This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Ok, I don’t really think so, at least not yet. However it could be that our grading system is under threat from sport climbing, or less dramatically, maybe it is in the process of evolution.
I have noticed the increasing use of the French sport grade in combination with the trad E grade. The UK tech grade if included, is maybe added as an afterthought. This trend seems to be occurring in talk both down at the crag, at both low and High E grades and in published reports.
Quote from a recent UKC article on “Do you know who your children are” in the Leap.
“James was initially unsure of the grade, suggesting maybe E8 or E9. Repeat ascensionists have settled the grade down to E8 and Mawson described the route as being a runout 7c+ with reasonable gear.”
I can probably guess the English tech grade, but surely it would be quoted in the text without having to search around.
Trad grades in the UK of course use the English tech grade describing the hardest move in combination adjective grade to give an overall flavour of the route and supported by text. The French grade is different as it describes the overall route difficulties.
Would this change, if it is true, make our trad system better or does it just add yet another layer of confusion for those not in the know?
I have noticed the increasing use of the French sport grade in combination with the trad E grade. The UK tech grade if included, is maybe added as an afterthought. This trend seems to be occurring in talk both down at the crag, at both low and High E grades and in published reports.
Quote from a recent UKC article on “Do you know who your children are” in the Leap.
“James was initially unsure of the grade, suggesting maybe E8 or E9. Repeat ascensionists have settled the grade down to E8 and Mawson described the route as being a runout 7c+ with reasonable gear.”
I can probably guess the English tech grade, but surely it would be quoted in the text without having to search around.
Trad grades in the UK of course use the English tech grade describing the hardest move in combination adjective grade to give an overall flavour of the route and supported by text. The French grade is different as it describes the overall route difficulties.
Would this change, if it is true, make our trad system better or does it just add yet another layer of confusion for those not in the know?
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb: And for the vast majority of us who bimble around on routes between Diff and E1, this all means absolutely nothing to us, nor will it. I would imagine that in the next 50 years, the route you talk about will only be climbed a dozen times. Does anyone really care how the 12 climbers who do it think it should be graded?
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb: Isn't this just about top-end routes being described better by french + E grades, because at that level the Brit tech grade is too broad? The Brit tech grade gives a good idea of cruxy v. sustained, which the french grade doesn't, so I think it's better for your average route (it doesn't take much common sense to work out if an E3 5b is sustained or bold). No need to change owt IMO.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I think a sport grade with a protection qualifier (say 0-10 with set levels of expected protection for each number) would actually give more information.
I think a sport grade with a protection qualifier (say 0-10 with set levels of expected protection for each number) would actually give more information.
In reply to CurlyStevo: I don't think that would work, because the difficulty of a route depends on where the gear is in relation to the holds, not just the amount/regularity/quality of the gear.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb: I think the trad grade has been proven, over time, to work well for grades up to E5. I can't comment on harder grades but as long as they don't mess about with the grades that I have grown to know and love I don't really care. Having said all that I'm afraid the logic of comparing the two let alone combining them is totally beyond my comprehension. I just don't get it. I still believe that the UK system tells you all you want to know about a climb and as it is a two dimensional system will always be superior to a linear one.
Al
Al
In reply to EeeByGum:
Not true, I have used the E- grade as an example. There are others such as Offwidth who have low grade climbers interests at heart. The issue affects low grade routes as well but in a slightly different disguise. See other threads going on at the moment.
> (In reply to MikeYouCanClimb) And for the vast majority of us who bimble around on routes between Diff and E1, this all means absolutely nothing to us, nor will it.
Not true, I have used the E- grade as an example. There are others such as Offwidth who have low grade climbers interests at heart. The issue affects low grade routes as well but in a slightly different disguise. See other threads going on at the moment.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I think the Langdale guide uses a mix of trad and sports grades at the harder end of the spectrum and, though that was an experiment (and it's quite an old guide now), that general trend has continued in the reporting of hard routes. I think that is partly (but only partly) because the english technical grade does (supposedly) become useless at the top end. Of course, the sports grade also tells you how physically hard it is in an overall sense which is quite useful too.
I've yet to see it filter down into anything below the high E's. I do wonder, however, if it will catch on at much lower grades given that so many people now either sport climb outside or at the wall. I can think of certain well protected routes mid grade routes where a sports grade would give a good idea as to what is required. I'm sure I've had discussions with friends along the lines of "Finale <HVS 5a> is pretty much what you'd expect of a f6a with good pro". However, at these grades, for 99% of the time, the english tech grade will make sense and the adjectival grade should give you most of the rest.
In short, it already has happened to an extent and I suspect it will become increasingly used simply because so many Brits now use sports grades on a day to day basis.
I think the Langdale guide uses a mix of trad and sports grades at the harder end of the spectrum and, though that was an experiment (and it's quite an old guide now), that general trend has continued in the reporting of hard routes. I think that is partly (but only partly) because the english technical grade does (supposedly) become useless at the top end. Of course, the sports grade also tells you how physically hard it is in an overall sense which is quite useful too.
I've yet to see it filter down into anything below the high E's. I do wonder, however, if it will catch on at much lower grades given that so many people now either sport climb outside or at the wall. I can think of certain well protected routes mid grade routes where a sports grade would give a good idea as to what is required. I'm sure I've had discussions with friends along the lines of "Finale <HVS 5a> is pretty much what you'd expect of a f6a with good pro". However, at these grades, for 99% of the time, the english tech grade will make sense and the adjectival grade should give you most of the rest.
In short, it already has happened to an extent and I suspect it will become increasingly used simply because so many Brits now use sports grades on a day to day basis.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I assumed that he didn't place the gear on the lead and was grading it as a clip up.
>
> Mawson described the route as being a runout 7c+ with reasonable gear.”
>
> Mawson described the route as being a runout 7c+ with reasonable gear.”
>
I assumed that he didn't place the gear on the lead and was grading it as a clip up.
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
Well it would do, if it were implemented properly. But at the high end there has been so much reluctance to grade things more than 6c or perhaps 7a that those grades have become very compacted and thus it has become much less useful -- which is why people are turning to French grades, with much finer divisions, instead.
The solution is to regard the tech grade as open ended, and not capped at 7a!
> I just don't get it. I still believe that the UK system tells you all you want to know about a climb ...
Well it would do, if it were implemented properly. But at the high end there has been so much reluctance to grade things more than 6c or perhaps 7a that those grades have become very compacted and thus it has become much less useful -- which is why people are turning to French grades, with much finer divisions, instead.
The solution is to regard the tech grade as open ended, and not capped at 7a!
In reply to CurlyStevo:
But still lacks info on how technically hard a route is apart from by equating it back to a possoible technical difficulty ie it could be a one move wonder or sustained at a lower tech grade.
Routes will always have a hardest move and for the majority of routes thois is reasonably represented by the tech grade.
> (In reply to MikeYouCanClimb)
> I think a sport grade with a protection qualifier (say 0-10 with set levels of expected protection for each number) would actually give more information.
> I think a sport grade with a protection qualifier (say 0-10 with set levels of expected protection for each number) would actually give more information.
But still lacks info on how technically hard a route is apart from by equating it back to a possoible technical difficulty ie it could be a one move wonder or sustained at a lower tech grade.
Routes will always have a hardest move and for the majority of routes thois is reasonably represented by the tech grade.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I am not changing anything, nor do I think anyone else is either, my point is that it appears to be happening all by itself.
> ( No need to change owt IMO.
I am not changing anything, nor do I think anyone else is either, my point is that it appears to be happening all by itself.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
That's just the same as saying that an E grade / tech grade combo means nothing!
Anyway I was envisaging something along the lines:
0 - no gear
10 - bolt protected
5 - crux well protected but easier sections not protected but ground fall unlikely
3 - some protection but large falls likely from the crux with ground falls possible from some sections only a bit easier than this
etc
> (In reply to CurlyStevo) I don't think that would work, because the difficulty of a route depends on where the gear is in relation to the holds, not just the amount/regularity/quality of the gear.
That's just the same as saying that an E grade / tech grade combo means nothing!
Anyway I was envisaging something along the lines:
0 - no gear
10 - bolt protected
5 - crux well protected but easier sections not protected but ground fall unlikely
3 - some protection but large falls likely from the crux with ground falls possible from some sections only a bit easier than this
etc
In reply to snoop6060:
I guess even you do, otherwise why waste time replying at all.
> Seriously, more grade debates? Who gives a flying f*ck.
I guess even you do, otherwise why waste time replying at all.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Personally I don't think the hardest move is that usefull as information goes, I'd rather know how physically hard the climb is as a whole (with no mental aspects) and how good the gear is.
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
> [...]
>
> But still lacks info on how technically hard a route is apart from by equating it back to a possoible technical difficulty ie it could be a one move wonder or sustained at a lower tech grade.
>
> Routes will always have a hardest move and for the majority of routes thois is reasonably represented by the tech grade.
> [...]
>
> But still lacks info on how technically hard a route is apart from by equating it back to a possoible technical difficulty ie it could be a one move wonder or sustained at a lower tech grade.
>
> Routes will always have a hardest move and for the majority of routes thois is reasonably represented by the tech grade.
Personally I don't think the hardest move is that usefull as information goes, I'd rather know how physically hard the climb is as a whole (with no mental aspects) and how good the gear is.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb: Its' not dead but it should be killed off. Beyond British 6a it's just so broad it's pointless. Once you get to 6c it can be anywhere between f7b and f8b which are whole different worlds of difficulty.
I notice in the borrowdale guide most of the hard routes are given say
E6-6b (7a+) or something because people actually want to know how hard it is. Not some number which gives an approximation of 'hard', or 'really hard' then some nonsense that could mean its bold or could equally mean its sustained without any way of knowing. What if it's both?
All you need to know is, how hard is it to get to the top of the climb compared to similar style climbs and are you going to get hurt if you fall off. You'll find out soon enough if it's a stamina fest or just two hard power moves and an easy finish if its worth mentioning it'll be in the description.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
As someone said above, the problem with this (particularly at lower grades) is that trad routes tend to have quite distinct cruxes. Sports routes are by their nature more sustained even at the lower grades. Therefore, the hardest move english tech grade is often useful info on a trad route where that may genuinely determine whether you can physically get up the thing or not.
> I'd rather know how physically hard the climb is as a whole
As someone said above, the problem with this (particularly at lower grades) is that trad routes tend to have quite distinct cruxes. Sports routes are by their nature more sustained even at the lower grades. Therefore, the hardest move english tech grade is often useful info on a trad route where that may genuinely determine whether you can physically get up the thing or not.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Not quite sure what your point is. My point is that most of the mid grade routes have established grades. If you climb a VS 4c, you don't generally say in the pub later on "hmmmm well it felt more like F5 to me." And it is a brave guidebook writer who decides to throw away the best part of a centuries grading for a new one. Take the infamous bouldering B grades in the Peak for example. "B grades?" I hear you say. Exactly.
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
> [...]
>
> Not true, I have used the E- grade as an example. There are others such as Offwidth who have low grade climbers interests at heart. The issue affects low grade routes as well but in a slightly different disguise. See other threads going on at the moment.
> [...]
>
> Not true, I have used the E- grade as an example. There are others such as Offwidth who have low grade climbers interests at heart. The issue affects low grade routes as well but in a slightly different disguise. See other threads going on at the moment.
Not quite sure what your point is. My point is that most of the mid grade routes have established grades. If you climb a VS 4c, you don't generally say in the pub later on "hmmmm well it felt more like F5 to me." And it is a brave guidebook writer who decides to throw away the best part of a centuries grading for a new one. Take the infamous bouldering B grades in the Peak for example. "B grades?" I hear you say. Exactly.
In reply to JonC:
do you really think that?
tonnes of climbs don't have much of a crux.
Anyway sport grades cover that just fine. Personally I find I can much more reliably do one UK 5b with much easier climbing aropund it than 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this. I can turn your argument around on it's self and say there's plenty of HVS 5bs out there that you can't tell from the grade which is which!
do you really think that?
tonnes of climbs don't have much of a crux.
Anyway sport grades cover that just fine. Personally I find I can much more reliably do one UK 5b with much easier climbing aropund it than 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this. I can turn your argument around on it's self and say there's plenty of HVS 5bs out there that you can't tell from the grade which is which!
In reply to EeeByGum:
Personally I'm not saying we should change the system I just don't beleive it's that optimal in the information it conveys.
Personally I'm not saying we should change the system I just don't beleive it's that optimal in the information it conveys.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I'm a great believer that the UK tech grade should be scrapped and just an adjective grade used.
More adventurous
Means people have to be less blasé about their capabilities
I'm a great believer that the UK tech grade should be scrapped and just an adjective grade used.
More adventurous
Means people have to be less blasé about their capabilities
There's 2 ways it could go, either the simple F6a route or the even more descriptive E4 (C6, P3, S6); C for crux difficulty, P for level of protection, S for sustained rating. The sum of the 3 leads to the adjective score for the route, so E4 would be anything scoring 14-16. Rockfax already hint towards this with their fluttery symbol and the P scoring did pretty much the same.
I don't feel the current system is broken in any way and gives enough information to enable the climber to have an idea if they feel up for the climb, and this doesn't include looking at the climb from the ground. Knowing too much surely takes away some of the mystery of the climb.
I don't feel the current system is broken in any way and gives enough information to enable the climber to have an idea if they feel up for the climb, and this doesn't include looking at the climb from the ground. Knowing too much surely takes away some of the mystery of the climb.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Well Brit Tech grades also differentiate between this (this is one of the secrets of our grading system). While our tech grade is supposed to be the hardest move, it is actually how the hardest moves *feels*, and a move will feel harder if coming after a strenuous and sustained section, so gets a higher tech grade.
It can also feel harder when you're further from your gear of course, which also affects the tech grade given.
> Personally I find I can much more reliably do one UK 5b with much easier climbing aropund it than
> 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this.
> 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this.
Well Brit Tech grades also differentiate between this (this is one of the secrets of our grading system). While our tech grade is supposed to be the hardest move, it is actually how the hardest moves *feels*, and a move will feel harder if coming after a strenuous and sustained section, so gets a higher tech grade.
It can also feel harder when you're further from your gear of course, which also affects the tech grade given.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
That's the bit I just don't get. How exactly? I thought that one of the things sports climbers moan about is exactly that i.e. French grades DON'T differentiate between cruxy and sustained.
Al
> (In reply to JonC)
>
> tonnes of climbs don't have much of a crux.
>
> Anyway sport grades cover that just fine. Personally I find I can much more reliably do one UK 5b with much easier climbing aropund it than 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this.
>
> tonnes of climbs don't have much of a crux.
>
> Anyway sport grades cover that just fine. Personally I find I can much more reliably do one UK 5b with much easier climbing aropund it than 3 in a row with 5a climbing either side and sport grades would differentiate between this.
That's the bit I just don't get. How exactly? I thought that one of the things sports climbers moan about is exactly that i.e. French grades DON'T differentiate between cruxy and sustained.
Al
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
If it aint broke dont fix it, the problem seems to appear in the upper extremes, so it appears, so let whoever climbs at that level sort something out for those grades and leave the rest alone.
If it aint broke dont fix it, the problem seems to appear in the upper extremes, so it appears, so let whoever climbs at that level sort something out for those grades and leave the rest alone.
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
perhaps you can't tell which it is from the grade, my point is you don't need to as most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
perhaps you can't tell which it is from the grade, my point is you don't need to as most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
(In reply to Jon Stewart)
No, because the E grade should give a good impression of the scariness of a route, without specifying explicitly how good/bad the gear is.
For example, a route may have no gear but not be very scary because the crux is low, e.g. Shock Horror slab E1 6b. If that crux were at the top, it would be something like E5 6b, but there's still no gear. That's the magic of the two dimensional grading system.
Since SHS is a slab, it's not pumpy, so if the crux were at the top, would the french grade still be the same (about f6c I suppose, but what a dreadful system for grading bouldery routes!). The brit grading system strikes a really good balance of describing lots of different kinds of difficulty for lots of different types of routes. E.g. those E4 5b routes on Gogarth - you know what you're in for there!
(In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> That's just the same as saying that an E grade / tech grade combo means nothing!
>
> That's just the same as saying that an E grade / tech grade combo means nothing!
No, because the E grade should give a good impression of the scariness of a route, without specifying explicitly how good/bad the gear is.
For example, a route may have no gear but not be very scary because the crux is low, e.g. Shock Horror slab E1 6b. If that crux were at the top, it would be something like E5 6b, but there's still no gear. That's the magic of the two dimensional grading system.
Since SHS is a slab, it's not pumpy, so if the crux were at the top, would the french grade still be the same (about f6c I suppose, but what a dreadful system for grading bouldery routes!). The brit grading system strikes a really good balance of describing lots of different kinds of difficulty for lots of different types of routes. E.g. those E4 5b routes on Gogarth - you know what you're in for there!
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Not me - it's stopper moves that stop me getting up trad routes. When I get to a "5c" move that's actually 6a, I tend to fail on the route (not because I'm physically unable to do the move, but because I can't onsight it). But it's sustained sequences that stop me redpointing sport routes, which tend to be overhanging and demand power endurance and/or stamina. Thus the french grade is right for sport routes (especially good for redpointing as the route-reading/luck/beta element is removed), the brit grade right for trad routes (onsight grade).
> (In reply to Al Randall)
most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.Not me - it's stopper moves that stop me getting up trad routes. When I get to a "5c" move that's actually 6a, I tend to fail on the route (not because I'm physically unable to do the move, but because I can't onsight it). But it's sustained sequences that stop me redpointing sport routes, which tend to be overhanging and demand power endurance and/or stamina. Thus the french grade is right for sport routes (especially good for redpointing as the route-reading/luck/beta element is removed), the brit grade right for trad routes (onsight grade).
In reply to Jon Stewart:
So do you never climb sustained pumpy trad routes? Or do you just not care how they're graded? Regardless of what trad routes "tend" to be like, there are plenty of all sorts around...
In any case, the point of the French grade isn't that it tells you how pumpy a route is - it's that it describes the overall difficulty equally well for routes where the pumpiness is an issue and for routes where it isn't - whereas the UK tech grade doesn't. If all the trad routes you climb are cruxy then the French grades will still make sense for them...
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
> [...]
> most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
>
> Not me - it's stopper moves that stop me getting up trad routes. When I get to a "5c" move that's actually 6a, I tend to fail on the route (not because I'm physically unable to do the move, but because I can't onsight it). But it's sustained sequences that stop me redpointing sport routes, which tend to be overhanging and demand power endurance and/or stamina.
> [...]
> most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
>
> Not me - it's stopper moves that stop me getting up trad routes. When I get to a "5c" move that's actually 6a, I tend to fail on the route (not because I'm physically unable to do the move, but because I can't onsight it). But it's sustained sequences that stop me redpointing sport routes, which tend to be overhanging and demand power endurance and/or stamina.
So do you never climb sustained pumpy trad routes? Or do you just not care how they're graded? Regardless of what trad routes "tend" to be like, there are plenty of all sorts around...
In any case, the point of the French grade isn't that it tells you how pumpy a route is - it's that it describes the overall difficulty equally well for routes where the pumpiness is an issue and for routes where it isn't - whereas the UK tech grade doesn't. If all the trad routes you climb are cruxy then the French grades will still make sense for them...
In reply to Ramblin dave: I do climb pumpy sustained trad routes, but in the low E's I'm climbing there's always rests. I can't remember the last time I failed by pumping out while climbing the moves correctly. When I pump out, it's always because I'm hanging on trying a hard move the wrong way (or I cock something up and get into a 'can't go up, can't go down' situation).
The UK tech grade on its own is pretty useless. But the brit grading system is great for the reasons I give above.
The UK tech grade on its own is pretty useless. But the brit grading system is great for the reasons I give above.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm not lobbying parliament for the introduction of french tech grades into the UK trad grading system or anything, but can you describe some examples of routes where (adjective + french grade) is less useful than (adjective + UK tech grade)...
I'm not lobbying parliament for the introduction of french tech grades into the UK trad grading system or anything, but can you describe some examples of routes where (adjective + french grade) is less useful than (adjective + UK tech grade)...
In reply to Ramblin dave: I think that the brit system is the same as adj + french. Nothing would be gained or lost by giving the french grade instead of the UK tech grade. I was arguing against french grade + protection rating.
Because it's raining.
Because it's raining.
In reply to Ramblin dave: Or perhaps, considering that the UK system has been in use for sometime it would be better to do it the other way round i.e. you should describe examples where adjective + French is better than Adjective + UK technical.
Al
Al
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
The UK grading is a bit broken because the tricky tech grades aren't specific enough. All overall grades are matched with a tech grade up to E2 5c, so you can gain extra information that comes with having mismatched tech and overall grades. E3 6a isn't matched though, as most E3's are 5c. E4's are mostly 6a, but then a lot of E5's are 6a too. If the grades were spilt to match them it'd be better as it'd give more info and french grades would not have to be relied on:
E3 6a
E4 6b
E5 6c
E6 7a
E7 7b
E8 7c
E9 8a
E10 8b
E11 8c
Currently this tech grade spread is 6a-7a, whereas if the tech grades were matched to overall there would be 9, increasing accuracy.
The UK grading is a bit broken because the tricky tech grades aren't specific enough. All overall grades are matched with a tech grade up to E2 5c, so you can gain extra information that comes with having mismatched tech and overall grades. E3 6a isn't matched though, as most E3's are 5c. E4's are mostly 6a, but then a lot of E5's are 6a too. If the grades were spilt to match them it'd be better as it'd give more info and french grades would not have to be relied on:
E3 6a
E4 6b
E5 6c
E6 7a
E7 7b
E8 7c
E9 8a
E10 8b
E11 8c
Currently this tech grade spread is 6a-7a, whereas if the tech grades were matched to overall there would be 9, increasing accuracy.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Perhaps. But it still allows for a lot of adventure which is surely what trad climbing is all about. The flip side is a bit like the Rockfax guides where you have a grade, star rating and then multitude of symbols denoting characteristics of the route on top of a description that sometimes gives away key gear placements. I am sure some quite like this, but I find it detracts away from adventure rather too much.
If a grading system gave away all that a climb had to offer, why would you bother climbing it if only to tick it off in your guide afterwards?
> Personally I'm not saying we should change the system I just don't beleive it's that optimal in the information it conveys.
Perhaps. But it still allows for a lot of adventure which is surely what trad climbing is all about. The flip side is a bit like the Rockfax guides where you have a grade, star rating and then multitude of symbols denoting characteristics of the route on top of a description that sometimes gives away key gear placements. I am sure some quite like this, but I find it detracts away from adventure rather too much.
If a grading system gave away all that a climb had to offer, why would you bother climbing it if only to tick it off in your guide afterwards?
In reply to jonnie3430: What you have described are the strengths of the UK system not the weaknesses. If the two were inextricably linked as I think you are suggesting there would be little point in having a two dimensional system. The fact that an E2 can be 5b, 5c or in a few cases 5a or 6a is a good thing.
Al
Al
In reply to jonnie3430:
This just isn't a problem unless you have a sort of anal need for neatness in the system. The only problem, apparently, is compression at 6c and above and this could easily be solved by decompressing and allowing more 7a, 7b etc
> (In reply to MikeYouCanClimb)
> The UK grading is a bit broken because the tricky tech grades aren't specific enough. All overall grades are matched with a tech grade up to E2 5c, so you can gain extra information that comes with having mismatched tech and overall grades. E3 6a isn't matched though..........
This just isn't a problem unless you have a sort of anal need for neatness in the system. The only problem, apparently, is compression at 6c and above and this could easily be solved by decompressing and allowing more 7a, 7b etc
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I completely disagree. I think many people will have a quite low techincal grade ceiling. I can lead E1 5b, I can lead E2 5b, but I will often fail on 5c moves (on sight). Therefore, the english technical grade is quite valuable knowledge for many people.
And, yes, I do think that most trad routes are quite cruxy. Most trad routes (even quite hard ones) have plenty of easier climbing to hang around and place gear, interspersed with more difficult sections. Until you get into much harder routes overall. Of course we all know exceptions where there is sustained steep climbing even at fairly lowly grades but they tend to be the exception to the rule. Whereas most sports routes are pretty sustained. I thought this was quite well acknowledged.
> my point is you don't need to as most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
I completely disagree. I think many people will have a quite low techincal grade ceiling. I can lead E1 5b, I can lead E2 5b, but I will often fail on 5c moves (on sight). Therefore, the english technical grade is quite valuable knowledge for many people.
And, yes, I do think that most trad routes are quite cruxy. Most trad routes (even quite hard ones) have plenty of easier climbing to hang around and place gear, interspersed with more difficult sections. Until you get into much harder routes overall. Of course we all know exceptions where there is sustained steep climbing even at fairly lowly grades but they tend to be the exception to the rule. Whereas most sports routes are pretty sustained. I thought this was quite well acknowledged.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This is simply not true either in principle or in practice. If there are isolated examples then they are wrongly graded and a misuse of the grading system.
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
While our tech grade is supposed to be the hardest move, it is actually how the hardest moves *feels*, and a move will feel harder if coming after a strenuous and sustained section, so gets a higher tech grade.This is simply not true either in principle or in practice. If there are isolated examples then they are wrongly graded and a misuse of the grading system.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
It is a F6a+ with shit gear. It is a F6a+ with good gear. That tells everybody what they need to know, no?
Although if I climb the F6a+ with shit gear, I'll be awarded an E2. That sounds much more hardcore!
It is a F6a+ with shit gear. It is a F6a+ with good gear. That tells everybody what they need to know, no?
Although if I climb the F6a+ with shit gear, I'll be awarded an E2. That sounds much more hardcore!
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
That is not what he is suggesting! He is just saying it would be neater if every adjectival had a standard tech grade associated with it on a one to one basis which might then move up or down to add information about the route. At the moment, E2 is strongly centred on 5c whereas E5 is split roughly evenly between 6a anmd 6b. He sees this as a problem. I do not (even without considering the confusion which would result from attempting standardisation!)
> (In reply to jonnie3430) What you have described are the strengths of the UK system not the weaknesses. If the two were inextricably linked as I think you are suggesting......
That is not what he is suggesting! He is just saying it would be neater if every adjectival had a standard tech grade associated with it on a one to one basis which might then move up or down to add information about the route. At the moment, E2 is strongly centred on 5c whereas E5 is split roughly evenly between 6a anmd 6b. He sees this as a problem. I do not (even without considering the confusion which would result from attempting standardisation!)
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:
That's the point - the French system doesn't *attempt* to differentiate between cruxy and sustained - it's an overall assessment of how hard the route is to climb, by the most efficient sequence, after practice. Yes, really. That means that a 7b should require the same band of ability wherever it is. Within that envelope, it works magically as a comparison tool. If a route is more sustained, it gets a higher grade. If a route has a harder crux, it also gets a harder grade. Easy to understand: to climb this route, you need to be of 7b standard - implying the ability to cope with a certain level of sustainedness, and a certain technical proficiency.
>
> That's the bit I just don't get. How exactly? I thought that one of the things sports climbers moan about is exactly that i.e. French grades DON'T differentiate between cruxy and sustained.
> That's the bit I just don't get. How exactly? I thought that one of the things sports climbers moan about is exactly that i.e. French grades DON'T differentiate between cruxy and sustained.
That's the point - the French system doesn't *attempt* to differentiate between cruxy and sustained - it's an overall assessment of how hard the route is to climb, by the most efficient sequence, after practice. Yes, really. That means that a 7b should require the same band of ability wherever it is. Within that envelope, it works magically as a comparison tool. If a route is more sustained, it gets a higher grade. If a route has a harder crux, it also gets a harder grade. Easy to understand: to climb this route, you need to be of 7b standard - implying the ability to cope with a certain level of sustainedness, and a certain technical proficiency.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Whatever the principle, I fail to see how it could avoid being true (at least to quite an extent) in practice.
> This is simply not true either in principle or in practice.
Whatever the principle, I fail to see how it could avoid being true (at least to quite an extent) in practice.
In reply to JimmyKay:
Unless you wqant toi know whether it is a F6a+ with a single 5c move or a F6a+ with lots of pumpy 4c moves.
> It is a F6a+ with shit gear. It is a F6a+ with good gear. That tells everybody what they need to know, no?
Unless you wqant toi know whether it is a F6a+ with a single 5c move or a F6a+ with lots of pumpy 4c moves.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well it isn't true in practice, so there must be a reason why it avoids being true! Probably because most experienced climbers can tell the difference between 5c and 6a even when a bit tired.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> [...]
>
> Whatever the principle, I fail to see how it could avoid being true (at least to quite an extent) in practice.
>
> [...]
>
> Whatever the principle, I fail to see how it could avoid being true (at least to quite an extent) in practice.
Well it isn't true in practice, so there must be a reason why it avoids being true! Probably because most experienced climbers can tell the difference between 5c and 6a even when a bit tired.
In reply to Robert Durran: Agree with you and others who think the UK grading system works pretty well (just needs un-compressing).
Besides, with a piece of graph paper, hours of fun and debate can be had by plotting adjectival grades on the x axis and tech grades on the y axis - e.g. a '5-square' route could be E3, 4c or HVS, 6a. I've managed to convert all the Rockfax grit guides into squares. Often my climbing partner and I play a Countdown-style 'choose a route then climb it' game at the crag - I pretend he's Carol Vorderman and ask 'Can I have a safe 4-square route, Carol?'. I climb it. Then he'll try and outscore me by asking me ('Carol') for 'a necky 5-square'. It's great fun (well it was, till he decked out rather nastily on a necky 7-squarer).
btw I wonder how many French climbing forums have threads like 'Le systeme de cotation francaise, est-il mort?'
Besides, with a piece of graph paper, hours of fun and debate can be had by plotting adjectival grades on the x axis and tech grades on the y axis - e.g. a '5-square' route could be E3, 4c or HVS, 6a. I've managed to convert all the Rockfax grit guides into squares. Often my climbing partner and I play a Countdown-style 'choose a route then climb it' game at the crag - I pretend he's Carol Vorderman and ask 'Can I have a safe 4-square route, Carol?'. I climb it. Then he'll try and outscore me by asking me ('Carol') for 'a necky 5-square'. It's great fun (well it was, till he decked out rather nastily on a necky 7-squarer).
btw I wonder how many French climbing forums have threads like 'Le systeme de cotation francaise, est-il mort?'
In reply to Stefan Kruger:
I never thought or said it did I merely pointed out that there have been many posts on here where sports climbers have complained about that.
Al
> (In reply to Al Randall)
> [...]
>
> That's the point - the French system doesn't *attempt* to differentiate between cruxy and sustained
> [...]
>
> That's the point - the French system doesn't *attempt* to differentiate between cruxy and sustained
I never thought or said it did I merely pointed out that there have been many posts on here where sports climbers have complained about that.
Al
In reply to Cornelius Kite:
Well they should have! Or probably more likely "les grimpeurs Francais, sont-ils morts?" as soon as they try to apply their grading system to trad routes and end up with 6b+ being anything between about E1 and E4.
> btw I wonder how many French climbing forums have threads like 'Le systeme de cotation francaise, est-il mort?'
Well they should have! Or probably more likely "les grimpeurs Francais, sont-ils morts?" as soon as they try to apply their grading system to trad routes and end up with 6b+ being anything between about E1 and E4.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I think at the end of the day, traditional climbing is graded using the British system. Sport climbing is graded using the French(European)system. I don't think that this is ever going to change. I don't really understand why there is a new thread like this started every day of the week.
I think at the end of the day, traditional climbing is graded using the British system. Sport climbing is graded using the French(European)system. I don't think that this is ever going to change. I don't really understand why there is a new thread like this started every day of the week.
In reply to Robert Durran:
OK, for example:
No move on Billy Whizz would, in isolation on a short boulder problem, get more than 5b. It only feels 5c because of the overall strenuousness.
Being slightly more provocative, the "5a" move at the start of Jeffcoat's Buttress (HS 5a), Roaches, is harder than any individual move on Billy Whizz (graded 5c). It just feels easier because you're totally rested as you try it off the ground. If that move were the top-out move of Billy Whizz (with all that sustained strenuousness below) it would get 6a.
OK, for example:
No move on Billy Whizz would, in isolation on a short boulder problem, get more than 5b. It only feels 5c because of the overall strenuousness.
Being slightly more provocative, the "5a" move at the start of Jeffcoat's Buttress (HS 5a), Roaches, is harder than any individual move on Billy Whizz (graded 5c). It just feels easier because you're totally rested as you try it off the ground. If that move were the top-out move of Billy Whizz (with all that sustained strenuousness below) it would get 6a.
In reply to JimmyKay:
No, only the British grade trad routes using the British system. Everyone else muddles through with their own system and, at least in the case of French grades being used for trad, it is pretty inadequate in comparison.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> I think at the end of the day, traditional climbing is graded using the British system. Sport climbing is graded using the French(European)system. I don't think that this is ever going to change.
>
> I think at the end of the day, traditional climbing is graded using the British system. Sport climbing is graded using the French(European)system. I don't think that this is ever going to change.
No, only the British grade trad routes using the British system. Everyone else muddles through with their own system and, at least in the case of French grades being used for trad, it is pretty inadequate in comparison.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I would contend that your examples (with which I am not recently familiar)are therefore mis-gradings. They are exceptions rather than the rule.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> OK, for example......
>
> OK, for example......
I would contend that your examples (with which I am not recently familiar)are therefore mis-gradings. They are exceptions rather than the rule.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
We need a full reassessment of the tech grade relationship to adjectival grade right the way from E0 to E12...
We need a full reassessment of the tech grade relationship to adjectival grade right the way from E0 to E12...
In reply to Robert Durran:
But that's just it isn't it. Only the british use the British system. The French use the French system. Everyone else uses their own system. We just use what we're taught/brought up with. Yes there is an argument that because there are now 10times as many climbers then there was ten years ago because of the indoor wall boom, myself included, that the majority of British climbers are more comfortable with French Grades. BUT, I still think all the history and 'tradition' etc, means that the British grading system is never going to die out. Besides it would be too much effort to go through every route in the country and give it a new grade. And back to my original argument; HVS route climbers are more a lot more manly than F5 climbers aren't they!!
The British system used to be used for grading sport routes, but the French way seems much better no?
But that's just it isn't it. Only the british use the British system. The French use the French system. Everyone else uses their own system. We just use what we're taught/brought up with. Yes there is an argument that because there are now 10times as many climbers then there was ten years ago because of the indoor wall boom, myself included, that the majority of British climbers are more comfortable with French Grades. BUT, I still think all the history and 'tradition' etc, means that the British grading system is never going to die out. Besides it would be too much effort to go through every route in the country and give it a new grade. And back to my original argument; HVS route climbers are more a lot more manly than F5 climbers aren't they!!
The British system used to be used for grading sport routes, but the French way seems much better no?
In reply to JimmyKay:
That shouldn't read 'ONLY the British use...', it should read 'The British use...'
That shouldn't read 'ONLY the British use...', it should read 'The British use...'
In reply to JimmyKay:
No, only the British, by showing flexibility and adopting the superior French ststem for sport are getting the best of both worlds. We might be on the way to going one stage better and adding a French grade to the UK adjectival plus tech grade for trad. Everyone else seems stuck with their one dimensional inflexible systems.
It could easily be done as new guide books appear (add a French grade).
Absolutely. Just my point!
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> But that's just it isn't it. Only the british use the British system. The French use the French system. Everyone else uses their own system. We just use what we're taught/brought up with.
>
> But that's just it isn't it. Only the british use the British system. The French use the French system. Everyone else uses their own system. We just use what we're taught/brought up with.
No, only the British, by showing flexibility and adopting the superior French ststem for sport are getting the best of both worlds. We might be on the way to going one stage better and adding a French grade to the UK adjectival plus tech grade for trad. Everyone else seems stuck with their one dimensional inflexible systems.
> Besides it would be too much effort to go through every route in the country and give it a new grade.
It could easily be done as new guide books appear (add a French grade).
> The British system used to be used for grading sport routes, but the French way seems much better no?
Absolutely. Just my point!
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'd be very very surprised if that were the case. It's not really the ethically done thing these days to head point on pre placed gear.
> I assumed that he didn't place the gear on the lead and was grading it as a clip up.
I'd be very very surprised if that were the case. It's not really the ethically done thing these days to head point on pre placed gear.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yeah I think that would be very beneficial. I don't buy all the -overloading of route information- nonsense. I'd fully like to know that Resurrection is E4 6a F6c. Because that pretty much tells you most of what you need to know, right?
Yeah I think that would be very beneficial. I don't buy all the -overloading of route information- nonsense. I'd fully like to know that Resurrection is E4 6a F6c. Because that pretty much tells you most of what you need to know, right?
In reply to All:
This has been done to death before. Have a read at my post (and the others) on:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=434742&lgn=93590
In short, everything is fine up to around E6. Above E6, a lot of people are going to use combined E and French / Font grades on the majority of routes.
Why? From the post just referred to:
"The majority of top end trad climbers talk about physical difficulty in terms of French / Font grades. They tend to have climbed lots and lots of Fr8as or Font 7Cs, but only a few routes of comparable physical difficulty as trad routes. Thus it is not surprising, that when it comes to grading their new trad route, they usually turn to their vast experience of French or Font grades to compare the new route to – rather than trying to extend the UK tech grade system, where they would have done very few trad routes of similar physical difficulty to compare with."
If you want someone with (a lot!) more credibility saying pretty much the same thing:
Talking about hard routes Dave Macleod summed it up nicely:
"climbers these days use french sport grades to give an impression of the physical difficulty of a route because it gives you much more useful information"
"Going back to UK tech grades, they can be virtually useless anyway because there is no consensus or even standard between differnet types of route. I think they might die out for hard routes, if they haven't already."
http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/2006/07/grades-again.html
This has been done to death before. Have a read at my post (and the others) on:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=434742&lgn=93590
In short, everything is fine up to around E6. Above E6, a lot of people are going to use combined E and French / Font grades on the majority of routes.
Why? From the post just referred to:
"The majority of top end trad climbers talk about physical difficulty in terms of French / Font grades. They tend to have climbed lots and lots of Fr8as or Font 7Cs, but only a few routes of comparable physical difficulty as trad routes. Thus it is not surprising, that when it comes to grading their new trad route, they usually turn to their vast experience of French or Font grades to compare the new route to – rather than trying to extend the UK tech grade system, where they would have done very few trad routes of similar physical difficulty to compare with."
If you want someone with (a lot!) more credibility saying pretty much the same thing:
Talking about hard routes Dave Macleod summed it up nicely:
"climbers these days use french sport grades to give an impression of the physical difficulty of a route because it gives you much more useful information"
"Going back to UK tech grades, they can be virtually useless anyway because there is no consensus or even standard between differnet types of route. I think they might die out for hard routes, if they haven't already."
http://davemacleod.blogspot.com/2006/07/grades-again.html
In reply to AJM:
It was a bit tongue in cheek, but you never know...
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
>
> [...]
>
> I'd be very very surprised if that were the case. It's not really the ethically done thing these days to head point on pre placed gear.
>
> [...]
>
> I'd be very very surprised if that were the case. It's not really the ethically done thing these days to head point on pre placed gear.
It was a bit tongue in cheek, but you never know...
In reply to CurlyStevo:
And some people can't. Some of us have stamina at the tech grade we can climb and a head for making moves above gear but are just too creaky and inflexible to do tech moves of a higher grade regardless of how good the gear is. I can climb sustained 5a and some 5b, above gear but I can't climb 5c as a boulder move off the floor. In the local French guidebooks they sometimes indicate a 'bloc' move on cruxy routes at a given grade, something that the Brit tech grade tells you in better detail.
> (In reply to Al Randall)
> perhaps you can't tell which it is from the grade, my point is you don't need to as most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
> perhaps you can't tell which it is from the grade, my point is you don't need to as most people can do a harder cruxy move compared with sustained moves of the same difficulty.
And some people can't. Some of us have stamina at the tech grade we can climb and a head for making moves above gear but are just too creaky and inflexible to do tech moves of a higher grade regardless of how good the gear is. I can climb sustained 5a and some 5b, above gear but I can't climb 5c as a boulder move off the floor. In the local French guidebooks they sometimes indicate a 'bloc' move on cruxy routes at a given grade, something that the Brit tech grade tells you in better detail.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I don't climb at a particularly high grade but give me a UK tech grade and I know what you are on about. If you start quoting French bits and bobs and some strange bouldering thing that sounds like some weird aspect of microsoft software I ain't got a clue. The old guides to round my way had UK tech grades and it does t'job. Bloody foreign muck...
(despite the last comment, I am serious - if not, why not go the whole hog and have Australian grades at West nab??)
I don't climb at a particularly high grade but give me a UK tech grade and I know what you are on about. If you start quoting French bits and bobs and some strange bouldering thing that sounds like some weird aspect of microsoft software I ain't got a clue. The old guides to round my way had UK tech grades and it does t'job. Bloody foreign muck...
(despite the last comment, I am serious - if not, why not go the whole hog and have Australian grades at West nab??)
In reply to Robert Durran:
No they don't... R/X in YSD tells pretty much all you need to know with the difficulty part (5.12 R, you bloody well need to be climbing 5.12 be it sustained or cruxy, and falling on such a route is not adviced while prolly not deadly).
Similar other systems are used elsewhere as well. Technical difficulty needed to climb it together with some sort of info on the protection. This works especially well for single pitch stuff.
> Everyone else seems stuck with their one dimensional inflexible systems.
No they don't... R/X in YSD tells pretty much all you need to know with the difficulty part (5.12 R, you bloody well need to be climbing 5.12 be it sustained or cruxy, and falling on such a route is not adviced while prolly not deadly).
Similar other systems are used elsewhere as well. Technical difficulty needed to climb it together with some sort of info on the protection. This works especially well for single pitch stuff.
In reply to HeMa:
E5 6a P2 anyone?
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> No they don't... R/X in YSD tells pretty much all you need to know with the difficulty part (5.12 R, you bloody well need to be climbing 5.12 be it sustained or cruxy, and falling on such a route is not adviced while prolly not deadly).
>
> [...]
>
> No they don't... R/X in YSD tells pretty much all you need to know with the difficulty part (5.12 R, you bloody well need to be climbing 5.12 be it sustained or cruxy, and falling on such a route is not adviced while prolly not deadly).
>
E5 6a P2 anyone?
In reply to Nemo:
A good summary of where we are now, obviously lot’s of thought from many contributors.
The attached UKC report and associated blog attempted to deal with the issue and contained lots of information with plenty of useful observations, suggestions, summaries etc
However I could find no common agreement of what the problem actually is.
So I suppose it is not surprising I could not find any proper recommendations or a proposed solution connected to any real implementation plan either.
There is head of steam being generated naturally, particularly at grades E6 upwards. That is the greater general acceptance that French sport grades can supplement and maybe even replace UK tech grades over time. This fragmented solution can not last though if standards continue to rise. Today’s hard routes at E6 up may become the trade routes of tomorrow. (assuming you don’t have too walk far!).
If the solution can work for the hard grades it should work for the low grades too. Similar issues and dangers exist and I could argue that the dangers can be actually greater in many cases at lower grades, despite the Aura surrounding high E numbers. But why introduce a split and further complicate an already complicated system?
Yes it would be good to start again, but that will never happen without a revolution. Projects using the “blue sky” approach often end up just as complicated as the one they are trying to replace.
Someone might just come up with that bit of magic. Until then it will continue to be discussed with the future emerging slowly, but naturally.
A good summary of where we are now, obviously lot’s of thought from many contributors.
The attached UKC report and associated blog attempted to deal with the issue and contained lots of information with plenty of useful observations, suggestions, summaries etc
However I could find no common agreement of what the problem actually is.
So I suppose it is not surprising I could not find any proper recommendations or a proposed solution connected to any real implementation plan either.
There is head of steam being generated naturally, particularly at grades E6 upwards. That is the greater general acceptance that French sport grades can supplement and maybe even replace UK tech grades over time. This fragmented solution can not last though if standards continue to rise. Today’s hard routes at E6 up may become the trade routes of tomorrow. (assuming you don’t have too walk far!).
If the solution can work for the hard grades it should work for the low grades too. Similar issues and dangers exist and I could argue that the dangers can be actually greater in many cases at lower grades, despite the Aura surrounding high E numbers. But why introduce a split and further complicate an already complicated system?
Yes it would be good to start again, but that will never happen without a revolution. Projects using the “blue sky” approach often end up just as complicated as the one they are trying to replace.
Someone might just come up with that bit of magic. Until then it will continue to be discussed with the future emerging slowly, but naturally.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Hard French graded routes are sometimes broken into boulder problems and given V grades. Should we scrap French grades while were at it?
They're all just tools.
> (In reply to Nemo)
> There is head of steam being generated naturally, particularly at grades E6 upwards. That is the greater general acceptance that French sport grades can supplement and maybe even replace UK tech grades over time.
> There is head of steam being generated naturally, particularly at grades E6 upwards. That is the greater general acceptance that French sport grades can supplement and maybe even replace UK tech grades over time.
Hard French graded routes are sometimes broken into boulder problems and given V grades. Should we scrap French grades while were at it?
They're all just tools.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Just to summarise...
It isn't true in practice but there are many practical examples of when it is true but they are wrong therefore Big Bobby Durran is right?
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> I would contend that your examples are therefore mis-gradings
> I would contend that your examples are therefore mis-gradings
Just to summarise...
It isn't true in practice but there are many practical examples of when it is true but they are wrong therefore Big Bobby Durran is right?
In reply to jonny2vests:
Aye, but the tools in this case are a bit shonky. E2-E11 covers tech grades 5c ish to 7a, so 5 grade jumps, not very specific. If you use french grades to describe the same range of E2- E11, say 6b to 8c+? you get 16 grade jumps, if + is included, which is a lot more specific. Therefore a better feel for the difficulties of the climb can be given.
Aye, but the tools in this case are a bit shonky. E2-E11 covers tech grades 5c ish to 7a, so 5 grade jumps, not very specific. If you use french grades to describe the same range of E2- E11, say 6b to 8c+? you get 16 grade jumps, if + is included, which is a lot more specific. Therefore a better feel for the difficulties of the climb can be given.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
When talkin' about the technical difficulty (is in this thread), the Esomething doesn't matter. So it's 5a/b/c,6a/b/c,7a -> 7.
> (In reply to jonnie3430)
>
> more like 25+ grade jumps when using uj E2 5a/b/c E3 5b/c/6a etc
>
> more like 25+ grade jumps when using uj E2 5a/b/c E3 5b/c/6a etc
When talkin' about the technical difficulty (is in this thread), the Esomething doesn't matter. So it's 5a/b/c,6a/b/c,7a -> 7.
In reply to HeMa:
But the french grade is overall so you have to compare like with like ie the combined UK grade
But the french grade is overall so you have to compare like with like ie the combined UK grade
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Spot on. Huge difference in sustained effort between a VS 5a and a well protected E1 5a.
Spot on. Huge difference in sustained effort between a VS 5a and a well protected E1 5a.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
This isn’t the place you’re likely to find common agreement about (anything!) the “problem”, because there isn’t a problem on routes up to E6. Talk to the vast majority of people climbing harder than that regularly, and the “problem” is simply that UK tech grades aren’t anywhere near as useful for describing the physical difficulty of hard routes as French or Font grades are. I pointed out the reasons in my post in that other thread.
The “solution” is utterly straightforward, and doesn’t need a definite “split”. You simply add French or Font grades to routes when they are useful. Which is for the vast majority of routes E6 and over. That’s it. No big deal.
You’ll always get some people who’ve done loads of sport climbing arguing that you should do this at lower grades as well, but it’s a massive hassle for pretty much zero gain. And at E5 and below you are in the very different situation that in the UK the majority of people operating at those grades don’t use French / Font grades that much and so won’t find them useful. As well as the fact that for the grades up to around E2, French grades actually aren’t as specific as the UK tech grade.
At the end of the day, local guide writers will decide if and where to add French / Font grades. In the end I expect Font grades will be added to a lot of short hard grit routes. And French grades will be added to most long routes at E6 and over. At some of the more gibbering trad venues such as the Lleyn, they won’t bother as they won’t be much use. Whereas for somewhere like Pembroke, they may well end up being used all the way down to E5. But it will be a process over time – perhaps just added for E8’s and above to start with and being added for more routes as time goes on. And as I said before, for the routes you’ve added French / Font grades for, whether or not you keep the tech grade is pretty much just cosmetic. It’s probably easiest to leave it in to save arguments, but again this will be down to local guide writers.
This isn’t the place you’re likely to find common agreement about (anything!) the “problem”, because there isn’t a problem on routes up to E6. Talk to the vast majority of people climbing harder than that regularly, and the “problem” is simply that UK tech grades aren’t anywhere near as useful for describing the physical difficulty of hard routes as French or Font grades are. I pointed out the reasons in my post in that other thread.
The “solution” is utterly straightforward, and doesn’t need a definite “split”. You simply add French or Font grades to routes when they are useful. Which is for the vast majority of routes E6 and over. That’s it. No big deal.
You’ll always get some people who’ve done loads of sport climbing arguing that you should do this at lower grades as well, but it’s a massive hassle for pretty much zero gain. And at E5 and below you are in the very different situation that in the UK the majority of people operating at those grades don’t use French / Font grades that much and so won’t find them useful. As well as the fact that for the grades up to around E2, French grades actually aren’t as specific as the UK tech grade.
At the end of the day, local guide writers will decide if and where to add French / Font grades. In the end I expect Font grades will be added to a lot of short hard grit routes. And French grades will be added to most long routes at E6 and over. At some of the more gibbering trad venues such as the Lleyn, they won’t bother as they won’t be much use. Whereas for somewhere like Pembroke, they may well end up being used all the way down to E5. But it will be a process over time – perhaps just added for E8’s and above to start with and being added for more routes as time goes on. And as I said before, for the routes you’ve added French / Font grades for, whether or not you keep the tech grade is pretty much just cosmetic. It’s probably easiest to leave it in to save arguments, but again this will be down to local guide writers.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I agree, but similar arguments apply to lower grades too. Yes 6c is the broadest but British 6a is quite broad too and can convert anywhere between f6b and f7a, that is a whole world of difference too if your max grade is f6b. Is the crux at the top or bottom? is it bold? What type of rock is it? Does it have a short bouldery sequence? Is it on a sea cliff? Is it sustained? Is many of the above? etc. The E- grade can not describe all that ground.
Other guidebooks are also adopting this trend, I agree the supporting text is very important. It seems the guidebooks have a great influence on how we move forward. Some very good initiatives turn out to be flavours of the month, such as the Yorkshire P-grade (replaced by text!) and others survive.
> In reply to MikeYouCanClimb: Its' not dead but it should be killed off. Beyond British 6a it's just so broad it's pointless. Once you get to 6c it can be anywhere between f7b and f8b which are whole different worlds of difficulty.
I agree, but similar arguments apply to lower grades too. Yes 6c is the broadest but British 6a is quite broad too and can convert anywhere between f6b and f7a, that is a whole world of difference too if your max grade is f6b. Is the crux at the top or bottom? is it bold? What type of rock is it? Does it have a short bouldery sequence? Is it on a sea cliff? Is it sustained? Is many of the above? etc. The E- grade can not describe all that ground.
> I notice in the borrowdale guide most of the hard routes are given say E6-6b (7a+) or something because people actually want to know how hard it is. Not some number which gives an approximation of 'hard', or 'really hard' then some nonsense that could mean its bold or could equally mean its sustained without any way of knowing. What if it's both?
Other guidebooks are also adopting this trend, I agree the supporting text is very important. It seems the guidebooks have a great influence on how we move forward. Some very good initiatives turn out to be flavours of the month, such as the Yorkshire P-grade (replaced by text!) and others survive.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I recommend that you use the tech grade in conjunction with a handy adjecteval grade I have lying around here!
NB It is not a problem that UK 6a can be found on 6b-7a - it would be odd it it didn't. The 'problem', such as it is, lies more with the sport grades not being that good at distinguishing between sustained and cruxy routes.
> (In reply to Lord_ash2000)
> [...]
>
> I agree, but similar arguments apply to lower grades too. Yes 6c is the broadest but British 6a is quite broad too and can convert anywhere between f6b and f7a, that is a whole world of difference too if your max grade is f6b. Is the crux at the top or bottom? is it bold? What type of rock is it? Does it have a short bouldery sequence? Is it on a sea cliff? Is it sustained? Is many of the above? etc. The E- grade can not describe all that ground.
>
> [...]
>
> I agree, but similar arguments apply to lower grades too. Yes 6c is the broadest but British 6a is quite broad too and can convert anywhere between f6b and f7a, that is a whole world of difference too if your max grade is f6b. Is the crux at the top or bottom? is it bold? What type of rock is it? Does it have a short bouldery sequence? Is it on a sea cliff? Is it sustained? Is many of the above? etc. The E- grade can not describe all that ground.
>
I recommend that you use the tech grade in conjunction with a handy adjecteval grade I have lying around here!
NB It is not a problem that UK 6a can be found on 6b-7a - it would be odd it it didn't. The 'problem', such as it is, lies more with the sport grades not being that good at distinguishing between sustained and cruxy routes.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
So all these people who use French grades in preference to uk tech grades on hard test pieces are doing so because it somehow offers less information? It has to be said, that's a new one on me...
The French grade is a good (possibly the best currently in use) way of measuring the overall physical difficulties of a route. Yes, it struggles to categorise super boulder problem routes, but then you can get daft grades to describe something under almost any system. I don't find describing what's basically a V5 as a Fr7a particularly helpful, but then grading it E2 6b doesn't help me much either in working out how hard it's likely to be. And the fact that in the higher E grades the grade of the route, even assuming it's relatively safe, tells you so little about it's technical difficulty, isn't very useful - the range of french grades that something like safeish E7 6c can cover is hardly narrow, the same for most of the others in that sort of area.
So all these people who use French grades in preference to uk tech grades on hard test pieces are doing so because it somehow offers less information? It has to be said, that's a new one on me...
The French grade is a good (possibly the best currently in use) way of measuring the overall physical difficulties of a route. Yes, it struggles to categorise super boulder problem routes, but then you can get daft grades to describe something under almost any system. I don't find describing what's basically a V5 as a Fr7a particularly helpful, but then grading it E2 6b doesn't help me much either in working out how hard it's likely to be. And the fact that in the higher E grades the grade of the route, even assuming it's relatively safe, tells you so little about it's technical difficulty, isn't very useful - the range of french grades that something like safeish E7 6c can cover is hardly narrow, the same for most of the others in that sort of area.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
For anything I climb - UK 5c tops - the UK technical grade works really well for me. I suspect it only starts to use its utility somewhere in the UK 6b region.
For anything I climb - UK 5c tops - the UK technical grade works really well for me. I suspect it only starts to use its utility somewhere in the UK 6b region.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
I think your answer has come closest to defining the problem so far.
If you remove the protection and danger element out of the equation, Bouldering, sport climbing and trad climbing can still be defined as distinct entities involving movement on rock. They have until now been best described by different grading systems.
Bouldering: Involves short sequences. (V grade or Font grade)
Sport climbing: Long sequences. (French grade)
Trad climbing: Involves cruxes and the line. (Brit tech)
If difficulties normally found on sport routes, or even on boulder problems appear on trad climbs, then you get strange grading anomalies in the UK system. The opposite as you state is also true.
Are the grading systems starting to adapt to the new styles of climbing? The protection, ie, pad, bolt or leader placed gear, in effect becomes secondary?
> The 'problem', such as it is, lies more with the sport grades not being that good at distinguishing between sustained and cruxy routes.
I think your answer has come closest to defining the problem so far.
If you remove the protection and danger element out of the equation, Bouldering, sport climbing and trad climbing can still be defined as distinct entities involving movement on rock. They have until now been best described by different grading systems.
Bouldering: Involves short sequences. (V grade or Font grade)
Sport climbing: Long sequences. (French grade)
Trad climbing: Involves cruxes and the line. (Brit tech)
If difficulties normally found on sport routes, or even on boulder problems appear on trad climbs, then you get strange grading anomalies in the UK system. The opposite as you state is also true.
Are the grading systems starting to adapt to the new styles of climbing? The protection, ie, pad, bolt or leader placed gear, in effect becomes secondary?
In reply to AJM:
I agree with you - the problems only srise if you try and mke one grade do everything - the more parameters you have the better you ability to describe a route but that has to be blanced against the actual need to.
I agree with you - the problems only srise if you try and mke one grade do everything - the more parameters you have the better you ability to describe a route but that has to be blanced against the actual need to.
In reply to Cornelius Kite:
what ever it is your trying to say there, i think i understand, moreover i feel like i'm possibly communicating with a bona fide genius.
> (In reply to Robert Durran) Agree with you and others who think the UK grading system works pretty well (just needs un-compressing).
>
> Besides, with a piece of graph paper, hours of fun and debate can be had by plotting adjectival grades on the x axis and tech grades on the y axis - e.g. a '5-square' route could be E3, 4c or HVS, 6a. I've managed to convert all the Rockfax grit guides into squares. Often my climbing partner and I play a Countdown-style 'choose a route then climb it' game at the crag - I pretend he's Carol Vorderman and ask 'Can I have a safe 4-square route, Carol?'. I climb it. Then he'll try and outscore me by asking me ('Carol') for 'a necky 5-square'. It's great fun (well it was, till he decked out rather nastily on a necky 7-squarer).
>
> btw I wonder how many French climbing forums have threads like 'Le systeme de cotation francaise, est-il mort?'
>
> Besides, with a piece of graph paper, hours of fun and debate can be had by plotting adjectival grades on the x axis and tech grades on the y axis - e.g. a '5-square' route could be E3, 4c or HVS, 6a. I've managed to convert all the Rockfax grit guides into squares. Often my climbing partner and I play a Countdown-style 'choose a route then climb it' game at the crag - I pretend he's Carol Vorderman and ask 'Can I have a safe 4-square route, Carol?'. I climb it. Then he'll try and outscore me by asking me ('Carol') for 'a necky 5-square'. It's great fun (well it was, till he decked out rather nastily on a necky 7-squarer).
>
> btw I wonder how many French climbing forums have threads like 'Le systeme de cotation francaise, est-il mort?'
what ever it is your trying to say there, i think i understand, moreover i feel like i'm possibly communicating with a bona fide genius.
In reply to gforce:
I think that just about sums it up.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Just to summarise...
>
> It isn't true in practice but there are many practical examples of when it is true but they are wrong therefore Big Bobby Durran is right?
>
> Just to summarise...
>
> It isn't true in practice but there are many practical examples of when it is true but they are wrong therefore Big Bobby Durran is right?
I think that just about sums it up.
Sorry if this seems like spam but this debate rminds me of a cartoon I once saw :
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No, because the sustained nature of a climb should not affect the Uk tech grade as only the crux is graded, the new move is still 5a wherever it is situated and the crux is already considered to be 5c.
A crux normally has “relatively” easy ground before and after the hardest move and will be graded for the single hardest move. If the crux is sustained and contains a number of 5a moves and a number of 5c moves, the grade should still get 5c not 6a. That is what the French system does, as you well know, we use the E-number. The grade in practice (where you could be right) may be increased because it now feels harder, but that is how the grade is applied and causes misunderstanding, is not how it is defined.
The reason for the potential anomaly is that the longer the crux sequence, or the harder the ground before and or after, the harder it is to define the crux and the worse the UK tech grade gets in practice and in theory. Conversely the French grade gets better and appears to be more granular in these sustained situations.
On an historical point, the first move on Jeffcoat's Buttress used to be 4c and avoidable, I assume it was upgraded to 5a because of the polish.
> Being slightly more provocative, the "5a" move at the start of Jeffcoat's Buttress (HS 5a), Roaches, is harder than any individual move on Billy Whizz (graded 5c). It just feels easier because you're totally rested as you try it off the ground. If that move were the top-out move of Billy Whizz (with all that sustained strenuousness below) it would get 6a.
No, because the sustained nature of a climb should not affect the Uk tech grade as only the crux is graded, the new move is still 5a wherever it is situated and the crux is already considered to be 5c.
A crux normally has “relatively” easy ground before and after the hardest move and will be graded for the single hardest move. If the crux is sustained and contains a number of 5a moves and a number of 5c moves, the grade should still get 5c not 6a. That is what the French system does, as you well know, we use the E-number. The grade in practice (where you could be right) may be increased because it now feels harder, but that is how the grade is applied and causes misunderstanding, is not how it is defined.
The reason for the potential anomaly is that the longer the crux sequence, or the harder the ground before and or after, the harder it is to define the crux and the worse the UK tech grade gets in practice and in theory. Conversely the French grade gets better and appears to be more granular in these sustained situations.
On an historical point, the first move on Jeffcoat's Buttress used to be 4c and avoidable, I assume it was upgraded to 5a because of the polish.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
Sport grades work best on homogeneous climbs - and in particular sustained ones as you describe.
The UK tech grade still gives you a definitive piece of information...relatively!...ie the hardest move which can be interpreted along with the adj grade and/or the description - and is thus in most cases adequate information.
Billy Whizz? Strenuous yes..long no - it's only a short piece of steep climbing from a ledge - 5b/c
Sport grades work best on homogeneous climbs - and in particular sustained ones as you describe.
The UK tech grade still gives you a definitive piece of information...relatively!...ie the hardest move which can be interpreted along with the adj grade and/or the description - and is thus in most cases adequate information.
Billy Whizz? Strenuous yes..long no - it's only a short piece of steep climbing from a ledge - 5b/c
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
I did jeff coats butress recently and thought it soft 5a, harder if you stop to place gear.
I did jeff coats butress recently and thought it soft 5a, harder if you stop to place gear.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Stopping to place gear cannot, by definition, increase a UK tech grade; the extra difficulty of doing so (or indeed seriousness of not doing so) is incorporated into the adjectival grade.
> I did jeff coats butress recently and thought it soft 5a, harder if you stop to place gear.
Stopping to place gear cannot, by definition, increase a UK tech grade; the extra difficulty of doing so (or indeed seriousness of not doing so) is incorporated into the adjectival grade.
In reply to Robert Durran:
For a person of 'average' strength for the grade?
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
> [...]
>
> Stopping to place gear cannot, by definition, increase a UK tech grade; the extra difficulty of doing so (or indeed seriousness of not doing so) is incorporated into the adjectival grade.
> [...]
>
> Stopping to place gear cannot, by definition, increase a UK tech grade; the extra difficulty of doing so (or indeed seriousness of not doing so) is incorporated into the adjectival grade.
For a person of 'average' strength for the grade?
In reply to Bulls Crack:
What are you on about? A grade is a function of the climbing, not the individual climber.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> For a person of 'average' strength for the grade?
>
> For a person of 'average' strength for the grade?
What are you on about? A grade is a function of the climbing, not the individual climber.
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
the UK system works and is proven. I personally wish the technical grade was broken down more. As some one said, 6c technical grade covers a wide range of territory.
but its too late now so no point thinking too much about it.
for me it's the line and or the moves that makes me want to climb a route, or just the historical context of it, not the numbers and letters attached..
the UK system works and is proven. I personally wish the technical grade was broken down more. As some one said, 6c technical grade covers a wide range of territory.
but its too late now so no point thinking too much about it.
for me it's the line and or the moves that makes me want to climb a route, or just the historical context of it, not the numbers and letters attached..
In reply to Robert Durran:
Refer to the comment i replied to and the !
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
> [...]
>
> What are you on about? A grade is a function of the climbing, not the individual climber.
> [...]
>
> What are you on about? A grade is a function of the climbing, not the individual climber.
Refer to the comment i replied to and the !
In reply to gavjwp:
Maybe, but it is not necessary, all it would do is provide even more room for ambiguity and disagreement.
It may appear wide, but it’s a myth, it is more to do with lack of understanding.
A single move can only get so hard before it gets impossible. It is multiple hard moves and the links between them that cause much of the difficulty at high grades these days. These types of move are now appearing on trad climbs and is interesting to note that it is being taken to another level on boulder problems. (The UK tech grade is well and truly dead there). Much of this became possible thanks to pads and sport climbers being able to push standards in relative safety. It is not surprising that best practice French grade and other similar systems offering the necessary granularity are better accepted.
Maybe I can’t change things, but that’s the point of the thread. It is changing as we discuss, some guidebooks are already including French grades on certain routes.
I love the line and the climbing too. Climbing routes in control and close to my personal limit for that extra buzz is also up there in the reasons to climb. Finding these climbs without a good grading system would be quite challenging for most. I bet you take more account of the grade when selecting a route than you are letting on.
> the UK system works and is proven.
A generalisation. The UK tech grade works very well on trad climbs with cruxes, It works ok in other situations and in some cases it works very badly.> I personally wish the technical grade was broken down more.
Maybe, but it is not necessary, all it would do is provide even more room for ambiguity and disagreement.
> As some one said, 6c technical grade covers a wide range of territory.
It may appear wide, but it’s a myth, it is more to do with lack of understanding.
A single move can only get so hard before it gets impossible. It is multiple hard moves and the links between them that cause much of the difficulty at high grades these days. These types of move are now appearing on trad climbs and is interesting to note that it is being taken to another level on boulder problems. (The UK tech grade is well and truly dead there). Much of this became possible thanks to pads and sport climbers being able to push standards in relative safety. It is not surprising that best practice French grade and other similar systems offering the necessary granularity are better accepted.
> but its too late now so no point thinking too much about it.
Maybe I can’t change things, but that’s the point of the thread. It is changing as we discuss, some guidebooks are already including French grades on certain routes.
> for me it's the line and or the moves that makes me want to climb a route, or just the historical context of it, not the numbers and letters attached..
I love the line and the climbing too. Climbing routes in control and close to my personal limit for that extra buzz is also up there in the reasons to climb. Finding these climbs without a good grading system would be quite challenging for most. I bet you take more account of the grade when selecting a route than you are letting on.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...