UKC

The Uk average climbing grade according to Macleod is HVS, not sure how much research there is to back that up, however, Hardy from Bangor university has the opinion of it being HVS-E2 as the mid range, so there seems to be some consensus. Macleod writes the the UK average grade is distinctly lower than other European countries.

I can't remember what Macloed says to explain this, but my opinion is that the ratio of Sport to Traditional is lower in this country and this creates a barrier at which most people psychologically don't wish to go past. Has this an effect on the average grade climbing in the UK?

Is it possible that the fact naming of our grading system has created a barrier at which people do not wish to cross?

Or is it possible that due to the fact that 'the old boys' (Ron Fawcett, J. Dawes, correct me if i'm wrong here) All climbed climbs given the grade (although they weren't at this grade, they were far beyond!) up to HVS.

I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this matter, as well as what you think the average grade is in the UK. I've had this on my mind since I read into performance psychology. Any questions about my long winded questions would be gratefully answered and a large ammount of abuse will be tolerated!

In reply to The Green Giant:

Possibly. You mean like 'I can't climb at an EXTREME level!'


Pardon?


No idea. At Stanage on a nice day, probably lower, on Main Wall at the big G probably higher.

In reply to The Green Giant:

You could take UKC as a reliable enough source. Statistics tell you that if you take a reasonable random sample of a population then that sample will accurately represent the population. By looking at the number of people on UKC who use the log books I think you can make the same reasonable assumption.

In reply to The Green Giant:

I think that there are a lot more "bumbly" climbers in the UK compared to Italy. Over here folk generally climb hard for a few years in their "youth" then pack it in and go skiing and do via ferratas and such like in their dotage (over 30). Less children climbing too, and no climbing "families". The few that carry on climbing become super heroes.

In reply to The Green Giant:

The old "onsight" ethic will affect the average grade in this country. In the more sport-dominated areas the practice of redpointing routes into submission will enable people to climb much harder than if they were to only try stuff they could probably onsight.

Before I get flamed I am not saying one way is better than the other, just a possible explanation of average grade differences.

In reply to Milesy:

I will have to ask Ben Goldacre if that's a reasonable assumption, but I suspect it's not. Anyway, the UKC logbooks are not a random sample.

Certainly there's a psychological gap between HVS and E1. As there is between the unlettered sport grade of 5+ and 6a.

In reply to Milesy:
"By looking at the number of people on UKC who use the log books I think you can make the same reasonable assumption."

>> Agreed, that will give a reasonable result, perhaps better than some media polls that only interview 1000 people and then say that the British people think this or that. The only flaw is that we don't know how many people climb but aren't involved with UKC.

In reply to The Green Giant:

When there used to be a Rockfax forum, they did surveys, and I suggested one which asked,
"What is the hardest grade you climbed in the last year?"

The average came out at VS.

And that's going to be higher than the average grade climbed.

In reply to Richard Alderton:

I disagree. Signing up to the same site is the only non random thing. All different ages, different careers, different climbing types, different climbing areas and rock, different geographical locations. I think there is enough variables. Had this site been "Sheffield Climbing" then it would be safe to assume that it was likely bias to climbing in a certain style on a certain style of rock and not accurate reflection of the rest of the UK.

In reply to The Green Giant:

There is a big difference between mid (median ?) grades and average grades. My guess would be the that the average lead grade was closer to VS than HVS - even if someone had a top lead grade of E1 their 'average' over a year is likely to be closer to VS.

In reply to The Green Giant:

If you assume that the climbs logged on UKC are representative of the Population of the UK that climbs, I would way that HVS is in fact a bit high when you look at this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/graphs.html

Trad looks like average for 2011 of HS, Sport 6a+

Yes, there will be lots of different ages, careers and all the other differences you mention. But that doesn't mean it's a representative sample.

People without access to the internet (admittedly a shrinking population), people who don't care about logging their climbs, people who mostly climb new routes which aren't in the database, people who don't speak very good English, people who - gasp - have never heard of UKC. All of these have no input.

You might think that they don't matter, or that they cancel each other out. I wouldn't be so sure.

In reply to Richard Alderton:

I don't know any climber who has not at least heard of UKC. I don't know anyone who does not have the internet now in general, never mind climbers who don't have or at least use the internet.

I think there are more random variables and more users in UKC than say a questionaire.

In reply to The Green Giant:

The average grade of UK climbers is probably about E6. At first this seems a bit high, but you soon realise that anyone who isn't onsighting at least E5, isn't really climbing at all.

In reply to metal arms:

Where you said pardon, let me explain more/better.

I remember a lecture from Ron Fawcett about his climbing career. He mentioned that he was climbing what seemed to be E3, yet given the grade of HVS because the E grades hadn't been invented. Is it possible that the lateness and the name of the 'extreme' grade has flawed the progression of climbing.

Eagle River:

Yes there's that old debate, yet regardless of the ethics it is still clear the difference in performance levels in the rest of Europe to the UK. I agree with the argument that many people are happy to 'bimble'. Yet, is it not possible to bimble at a higher grade, and though who take it more 'seriously' (for lack of a better word) climber yet harder than that.

Fredt:

The problem with polls of such like this, is the classic 'UKC - arm chair climbers' argument. Do people on internet forums tend to be people who prefer to climb for the (again the lack of a better word) adventure on a sunday afternoon. And those who climb at higher grades tend not to be as much computer literate. Again, I'm making huge assumptions here, but reading into Tommy Caldwell, and why he wishes to post his updates on FB is due to a new era of marketing and the public's view of a professional climber. The key word there is 'new'. The first professional climber being Ron Fawcett, was a climbing 'bum', ask him yourself, he will tell you as he did us at a lecture a year ago. So the previous image of a professional climber which was the influence for climbers who wished to climb 'hard' is that of one who perhaps doesn't have much to do with computers, have a full time job ect. I'm sure you know the sort.

Long winded again!

Is it possible to increase the Uk average? I'm sure someone will come along and tell me they don't want the average increased, but this is something that could improve our sport.

In reply to The Green Giant:
Is it possible to increase the Uk average? I'm sure someone will come along and tell me they don't want the average increased, but this is something that could improve our sport.

Noooooooo!!!! We don't want to up the average, if you up the average then you raise the level at which you need to perform to avoid queues and I can't be bothered actually training

In reply to Milesy:

It's natural to base your assumptions on your own experience, but I can assure you that such people exist!

I'm the only one of my friends who regularly uses the logbook. A few use it irregularly. Most don't use it at all.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

>> Careful, some will think that you meant that.

In reply to The Green Giant:

First you need to define 'average'! Are you talking:

The hardest grade at which the average climber (defined how?) *can* climb (onsight?)?

Or the average grade at which the average climber choses to climb?

Or the average grade of all climbs completed over the a period of time?

And what measure of average are you using? Mean, median, mode?



Personally, I'm only of the fringe of being a climber at all, having mostly just done scrambles and a few mod-vdiff, so I'd certainly drag the level down if I was included.

Is grade conversion also an issue? I can climb 5+ indoors, but I'm not going to be hopping on any HVS (the technical equivalent according to rockfax) any time soon.

In reply to The Green Giant:

Do you mean average leading or top roping/seconding grade?

There is a significant difference

In reply to The Green Giant:
There is a bias forced by the way UKC stats are compiled. Last year my average grade was HVS,this year it is VS. I am climbing about the same but this year I decided to log solos as well as leads. My few days of soloing on grot (sorry grit) are over-represented in terms of route numbers (typically 50 routes per day compared with 4 to 10 when leading) and pull the average down. Many people who like soloing on grit are potentially affected like this.

In reply to Trangia:

Yeah, my lead grade is 2 grades harder than my seconding grade...

In reply to The Green Giant:

Do you mean taking a mean average of climbers' best leads over a year or taking a mean average of all routes climbed over a year?

I suspect Macleod is talking about the former, not the latter. After all, when people say the grade they climb they tend to talk about the hardest thing they have led, rather than the mean grade they climb at. For someone like me who has maximum lead grades in the low extremes at the moment then I guess my mean grade of all my climbs is somewhere around VS once all the easier classics and quick solos have been taking into account.

From casual observation over a number of years I think those who say the mean best lead grade in Britain is around HVS are around right.

In reply to MattG:

For all those wondering about what average I mean, it's a good question. I guess it is important to take into account individual climbers rather than the route value.

I guess Macleod means the mean grade a climber does over a year.

In reply to The Green Giant:


This would not be very meaningful. If you visited a new gristone crag and soloed a lot of easy routes it would bring your average down and make you seem a worse climber, which is clearly nonsense. Some sort of "average top" grade that would not go down if you decided to do some easy routes for fun would be better (e.g the grade of your 10th hardest route).

In reply to harold walmsley:

I gree with this my average is significsntly lower than my lead grades as I like to solo a lot of lower gradee routes. Back in the eighties when I was mainly leading routes my average was always in the E grades.

In reply to The Green Giant: I would understand a climber's "grade" to mean the hardest he or she can climb with reasonable consistency. The average Mcleod is refering to is surely the average of all climber's top grades, not an average of averages! As pointed out, that would mean your grade falls if you do a few easy routes - a bit harsh.

Re HVS in comparison to european grades, I don't think it compares as unfavourably as some might think. It's almost impossible to compare to a redpoint sport grade, but when you consider you're climbing on sight and placing gear, and how gnarly some of these routes are, and the fear of falling, the equivalent difficulty could be well into the 7th grade.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Yawn.

In reply to harold walmsley:

Yeah I agree, I said the same thing as you in my post. 10th hardest route is an interesting idea; it would eliminate people putting down their best ever one off grade they just fluked but would give a decent idea of the level they generally climb at when trying hard for them.

In reply to MattG: Ok, quick survey on this thread according to Harold's idea, what's you 10th hardest lead of the year so far, mine's E1.

Re: does the UKC logbook database represent UK climbing as a whole.

I know plenty of climbers, most of them quite good, who actively avoid UKC.

There's absolutely no way you can validly assume a particular website's/product's/service's actual customer base (let alone those out of the customer base who use a specific feature of the site i.e. logbooks) statistically represents its target market. End of.

Pete.

In reply to MattG:

Might be easier to make a new thread. Or even ask UKC to do a poll of certain questions:

What is the grade hardest route you have climbed
What is your tenth hardest route you have climbed
What is the tenth, or nearest hardest route you have climbed this year.

And so on, would be worth asking for lead trad climbing only.
Then would be worth asking for sport
Then would be worth asking the same questions to anyone outside of the UK in Europe.

Just to bring things back though. What are peoples opinions on the psychological barrier the grading system creates, or doesn't create as some may argue. are there other reasons why our average (which is still to be comfirmed actually means) is perceived to be low by Macleod. Additionally if it is as low as HS like some people suggest, with the backing of UKC statistics, how come this is so low compared to the highest grade climbed in the UK

In reply to PeteH:

It was not suggested that UKC represent UK climbing as a whole, it was merely assumed that it would be a good start to enquire into the subject mentioned above, by using it as a random sample.

Do you really think research is based on everyone in the UK? Do you personally get asked about all the research which affects you? No, UKC in this context could be used as a sample of the Climbing community, with the obvious set backs which I brought forward earlier on.

In reply to Matg, Re 10th grade, mine would be: E2 5c

In reply to DJonsight:

Heehee. If only. This is not how the respective grading systems work. An HVS will get HVS taking into account all the things you mention. The technical difficulty of the route, however, will still be 4c/5a/5b, which is equivalent to anywhere between French 5 and French 6b, plus or minus a bit to allow for sandbags. Can you suggest any HVSs you genuinely think have a technical difficulty of F7a+ or F7b?

The "gnarliness" of the routes is very subjective i.e. varies from person to person - if all you've ever known is gruesome wet overhanging offwidths then you might find a techy slabby HVS a sandbag, but that doesn't mean it actually deserves a higher technical grade. There are plenty of offwidths and jamming cracks on French limestone and other rock types as well, and they are regarded as sandbags there too, because people are not used to them. They don't get given grades in the 7s.

Pete.

In reply to The Green Giant:

A few points:
- What do you think a random sample is used for if not to represent the whole population (in any study/research/survey...)? If it's not intended to represent the population it doesn't need to be random, but then the results obtained only apply to that sample and not to the population.
- The "subject mentioned above" is "UK average climbing grade".
- I believe I've already set out above why the UKC logbook database is not a random sample.

Er... So I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not meaning to be rude, but it really looks to me like you've replied to my post without reading it, and that seems rude to me. Sorry.

Pete.

In reply to The Green Giant:

I thought that according to the UKC logbooks the average grade "climbed" was about VS.

Of course there's lots of problems with this:

e.g. Me.

I only log E1's and above in UKC logbooks, and to be honest, only then when I can be bothered.

However this year, I've been concentrating on quantity, not quality, so my average grade is probably about Vdiff.

On the other hand, I had a "go" at an E5 this year (I fell off). I got an E3 variation of the same route with ease.

So what's my climbing grade? Is my grade E2-ish (UKC logbook), Vdiff/Severe (actual average of all climbs this year) or E3+-ish (What I'm happy leading)?

My "climbing grade", as I describe it, is the grade at which I could cleanly onsight 95% of routes at that grade. For me, probably VS. So if we do an "average climbing grade" over all climbers I'll be in there as part of the VS contingent. Doesn't mean I can't climb harder, and equally doesn't mean that I climb at that grade all the time (Frankly I'm happier soloing a Vdiff).

In reply to The Green Giant:

It may not still be quite clear why UKC logbooks are not a good sample of the uk climbing population. I can see it is not representative in a few more ways:
1) A higher of "bimblers" at the bottom end who don't care about logging their climbs and progression don't use UKC
2) I can't think of many really good climbers (pros for example) who use UKC logbooks, probably for fear of stalking. These also, should be represented in a sample.
3) Loads of people who climb for fun don't use UCK logbooks because it's rather an obsessive thing to do.

Which leads me onto my next point:
I'm afraid the idea of the tenth best lead of the year wouldn't work on a forum, of course, because the kind of people (me and you lot) who a on this forum on a Friday night fall into the "keener than average" category.

FWIW, my tenth best lead this year: E1

Cake

In reply to John_Hat:

What you say is absolutely spot on. People speak so much bollox about 'their grade'. It's just such a variable thing. Often all they mean is their highest grade when they're going well.

I had no idea that Franco could consistently and unfailingly lead E5 on sight, for example.

In reply to Cake: Don't you have anything better to do?

Yeah, it's really geeky to use the UKC logbook. It's bad. But I like it, it's like crack.

In reply to John_Hat:

My "climbing grade" is the grade top grade I climb regularly. For me, that means, nearly every time I go out with a rope and appropriate partner, I'll try to do one grade of that route (if they're big routes, that means once on a trip, not one per day).

In reply to The Green Giant:

Who cares? There will be a huge sample bias in any comparison anyway:

In the UK where there's loads of good, lower grade trad, the average will be in the lower trad grades;

In many areas of Europe, where the worthwhile climbing starts in technically much harder sports grades, the 'average' will be higher. The people who would have been bimbling around on VDiffs are excluded and will be off doing something else, rather that selfishly lowering their country's average grade.

In reply to The Green Giant: Ditto last comment. Most folk prob do it to have a nice day out etc. Its all relative - if they've bust their balls doing a HS then thats just as applaudable as E-whatever.

In reply to Eagle River:

Other thing to be fair is if you went to a crag in France and there were 4 classic routes on the crag you'd have a go at them all. If you went to the Cromlech or the Pass in general there's probably about as many if you translate, but how many would have the approach of "try 4, succeed on 2" (or even, if youre really ushing it, 1) mentality that you'd have if you were at a sport crag...? I think that that extra reserve is as much a part of it as anything - we just aren't as willing to fail...

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Are you that feller on the X Factor?

In reply to The Green Giant:

Average UK climbing grade HVS??? I can't believe any climber could think that, let alone HVS to E2??!! The average climbing grade in the UK is about Hard Severere to VS maximum, you've only got to go to a crag to see that...you can't take the log books on here as evidence, more climbers are off here than on here....

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

LOL! Are E5s even included in guides anymore, or just mentioned as possible descents?

In reply to HappyTrundler:

Your example is as flawed as any other - go to Stanage on a sunny Sunday and the average will be about Severe, but go to Cloggy, Gogarth, Avon Main wall, Scafell etc. and the average grade will be about E2. Then throw in Goredale, LPT and Malham to completely screw the picture... For what it's worth, I agree with you. Survey after survey always comes out with an average grade of around VS, and that seems reasonable. Climbers in the UK are just a bunch of bumblies, and we're quite happy with that!

For what it's worth, I do think that we overhype the difficulty and danger of trad climbing in the UK, which does hold us back, but there is a fine balance to be struck between confidence and recklessness.

Im my experience, I would guess that while UK bumblies are at Stanage, the french bumblies are on the alpine peaks rather than the crags.

Anyway, if everyone's happy doing what they are doing, what's the problem.

In reply to Monk:

I suspect that people are interested to find out how much better than average they are ;->

In reply to The Green Giant:

could it be because while the brits are fumbling about with hexs and cams, the euros are clipping bolts?

In reply to ice.solo:

If you read one of my previous posts, I came up with this as one of the potential reasons.

I'd just like to make clear this thread was purely because I'm interested in this subject and it's quite interesting market research for my future plans and has confirmed a lot of things for me.

In reply to ice.solo:

could it be because while the brits are enjoying themselves, the euros are doing sanitised risk free strength competitions?

In reply to The Green Giant: When I started climbing, over 40 years ago, the 'average' grade we aspired to as commited climbers was VS. That of course meant anything up to E2 by modern standards. I just think that there are more climbers around who would not have been around in the days before walls and sport climbing, this drags the average grade down.

In reply to HappyTrundler:
t...you can't take the log books on here as evidence, more climbers are off here than on here....

Ever heard of a sample?

In reply to The Green Giant:
To be honest, I think MacLeod's wrong - I don't think the average grade on the continent is appreciably higher than the average grade in Britain. Here's why:
I'm currently living in Innsbruck; I can safely say that the average grade here is much higher than in the UK, anywhere in the UK. I boulder around V5-6, but if I go into the boulder hall in the climbing wall here, I am always, without exception, the worst there, male or female, including kids. It is astonishing. Outside, or on the routes, there are more 'beginners' (climbing anything from 4+ to 6b-6c+), but the average I'd say is around 7a. If you aren't climbing French mid-7s, you're still a beginner. Oh, and did I mention that the grades are much harder? Like 6b seems to equate to around 6c+..
But its Innsbruck, for Pete's sake - if you go to, say, Linz, or Duisburg, or Amsterdam, or even Munich, the average is much more like in the UK, or lower. We think people on the continent climb much harder because we go to the better climbing places. There are admittedly more good climbers, but that is because there are more climbers of any standard.

In reply to Ben1983:

So....in Innsbruck only....and not Linz or Duisburg.... you're saying the average grade (with their 'hard' grading taken into account) would be 7b+ here?

I don't believe you....sorry

In reply to Monk:


Half right, with respect! On a sunny Sunday Stanage will be busy and the average grade will be about severe, and the crag is busy...I can tell you that if you go to Avon Main Wall on a sunny Sunday, the likelihood is that there will be no climbers on it....there may be a few at Cloggy, Gogarth, Scafell etc, and active teams on these crags will be climbing harder...they will be vastly outnumbered by the severe climbers elsewhere, hence the average grade is pulled down....
It's all a load of boxxocks anyway, my favourite quote is 'the best climber is the one having the most fun'...

Frankly does it matter what grade someone climbs be it mod E9 trad sport etc.
As long as your out there doin it.

In reply to Bulls Crack:
No, although I can see how you get that impression from my post. The grading systems seem to even out in the mid-7s, so that their 7a might equal about our 7a+, although I haven't tried anything harder - it seems to be just the mid 6s that are nails. A good job really, or their 9b would already be approaching 10a! Even so, it is important to understand that it is normal to be seriously strong here. It's where a lot of the best climbers from Germany, Austria and South Tirol hang out. In any case, the point of my post was really that we can't compare our anecdotal experience of climbing the UK with climbing on the continent, because the places we go on the continent are biased to where there is good rock. And where there is good rock, there are probably going to be strong climbers as well.

In reply to The Green Giant: Whilst we could debate what we mean by average forever I'd concur that "the centre of gravity" of UK climbing lies somewhere around HVS, quite possibly even lower. Its not rare to go to a crag, climb an E1 and have done the hardesr climb of anyone there that day.I'd also agree with Dave M that continentals seem to climb harder.

To explain that however I'd suggest that we're trying to compare two different activities. If you compare average continental sport grades with UK sport climbers things would level out a lot more.
The quantity and quality of low grade sport here is pretty poor so beginners almost always start off on trad, develop a taste for it, aquire the onsight trad ethic and often don't move on to sport at all.

Conversely, continentals start off on sport and aquire the ethics and attitudes that go with it, with the emphasis on performance rather than adventure. To many of them, trad is a crazy mad thing where you'll die so they leave well alone. I imagine if you compare the average UK trad grade with the average continental trad grade we might look quite good.

Finally, the UK is unsusual in having rock types which lend themselves to producing high quality climbs at low grades so its much easier to spend a lifetime bimbling around on easy routes without getting bored.

In reply to The Green Giant: After following this thread for a bit I was wondering about a good way to define your average grade. I came up with the following.

During a year, take all the days you went climbing where poor weather was not a factor in determining what you climbed. For those days take the hardest route (or pitch) you led or soloed. Then take the average grade of those routes.

I think this would be a good measure to define what grade you operate at. If you're currently improving (or unfortunately going downhill) then maybe the time period should be shorter than a year.

Also, there may be other totally external factors as well as bad weather that affect how hard you climb, BUT having a hangover from the previous night, or having overtrained the previous day, etc are NOT external factors, they're self induced.

In reply to pec:

To summarise: what would they ever do on grit?

In reply to The Green Giant:

There was a recent BMC survey which should yield reasonable data on how hard a section of the uk climbing community climbs. Of course that's a self selecting, relatively committed section of the climbing community. Even defining what a climber is is non-trivial. HVS actually seems a little high to me.

As to why we're comparatively crap compared to the euros I suspect it is the relative lack of really good accessible sport climbing in the uk, our dismal weather and our addiction to traditional climbing, most of which is in real terms very easy.

jk

In reply to The Green Giant:
Yeah, but....

youtube.com/watch?v=L5expa1AGEs&

In reply to The Green Giant:
For another, totally unscientific two-pennyworth, having had reason to climb extensively in one Lakeland valley in particular, it is my experience that there are far more people climbing VS and below than above, both in simple number terms, but also when weighted to reflect the relative number of climbs across the grades. As for outside the UK, when climbing on the Miroir d'Argentine a few years ago, there were some 15 teams climbing the two routes of UK VS or below, compared with only two teams climbing any of the good harder routes. As for the psycological dimension, this certainly exists and works in both ways. I have witnessed many occasions where people have said a route cannot be a certain grade because they can't climb at that grade. Similarly, people have contacted me to say an old established route should be upgraded, because they found it harder than they expected (for their perception of the grade). But oddly, this latter seems to happen much more frequently as people get older!

In reply to Richard Alderton:

Agreed, I climb with several excellent, active climbers who don't bother logging their climbs on UKC. I also know a few older climbers who despite climbing most weekends don't use any climbing websites at all.

I would say that using UKC statistics would be about as accurate as you could get.

In reply to The Green Giant:
When I look at threads about "the UK's best VSs" and "the UK's best HVSs", I think I can see part of the reason that a lot of British climbers don't push on into middling E-grades... I'm not even at that level myself, but I can certainly think of a lot of worse fates than being stuck climbing at about HVS in the UK for the rest of your life.

In reply to The Green Giant:
From what I know this international climbing comparison has been going on for ages. In 1990 the statisics stood as such: Most Americans can on-sight 5.10, Most Australians could grovel up (trad) grade 20, most Brits could lead VS, and the most Euro-dog pre-scholers could sprint (blind-folded) up 6A..
Interesting to see that this debate has lingered that long.. Now living in France where i get to touch rock most days I see that for most folk around it is just having fun that counts.. Personally I like to climb rock.. It's a great way to escape the daily grind and i dont give a s*** who climbs what around me.

In reply to The Green Giant:
Not so long ago the conventional wisdom, frequently repeated in the climbing mags, was that the "average climber" led E2, or even E3. Even at the time a casual look around at any popular crag would suggest that was nonsense.

The UKC stats, whilst they may be flawed, do seem to support what gut instinct and emperical evidence tells us - that whilst E2 may be a realistic average grade for a committed climber who gets out several times a week and trains seriously, there's also a substantial number (perhaps a majority) of casual climbers for whome VS-HVS is a more realistic average.

In reply to Howard J:
I can't say I've ever seen that suggested

In reply to Bulls Crack: I suspect that it's not that the average climber leads E2 (or E3), it's that the average climber will be leading E2 (or E3) at some time in their climbing career.