This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi
Apologies if this has been answered 1000 times before but can't find anything about it on the internet or UKC.
Multipitch climbs are generally given one adjective grade and one number grade while the separate pitches are given a number grade each. Is there any way to tell what the overall difficulty/sustainedness/sketchiness of the route is?
Example 1; 3 pitches where each on their own would be graded E1 5b, E1 5b, E1 5b. Another 3 pitch route has the indvidual pitches graded E1 5b, VS 4b VS 4b. One of these will be considerably more difficult but will this have an effect on the overall grade?
The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
Thanks!
Espen
Apologies if this has been answered 1000 times before but can't find anything about it on the internet or UKC.
Multipitch climbs are generally given one adjective grade and one number grade while the separate pitches are given a number grade each. Is there any way to tell what the overall difficulty/sustainedness/sketchiness of the route is?
Example 1; 3 pitches where each on their own would be graded E1 5b, E1 5b, E1 5b. Another 3 pitch route has the indvidual pitches graded E1 5b, VS 4b VS 4b. One of these will be considerably more difficult but will this have an effect on the overall grade?
The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
Thanks!
Espen
In reply to EspenK:
They would both probably be given E1 5b as multi pitch routes are normally graded for the hardest pitch.
They would both probably be given E1 5b as multi pitch routes are normally graded for the hardest pitch.
In reply to EspenK:
I think the generally theory is that since you can pretty much stop for a twenty mintute kip on the belay (or at least a good rest and an mars bar) it seldom makes a significant difference.
What I've never quite got is why we only give the tech grades for the individual pitches - one thing you might reasonably want to know beforehand is whether you can skive off by tactically offering your mate the first lead and hence by extrapolation all the hard pitches, or whether some of the "easy" pitches you've cunningly left yourself with will actually turn out to be loose, gear-free nightmares...
I think the generally theory is that since you can pretty much stop for a twenty mintute kip on the belay (or at least a good rest and an mars bar) it seldom makes a significant difference.
What I've never quite got is why we only give the tech grades for the individual pitches - one thing you might reasonably want to know beforehand is whether you can skive off by tactically offering your mate the first lead and hence by extrapolation all the hard pitches, or whether some of the "easy" pitches you've cunningly left yourself with will actually turn out to be loose, gear-free nightmares...
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Well, taking the op's example, sometimes the guide descriptions give a clue as to whether the 4c pitch is in fact standard VS fare or an unprotected mare which would get HVS/E1 In it's own right. But sometimes they don't do they... We tend to exercise caution and expect the worst !
Well, taking the op's example, sometimes the guide descriptions give a clue as to whether the 4c pitch is in fact standard VS fare or an unprotected mare which would get HVS/E1 In it's own right. But sometimes they don't do they... We tend to exercise caution and expect the worst !
In reply to EspenK:
Where have you seen routes given a different adjectival grade for each pitch?
all multi pitch routes that I have done have had just one overall grade with a technical grade for each pitch.
The adjectival grade describes the overall grade of doing the whole climb in one session. That can mean that subsequent pitches may feel harder than due to tiredness, exposure etc.
Where have you seen routes given a different adjectival grade for each pitch?
all multi pitch routes that I have done have had just one overall grade with a technical grade for each pitch.
The adjectival grade describes the overall grade of doing the whole climb in one session. That can mean that subsequent pitches may feel harder than due to tiredness, exposure etc.
Post edited at 00:10
In reply to EspenK:
>The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
That's because there no such thing as 'E2 climbing', only E2 routes. You'll get used to it.
There are routes where each pitch would be (eg) E3, but overall the route is given E4 (eg America), but not many. Normally the adjectival grade of the hardest pitch will be the overall grade.
jcm
>The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
That's because there no such thing as 'E2 climbing', only E2 routes. You'll get used to it.
There are routes where each pitch would be (eg) E3, but overall the route is given E4 (eg America), but not many. Normally the adjectival grade of the hardest pitch will be the overall grade.
jcm
In reply to EspenK:
There's really no reason why adjectival grades couldn't or shouldn't be given to individual pitches and I would argue that this would be a very simple way in which a guidebook can give more useful information to its readers. Consider a 2-pitch route with pitches individually worth E3 5b and E2 6a. Saying the route is E3 (5b,6a) not only isn't helpful, it's completely misleading. I know there's scope for adding explanations in text but why should that be necessary when a simple extra pitch grade can do the same thing as well or better? In this case the route should be graded E3 (E3 5b, E2 6a) and then people considering leading each pitch would know far better what to expect.
This would also allow scope for long multi-pitches to have a higher grade than their hardest pitch. I know it isn't common in the UK since the routes are rarely that long but a route such as The Scoop on Sron Ulladale is a great example: no pitch is harder than E6 in isolation yet a climber would generally need to be capable of onsightng E7 to have a fair chance of onsighting every pitch. That would make the route E7 overall but with a hardest pitch of E6. I also used to describe The Naked Edge as being worth E5 but with a hardest pitch of E4.
A very simple extension to what we have already that would help in several different ways. Why hasn't it been adopted already?
There's really no reason why adjectival grades couldn't or shouldn't be given to individual pitches and I would argue that this would be a very simple way in which a guidebook can give more useful information to its readers. Consider a 2-pitch route with pitches individually worth E3 5b and E2 6a. Saying the route is E3 (5b,6a) not only isn't helpful, it's completely misleading. I know there's scope for adding explanations in text but why should that be necessary when a simple extra pitch grade can do the same thing as well or better? In this case the route should be graded E3 (E3 5b, E2 6a) and then people considering leading each pitch would know far better what to expect.
This would also allow scope for long multi-pitches to have a higher grade than their hardest pitch. I know it isn't common in the UK since the routes are rarely that long but a route such as The Scoop on Sron Ulladale is a great example: no pitch is harder than E6 in isolation yet a climber would generally need to be capable of onsightng E7 to have a fair chance of onsighting every pitch. That would make the route E7 overall but with a hardest pitch of E6. I also used to describe The Naked Edge as being worth E5 but with a hardest pitch of E4.
A very simple extension to what we have already that would help in several different ways. Why hasn't it been adopted already?
In reply to EspenK:
There have been a few attempts to do something like this. And to some degree guide books have always taken this into account. Reflect on the climbing on the VDiffs on idwal slabs compared to those at Stanage. Historically, places like idwal were hard to retreat from and hence the grade was bumped up. This isn't exactly this situation you describe as it not because of the continuous nature of the climbing. The route Gogarth might be a more modern example.
Another approach was taken in the Rowland's cornwall guide. This marked the adj crux pitch in bold. i.e. if a route has VS5a followed by HVS4c, it would be given HVS(5a,4c) with the 4c in bold.
Given the length of the routes in England and Wales (i.e. less than 2 rope lengths) it is unlikely that a 5b pitch followed by a 5b pitch would make much difference. It is far more likely that the issue would be how sustained the 5b on either pitch is.
The question I'd like to know the answer to is what to do with very long traverses (not DWS ones). I'm trying to put up a new traverse on a sea cliff at the moment. It looks like it will be about 50 pitches. The climbing is likely to be mostly HVS5a, but I very much doubt an HVS climber would be able to do it in a single push in a single day. So how do I grade that? E3 5a?
There have been a few attempts to do something like this. And to some degree guide books have always taken this into account. Reflect on the climbing on the VDiffs on idwal slabs compared to those at Stanage. Historically, places like idwal were hard to retreat from and hence the grade was bumped up. This isn't exactly this situation you describe as it not because of the continuous nature of the climbing. The route Gogarth might be a more modern example.
Another approach was taken in the Rowland's cornwall guide. This marked the adj crux pitch in bold. i.e. if a route has VS5a followed by HVS4c, it would be given HVS(5a,4c) with the 4c in bold.
Given the length of the routes in England and Wales (i.e. less than 2 rope lengths) it is unlikely that a 5b pitch followed by a 5b pitch would make much difference. It is far more likely that the issue would be how sustained the 5b on either pitch is.
The question I'd like to know the answer to is what to do with very long traverses (not DWS ones). I'm trying to put up a new traverse on a sea cliff at the moment. It looks like it will be about 50 pitches. The climbing is likely to be mostly HVS5a, but I very much doubt an HVS climber would be able to do it in a single push in a single day. So how do I grade that? E3 5a?
In reply to EspenK:
One will probably feel harder than the other, both will get E1 5b as the headline grade. From the 4c pitch grades, the descriptions and a little knowledge about the crag you could take a guess as to which pitch will be the crux, whether the 4c is safe or run-out etc etc but at the end of the day the only way to find out for sure is to get on it and have a bit of an adventure.
That does sometimes happen but it's not supposed to.
jk
> Example 1; 3 pitches where each on their own would be graded E1 5b, E1 5b, E1 5b. Another 3 pitch route has the indvidual pitches graded E1 5b, VS 4b VS 4b. One of these will be considerably more difficult but will this have an effect on the overall grade?
One will probably feel harder than the other, both will get E1 5b as the headline grade. From the 4c pitch grades, the descriptions and a little knowledge about the crag you could take a guess as to which pitch will be the crux, whether the 4c is safe or run-out etc etc but at the end of the day the only way to find out for sure is to get on it and have a bit of an adventure.
> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
That does sometimes happen but it's not supposed to.
jk
In reply to EspenK:
Yes, read the guidebook description
No, not in practice.
That said, you do perhaps have an exception that proves the rule. White Slab on Cloggy is now graded E2 (up from E1 in older guidebooks) and it is highly debatable whether any individual pitch is harder than E1. However, it is arguably the longest Extreme rock climb in the entirety of England and Wales so it is hardly representative of the 99.9% of UK climbs that only have 3 or fewer sustained pitches...
P.S. A top tip for free. Don't start climbing it at 6pm in August. Also definitely do not go off route on the 2nd pitch and climb Redhead's Direct at E4 by mistake!
> Is there any way to tell what the overall difficulty/sustainedness/sketchiness of the route is?
Yes, read the guidebook description
> One of these will be considerably more difficult but will this have an effect on the overall grade?
No, not in practice.
> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
That said, you do perhaps have an exception that proves the rule. White Slab on Cloggy is now graded E2 (up from E1 in older guidebooks) and it is highly debatable whether any individual pitch is harder than E1. However, it is arguably the longest Extreme rock climb in the entirety of England and Wales so it is hardly representative of the 99.9% of UK climbs that only have 3 or fewer sustained pitches...
P.S. A top tip for free. Don't start climbing it at 6pm in August. Also definitely do not go off route on the 2nd pitch and climb Redhead's Direct at E4 by mistake!
In reply to Skyfall:
Its kind of irrelevant. If a 3 pitch climb is graded E1 4c, 5b, 4c, it would be fair game at that grade for one of the 4c pitches to be a blank wall of easy climbing nothingness. I think we have become soft since single pitch climbing has become so prevalent in this country. Mountain route climbing and the adventure it entails favours all-rounders rather than slab / crack / wall specialists. If you looking at the grade to try and gleem if a mountain route favours a particular style of climbing you have rather missed the point IMO.
> Well, taking the op's example, sometimes the guide descriptions give a clue as to whether the 4c pitch is in fact standard VS fare or an unprotected mare which would get HVS/E1 In it's own right. But sometimes they don't do they... We tend to exercise caution and expect the worst !
Its kind of irrelevant. If a 3 pitch climb is graded E1 4c, 5b, 4c, it would be fair game at that grade for one of the 4c pitches to be a blank wall of easy climbing nothingness. I think we have become soft since single pitch climbing has become so prevalent in this country. Mountain route climbing and the adventure it entails favours all-rounders rather than slab / crack / wall specialists. If you looking at the grade to try and gleem if a mountain route favours a particular style of climbing you have rather missed the point IMO.
Post edited at 11:25
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
>However, it is arguably the longest Extreme rock climb in the entirety of England and Wales so it is hardly representative of the 99.9% of UK climbs that only have 3 or fewer sustained pitches...
At about 170m (?) it is a baby compared with the Girdle Traverse at Swanage.
>However, it is arguably the longest Extreme rock climb in the entirety of England and Wales so it is hardly representative of the 99.9% of UK climbs that only have 3 or fewer sustained pitches...
At about 170m (?) it is a baby compared with the Girdle Traverse at Swanage.
In reply to ByEek:
Fair game, sure. Come to that it'd be fair game for the 5b pitch to have a blank wall of easy climbing nothingness followed by bomber gear and a 5b move - you can't assume that the whole pitch is well protected just because the hard move is.
It could be useful to know whether that was the case, though - if you were climbing in a pair with different abilities, for instance.
Obviously H'ing TFU and dealing with it is also an option. I'm not arguing that the current system should be changed as soon as possible, just that it seems a bit odd.
Fair game, sure. Come to that it'd be fair game for the 5b pitch to have a blank wall of easy climbing nothingness followed by bomber gear and a 5b move - you can't assume that the whole pitch is well protected just because the hard move is.
It could be useful to know whether that was the case, though - if you were climbing in a pair with different abilities, for instance.
Obviously H'ing TFU and dealing with it is also an option. I'm not arguing that the current system should be changed as soon as possible, just that it seems a bit odd.
In reply to EspenK:
The information will usually be in the guidebook description. Look for words like "serious" or "committing".
The information will usually be in the guidebook description. Look for words like "serious" or "committing".
In reply to David Coley: I did say 'arguably' and I'd argue that girdles and sea cliff traverses aren't really 'climbs' and don't count...
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Don't say that, nothing better than a long traverse above the sea on a sunny winter's day. Even better than being in the Alps!
> I'd argue that girdles and sea cliff traverses aren't really 'climbs' and don't count...
Don't say that, nothing better than a long traverse above the sea on a sunny winter's day. Even better than being in the Alps!
In reply to EspenK:
I think a route with 3 sustained 5b pitches in a row would quite possibly be given E2 overall, especially if the stances were poor. True, we don't give adjectival grades to individual pitches, but the first 5b pitch might feel E2 if it were not easy to retreat from once started and even having reached the first stance your options were to complete the route or engineer some epic retreat.
Anything multipitch that has some 'point of no return' tends to add an E grade or maybe even two.
>
>
> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
>
>
> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
>
I think a route with 3 sustained 5b pitches in a row would quite possibly be given E2 overall, especially if the stances were poor. True, we don't give adjectival grades to individual pitches, but the first 5b pitch might feel E2 if it were not easy to retreat from once started and even having reached the first stance your options were to complete the route or engineer some epic retreat.
Anything multipitch that has some 'point of no return' tends to add an E grade or maybe even two.
Post edited at 12:28
In reply to john arran:
>Why hasn't it been adopted already?
I think because, while you are of course right that there are routes on which it would be useful, on the considerable majority of routes it wouldn't and thus you get a guidebook full of a lot of redundant information. It's easier, as you say, to indicate routes of the rare type where the hardest technical pitch is not the adjectival crux in the text.
jcm
>Why hasn't it been adopted already?
I think because, while you are of course right that there are routes on which it would be useful, on the considerable majority of routes it wouldn't and thus you get a guidebook full of a lot of redundant information. It's easier, as you say, to indicate routes of the rare type where the hardest technical pitch is not the adjectival crux in the text.
jcm
In reply to jkarran:
>> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
Rubbish. It does sometimes happen and there's no reason why it shouldn't, for the reasons several people have indicated in this thread.
jcm
>> The obvious answer might be that the harder one will receive a higher adj grade but then you will end up with an E2 (?) route that doesn't actually have any E2 climbing on it? The mind boggles.
> That does sometimes happen but it's not supposed to.
Rubbish. It does sometimes happen and there's no reason why it shouldn't, for the reasons several people have indicated in this thread.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
An E1 given E2 just because there's a lot of it compared to its neighbors? I can see your point were we referring to an unusually long sustained pitch of climbing continuously at 'about E1' standard, I can see that quite reasonably getting E2 (because it probably is E2) but soft grading of big routes because they're big is a nonsense.
jk
> Rubbish. It does sometimes happen and there's no reason why it shouldn't, for the reasons several people have indicated in this thread.
An E1 given E2 just because there's a lot of it compared to its neighbors? I can see your point were we referring to an unusually long sustained pitch of climbing continuously at 'about E1' standard, I can see that quite reasonably getting E2 (because it probably is E2) but soft grading of big routes because they're big is a nonsense.
jk
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Terminology like delicate, airy, proceed carefully are commonly used bywords for it's bold/unprotected.
You always have the option to have a look at it first on route and them make a decision.
> (In reply to EspenK)
> [...]
>
> Yes, read the guidebook description
>
> Clue here to tell if the 4b pitch on that E1 5b,5b,4b is bog standard HS4b or unprotected is the guidebook description. If it's described as 'a good pitch' it's the former, you can also guess a bit from the feature - generally if it's a crack or a corner it will have better gear.
> [...]
>
> Yes, read the guidebook description
>
> Clue here to tell if the 4b pitch on that E1 5b,5b,4b is bog standard HS4b or unprotected is the guidebook description. If it's described as 'a good pitch' it's the former, you can also guess a bit from the feature - generally if it's a crack or a corner it will have better gear.
Terminology like delicate, airy, proceed carefully are commonly used bywords for it's bold/unprotected.
You always have the option to have a look at it first on route and them make a decision.
In reply to EspenK:
Cheers all, really appreciate the replies and knowledge that is coming in here. Good to know that I'm not the only one to wonder about this, interesting to hear about the different proposed/tested solutions.
Espen
Cheers all, really appreciate the replies and knowledge that is coming in here. Good to know that I'm not the only one to wonder about this, interesting to hear about the different proposed/tested solutions.
Espen
In reply to EspenK:
Yes, but, bear in mind, the actual answer is my first response to you caveat emptor ...
Yes, but, bear in mind, the actual answer is my first response to you caveat emptor ...
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
We're not just talking about helping when routes have a crux pitch that isn't the technically hardest one, we're talking about all multi-pitch routes, So if there's an E1 (5b, 4c) it would be really helpful for many climbing teams to know at a glance if the 4c pitch was HS, VS or HVS.
Also it seems that we're happy to accept technical grades for every pitch - why is that when it too could easily be mentioned in the text? What's the difference with adjectival pitch grades? They both give you a better idea of what to expect so you can make better judgements in advance as to which of you should try any particular pitch on lead.
> >Why hasn't it been adopted already?
> I think because, while you are of course right that there are routes on which it would be useful, on the considerable majority of routes it wouldn't and thus you get a guidebook full of a lot of redundant information. It's easier, as you say, to indicate routes of the rare type where the hardest technical pitch is not the adjectival crux in the text.
We're not just talking about helping when routes have a crux pitch that isn't the technically hardest one, we're talking about all multi-pitch routes, So if there's an E1 (5b, 4c) it would be really helpful for many climbing teams to know at a glance if the 4c pitch was HS, VS or HVS.
Also it seems that we're happy to accept technical grades for every pitch - why is that when it too could easily be mentioned in the text? What's the difference with adjectival pitch grades? They both give you a better idea of what to expect so you can make better judgements in advance as to which of you should try any particular pitch on lead.
In reply to john arran:
Definitely with you John on this one. Quite often I've been with a less experienced partner on a multi-pitch route wondering if swinging leads so that he/she leads the 4c pitch on an E1 is a sensible idea. With no information as to whether that pitch is E1 4c or HS 4c, normally caution wins out. I end up leading the pitch, and we miss out on a much better experience for the team as a whole if we had swung leads.
Your suggestion is simple, and would add value to guidebook information with very little extra print space. Yes, the description can give this information, but it doesn't do so reliably in my experience, and not as efficiently.
Martin
Definitely with you John on this one. Quite often I've been with a less experienced partner on a multi-pitch route wondering if swinging leads so that he/she leads the 4c pitch on an E1 is a sensible idea. With no information as to whether that pitch is E1 4c or HS 4c, normally caution wins out. I end up leading the pitch, and we miss out on a much better experience for the team as a whole if we had swung leads.
Your suggestion is simple, and would add value to guidebook information with very little extra print space. Yes, the description can give this information, but it doesn't do so reliably in my experience, and not as efficiently.
Martin
In reply to john arran:
Isn't that information normally in the text, though ? setting off on a multipitch should involve a bit of judgement from the team.
> We're not just talking about helping when routes have a crux pitch that isn't the technically hardest one, we're talking about all multi-pitch routes, So if there's an E1 (5b, 4c) it would be really helpful for many climbing teams to know at a glance if the 4c pitch was HS, VS or HVS.
Isn't that information normally in the text, though ? setting off on a multipitch should involve a bit of judgement from the team.
In reply to john arran:
Think the system works fine as it is. Just because some info (tech grades) has been made available, doesn't mean that more info needs to be.
In your example I'd say it would probably be a fair assumption that the 4c pitch would be doable for a decent VS leader, unless the description suggested otherwise.
Think the system works fine as it is. Just because some info (tech grades) has been made available, doesn't mean that more info needs to be.
In your example I'd say it would probably be a fair assumption that the 4c pitch would be doable for a decent VS leader, unless the description suggested otherwise.
In reply to EspenK:
Good question. I don't usually feel like I've earned the E2 tick for a route without any E2 pitches, though they do exist. Mountain routes shouldn't get graded generously just because they're long (after all, this should be obvious before you start!) but sometimes they are.
Good question. I don't usually feel like I've earned the E2 tick for a route without any E2 pitches, though they do exist. Mountain routes shouldn't get graded generously just because they're long (after all, this should be obvious before you start!) but sometimes they are.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
You're right, of course. No info really 'needs' to be made available.
But once we got E grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we got tech grades we wondered how we ever managed without them (although for some reason they 'weren't needed' below 4c.)
Once we got tech grades below 4c we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we got star ratings we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we started using French grades for sport routes instead of UK Adj grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we started using bouldering grades instead of UK tech grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Etc., etc.
That's how we've ended up with such useful guidebooks that cover all kinds of climbing styles and give loads of useful info without needing to weed the hyperbole and the understatement out of often cryptic text descriptions.
In a sense I think it's a shame that the old-style charm of text-rich guides has been eroded, but looked at objectively a guide is mainly trying to help you make good choices and much of that can be done by grades, stars, etc rather than needing lengthy text.
My prediction is that one guide soon will introduce Adj grades for each pitch and that soon afterwards we'll wonder how we ever managed without them.
I may prove to be wrong.
> Think the system works fine as it is. Just because some info (tech grades) has been made available, doesn't mean that more info needs to be.
You're right, of course. No info really 'needs' to be made available.
But once we got E grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we got tech grades we wondered how we ever managed without them (although for some reason they 'weren't needed' below 4c.)
Once we got tech grades below 4c we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we got star ratings we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we started using French grades for sport routes instead of UK Adj grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Once we started using bouldering grades instead of UK tech grades we wondered how we ever managed without them.
Etc., etc.
That's how we've ended up with such useful guidebooks that cover all kinds of climbing styles and give loads of useful info without needing to weed the hyperbole and the understatement out of often cryptic text descriptions.
In a sense I think it's a shame that the old-style charm of text-rich guides has been eroded, but looked at objectively a guide is mainly trying to help you make good choices and much of that can be done by grades, stars, etc rather than needing lengthy text.
My prediction is that one guide soon will introduce Adj grades for each pitch and that soon afterwards we'll wonder how we ever managed without them.
I may prove to be wrong.
In reply to john arran:
Fair points, though I think it would clutter up guides unnecessarily.
The change to the modern two tier system has obviously been extremely useful, and it's only a small step to then saying which pitches make up the hard ones through tech grades when combined with the overall route grade (not always of course, but you can usually get a good idea).
An overall grade for each pitch seems less important to me as it won't usually affect a given team's ability to climb a certain route. If the weaker climber doesn't fancy the pitch they can just hand it over.
Fair points, though I think it would clutter up guides unnecessarily.
The change to the modern two tier system has obviously been extremely useful, and it's only a small step to then saying which pitches make up the hard ones through tech grades when combined with the overall route grade (not always of course, but you can usually get a good idea).
An overall grade for each pitch seems less important to me as it won't usually affect a given team's ability to climb a certain route. If the weaker climber doesn't fancy the pitch they can just hand it over.
In reply to john arran:
That surely is a problem with the writer rather than the system, though. "Go boldly..." or "go easily..." or "strenuous" are hardly verbose and pretty much give the information you need.
> That's how we've ended up with such useful guidebooks that cover all kinds of climbing styles and give loads of useful info without needing to weed the hyperbole and the understatement out of often cryptic text descriptions.
That surely is a problem with the writer rather than the system, though. "Go boldly..." or "go easily..." or "strenuous" are hardly verbose and pretty much give the information you need.
In reply to john arran:
What might be useful would be US style U/PG/R/X grades for 'danger'/protection, which you could have for each pitch. You could add this to standard grades as well, and it would help disambiguate 'well-protected but sustained and crazy pumpy in exciting positions' from '99% trivial, one move at the tech grade - oh and no gear'. I think the U/PG grades are not normally used, and R/X are only added if the pitch is poorly protected?
> My prediction is that one guide soon will introduce Adj grades for each pitch and that soon afterwards we'll wonder how we ever managed without them.
> I may prove to be wrong.
What might be useful would be US style U/PG/R/X grades for 'danger'/protection, which you could have for each pitch. You could add this to standard grades as well, and it would help disambiguate 'well-protected but sustained and crazy pumpy in exciting positions' from '99% trivial, one move at the tech grade - oh and no gear'. I think the U/PG grades are not normally used, and R/X are only added if the pitch is poorly protected?
In reply to EspenK:
In this day and age surely it wouldn't be difficult to have a video of every climb on youtube, filmed from the climbers persepective using a gopro camera so that it's obvious how hard it is before we start? Or use augmented reality devices to warn you when the crux is coming up, where the good gear is and how far you're going to fall if you come off now. It could even give a live, "chance of death" figure at all times.
Can't we all just go climbing?
In this day and age surely it wouldn't be difficult to have a video of every climb on youtube, filmed from the climbers persepective using a gopro camera so that it's obvious how hard it is before we start? Or use augmented reality devices to warn you when the crux is coming up, where the good gear is and how far you're going to fall if you come off now. It could even give a live, "chance of death" figure at all times.
Can't we all just go climbing?
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Surely it would be rare not to realise which of your 2 categories the route in question would fall into, once you'd read the description and viewed it from below?
> it would help disambiguate 'well-protected but sustained and crazy pumpy in exciting positions' from '99% trivial, one move at the tech grade - oh and no gear'
Surely it would be rare not to realise which of your 2 categories the route in question would fall into, once you'd read the description and viewed it from below?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...