth:
Well look at it this way. If grade widths were sensible, then the number of climbs at each grade that people climb should make a smooth Gaussian-like curve (likely a skewed Gaussian, but still a smooth curve).
Now look at the UKC compilation of routes people do: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html and scroll down to "trad" under "climbs by grade". It very clearly is not anything like a smooth curve with equal numbers of each grade (e.g. 20.5% of ascents are VS, only 0.5% MVS).
However, if you take a sensible approach and add HS to S (and do similarly with the other oddities, HD, HVD, MS, MVS), then you get a nice smooth skewed Gaussian, peaking between S and VS:
M 2.0%
D 6.5%
VD 15.1%
S 24.2%
VS 20.5%
HVS 11.9%
E1 7.4%
E2 4.5%
E3 2.2%
E4 1.2%
E5 0.6%
So, neatness (aka consistent widths of grades) dictates that the "real" grades are as just tabulated, with the others just meaning high or low in the grade. That also shows that "HVS" is indeed a real grade in its own right, since otherwise the neat smooth skewed-Gaussian curve would disappear.
Well look at it this way. If grade widths were sensible, then the number of climbs at each grade that people climb should make a smooth Gaussian-like curve (likely a skewed Gaussian, but still a smooth curve).
Now look at the UKC compilation of routes people do: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html and scroll down to "trad" under "climbs by grade". It very clearly is not anything like a smooth curve with equal numbers of each grade (e.g. 20.5% of ascents are VS, only 0.5% MVS).
However, if you take a sensible approach and add HS to S (and do similarly with the other oddities, HD, HVD, MS, MVS), then you get a nice smooth skewed Gaussian, peaking between S and VS:
M 2.0%
D 6.5%
VD 15.1%
S 24.2%
VS 20.5%
HVS 11.9%
E1 7.4%
E2 4.5%
E3 2.2%
E4 1.2%
E5 0.6%
So, neatness (aka consistent widths of grades) dictates that the "real" grades are as just tabulated, with the others just meaning high or low in the grade. That also shows that "HVS" is indeed a real grade in its own right, since otherwise the neat smooth skewed-Gaussian curve would disappear.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Which is not the same as 'not worth debating'
> Although it may be the same as 'not worth losing sleep over'.
Which is not the same as 'not worth debating'
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I've even seen hard mod and easy VD etc in some of the old guides. I guess you have to draw a line somewhere. I do like the Hard Very Strenuous/Slippery/Stupid concept though.
I've even seen hard mod and easy VD etc in some of the old guides. I guess you have to draw a line somewhere. I do like the Hard Very Strenuous/Slippery/Stupid concept though.
In reply to Michael Hood:
Good thing, otherwise this place would be pretty quiet...
Good thing, otherwise this place would be pretty quiet...
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How very orderly. However, I suggest to you that if the grades were used consistently you could take some of those Severes and some of those VS climbs and put a still smooth curve through the points with a grade inserted called HS (including all MVS climbs).
How very orderly. However, I suggest to you that if the grades were used consistently you could take some of those Severes and some of those VS climbs and put a still smooth curve through the points with a grade inserted called HS (including all MVS climbs).
In reply to Coel Hellier:
PS. If you scroll down a bit further and look at "sport" ( http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html ), you actually do see a nice smooth Gaussian-like curve, which implies that the Froggies have got their grade widths roughly right!
(Though there is an anomaly around F7a, which suggests that there are two populations of sport climbers, the fun-sport climber peaking at F6a and the serious-sport climber peaking at F7a.)
PS. If you scroll down a bit further and look at "sport" ( http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html ), you actually do see a nice smooth Gaussian-like curve, which implies that the Froggies have got their grade widths roughly right!
(Though there is an anomaly around F7a, which suggests that there are two populations of sport climbers, the fun-sport climber peaking at F6a and the serious-sport climber peaking at F7a.)
In reply to Offwidth: Best is in the FRCC Lakes Selected, it was bad enough wondering what the difference was between HS and MVS, but now what's the difference between a S+ and a HS-, a HS+ and a MVS-, a MVS+ and a VS-.
In reply to Offwidth:
It is!
Harrumph, however while it might still be a smooth curve it would be a lot less Gaussian-shaped, and thus un-physical and un-natural. And that would also involve admitting that Peak-grit guide writers (since grit is the most-climbed rock) have been using the grades S and VS incorrectly in abundance!
> How very orderly.
It is!
> However, I suggest to you that if the grades were used consistently you could take some of those
> Severes and some of those VS climbs and put a still smooth curve through the points with a grade
> inserted called HS (including all MVS climbs).
> Severes and some of those VS climbs and put a still smooth curve through the points with a grade
> inserted called HS (including all MVS climbs).
Harrumph, however while it might still be a smooth curve it would be a lot less Gaussian-shaped, and thus un-physical and un-natural. And that would also involve admitting that Peak-grit guide writers (since grit is the most-climbed rock) have been using the grades S and VS incorrectly in abundance!
In reply to Michael Hood:
Thats not quite what they mean though is it? Thats just the equivalent of a graded list designator.
I've also played with Coel's stats assuming the hidden grades really do exist but the labels we use are just wrong (splitting some diffs in HD,... ditto with VD and MS into HVD, Lumping MVS with HS and nicking some overgraded VS climbs). Also trying to guess the shape such a curve would need (whilst wondering what kind of scientist has a gaussian curve prediction for a lower bounded variable). Howzabout this:
M 2
D 2.6
HD 3.8
VD 6
HVD 8.3
S 13.4
HS 15.7
VS 15.7
HVS 11.9
etc
Thats not quite what they mean though is it? Thats just the equivalent of a graded list designator.
I've also played with Coel's stats assuming the hidden grades really do exist but the labels we use are just wrong (splitting some diffs in HD,... ditto with VD and MS into HVD, Lumping MVS with HS and nicking some overgraded VS climbs). Also trying to guess the shape such a curve would need (whilst wondering what kind of scientist has a gaussian curve prediction for a lower bounded variable). Howzabout this:
M 2
D 2.6
HD 3.8
VD 6
HVD 8.3
S 13.4
HS 15.7
VS 15.7
HVS 11.9
etc
In reply to Michael Hood:
(In reply to Offwidth) Best is in the FRCC Lakes Selected, it was bad enough wondering what the difference was between HS and MVS, but now what's the difference between a S+ and a HS-, a HS+ and a MVS-, a MVS+ and a VS-.
Where does HVS++! sit on the VS-HVS-E0-E1-E2 scale?
(In reply to Offwidth) Best is in the FRCC Lakes Selected, it was bad enough wondering what the difference was between HS and MVS, but now what's the difference between a S+ and a HS-, a HS+ and a MVS-, a MVS+ and a VS-.
Where does HVS++! sit on the VS-HVS-E0-E1-E2 scale?
In reply to Offwidth:
That's why I called it a skewed-Gaussian, the lower bound skews it (but not too badly if the median is sufficiently above the lower bound, which it is since comparatively few do Easys and Mods).
Well that involves a far bigger reassessment than simply admitting that a few rarely used labels are not full grades in their own right (HS is the only one with much use, according to the UKC stats, HVD occasionally and HD, MS and MVS very rarely).
> (whilst wondering what kind of scientist has a gaussian curve prediction for a lower bounded variable).
That's why I called it a skewed-Gaussian, the lower bound skews it (but not too badly if the median is sufficiently above the lower bound, which it is since comparatively few do Easys and Mods).
> assuming the hidden grades really do exist but the labels we use are just wrong (splitting some
> diffs in HD,... ditto with VD and MS into HVD, Lumping MVS with HS and nicking some overgraded VS climbs).
> diffs in HD,... ditto with VD and MS into HVD, Lumping MVS with HS and nicking some overgraded VS climbs).
Well that involves a far bigger reassessment than simply admitting that a few rarely used labels are not full grades in their own right (HS is the only one with much use, according to the UKC stats, HVD occasionally and HD, MS and MVS very rarely).
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Just below E1--
I think HVS++ means you have to sit around a few minutes recovering before taking in etc. Anyway it's only 5a.
> Where does HVS++! sit on the VS-HVS-E0-E1-E2 scale?
Just below E1--
I think HVS++ means you have to sit around a few minutes recovering before taking in etc. Anyway it's only 5a.
In reply to victim of mathematics:
Lorraine at Bowden should be upgraded if only to put people off trying it - read logbook comments and you'll see what I mean. It would be nice if the at least some of the flake was still there in x years' time.
Lorraine at Bowden should be upgraded if only to put people off trying it - read logbook comments and you'll see what I mean. It would be nice if the at least some of the flake was still there in x years' time.
In reply to Offwidth:
Well, I know the view is both heretic and probably a hanging offence, but I've come to terms with the fact that the UK trad scale is neither logical, nor consistent. The French sport grade is both, and therefore much more useful as a tool for direct comparison of the physical difficulty of routes. The same holds for bouldering scales.
That isn't to say that the UK trad scale isn't useful for those that understand its nuances. Unfortunately it has hard to resolve inconsistencies - and, as this thread and many others like it shows - quite a few people actually don't understand it, still believing the adjectival grade to be an estimate of risk or danger only.
Well, I know the view is both heretic and probably a hanging offence, but I've come to terms with the fact that the UK trad scale is neither logical, nor consistent. The French sport grade is both, and therefore much more useful as a tool for direct comparison of the physical difficulty of routes. The same holds for bouldering scales.
That isn't to say that the UK trad scale isn't useful for those that understand its nuances. Unfortunately it has hard to resolve inconsistencies - and, as this thread and many others like it shows - quite a few people actually don't understand it, still believing the adjectival grade to be an estimate of risk or danger only.
In reply to Stefan Kruger:
I'm not that sure any grading system escapes serious problems. Certainly from climbing lower grade sport in France and bouldering in Font and climbing US grades in Joshua Tree I know the logic and consistency of those grades can break down wholesale as well at the lower end and usually in the opposite direction from what you'd want to protect the more inexperinced punters. I'm a fan of good UK grading but like you am saddened by those who can't see the benefits of judging a little more than technicaliity vs risk.
I'm not that sure any grading system escapes serious problems. Certainly from climbing lower grade sport in France and bouldering in Font and climbing US grades in Joshua Tree I know the logic and consistency of those grades can break down wholesale as well at the lower end and usually in the opposite direction from what you'd want to protect the more inexperinced punters. I'm a fan of good UK grading but like you am saddened by those who can't see the benefits of judging a little more than technicaliity vs risk.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You make a good case against HVD, MS, MVS but IMO you're too hasty in condemning HS. There's lots of climbs graded HS, and making it a proper category wouldn't spoil the even distribution.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously and Offwidth)
>
>
> However, if you take a sensible approach and add HS to S (and do similarly with the other oddities, HD, HVD, MS, MVS), then you get a nice smooth skewed Gaussian, peaking between S and VS:
>
>
> However, if you take a sensible approach and add HS to S (and do similarly with the other oddities, HD, HVD, MS, MVS), then you get a nice smooth skewed Gaussian, peaking between S and VS:
You make a good case against HVD, MS, MVS but IMO you're too hasty in condemning HS. There's lots of climbs graded HS, and making it a proper category wouldn't spoil the even distribution.
Surely it all depends on where the hardest move is and how well its protected. If there is a bomb proof protection point where you can put 3 slings around just above the hardest move and you can set it up before you do the move then the trad grade will be lower than one where the hardest move is 2 meters above a small crack that you can just about get a micro nut into?
In reply to Offwidth:
Firstly, it's nonsense to say a HS leader can't manage 5b. If they can lead HS then they'll probably be seconding VS or HVS and will certainly encounter 5b moves. Leading ability is constrained not only by technical ability but confidence.
Secondly, these odd grades invariably refer to hard starts. So on HS 5b, if you can get off the ground, the rest of the route is a standard HS. In these cases, in a sense the start isn't really part of the route, since it's so out of character, so the tech grade of the first move need bear no relation to the grade of the main part of the route.
Firstly, it's nonsense to say a HS leader can't manage 5b. If they can lead HS then they'll probably be seconding VS or HVS and will certainly encounter 5b moves. Leading ability is constrained not only by technical ability but confidence.
Secondly, these odd grades invariably refer to hard starts. So on HS 5b, if you can get off the ground, the rest of the route is a standard HS. In these cases, in a sense the start isn't really part of the route, since it's so out of character, so the tech grade of the first move need bear no relation to the grade of the main part of the route.
In reply to Offwidth:
Once again the UK trad grading system is creating loads of controversy, but this system has served me extremely well climbing HS to E2 for nearly 40 years from when it was first introduced.
HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
Once again the UK trad grading system is creating loads of controversy, but this system has served me extremely well climbing HS to E2 for nearly 40 years from when it was first introduced.
HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
In reply to Martin Hore:
Give that man a cigar.
Al
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
>
> Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
Give that man a cigar.
Al
In reply to Martin Hore:
I think this is nice simple pragmatic approach. If you add the proviso that single disproportionately desperate move might occasionally crop up at a particular adjectival grade as long as it is easily overcome by combined tactics or pulling on solid gear (ie a point of aid), then I think it works.
Come to think of it, this is like the French obligataire grade.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
I think this is nice simple pragmatic approach. If you add the proviso that single disproportionately desperate move might occasionally crop up at a particular adjectival grade as long as it is easily overcome by combined tactics or pulling on solid gear (ie a point of aid), then I think it works.
Come to think of it, this is like the French obligataire grade.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
Judging by Finale at Shepherd's, HVS++! 5a actually means hard E1 5b.
>
> Where does HVS++! sit on the VS-HVS-E0-E1-E2 scale?
> Where does HVS++! sit on the VS-HVS-E0-E1-E2 scale?
Judging by Finale at Shepherd's, HVS++! 5a actually means hard E1 5b.
In reply to Martin Hore:
With respect, you're ignoring the context of the original question, which was about disproportionately hard starts. HS 5b tells you there's a 5b move to get off the ground, followed by a routine HS climb. That's a very different proposition from encountering the 5b move well above the ground, in which case VS 5b would be appropriate even though most of the climb was technically easier than that.
> >
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b.
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b.
With respect, you're ignoring the context of the original question, which was about disproportionately hard starts. HS 5b tells you there's a 5b move to get off the ground, followed by a routine HS climb. That's a very different proposition from encountering the 5b move well above the ground, in which case VS 5b would be appropriate even though most of the climb was technically easier than that.
In reply to Martin Hore:
The adjecteval grade is not a measure of how many people can climb it - the 6b bit tells you that! The E1 is an indication that it's a problem start in all probablility so no need for it to be E2/3 which is moste likely a one move wonder but en-route.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
>
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
>
The adjecteval grade is not a measure of how many people can climb it - the 6b bit tells you that! The E1 is an indication that it's a problem start in all probablility so no need for it to be E2/3 which is moste likely a one move wonder but en-route.
In reply to Offwidth:
To the origional question I'd have to say it depends on what the rest of the route is like.
There's a short VS 5c at Burbage N called Lost in France which has a 5c move to a big jug followed by about Diff/VDiff climbing. I'd say VS is fair for that, but if the top bit had a well protected 5a move (like you would expect from VS 5a), then I would lean towards HVS 5c.
To go the other way, consider Gunpodwer Crack at Bamford which I think is correct at VS 5b. A 5b start with a VS 4c ish route above. However imagine the finish was more like Diff, would the overall grade feel like VS or HS? (to be honest I don't know but it's an interesting debate).
To the origional question I'd have to say it depends on what the rest of the route is like.
There's a short VS 5c at Burbage N called Lost in France which has a 5c move to a big jug followed by about Diff/VDiff climbing. I'd say VS is fair for that, but if the top bit had a well protected 5a move (like you would expect from VS 5a), then I would lean towards HVS 5c.
To go the other way, consider Gunpodwer Crack at Bamford which I think is correct at VS 5b. A 5b start with a VS 4c ish route above. However imagine the finish was more like Diff, would the overall grade feel like VS or HS? (to be honest I don't know but it's an interesting debate).
In reply to Martin Hore:
Totally agree.
And as for a hard move near the ground getting a lower grade than a hard move high up, depending on gear I'd generally be happier falling into space than landing on a hard floor in tight climbing shoes.
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> Once again the UK trad grading system is creating loads of controversy, but this system has served me extremely well climbing HS to E2 for nearly 40 years from when it was first introduced.
>
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
>
> Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
>
> Once again the UK trad grading system is creating loads of controversy, but this system has served me extremely well climbing HS to E2 for nearly 40 years from when it was first introduced.
>
> HS 5b is not HS - it's VS 5b. Likewise, E1 6b is E2 (at least). Though I've climbed a fair range of E1's this year, I've no hope whatever of climbing 6b. I can't think I'm alone in that.
>
> Basic rule - take the "standard" tech grade for the E grade (VS 4c, HVS 5a etc) and allow a variation of 2 tech grades either side to indicate sustained/not sustained and safe/not safe. Any more than 2 out and the grade is wrong.
Totally agree.
And as for a hard move near the ground getting a lower grade than a hard move high up, depending on gear I'd generally be happier falling into space than landing on a hard floor in tight climbing shoes.
In reply to Jimbo C:
Nice illustration of the flexibility of UK grades
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> To the origional question I'd have to say it depends on what the rest of the route is like.
>
> There's a short VS 5c at Burbage N called Lost in France which has a 5c move to a big jug followed by about Diff/VDiff climbing. I'd say VS is fair for that, but if the top bit had a well protected 5a move (like you would expect from VS 5a), then I would lean towards HVS 5c.
>
> To go the other way, consider Gunpodwer Crack at Bamford which I think is correct at VS 5b. A 5b start with a VS 4c ish route above. However imagine the finish was more like Diff, would the overall grade feel like VS or HS? (to be honest I don't know but it's an interesting debate).
>
> To the origional question I'd have to say it depends on what the rest of the route is like.
>
> There's a short VS 5c at Burbage N called Lost in France which has a 5c move to a big jug followed by about Diff/VDiff climbing. I'd say VS is fair for that, but if the top bit had a well protected 5a move (like you would expect from VS 5a), then I would lean towards HVS 5c.
>
> To go the other way, consider Gunpodwer Crack at Bamford which I think is correct at VS 5b. A 5b start with a VS 4c ish route above. However imagine the finish was more like Diff, would the overall grade feel like VS or HS? (to be honest I don't know but it's an interesting debate).
Nice illustration of the flexibility of UK grades
In reply to Howard J:
I think the real case in point is Verandah Buttress - I can see how you could argue that by the time you're leading HS / VS you should have some trust in your gear, so a 5b move off the ground is no different from a 5b move with a bomber nut above your head. But a lot of VD / HVD leaders (myself included to some extent) are still not quite there on placing and trusting gear, and hence many of us (particularly people who've climbed indoors a lot or bouldered or climbed sport a lot) would have a crack at a 5b move off the ground and might get it, but wouldn't go near the same thing higher up a route, regardless of how well protected it was.
So if anything HVD 5b is a more useful grade than HS 5b...
> (In reply to Martin Hore)
> [...]
>
> With respect, you're ignoring the context of the original question, which was about disproportionately hard starts. HS 5b tells you there's a 5b move to get off the ground, followed by a routine HS climb. That's a very different proposition from encountering the 5b move well above the ground, in which case VS 5b would be appropriate even though most of the climb was technically easier than that.
> [...]
>
> With respect, you're ignoring the context of the original question, which was about disproportionately hard starts. HS 5b tells you there's a 5b move to get off the ground, followed by a routine HS climb. That's a very different proposition from encountering the 5b move well above the ground, in which case VS 5b would be appropriate even though most of the climb was technically easier than that.
I think the real case in point is Verandah Buttress - I can see how you could argue that by the time you're leading HS / VS you should have some trust in your gear, so a 5b move off the ground is no different from a 5b move with a bomber nut above your head. But a lot of VD / HVD leaders (myself included to some extent) are still not quite there on placing and trusting gear, and hence many of us (particularly people who've climbed indoors a lot or bouldered or climbed sport a lot) would have a crack at a 5b move off the ground and might get it, but wouldn't go near the same thing higher up a route, regardless of how well protected it was.
So if anything HVD 5b is a more useful grade than HS 5b...
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Aha - this is perhaps the fundamental difference between us. I think that the opposite is true. It's the adjectival grade that tells me whether I can climb it. And I mean climb it safely, on the lead, on sight and ground up.
So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade. And using the "2 tech grade variation rule" it works. Standard HVS is HVS 5a - if it's properly graded I can climb it. An exceptionally well protected one move wonder HVS is HVS 5c - I'll be risking a safe leader fall on the 5c move but I should make it. An exceptionally poorly protected HVS with ground fall potential is HVS 4b (Sunset Slab - I've done it - fluttery heart for sure, but I've done it, more than once, and it didn't feel unjustifyably dangerous).
But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
> (In reply to Martin Hore)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The adjecteval grade is not a measure of how many people can climb it - the 6b bit tells you that! The E1 is an indication that it's a problem start in all probablility so no need for it to be E2/3 which is moste likely a one move wonder but en-route.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The adjecteval grade is not a measure of how many people can climb it - the 6b bit tells you that! The E1 is an indication that it's a problem start in all probablility so no need for it to be E2/3 which is moste likely a one move wonder but en-route.
Aha - this is perhaps the fundamental difference between us. I think that the opposite is true. It's the adjectival grade that tells me whether I can climb it. And I mean climb it safely, on the lead, on sight and ground up.
So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade. And using the "2 tech grade variation rule" it works. Standard HVS is HVS 5a - if it's properly graded I can climb it. An exceptionally well protected one move wonder HVS is HVS 5c - I'll be risking a safe leader fall on the 5c move but I should make it. An exceptionally poorly protected HVS with ground fall potential is HVS 4b (Sunset Slab - I've done it - fluttery heart for sure, but I've done it, more than once, and it didn't feel unjustifyably dangerous).
But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
With Verandah Buttress, you can spend as long as you like studying it, discussing it and trying the moves, it it was off the ground that wouldn't be the case. Personally I think it is harder than 5b BUT the overall grade of HVDiff 5b tells you all you need to know.
The folk who are saying (eg) VS 6a is nonsense cos VS climbers can't get up 6a moves don't understand the system - so what's new?
Chris
With Verandah Buttress, you can spend as long as you like studying it, discussing it and trying the moves, it it was off the ground that wouldn't be the case. Personally I think it is harder than 5b BUT the overall grade of HVDiff 5b tells you all you need to know.
The folk who are saying (eg) VS 6a is nonsense cos VS climbers can't get up 6a moves don't understand the system - so what's new?
Chris
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Interesting point. But I think that climbs do need to be graded assuming a reasonable competence in placing the gear. If you're "not quite there yet on placing or trusting gear" you'll be taking that into account, I expect, when interpreting the grade in the guide book.
I've not done Verandah Butress for a while, but I remember thinking that 5b was perhaps slightly over-hyping it. If tradition will permit, how about HS 5a?
> (In reply to Howard J)
> [...]
>
> But a lot of VD / HVD leaders (myself included to some extent) are still not quite there on placing and trusting gear, and hence many of us (particularly people who've climbed indoors a lot or bouldered or climbed sport a lot) would have a crack at a 5b move off the ground and might get it, but wouldn't go near the same thing higher up a route, regardless of how well protected it was.
>
> So if anything HVD 5b is a more useful grade than HS 5b...
> [...]
>
> But a lot of VD / HVD leaders (myself included to some extent) are still not quite there on placing and trusting gear, and hence many of us (particularly people who've climbed indoors a lot or bouldered or climbed sport a lot) would have a crack at a 5b move off the ground and might get it, but wouldn't go near the same thing higher up a route, regardless of how well protected it was.
>
> So if anything HVD 5b is a more useful grade than HS 5b...
Interesting point. But I think that climbs do need to be graded assuming a reasonable competence in placing the gear. If you're "not quite there yet on placing or trusting gear" you'll be taking that into account, I expect, when interpreting the grade in the guide book.
I've not done Verandah Butress for a while, but I remember thinking that 5b was perhaps slightly over-hyping it. If tradition will permit, how about HS 5a?
In reply to Martin Hore:
Your statement suggests that you only determine your chances of success on a route by what you can 'mentally' climb (the adjectival grade), not what you 'physically' can (the tech. grade). If so, this seems like (a lot of) missed opportunities.
Your statement suggests that you only determine your chances of success on a route by what you can 'mentally' climb (the adjectival grade), not what you 'physically' can (the tech. grade). If so, this seems like (a lot of) missed opportunities.
In reply to Martin Hore:
I take your point and in general, ie within the 'normal' range of grade relationships( eg E1 5b E2 5c HVS 5a etc), the adjecteval grade will give you your best indicator of your chances but once the climb becomes less regular then thats when you can start playing around with the 2 parameters best describe the climb. HVS 6a is still a good description whether you can climb it or not!
I take your point and in general, ie within the 'normal' range of grade relationships( eg E1 5b E2 5c HVS 5a etc), the adjecteval grade will give you your best indicator of your chances but once the climb becomes less regular then thats when you can start playing around with the 2 parameters best describe the climb. HVS 6a is still a good description whether you can climb it or not!
In reply to Martin Hore:
Should it?
Chris
>
> So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade.
> So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade.
Should it?
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs: Can you explain how VB gets HVD 5b, when it's a 5b move followed by Severe climbing? Shouldn't it be HS at least?
In reply to Chris Craggs:
OK Chris - clearly I'm one of the people you think "don't understand the system", and I accept that your CV puts you well placed to comment. But in which particular way have I misunderstood it?
It's the adjectival grade that I expect to tell me whether I should be able get up the climb, within the margins of risk I'm prepared to accept. It was so when I started climnbing, before tech grades were invented, and it still is. The tech grades give me extra, highly valuable, information. Not just about the technical difficulty, but also about the amount and quality of protection to expect. The system as I understand it is an excellent one. Let's not lose it, or abuse it.
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
>
>
> The folk who are saying (eg) VS 6a is nonsense cos VS climbers can't get up 6a moves don't understand the system - so what's new?
>
> Chris
>
>
> The folk who are saying (eg) VS 6a is nonsense cos VS climbers can't get up 6a moves don't understand the system - so what's new?
>
> Chris
OK Chris - clearly I'm one of the people you think "don't understand the system", and I accept that your CV puts you well placed to comment. But in which particular way have I misunderstood it?
It's the adjectival grade that I expect to tell me whether I should be able get up the climb, within the margins of risk I'm prepared to accept. It was so when I started climnbing, before tech grades were invented, and it still is. The tech grades give me extra, highly valuable, information. Not just about the technical difficulty, but also about the amount and quality of protection to expect. The system as I understand it is an excellent one. Let's not lose it, or abuse it.
In reply to Martin Hore:
Maybe you should look at it the other way round, and see yourself as a 5b climber with the adjectival grade telling you the likelihood of getting up the route?
Chris
Maybe you should look at it the other way round, and see yourself as a 5b climber with the adjectival grade telling you the likelihood of getting up the route?
Chris
In reply to Offwidth: To quote rockfax:
"Adjectival grade: an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route."
Personally id consider myself a solid E1 leader. I reckon I could onsight 95% of E1s. I could onsight maybe 25-50% of 6b boulder problems. I dont see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
I realise this argument is based on my own perception of my abilities, but in my experience people operating with similar margins to me (i.e. solid at E1) cannot onsight 6b boulder problems with anywhere near the same frequency.
To put it another way, if you're onsighting 6b moves you can climb harder than E1.
"Adjectival grade: an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route."
Personally id consider myself a solid E1 leader. I reckon I could onsight 95% of E1s. I could onsight maybe 25-50% of 6b boulder problems. I dont see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
I realise this argument is based on my own perception of my abilities, but in my experience people operating with similar margins to me (i.e. solid at E1) cannot onsight 6b boulder problems with anywhere near the same frequency.
To put it another way, if you're onsighting 6b moves you can climb harder than E1.
In reply to Fraser:
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting. Currently I'm reasonably happy pointing myself at E1 5b. What opportunities am I missing - E3 5b perhaps? I think I value my life too much. Wouldn't this logic see a lot of HS climbers lying injured at the foot of Sunset Slab?
I think one of the misunderstandings here might be that I've always understood the adjectival grade to be an "overall" grade (mental + physical) not just a "mental" grade.
> (In reply to Martin Hore)
>
> Your statement suggests that you only determine your chances of success on a route by what you can 'mentally' climb (the adjectival grade), not what you 'physically' can (the tech. grade). If so, this seems like (a lot of) missed opportunities.
>
> Your statement suggests that you only determine your chances of success on a route by what you can 'mentally' climb (the adjectival grade), not what you 'physically' can (the tech. grade). If so, this seems like (a lot of) missed opportunities.
Thanks for the advice, but I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting. Currently I'm reasonably happy pointing myself at E1 5b. What opportunities am I missing - E3 5b perhaps? I think I value my life too much. Wouldn't this logic see a lot of HS climbers lying injured at the foot of Sunset Slab?
I think one of the misunderstandings here might be that I've always understood the adjectival grade to be an "overall" grade (mental + physical) not just a "mental" grade.
In reply to remus:
I'm with you here, as you can tell from my posts (though my "solid" grade is currently HVS rather than E1). Thanks for quoting the RockFax definition. So which part of the RockFax definition does Chris C disagree with?
> (In reply to Offwidth) To quote rockfax:
> "Adjectival grade: an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route."
>
> Personally id consider myself a solid E1 leader. I reckon I could onsight 95% of E1s. I could onsight maybe 25-50% of 6b boulder problems. I dont see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
> "Adjectival grade: an overall picture of the route including how well protected it is, how sustained and a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route."
>
> Personally id consider myself a solid E1 leader. I reckon I could onsight 95% of E1s. I could onsight maybe 25-50% of 6b boulder problems. I dont see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
> I realise this argument is based on my own perception of my abilities, but in my experience people operating with similar margins to me (i.e. solid at E1) cannot onsight 6b boulder problems with anywhere near the same frequency.
>
> To put it another way, if you're onsighting 6b moves you can climb harder than E1.
>
> To put it another way, if you're onsighting 6b moves you can climb harder than E1.
I'm with you here, as you can tell from my posts (though my "solid" grade is currently HVS rather than E1). Thanks for quoting the RockFax definition. So which part of the RockFax definition does Chris C disagree with?
In reply to Martin Hore:
I don't think that you are misunderstanding. I hate to use the word when we are viewing the system as objective but I always think of it being a measure of how the route "feels" overall.
Al
> (In reply to Fraser)
> I think one of the misunderstandings here might be that I've always understood the adjectival grade to be an "overall" grade (mental + physical) not just a "mental" grade.
> I think one of the misunderstandings here might be that I've always understood the adjectival grade to be an "overall" grade (mental + physical) not just a "mental" grade.
I don't think that you are misunderstanding. I hate to use the word when we are viewing the system as objective but I always think of it being a measure of how the route "feels" overall.
Al
In reply to remus:
But on an E1 with a 6b boulder problem start you don't have to "onsight" the boulder problem, you can work it repeatedly and fall off repeatedly without blowing the "onsight" for the route (presuming only that you don't weight gear). So if you could work ~95% of 6b boulder problems then it's in line.
This, I presume, is the justification for allowing routes to have very hard starts, whereas if the move were higher on the route then the adjectival grade would be higher.
> I reckon I could onsight 95% of E1s. I could onsight maybe 25-50% of 6b boulder problems. I dont
> see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole
> route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
> see how the grade of E1 can give 'a general indication of the level of difficulty of the whole
> route' but be significantly harder to onsight at the same time. They're contradictory statements.
But on an E1 with a 6b boulder problem start you don't have to "onsight" the boulder problem, you can work it repeatedly and fall off repeatedly without blowing the "onsight" for the route (presuming only that you don't weight gear). So if you could work ~95% of 6b boulder problems then it's in line.
This, I presume, is the justification for allowing routes to have very hard starts, whereas if the move were higher on the route then the adjectival grade would be higher.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think some are reading too much into the separate parts of the grades and then saying its inconsistent. It's the overall realtionship that gives the overall picture. If you can on-sight 95% of E1's then maybe the E1 6b is in the 5% the your'e not going to!
I think some are reading too much into the separate parts of the grades and then saying its inconsistent. It's the overall realtionship that gives the overall picture. If you can on-sight 95% of E1's then maybe the E1 6b is in the 5% the your'e not going to!
In reply to Coel Hellier: Personally i consider the onsight blown if I fall off, regardless of whether gear is weighted or not.
In reply to Bulls Crack: The point of the adjectival grade is to give you an overall picture of the route, though. Granted the technical grade then enhances that picture but the point o the adjectival grade is, at the end of the day, to tell you how hard the route is.
For the record, id consider myself a reasonable boulderer which is part of the reason I dont think E1 6b makes sense.
For the record, id consider myself a reasonable boulderer which is part of the reason I dont think E1 6b makes sense.
In reply to Martin Hore:
But would you go up to a route listed as HVS 6a and have a go at it (because it's HVS, and you can climb HVS) and then get surprised when you can't do the start? Or would you realize from the 6a part that you won't be able to do it and hence not bother, while someone who (for whatever reason) boulders at 6a but can only lead HVS would have a crack at it and stand a fair chance of getting up?
Regardless of what the grading system is 'meant to be about' (and I basically agree with you on this), HVS 6a or HS 5b is actually a useful description of a route that lets you know what it's going to be like and how likely you are to be able to get up it...
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
> [...]
>
> Aha - this is perhaps the fundamental difference between us. I think that the opposite is true. It's the adjectival grade that tells me whether I can climb it. And I mean climb it safely, on the lead, on sight and ground up.
>
> So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade. And using the "2 tech grade variation rule" it works. Standard HVS is HVS 5a - if it's properly graded I can climb it. An exceptionally well protected one move wonder HVS is HVS 5c - I'll be risking a safe leader fall on the 5c move but I should make it. An exceptionally poorly protected HVS with ground fall potential is HVS 4b (Sunset Slab - I've done it - fluttery heart for sure, but I've done it, more than once, and it didn't feel unjustifyably dangerous).
>
> But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
> [...]
>
> Aha - this is perhaps the fundamental difference between us. I think that the opposite is true. It's the adjectival grade that tells me whether I can climb it. And I mean climb it safely, on the lead, on sight and ground up.
>
> So, this year I've successfully led a fair sprinkling of E1's in that style. That doesn't mean I can currently climb all E1's but it should mean I can currently climb all properly graded HVS's - whatever their technical grade. And using the "2 tech grade variation rule" it works. Standard HVS is HVS 5a - if it's properly graded I can climb it. An exceptionally well protected one move wonder HVS is HVS 5c - I'll be risking a safe leader fall on the 5c move but I should make it. An exceptionally poorly protected HVS with ground fall potential is HVS 4b (Sunset Slab - I've done it - fluttery heart for sure, but I've done it, more than once, and it didn't feel unjustifyably dangerous).
>
> But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
But would you go up to a route listed as HVS 6a and have a go at it (because it's HVS, and you can climb HVS) and then get surprised when you can't do the start? Or would you realize from the 6a part that you won't be able to do it and hence not bother, while someone who (for whatever reason) boulders at 6a but can only lead HVS would have a crack at it and stand a fair chance of getting up?
Regardless of what the grading system is 'meant to be about' (and I basically agree with you on this), HVS 6a or HS 5b is actually a useful description of a route that lets you know what it's going to be like and how likely you are to be able to get up it...
In reply to Offwidth: I have always just looked at the tech grade of a route and never the fall to your death grade, the way I have always looked at it is, if I can climb to the technical grade and I think the chances of falling are slim I will climb it. Say I can climb 6c easily, every time, I don`t see the difference between if the rout is E1 6c or E10 6c the "E" bit id all in your head... Having climbed in Northumberland all my life, where many of the routs are under graded and a lot of the protection is crap, and due to the low height of the routes chances are that even if one piece of gear rips you will deck out I find it the best way to go.
Thats how I look at it and it works for me.
Thats how I look at it and it works for me.
In reply to Ramblin dave: Does HVS 6a really tell you much more than E1 6a though?
In reply to dan:
Now suppose you can onsight 6c about 50% of the time. Then I'm sure you would see the difference between E1 6c and E10 6c.
> Say I can climb 6c easily, every time, I don`t see the difference between if the rout is E1 6c or E10 6c
Now suppose you can onsight 6c about 50% of the time. Then I'm sure you would see the difference between E1 6c and E10 6c.
In reply to Coel Hellier: Yes you are right butthe way I look at it is when you get above about E6 ish you are pretty much screwed if you fall any way!!
In reply to remus: Not me so much, because I can't climb HVS or 6a.
But for HS (or S) 5b vs VS 5b, yeah, I think it does. It tells you that if you don't normally lead VS but you can do 5b moves you've got a chance of doing the route.
But for HS (or S) 5b vs VS 5b, yeah, I think it does. It tells you that if you don't normally lead VS but you can do 5b moves you've got a chance of doing the route.
In reply to Ramblin dave: If you can do 5b moves i think you could climb harder than HS (assuming, as we must, that you're a proficient leader trying as hard as they can.)
In reply to remus:
OK so what would? E4?
>
> For the record, id consider myself a reasonable boulderer which is part of the reason I dont think E1 6b makes sense.
> For the record, id consider myself a reasonable boulderer which is part of the reason I dont think E1 6b makes sense.
OK so what would? E4?
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yes is the answer. I would go up to and try a route graded HVS 6a, on the assumption from that grade that it would be (a) challenging for me and (b) very safe, even if I can't make the move. However, if I succeeded, I would probably be voting for a downgrade to HVS 5c on the logbook page, and if I failed, an upgrade to E1 6a. Regardless of the outcome I would be questioning the validity of the HVS 6a grade I'm afraid.
I'm finding it difficult to imagine that there are people out there who boulder at UK tech 6a and can't lead above HVS for any other reason than that trad leading isn't their scene, which is fine (just as bouldering isn't mine, in case that wasn't already obvious). The UK trad grading system is intended for, and works well for, ground-up on-sight trad ascents and in my vierw should be geared to those who are into this aspect of the sport. It doesn't need changing to suit those who are primarily into something else, be that redpointing, headpointing or bouldering - all equally valid, but different.
> (In reply to Martin Hore)
> [...]
>
> But would you go up to a route listed as HVS 6a and have a go at it (because it's HVS, and you can climb HVS) and then get surprised when you can't do the start? Or would you realize from the 6a part that you won't be able to do it and hence not bother, while someone who (for whatever reason) boulders at 6a but can only lead HVS would have a crack at it and stand a fair chance of getting up?
>
> Regardless of what the grading system is 'meant to be about' (and I basically agree with you on this), HVS 6a or HS 5b is actually a useful description of a route that lets you know what it's going to be like and how likely you are to be able to get up it...
> [...]
>
> But would you go up to a route listed as HVS 6a and have a go at it (because it's HVS, and you can climb HVS) and then get surprised when you can't do the start? Or would you realize from the 6a part that you won't be able to do it and hence not bother, while someone who (for whatever reason) boulders at 6a but can only lead HVS would have a crack at it and stand a fair chance of getting up?
>
> Regardless of what the grading system is 'meant to be about' (and I basically agree with you on this), HVS 6a or HS 5b is actually a useful description of a route that lets you know what it's going to be like and how likely you are to be able to get up it...
Yes is the answer. I would go up to and try a route graded HVS 6a, on the assumption from that grade that it would be (a) challenging for me and (b) very safe, even if I can't make the move. However, if I succeeded, I would probably be voting for a downgrade to HVS 5c on the logbook page, and if I failed, an upgrade to E1 6a. Regardless of the outcome I would be questioning the validity of the HVS 6a grade I'm afraid.
I'm finding it difficult to imagine that there are people out there who boulder at UK tech 6a and can't lead above HVS for any other reason than that trad leading isn't their scene, which is fine (just as bouldering isn't mine, in case that wasn't already obvious). The UK trad grading system is intended for, and works well for, ground-up on-sight trad ascents and in my vierw should be geared to those who are into this aspect of the sport. It doesn't need changing to suit those who are primarily into something else, be that redpointing, headpointing or bouldering - all equally valid, but different.
In reply to Bulls Crack: E2 6b, obviously!
In reply to Martin Hore:
It's not wrongly graded, it's an HVS climb with a bouldering start. How would you grade it instead? If you insist that the technical grades must fit into a particular range of adjectival grades in all circumstances then this example would have to be E2 6a - "safe" E2. That's clearly wrong, and gives a totally false impression of the climb.
HVS 6a shows that it isn't beyond your ability, although admittedly you'll find the start very tricky. HVS 6a tells you that if you do manage to get off the ground you should have no problem with the rest of the route, so why not give it a try? Even if you think it's highly unlikely you'll manage the 6a move you might get lucky, and as it's just off the ground then surely it's worth a go. If the climb were graded E2 6a you'd steer well clear of it.
These out-of-kilter grades actually show how the grading system can be used to convey a lot of information about a route.
>
> But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
> But HVS 6a (the equivalent of HS 5b - 3 tech grades off standard) is beyond my ability. No matter how easy the rest of the route is, I'm highly unlikely to get past the 6a move, even if it's the move off the ground. If I could I'd be getting up E2's, at least. So HVS 6a is not HVS - In my view it's wrongly graded - and HS 5b is exactly the same.
It's not wrongly graded, it's an HVS climb with a bouldering start. How would you grade it instead? If you insist that the technical grades must fit into a particular range of adjectival grades in all circumstances then this example would have to be E2 6a - "safe" E2. That's clearly wrong, and gives a totally false impression of the climb.
HVS 6a shows that it isn't beyond your ability, although admittedly you'll find the start very tricky. HVS 6a tells you that if you do manage to get off the ground you should have no problem with the rest of the route, so why not give it a try? Even if you think it's highly unlikely you'll manage the 6a move you might get lucky, and as it's just off the ground then surely it's worth a go. If the climb were graded E2 6a you'd steer well clear of it.
These out-of-kilter grades actually show how the grading system can be used to convey a lot of information about a route.
In reply to Howard J:
Al
> (In reply to Martin Hore)
> [...]
>
You are right. I don't like these "out of kilter" grades but I think that says more about the route than the grading system.> [...]
>
Al
In reply to wayno265:
That'll be a no then!
> (In reply to Chris Craggs) Can you explain how VB gets HVD 5b, when it's a 5b move followed by Severe climbing? Shouldn't it be HS at least?
That'll be a no then!
In reply to remus:
Same here, rightly or wrongly.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Personally i consider the onsight blown if I fall off, regardless of whether gear is weighted or not.
Same here, rightly or wrongly.
In reply to wayno265:
Is there really such an adjectival grade as HVD???
> (In reply to Chris Craggs) Can you explain how VB gets HVD 5b,
Is there really such an adjectival grade as HVD???
In reply to Fraser: Yes.
In reply to Martin Hore:
In reply to Martin Hore:
Under the trad grading system "safe" usually means a safe fall. On a normal climb with a 6a move well above the ground where you're relying on gear, then to grade it HVS 6a would be wrong, no matter how safe the fall or how bomber the gear, or how easy the rest of the climb. However for the types of climbs we're talking about, as often as not "safe" means simply stepping back down to the ground again. That's a very different proposition, and is why these unbalanced grades do make sense - they reveal the unbalanced nature of the climb.
I can't speak for HVS 6a, but I've done HS 5b and it certainaly doesn't feel like VS, let alone HVS. It feels like what the grade suggests - a HS climb with a trick start, which I may or may not be able to do and which may take several attempts, but once I've done it the rest of the climb is within my ability.
In reply to Martin Hore:
> I would go up to and try a route graded HVS 6a, on the assumption from that grade that it would be (a) challenging for me and (b) very safe, even if I can't make the move.
Under the trad grading system "safe" usually means a safe fall. On a normal climb with a 6a move well above the ground where you're relying on gear, then to grade it HVS 6a would be wrong, no matter how safe the fall or how bomber the gear, or how easy the rest of the climb. However for the types of climbs we're talking about, as often as not "safe" means simply stepping back down to the ground again. That's a very different proposition, and is why these unbalanced grades do make sense - they reveal the unbalanced nature of the climb.
I can't speak for HVS 6a, but I've done HS 5b and it certainaly doesn't feel like VS, let alone HVS. It feels like what the grade suggests - a HS climb with a trick start, which I may or may not be able to do and which may take several attempts, but once I've done it the rest of the climb is within my ability.
In reply to dan:
Someone else who doesn't understand the grading system?
Chris
> Yes you are right butthe way I look at it is when you get above about E6 ish you are pretty much screwed if you fall any way!!
Someone else who doesn't understand the grading system?
Chris
In reply to wayno265:
What do you want me to explain? It is HVDiff 5b, cos it is a 5b start followed by ledge shuffling.
Chris
> (In reply to Chris Craggs) Can you explain how VB gets HVD 5b, when it's a 5b move followed by Severe climbing? Shouldn't it be HS at least?
What do you want me to explain? It is HVDiff 5b, cos it is a 5b start followed by ledge shuffling.
Chris
In reply to wayno265:
If it's a boulder problem start that you can jump off or reverese that just becomes part of the routes character when you attempt it - wouldn't affect any onsight ethic imo
If it's a boulder problem start that you can jump off or reverese that just becomes part of the routes character when you attempt it - wouldn't affect any onsight ethic imo
In reply to remus:
I'd agree; boulder starts are slightly easier because you can faff around for ages with a really wide ledge to stand on and lower yourself back down to (ie the ground) - the same move from smaller holds is much more serious. Reversing a move because you've not quite got it right - if you don't actually ping off - doesn't blow the onsight though, surely?
Meanwhile, my take on it is that the adjectival grade is my chance of going home crocked, the technical grade is the absolute hardest bit. If one or other is well out of kilter then I can usually guess why - crap rock and no pro, or well-protected one move wonder. The amount of detail and nuance in the UK grading system is one of its strengths, even if some people find their ego pricked by a VS they can't climb.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Personally i consider the onsight blown if I fall off, regardless of whether gear is weighted or not.
I'd agree; boulder starts are slightly easier because you can faff around for ages with a really wide ledge to stand on and lower yourself back down to (ie the ground) - the same move from smaller holds is much more serious. Reversing a move because you've not quite got it right - if you don't actually ping off - doesn't blow the onsight though, surely?
Meanwhile, my take on it is that the adjectival grade is my chance of going home crocked, the technical grade is the absolute hardest bit. If one or other is well out of kilter then I can usually guess why - crap rock and no pro, or well-protected one move wonder. The amount of detail and nuance in the UK grading system is one of its strengths, even if some people find their ego pricked by a VS they can't climb.
In reply to Chris Craggs: Severe ledge shuffling according to the Rockfax text.
In reply to dan:
Actually there are many E6’s that are safer to fall on than some HVS’s.
The grade is an overall guide taking many factors in to account, not a rule or just a safety indicator, at any grade.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Yes you are right butthe way I look at it is when you get above about E6 ish you are pretty much screwed if you fall any way!!
Actually there are many E6’s that are safer to fall on than some HVS’s.
The grade is an overall guide taking many factors in to account, not a rule or just a safety indicator, at any grade.
In reply to dan:
Not necessarily true. There are some absolutely desperate routes that have good protection and get E6 and above. Screaming Dream at Froggatt is one I can think of, and Warmlove on the Cowper Stone, Marbellous (Stanage). Block and Tackle (Higgar Tor). Sorry I can't think of any non-grit examples, but generally safe 6c/7a moves will give you an adj grade in the mid-high E numbers.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier) Yes you are right but the way I look at it is when you get above about E6 ish you are pretty much screwed if you fall any way!!
Not necessarily true. There are some absolutely desperate routes that have good protection and get E6 and above. Screaming Dream at Froggatt is one I can think of, and Warmlove on the Cowper Stone, Marbellous (Stanage). Block and Tackle (Higgar Tor). Sorry I can't think of any non-grit examples, but generally safe 6c/7a moves will give you an adj grade in the mid-high E numbers.
In reply to Chris Craggs: No worries - always struck me as a bit odd. Not that I ever intend to do it!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...