UKC

Sorry to return to an old theme but I've recently bought the new Langdale guide. Whilst transferring over my route ticks I noticed an awful lot of upgrades. Admittedly my old guide was the 1989 edition so some of them will have been upgraded in the 1999 edition but nevertheless they are still upgrades and the current grading system was pretty well established by '89.

Of the 50 routes I've done in the book, 12 have been upgraded (2 of them by 2 grades), that's nearly a quarter. On the plus side, I've now got 6 more Langdale E points but I really don't see how that many upgrades can be justified. I know my sample may not be representative but all those routes haven't actually got any harder and I don't feel like I've been regularly sandbagged in Langdale.
One or two felt a bit stiff for their grade, I thought Intern was a bit mean at HVS so E1 seems fair enough and likewise Arcturus but HVS to E2, really? And whilst there's a few soft touches amoungst my route tally, not a single one has been downgraded.
Some up (and down) is to be expected but surely this is just ego massaging.

Incidentally, if you're reading this Max Biden, the above gripe notwithstanding, its a great book and I can't wait to get back up there if it ever stops raining.

In reply to pec:

Not quite the same difficulty, but I bought a new Llanberis guide last week (as my 80's edition finally fell apart)and was rather surprised to see The Wrinkle has been upgraded from VDiff to Severe "on account of the polish"

We went up it and its still a Classic Rock VD

Always has been, always will be.....

In reply to pec:

I don't usually worry about overgrading - just collect the reto-points, but E2? How? It's a mild E1

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I haven't met anyone who thinks Arcturus is E2. I think the authors will admit that that upgrade was an error.

In reply to pec:

I thought Spring Bank was a lovely route and pretty much definitive E1 5c.

I thought I was going to die on Intern. Same day iirc.

In reply to Babika:

I've always thought the wrinkle quite hard for VDiff tbh. Pitch 1 is solid at the grade and the last pitch is high in the grade due to lack of gear and loose rock. I think crackstone rib is easier.

In reply to pec:

Er,
Yes well I did Arcturus in about 1976 and while we struggled a bit we didn't think to question the grade. E2 is wrong.
I feel strongly that there are still a few sandbags about and a lot of people are scared to question the grades. My view is that Fulcrum on Scafell East is hideous at VS. I would give Banzai Pipeline E2 5c for pitch 3. It seems odd that the modern guide down grades Red Edge to HVS. It isn't 2 grades easier than Arcturus.

In reply to Ian Jones:

From my very limited experience cloggy grades seem well out. Normally remote mountain cliffs with more than there fair share of dusty rock, veg and bold pitches are more softely graded not the opposite! Seeing as my upper limit at such venues is hvs on a good day I can't see what all the fuss is about - although I do want to go back for great slab / bow combo one day, just not for a few years!

In reply to Ian Jones:

The UKC consensus for Arcturus is low to middle E1 with more votes for HVS than E2
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=5971

I also found Fulcrum hard but just put it down to not climbing very well at the time, I haven't done the other 2.

The thing is, we can all think of routes we found hard or easy for the grade and there will always be a few sandbags and soft touches, but there is a relentless trend towards upgrading and as in this case, of a substantial proportion of the routes with almost no corresponding downgrading even though with better pro (wider range of cam sizes for example) some routes are now easier.
Over time it devalues grades, at this rate I'll probably get my first E3 lead by the time I'm 50 without having to actually go out and climb one!

I wonder if its time to establish "benchmark" climbs which define the upper and lower limit of each grade for each rock type/area/style of climb? That way if the consensus is that route X is easier than the benchmark for that grade it can't get upgraded and so on.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


I've found them to be about right but I guess it depends which routes we've done. Great Slab is certainly a soft touch at VS and The Boulder is another upgrade to E1 from HVS but I imagine when it was given HVS most routes were badly protected so it didn't seem too bad. It was only when most routes became well protectable that The Boulder would have seemed harder. Though in this case I think the upgrade is justifiable.

In reply to pec:


The Peak guides from the 50s/60s had a list at the front showing the "benchmark" route for each grade.

The Wharncliffe book gave the benchmark VDiff as Grammarian's Progress. It's now graded VS 4b, and in my view is still a mild sandbag.

Not all grade changes are grade creep - most are grade corrections.

But back to Langdale - Bowfell Buttress at Hard Severe?!?

In reply to pec:

Routes do change and if a crucial gear placement goes then it's possible for the grade to go up.

Arcturus is a standard HVS with a very short section, two moves, that are a bit harder. There used to be a peg protecting these, don't know if it's still there, but even if it isn't then there's gear close by so without the peg it's going to be bottom end E1 at most and I'd say it was a good introduction to the grade. It's easier than Capella just to the left for example.

I know what you mean about Intern - it's a bit of a funny off-balance crux that feels harder than it should rightfully be. A long, long time since I did it but remember it being decently protected.

In reply to Bob:


Then there is of course the converse of this. Hargreaves Original at Stanage was Severe or Hard severe, can't remember which, for many years and had no protection whatsoever but now that it is protect-able it's gone up to VS.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

To be fair to those guides climbing skills and protection levels have changed and for the time the benchmarks made some sense. Cracks were hard to protect so often virtual solos and being steep had a sense of urgency. Grammarians is in balance between the hard moves.

Back to the lakes some of the grades being reported here are daft, even more so than some unnecesary recent changes in Snowdonia. Classics are creeping and hidden away in the guides obscure climbs can be nasty sandbags, even when looked at with the old harder grading standards. I'm speaking as someone who was always OK with the older outing of stuff like the crux of North Climb on Pillar a diff for ages despite an airy S 4a crux. Bowfell Buttress in comparison was more like VD 4a. Classic E1s moving to E2 with hardly any public votes and improving pro is arguably even worse.

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't have the new guide so can't check but can anyone say what grade is given to Death Star on Pavey Ark please? I notice that I'm one of only two ticks on the UKC database - http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=51882 The route was originally given E3 5c but with a high side-runner (read top-rope) in Rake End Chimney, without that you've a couple of small insecure RPs with decking out from 20 metres a distinct probability. I reckon E5 5c is about right.

In reply to GridNorth:
Hargreaves has been VS since 1976. I'd maintain when it was given severe it was probably OK as balance climbing at that time was finely honed and the lower grades were pretty consistent in what they meant across the guides. What went wrong was the editors from the late 60s into the 80s failing to realign everything consitently to improvements in modern pro and shoes. There should have been mass downgrading of cracks and faces with good breaks. This led to mass grade creep on some routes and some huge inconsistencies on obscurities.

Anyone can see the peak grit grade change history in the guide pages on our Offwidth site, one of its most useful features now it has helped serve its original main purpose to consistently reassess pretty much every sub VS route in the peak and tie these in with VS and HVS classics.

http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/

So I've led an E2 how many more years before I've led E3 ?

In reply to Offwidth:


I've been climbing for over 40 years and have seen this progression happen and like other posters I'm waiting for the day when I'll have done an E5 without ever going near one. However, I'm not convinced that it's such a major issue.

The whole point of having a national grading system in the first place is to create some sort of consistency in describing the difficulty of climbs. One could then argue that there's little or no point in having a national system if a single grade doesn't translate to some sort of comparable difficulty between climbs in different areas. However, the British trad grading system doesn't work this objectively, thus giving some Peak grit VSs that would be at least E1 elsewhere. With such structural 'inconsistency', does grade creep really matter?

For my sins I'm currently working on 2 new Mid Wales guides concurrently and I'll admit that grade creep is a concern for the guidebook team. However, we try to keep things in some sort of perspective, so it's not a major concern.

Grade creep does occur though and sometimes it's for a very good reason - eg. a simple mistake or a significant change in the route. A Severe described in CC Meirionnydd (2002) will be graded E1 5b in the new guide. Nothing's fallen off it to make it harder - it simply was never a Severe in the first place and was a sandbag of immense proportions. Similarly the route on the front cover of Meirionnydd was never VS 4c. HVS 5a is far more realistic (although one or two would have been even happier to see it given E1 5a!) Several unprotectable E2s, with body-scything groundfall potential, are now more realistically graded E3 or E4. So some grade creep is clearly justified and probably inevitable.

Grade creep could also be due to consensus, or even due to a lack of it on more obscure stuff. You can see this working both ways on the UKC route database. Some of it is undoubtedly due to ego-massaging, but some will be genuinely down to some people thinking that climb X is a lot harder than the given grade but didn't want to be the one that said "it felt more like E1 than HVS ..."

It's all a matter of opinion anyway and in an ideal world, no one would be allowed to have any opinion on the grade of any given climb unless they've climbed it at least 10 times - and that has to include doing the climb when it's 5C and when it's 30C; with chalk and without chalk; when it's raining and when it's been dry for 3 months; in at least 5 different pairs of rock shoes; when strong and fit and also when returning from an injury or when generally just weak or hungover.

FWIW, I've done Dream of White Horses 12 times, either led it all or AL. I've done it twice in a pair of B3 boots and never with chalk. Did half of it in the rain once too. Am I any wiser as to whether it's VS 4c or HVS 4c? Perhaps I am, but does it really matter? Deep down do I really care? To me it’s part of the fun of climbing.

Grade creep? Hmm, yes it happens but then I think that these days perhaps we've just become soft. [By "we", I mean mostly me. !!] I also remind myself of the old maxim that the best climber is not always the one climbing the highest grades; the best climber is the one having the most fun.

Dave

PS: Surprised no one has yet blamed grade creep on sport climbing or climbing walls ... or bouldering.

In reply to pec:

Like some others here I don't stress about a bit of grade creep. There are undoubtedly dangers in having sandbags and personally, being a wuss, I'd prefer to find a route easier than expected than a lot harder. In the past when pro was scarce and ineffective routes were graded almost entirely on technical difficulty whereas now we can have a more sophisticated approach.

The big controversy with Max's new Langdale guide was over the sainted Bowfell Buttress where one short stretch is much harder than the traditional grading of V Diff., and is probably HS 4b. I think it's better in that case to take a leaf from our friends across the border where many guides now have a Scottish VS grade. In a similar way we could have a Traditional V Diff grade where you could expect the odd move of say 4b. This would deal with the Bowfell Buttress issue and the Gimmer Chimney issue in one easy step. Maybe there are other examples of this?

In reply to Dave Williams:



Modern gear has made 90% of routes easier, but rather than downgrade those (and reduce granularity in the system), the logical thing is to upgrade the 10% that haven't been affected. (obviously these stats are made up and not all routes are affected in the same way)

Better training facilities has also meant that standards have improved, so there are a higher percentage of climbers now climbing harder. But certain techniques - notably jamming - are under-represented on walls, so the average climber will now be less proficient at that in relation to his other abilities. It would therefore be logical to regrade the 10% or so of routes that require jamming, so that they reflect the skill-set of average climber today.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Just providing the technical pitch grade deals with the Bowfell 'issue'.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

The problem with grade creep is that it creates the illusion of sandbags because anyone who gets used to Pembroke grades, or VS 4b being applied to the likes of Inverted V tend to set their expectations set by them and therefore feels 'sandbagged' when the encounter something that deserves VS 4b

In reply to Dave Williams:


I'd say that no one would be allowed an opinion on the grade if they've climbed it more than once. Grades are supposed to be for the onsight, once you've climbed it enough to know where all the holds are then it's much easier.

In reply to GrahamD:


Indeed, V, 6 is about right

In reply to GrahamD:
Exactly. The difficult crack would be (VD) 4a in most places being protectable and spottable moves above a flattish ledge so its a daft decision to give it HS and in such cases, the maxim if it not clearly broken dont fix it should apply. If you want to go all soft give it HVD 4b. However BB is a country mile from a UK benchmark easy HS classic and is adjectivally easier than quite a few current VD benchmarks. The irony is there are starred VD's I might give HS 4b, Lands End Long Climb most recently, due to a broken hold on the top wall (S 4a for the tricky corner lower down if you bypass the top wall and the tricky traverse/leap of faith).

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What I see most under-represented now on average compared to 25 years back is boldness, much more so than specific technical issues like jamming. My best leads are bold and match people climbing 3 to 5 grades harder on sport or boulder problems, jamming wise the gap is smaller.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Tradtional VD is a nonsense label disguising a sandbag and wouldnt apply to BB in any case as its not that hard (Gimmer Chimney is a good bit tougher onsight)

In reply to GrahamD:


I'd be equally happy with that. But there might be resistance to that too - I haven't seen a pitch grading on a V Diff since Paul Nunn's Selected Guide to the Peak.

In reply to Offwidth:


We don't do HVD in the Lakes. We do have MS- though. Would that do? ;oD

In reply to Rog Wilko:

The BMC and YMC guides have quite a few VDs with tech grades, even the odd experimental chapter where all routes are given tech grades. I'd prefer VD 4a to MS 4b but the latter seems to me what they should have used.

In reply to Offwidth:


Really - I know I'm a bit of touch but is Chequers crack now more popular than TPS or Sunset Slab? I guess it would explain Arcturus being upgraded

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That was certainly my problem on Intern. Not jamming admittedly, but slopy insecure ledge shuffling in a style that is more or less impossible to train indoors and on which finger strength alone is not much use.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Chequers Crack is sustained 5b and has a reputation and is maybe a bit sandbag graded at HVS onsight. Sunset Slab a couple of 4b moves on a soft HVS and effectively a solo. Three Pebble a classic E0 5a where a good number of ascenstionists avoid the E0 bit (the 4c right-hand bold padding finish). Still SS and 3PS are about the same on logs and only about 4 times the log traffic as CC, including a much larger proportion of TRs: so popularity seems to me to apply to all three. My point is on bold routes the climbers I see these days seems to have a much larger technical safety margin than they used to, whereas on cracks there doesnt seem to me to be much difference (jamming remains an acquired taste)

In reply to Babika:


Based purely on limited observations of myself and other people climbing...
I have a theory (just a theory!) that for a polished route at say VDiff if you can climb well above VDiff the polish makes no difference whatsoever, and if you only climb VDiff the polish makes it horrifying. With poorer technique/lack of strength a climber will need more from a foothold than a better climber. So better climbers should be careful not to underestimate the effects of polish on climbers at the lower grades...

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Polish may have more of a psychological impact rather than a real one but in any case you can't grade a route in anticipation of poor technique.

In reply to GrahamD:

I dont believe its significantly more polished in the last decades (a steep polished wall is described in Ashton's 1990 guide) or the polish is that big an issue. I agree with Andrew's point but dont think it really applies to Wrinkle: bold polish would be much more scary for a VD leader.

In reply to Doug:


Next guide. No sweat. I'm getting more and more 'E points' without ever getting off my arse!

My ha'pennorth? In't'old days folks were cool about a lack of pro. It came with the terrain. Now if there isn't good gear every couple of metres then its desperate. A cliche observation, I know.

In reply to Dave Williams:

I think that the latest Peak guides have reversed the trend and grades have crept down.

But grades are a subjective term and as you say a severe in one area (Yorkshire) could be an HVS elsewhere (Pembroke) or even a Diff (Scotland)

As Joe Brown once said "You could go out and do a VDiff in bad weather and it will feel like an E1"

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Scottish grades are softer these days away from maybe the odd rarely climbed sandbags. Yorkshire is tough and especially so if BB has become HS: I know quite a few harder VDiffs adjectivally and technically in the brand new YMC grit guides.

In reply to GrahamD:

Surely that's the only way you grade a route! A VDiff climb is a climb that can be onsighted by the hypothetical VDiff leader who will have poor technique, or they wouldn't be a VDiff leader... how easy an E1 leader finds it is not strictly relevant. I do imagine it is quite hard to judge though - 'how hard would I find this climb if I was weak, couldn't do a layback, and could only use the large holds (hand and feet) instead of convenient smears and crimpy intermediates?'

I also sometimes worry that easy climbs are graded by good climbers soloing them, and thus not really realising that they can be quite run out. I don't know whether guidebook writers do solo climbs to estimate their grade or not, but it may give a misleading impression (this might explain the runouts on some D and VD routes).

In reply to andrewmcleod:



I'd say you're overthinking things. No matter what their max grade is, the route will probably be graded by a climber saying to themselves 'that felt about v-diff'.



This will no doubt happen, but so will the opposite. The route might feel quite bold to the soloing FA (for obvious reason) or they might not spot much obvious gear, while if someone was leading they'd spend longer looking for placements and maybe find it wasn't that bold after all.

In reply to pec:

The various points people have raised about why grade creep happens all have some truth in them but they cannot possibly explain why 24% of my reasonably large route sample in Langdale all needed upgrading.
They haven't all got massively more polished in the last 25 years and they haven't all(if indeed any) suffered holds falling off. These aren't obscure routes that didn't have a consensus back in '89 and the current grading system was well established by then.
Certainly protection has got a lot better with flexi cams in smaller and bigger sizes than were available in '89, and lighter so most of us carry bigger racks now and rock shoes are much improved, yet not a single route has been downgraded.
As I said a bit of up and down could be expected but massive upgrading with no downgrading devalues the grade and is just ego massaging.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Those days of hard climbers grading VD solo are long gone on any well travelled routes. Your run out sections on classics will have been considered.

Its impossible to get subjective grades 'exact' but the bands are wide enough to say its mid grade bordering the next grade etc. All the teams I talk to are keen to get them right in that respect and listen to climbers at those grades, are normally utilising direct input from people who know the difference between a Diff a VDiff and a Severe and are looking at things like votes and comments on UKC as a sense check. In the case of BB the Langdale team seem to have over-reacted (to a bad, experience?) or over adjusted (the route takes a while to get in perfect nick) and unwisely ignored UKC...on large samples the vote averages are never more than a grade wrong.

In reply to pec:


Yeah totally agree. The BMC Stanage guide has upgraded over 50% of the routes compared to their earlier 1984 one. There is absolutely no point in upgrading 50% of the routes at a crag. That is blatantly changing the grading system.

It's true that climbers rarely complain about overgraded routes and always whinge about undergraded ones (or anything they find hard). But those responsible, guidebook writers, should be aware of that trend. I've also noticed that with Rockfax the grades are still above what the consensus of the UK Climbing database grades things. If the editors took into account the issue of grade inflation then it should be the other way around.

Maybe it helps sell more guides by overgrading loads of popular routes? Is money the route of all evil??

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


In my experience Scottish grades are almost always on the soft side, if I mentally subtract a grade then it usually feels about right.
Unfortunately there are exceptions!

In reply to stp:

Since the 83 guide the following 2/3 star classics changed adjectivally (in four editions of the BMC guidebooks)

Goosey GG E4 to E5
Old Friends E3 to E4
Wolf Solent E3 to E4
Impossible Slab E2 to E3
Goliaths Groove VS to HVS
Not to Be Taken Away HVS 5c to V4 6b
Namenlos HVS to E1
Stanleyville E3 to E4
Balcony Buttress VD to S
Agony Crack VS to HVS
Left Twin Chimney M to D
Wuthering E1 to E2
RHRHBD S to HS
FBD HVS to E1
Kirkus Corner HVS to E1
Unprintable HVS to E1
Tippler Direct E2 to E3
Crack and Corner HVD to S

Which I make 18 out of 80 and in the graded lists most of those routes are low in the grade band so have shifted half a grade at most. Never mind the facts getting in the way of a good story though.

In reply to Offwidth:

Johnny Dawes used to reckon Impossible Slab was E5! I think that's without the side runner though.

Of those I've done on that list, the only one I'd possibly disagree with is Wuthering. Routes like Namenlos are borderline, somedays you think they are the upper grade some days the lower.

In reply to pec:


Grumbling about "grade creep" could equally reasonably be seen as ego-massaging. Things have moved on; the system has recalibrated itself. As long as it's self-consistent, I don't think it matters one jot that it doesn't exactly match up with 20 years ago.

In reply to stp:


Or simply recognising that the system is now differently calibrated. You imply an agenda among guidebook writers that simply doesn't exist.


No, that's not true. Many climbers regularly whinge about overgraded routes.

But those responsible, guidebook writers, should be aware of that trend.

They are only too aware of it. They give a great deal of thought to grading issues, and do their best to represent a consensus.


Arrant nonsense.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I find the Quarry Grades Soft compared to the hills.

Say an E1 at Cambusbarron compared to an E1 at Glen Croe. (even then they central belt crags can hit you pretty hard i.e Longbow and Wally)

I have the new BMC Stanage guide and when I go down this will be my only reference as I have no local knowledge - I wonder if thats a factor in broad spectrum upgrades...

In reply to stp:

That leaves 50% still overgraded then

In reply to Offwidth:


Yes, well done. You must be feeling very proud of yourself. Award yourself 10 points. It is of course not that difficult to prove someone wrong when you completely change what they've said. I never restricted this to only adjectival grades nor 2 or 3 star routes.

But I rechecked and was out by a few percent. In fact 48% of routes were upgraded (320 routes) which contrasts with a mere 3.5% that were downgraded in the same period. I think my point is still valid that if you upgrade almost half of all the routes at a crag you are essentially changing the grading system.

In reply to pec:

In N Wales Cemetery Gates HVS to E1 seems daft to me, Also Grim Wall Direct HVS to E1

In reply to Stevie989:




That's just because some of those E1s at Camby are ridiculously overgraded!

In reply to bpmclimb:

I've noticed several times that the majority of UKC users give a route a lower grade but it appears in the Rockfax guide at the higher grade. In other words against the consensus. The guidebook star ratings often seem to have little correlation with UKC database too.


If that's true then the guidebook writers obviously can't be listening. If they were the issue of grade creep wouldn't arise.


It seems to me if someone fails on route they will prefer to assume the route is wrongly graded rather than admit they're perhaps not quite as good as they think they are. And if they find a route easy they prefer to put it down to them climbing well rather than suggest the route is overgraded. These are of course generalisations and I know that not all climbers are like this.

In reply to stp:
I dont feel proud I'm just pointing out realities. You can only really measure creep on classics that everyone knows. Plus Stanage contained lots of daft obscure sandbags in the no star lower grade list in '83 and the changes for them are not grade creep, more realigning with the classics. Most of the classics on my list changed grade between '83 and '89.The percentage change for all starred routes since '83 is not much from a quarter as well, but naming them would take too long.

So you had a go at the BMC recent grading as if they had the same problems as these new Langdale grades on classic lines and its simply not true. Over a period of 30 years, since '83, on graded lists, grade drift is averageing maybe around a quarter to half a grade (most in the first 5 years) when in the previous 30 its certainly well over a full grade (mainly due to improved gear). Add this to the fact that Stanage is still one of the softest graded of the major grit crags and I think the BMC have done an admirable job holding out against grade creep.

I'd defend Rockfax as well on grit. Where grades dont match grading concensus is nearly all on borderline routes where they made an editorial decision to hold against creep in the same way the BMC did. They know full well low in the grade classics at mid grade suffer a voting distortion

In reply to kevin stephens:


Quite historic upgradings by now surely? 10 - 15 years?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

still wrong 'tho

In reply to stp:


Oddly, since having moved to Sheffield a few months ago and climbing solely with Rockfax guides, I've found the opposite - I've come across a number of routes which are a tech or adjective grade higher here on UKC than in the Rockfax guides.

In reply to Offwidth:

Hi Offwidth, that's a interesting list! I've got Old Friends ticked as XS the first time I led it! Certainly was pokey at E3 and bang on at E4. Bancroft XS. Most of this looks just like a reality check rather than grade inflation, what do you think? Apart from (commented by another post) Wuthering which is a cracking E1, they all look spot on. Especially Wolf Solent.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I did CG 10 years ago when i was climbing E1 across the country and it felt solid E1 to me esp as i didn't take the cop out stance.

In reply to Offwidth:
Just for the record the extra upgrades (on top of GGG, FBD, LTC and C&C) from '89 to the latest guide, in the 2 &3 star category, were:

Orang Utang E1 to E2
Crypt Trip E5 to E6
Weather Report E5 to E6
Silk E5 to E6
Indian Summer E5 to E6
Punishment E4 to E5
Curving Chimney D to VD
Wall of, Sound E5 to E6
Chameleon E3 to E4

The two down-grades were Green Streak to VS and Paradise Wall to HS.

All on 120 routes (in '89)

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
I'd give Wuthering highish E1, esp with two belayers that makes it safe as. Namelos felt easier than any of the HVS climbs I did around the time I did it (a full grade easier than FBD! ). So I agree reality check more than creep ina modern context. I belayed and failed to second some of the harder routes that were upgraded and normally had a good shot at getting up such grades and they made my leaders who had led harder look very concentrated so they didnt seem soft to me.

In reply to bpmclimb:

How's that then?

There's no particular reason why the grading system needs to move on, of course there was some readjustment during the 80's as new editions of guidebooks came out using E grades and tech grades for the first time and as people travelled more widely between areas but that doesn't require a wholesale upgrading of anything hard for its grade with almost no downgrading. Anyway, that was 3 decades ago, surely only a few minor revisions should be left to do now.


We're not talking about matching exactly but large scale regrading. It matters for anyone who's been climbing a while to have some consistency by which to measure themselves over time and so that people climbing in one area with an up to date guidebook who think they can climb E1 (or whatever) don't go somewhere with a guide written 15 or 20 years ago and suddenly find they can't, perhaps getting themselves out of their depth in the process. And if I was a young lad turning up in Langdale in search of some classic HVS's or E1's like I was 25 years ago I'd never have got to do some of the best routes in the valley (or the country for that matter) because I'd have looked at Arcturus or Springbank etc and thought I can't climb E2.

In reply to Offwidth:


Weren't they downgraded having previously been upgraded anyway? So not proper downgrades in the same way the others were upgrades.

In reply to Offwidth:

Namenlos: HVS in my opinion (given the cams to the left, which are obviously on-route).

Wuthering: soft-E2 is fair for anyone not tall, since the moves onto the face are then desperate, though admittedly with a top-rope.

Stanleyville: it all depends on whether that cam would hold! Top-end E3 if it would, top-end E4 if not.

Those upgrades to Goliath's Groove, FBD, Kirkus's Corner, Agony Crack and Tippler Direct all seem fair to me.

It is, though, still possible to find sandbags among starred routes on Stanage. E.g. Don's Delight, supposedly HVS 5b. Someone explain to me how insecure 5b moves, 4 metres above a very bad, bouldery landing (no gear of course) gets HVS.

In reply to pec:

They were downgraded from '89 to present as that was the list. Yes GS was VS in 83 but PW was VS then (upgraded earlier).

Back to Bowfell Buttress most climbers I know and the votes seem to average on tough VD (to be fair with at least a 4a move on the difficult crack) and if its now HS I cant think of any equivalent classic upgrade in any modern guide. Trying to pretend the BMC were in the same ballpark with the pretty mild creep in evidence at Stanage was silly.

In reply to Offwidth:



If that's true then surely an admirable job would have been a realigning Stanage grades with what is average for gritstone grades?

Also the phrase 'holding out' doesn't really make sense to me. They are the people (along with Rockfax) who define the grades. No one else does. Do you mean they're not giving in to whinging climbers who want everything upgraded to nurture they're egos? I'm interested to know in what form that pressure is. This suggests that those who are against grade creep need to be more vociferous.

In reply to kevin stephens:

110/135 for GWD and 180/280 for CG UKC voters don't agree!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

That's because people value their egos, next think they will be voting for Cenotaph Corner at E2 because it's so much harder than Cemetery Gates

In reply to stp:
I really dont get what you are trying to prove. I've shown the brakes were firmly on grade creep at Stanage after the 80s (a classic VS crack maybe had dropped 2 grades by then as it went from a virtual solo in the first edition guides to become fully protectable with nuts, hexs and cams). I think those transitional editors should have reorganised grades better but they didn't.

I started climbing keenly in the early 90s led by Steve Ashtons 100 classics series (Bowfell Buttress D+). When I first became involved in Stanage grades, in the late 90s, it was because I climbed everything I could and there were quite a number of obscure Diffs and VDs that felt at least 3 grades harder...some had a go spitting me out solo where I was lucky to escape uninjured (as someone steadily ticking through the HVS graded list)... by the mid noughties I was a fully signed up guidebook volunteer. I have seen a clear effort to make grades consistent and to resist drift but more importantly a desire to inform and inspire with a visual and written celebration of the climbing and its history. I always knew 'grade flack' was part of the cost of involvement in what we did but I felt our 'ground' was solid and still do. Stanage isnt uniformly soft, go climb the routes at the top of the grades in the current graded lists; its biggest softness aspect I guess is a bunch of classic mid-grade friendly climbs at the bottom end of the grades in the graded list, especially at VS at the Popular End (a statistical fluke?).

In reply to stp:


You state this very confidently, but you are mistaken. Guidebook writing is a complex task which requires a lot of thought, particularly about grades, and includes taking into account information from all available sources, including UKC and other websites, consulting colleagues, reclimbing the routes, and consulting old guidebooks. Some degree of grade creep seems to occur over time, but it can't simply be attributed to negligent guidebook writers.

In reply to kevin stephens:

So instead of consensus we have to seek out the mythic ego-less climber in their mystic hovel deep in the Cairngorms and ask their opinion?

In reply to Bulls Crack:
I am humbly here waiting to be asked

Actually for Stanage I am a reasonable source of info having climbed mid-grade there for 40 years - about 700 routes but little chance of making the 1000 club unless I get my finger out!

In reply to Offwidth:


I got pumped and spat off Terrazza yesterday (just did it with a rest). I thought it felt nails. I've had more success on some of the supposed hard HVSs at Curbar!

In reply to Michael Hood:

Ahh grit grades.....

In reply to pec:

Let's remember what the grading system is for. The only question that matters is: Is the grading more consistent? If the answer is yes, then stop complaining.


Grades aren't scalps and romantic notions of "what a HVS should be" cloud a process that can be fairly objective and useful.

In reply to Offwidth:

Hi Offwidth, we've been concentrating on adjectival grades, what's the score with tech grades? My guess is that there hasn't been much movement on these?
Also, I agree that certain areas of Stanage have 'soft' grades, but they're not miles out are they? I think that there is an assumption in some of the posts that grit is homogenous in the peak, but taking some crags at random, say Stanage, Curbar and Black Rocks, the character of the climbing is entirely different, meaning that there are very few soft touches at say Curbar. I guess here that there's a Stanage or a Curbar or a Black Rocks VS, and it depends how you get on with that style, with the Stanage style appealing to low-mid. If that makes sense? Don't think any further adjustments need to be made to bring crags 'into line' though.

In reply to TobyA:


Harvest feels positively pleasant after that little brute!

In reply to pec:

My own thoughts are that it is very hard to have an objective grade for various reasons and I think on the whole guide book writers do a grand job. The height of the climber, the state of the rock, the advances in gear all make a difference. In my experience some climbs have gone up a grade but a good many others have gone down in grade (most notably in the Burbage and beyond book).
Ego aside I would rather find something a soft touch than get sandbagged by a grade.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


It definitely doesn't look it!

In reply to Franco Cookson:


Consistent with what though? If grades continually creep up then its not consistent over time as the definition of each grade changes making meaningful comparison of ascents over time invalid.
Regarding comparison between areas, it depends how recent the guidebook to the area is. If the area has a new book the grades will mean one thing but if the most recent guide to another area is 20 years old then the same grade could mean something quite different.

If we just took a few routes at each grade and said these represent the top/bottom end of the grade in this area/on this rock type then we'd all know where we stand.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


yeah right!

In reply to pec: One of the problems is that the typical climbing skill set changes over time, so for instance jamming is now harder than it used to be; e.g. why is Goliath's Groove now HVS? It was quite happy at VS for many years and the actual climbing is unchanged - it's because the typical climber finds the jamming harder than they used to so relative to other types of climb it has become harder for the typical climber - originally the bottom of GG wasn't even the hardest bit!

Similarly Terreza Crack is considered tough for the HVS grade - it used to be considered just above mid-grade but certainly not top of the grade - again it's jamming becoming harder to the typical climber.

You can show a similar drift for slabs. Personally I think it's down to climbing walls which make steep fingery stuff relatively easier as it's the main type of climbing on walls so lots of people get good at it; i.e. they've changed the skill profile of the typical climber - so other types of climbing become relatively harder.

Then there's the question of what to do about it? and that's tricky - should certain climbs always be the benchmark for the grade, or should grade drift be allowed if the typical climber's profile changes?

Not sure, but Three Pebble Slab is only HVS

In reply to Michael Hood:


It is a lot more polished, which matters for thrutchy jamming and frictioning on the walls.

In reply to Coel Hellier: Doing it by bridging maybe, but is it really harder when sticking a foot and arm in, I'm not convinced it's any harder that way than 20-30 years ago.

In reply to Michael Hood:


Personally I'm not very convinced by that. I'm not very good at any aspect of climbing, but definitely crack climbing is my strongest suit. All my hardest climbs have been cracks. Terrazza isn't hard because its a crack, in fact for me it's hard despite being a crack! I reckon it is just bloomin' hard!

In reply to TobyA: It's steeper than you think, so it's a "bit" (i.e. very) pumpy - you need to break it into (if I remember correctly) 3 sections and for each one place good gear and go - if you hang around fiddling in more gear or spend loads of time dithering (my typical modus operandi) then you're likely to get spanked.

In reply to pec:

Whilst grade 'realignment/correction' is a good thing where routes have obviously been under graded, and also where polished holds have altered the original grading, I do sometimes think that a lot of the 'grade creep' we see, is quite possibly more a reflection of the attitudes and skills of 'wall bred' climbers.

Modern gear makes routes easier, not harder - if you question that, then next time you go out, leave your sticky rubber and cams at home, and see how you get on?

So must I admit to being a bit baffled as to the increase in grades on so many routes

I remember many eaons ago - around 77'- a group of us deciding to have a 'retro' day on Stanage. Armed with just pumps/trainers for the feet, rope tied directly round the waist, and a few old slings, we spent the day with ever increasing respect for the talent and boldness of the old pioneers of the 30' 40's and 50's.

We came away pondering exactly what they could have climbed if they had been armed with modern day gear?

In reply to Michael Hood:
I always try and grade for a nominal 'average' climber who has some experience of the grit skills needed. GG feels easy for me for an HVS, similar to many top end VS climbs but I know it suits my skill set so I'm happy with the adjectival grade and graded list position (I did lobby that Doncasters got the same grade). I think your view is spot on though. TC was one I never got round to but its spanked many a low extreme leader and a positive approach does seem needed.

As for Pauls first question I dont know. I had the adjectival data on changes as part of files I was going to use for our "Offwidth" site (on the top tens section I analysed grade changes for the new BMC guides and was going to extend it one day). I suspect tech grades have changed slightly less except for lower adjectival grade routes where all the 4b and 4a moves have gone in. I think the Curbar and Black Rocks issue is a bit that the style is more knarly and again clusters of routes that dont match uniform distributions (on the hard side this time especially at VS for Curbar and Black Rocks) but there are soft touches at both crags and the graded lists work in my realm (to E2)

In reply to Goucho: I suspect the talented from any era would be likely to be the talented in any era.

In reply to Goucho:

Most of the worst creep due to gear improvement on grit had happened by 77, it was only cams and slight improvements after that. Ive done retro days as well, solo in the modern equivalent of plimsoles so, allowing for the finely honed cleft and balance skills, I know the early low grades in the guides worked to VS at least (where my ability to match them became too risky). By the early 80s everything in that band had got jumbled up away from the classics.

In reply to Offwidth:


As E grades only started to get introduced in 76' in 77' folk were still getting to grips with it, so within the 'extreme' category, a lot of route grades were all over the place.

There was obviously grade compression before E grades, that affected routes further down the chain, but I don't think the 'compression' within the extreme grade, really affected - with the odd rare exception - routes below HVS.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I agree that climbers skills have changed and that in part explains grade creep but it doesn't justify it. If climbers can't jam they should learn, I didn't used to like jamming but I worked on it until I did. Alternatively, acknowledge they can't do it and avoid jamming routes or just drop a grade where jamming is required but don't downgrade routes to suite your lack of ability, hence my ego massaging comments.

I've never lead an E2 on natural grit because I find it harder than qurried grit, limestone and volcanics. I don't think natural grit should be upgraded to bring it into line with my strengths.

Jamming isn't any hader than it used to be, just a greater proporion of climbers find it so.


Again, I agree its down to the style of climbing on walls but if that's the case, surely crimpy face climbing routes should get downgraded as often as thrutchy jammimg cracks get upgraded but they don't, and anyway, to return to Langdale, Springbank is a perfect example of what wall bred climbers should be good at but its been upgraded from E1 to E2

In reply to pec:
Jamming grades didnt change much on grit. What did change was the finely honed skills of climbers on wide cracks faded which was because in the early days clefts were compartively safe. You could argue it was a distortion and the grade changes are in any case, for some like GG, not always huge. What was huge was VS crack climbs going from unprotected to well protected with no downgrade and the relative alignment to other lower grade climbs that were protected or those that still had no protection. I've seen complaint after complaint since the internet took off about grade creep, ususally from old timers and barely a peep about this much larger change. Goucho seems to have ignored it as well....its not extreme so it doesnt matter much.

We have to match the current population who have bothered to gather the skills for the rocktype. so although you can't grade jamming cracks for those who cant be bothered to learn to jam or those that half tried but remain jamming incompetants, however the changes realtive to other techniques will need to move a bit with time (hopefully downgrding as many route modern climbers find easy as upgrading the ones that are appearing unreasonable).

In the earliest grit guides, grades worked across the range and now in the most recent guides they do the same, BMC and YMC. I really cant see the sense of complaining about any minor creep in these guides if they are creeping lsss than anyone else in the UK, the books are inspiring to read and beautiful to look at (with the Rockfax and VG guides not so different)

In reply to pec:


It implies "We were harder in them days your all soft now"

In reply to bpmclimb:

You only quoted part of what I was saying. There are three parts:

1. Climbers are complaining about grade creep
2. Guidebook writers are listening to them
3. Grade creep is occurring.

(the first two claims are not mine.)

My point was that these can't all be true. One of the first two claims must be false if we agree that the third is true.



I don't see why. They may take into account other sources but they decide how much credibility to give these sources. It seems to me the buck stops with them, and no one else, and that's why their names are printed on the covers.

In reply to stp:
1). Its rare internet complaints from climbers on creep have substance. Way more hot air is genetrated on this subject than things we actually need to be concerned with (and I wish the old-timers were more vocal 30 years ago when there were problems)
2). Listening and dealing with genuine issues in a very complex production process is happening Ive seen it in several teams definitive and selective.
3). Its rare that any changes are significant. We are looking at a few routes in Langdale that may have a problem which will almost certainly be downgraded next time if what we say proves true. There is also a small chance some of these routes have actually changed (lost pegs etc).j

If you generate simplistic postulates in a compex world its no surprise you see inconsistency.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've seen complaint after complaint since the internet took off about grade creep, ususally from old timers and barely a peep about this much larger change. Goucho seems to have ignored it as well....its not extreme so it doesnt matter much.

That was not the point I was making at all.

Also, can you please stop referring to people of a certain age as 'old timers', as if we are all out of touch with whats going on today. A lot of us are still active - I'm still knocking out E4 on trad and 7b/c on sport - and often in a good position to judge whats going on because of our wide ranging experience over many years!

In reply to Goucho:

I agreed with your point, you seemingly ignored mine. Experience is obviously welcome as long as views dont become ossified or blinkered: a lot of good experienced climbers overlooked the lower grade inconsistencies on grit and elsewhere in the 80s (some even celebrated them as it generated hours of sandbagging fun).

If trad is to survive with increasing numbers of climbers taking first steps on the crags after mainly operating indoors, the grading system needs to be consistent as dealing with skill gaps already leaves them with lots of variability in experience. Grade creep needs watching for similar reasons, climbing is dangerous and lulling people into a false sense of security with super soft grades on classics will most likely increase overall risk, over time.

In reply to pec:


But who decides what these routes are?
As I pointed out earlier, Peak guides from the 60s did have benchmark routes given for each grade. I've mentioned one that was significantly wrongly graded, I'm quite sure there are others. Maybe I'll look out some examples later and see what the current grades are...

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Grammarians wasn't so wrong then, as I pointed out. Firstly all climbs of that grade were a lot bolder and secondly they were good then at that sort of route.

In reply to Offwidth:

OK, wrong by today's standards. The point I was trying to make was that if pec's suggestion had been adopted, it would still be graded VDiff, and all other routes graded relative to it. So the Mod/Diff grades would be overflowing!

In reply to pec:

"Of the 50 routes I've done in the book, 12 have been upgraded ... I really don't see how that many upgrades can be justified"

Apart from Acrturus (on which I agree), which routes are you referring to?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I think you may be putting words into his mouth. Setting up grade standards is not the same as setting them up and fixing them forever. Mod/Diff wouldn't have become overflowing as other grade standards would contradict so low grades would have become confused as large numbers of routes became protectable... sort of what happened. Modern graded lists do the job he wanted in any case.

Where I'm sure we do agree is getting these grades about right is important. If we look at the median grades led on UKC logbooks (somewhere around the HS to VS border) and think of experience levels involved these issues of ensuring consistency at lower grades suddenly have much greater significance than if say an E5 is really an E6. I think like pec that we need some kind of standards alongside votes as large numbers of voters on UKC are saying what most experienced climbers know are bottom-end VS climbs are in fact mid-grade (like Inverted V). Yet if large numbers of voters say a route is mid VS it wont be HVS or an easy HS (an error type that seems to have happened with Bowfell Buttress)

In reply to Offwidth:


I got the impression that was exactly what was being suggested - to prevent grade creep we set the upper/lower we set benchmark routes to define them, presumably by definition we can't ever regrade these routes or we'd get grade creep...

In reply to stp:

I disagree completely. They are all true. This is not a bit of black-and-white reasoning like basic arithmetic - this is a complex question with many factors to consider.

In reply to pec:

Out of interest, here are the benchmark routes for Stanage from the 1963 guide, with their current grades from the 2007 guide.

Easy - High Neb Gully (Easy)
Mod - October Crack (Diff), Left Twin Chimney (Diff)
Diff - Broken Buttress (VD), Helfenstein's Struggle (VD), Physiology (VD)
HD (who said these 'half' grades were a modern invention?!?) - Overhanging Chimney (S 4a)
VD - Cave Buttress (S 4b), Wall End Crack (S 4b), Flying Buttress (VD)
HVD - Creepy (S 4a), Little John's Step (S 4b)
S - Marble Tower Wall (VS 4c), Paradise Wall (HS 4b), Robin Hood Zig Zag (S 4a)
HS - High Neb Girdle Traverse (not listed in 2007, HS 4b in 2002), Gargoyle Buttress (VS 4b)
VS - Right Hand Tower (HVS 5b), Milton's Meander (VS 4b), Inverted V (VS 4c)
HVS - The Blurter (HVS 5b), Right Unconquerable (HVS 5a), Kirkus Corner (E1 5b)
Extremely Severe - Quietus (E2 5c), Count's Buttress (E2 5c), The Tippler (E1 5b)

This fits in with my usual experience. After most crag visits, I look up the routes in my old guides to see what they say, and on average I'd say VD and below are a grade easier in the old guides (sometimes 2 grades in the oldest), VS is around the same, Severe/HS are all over the place.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I didn't actually know benchmark grades had been used in the 60's but clearly a lot has happened since then so obviously there was scope for a lot of regrading once nuts and cams etc appeared making routes feel very different, as people started travelling more often between different areas where grades had meant different things and the grade system itself changed. As I've said above, I can understand why regrading happened through the 80's because of these reasons but that's all happened now. Nothing significant has changed for 20+ years so why do why find that when the new Langdale guide comes out a quarter of all the routes I've done have been upgraded and none downgraded when these routes have not got harder?

So to answer your point, having been through all the changes which could reasonably cause regrading (which ought to have meant both up and down but nearly always meant up), we could now have benchmark grades which wouldn't change unless the routes in question physically altered or some unforseen equipment revolution happens again.

Presumably guidebook writers could determine what the benchmarks should be in consultation with all the people they normally consult with and with wider consultation on forums like this. Its a lot easier to do and to obtain a large consensus for now than it ever was in the past.

In reply to Offwidth:


Just to say my OP was about the Langdale guide and although grade creep happens elsewhere I wasn't particularly complaining about grit guides, although GG is really only VS

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Springbank, Razor Crack, Poacher, Arcturus, Holly Tree Direct, Slip Knot, Rowan Tree Groove, NW Arete, Revelation, Inferno, Cubs Crack and The Original Route.

I'm not specifically saying these are all wrong (although some of them are!), just that so many upgrades and no downgrades can't be right.

Out of interest I looked at the graded list from the '89 guide.
Of the 10 hardest HVS's 8 have now been upgraded (only Deer Bield Crack by virtue of it actually having changed as far as I know), of the 10 easisest, none have been downgraded (but 1 has gone up to E2!).
Of the 10 hardest E1's 3 have been upgraded, of the 10 easiest 0 are downgraded (but 1 has been upgraded)
Doing the same for the '86 Borrowdale guide,
HVS 9/10 hardest up, 0/10 easiest down
E1 8/10 hardest up (1 to E3), 0/10 easiest down.

Make of these stats what you will but the regrades are all one way traffic, over time we're just redefining what the grades mean.

In reply to pec:

I missed Intern out of that list so that makes 13/50 upgrades, over a quarter now.

In reply to pec:



I don't know all these routes personally but the ones I do know the upgrades have been justified.
Holly Tree Direct - the crux traverse on pitch 3 is only remotely VS if you are familiar with it. On sight it isn't.
NW Arete - lots of 4b, some tricky route finding, an exposed tricky and hard to protect finish. VS is right.
Slip Knot - crux sequence on pitch two is 4b (4c?) and only straightforward if you've done it before. VS is right.
Rowan Tree Groove - crux sequence entering the groove is solid 4c and unprotected. HVS 4c is valid.
Revelation - crux moves again hard to protect
Inferno - was a real sandbag at severe. Crux moves solid 4b and not overly well-protected.

A common theme is whether or not the crux is safe. Allowing for such vagaries is one of the best things about the British two-prong grading system and I think it has been a gradual process applying it to its fullest advantage.

In reply to pec:

Just a digression. What is it with Bilberry Cake at Burbage North? Gets E1 5a in the bmc guide. Climbed as eliminate as possible (no cracks or features either side) it merits hs at most if not s. The worst grading I've encountered.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Only done two of these, Slip Knot and Inferno, and my logbook notes for both say I thought them HS 4b.
Slip Knot crux sequence is 4b with adjacent gear, VS 4b implies sustained or run out and this is neither.
Inferno, yes the crux is solid 4b, but it's superbly protected. You can't tell but I had 2 bits of gear on the blue rope at head level:
http://yorkalpineclub.org.uk/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/P1110112.jpg

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I remember finding the crux of Slip Knot quite hard and blind. Plus the over extended runner in the corner offering a not very inviting slam back into the corner. The rest of the route might be just Severe but thought the crux was as hard as Haste Knot (which, incidentally, felt like HVS)...

In reply to alan moore:

maybe I was having one of my rare good days

In reply to David Alcock:
The route was claimed shortly before publication of Burb infinity as a pretty minor E1 and wasnt fully checked and is likely missing a daggar. Its also not a severe, current UKC logbook grade consensus is tough VS, on about a hundred votes so it wont be way out at that. So in relatively recent grade change terms it barely merits mention as a misgrade given some old obscure routes shifed 4 grades or more.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=46014

In reply to Offwidth:

I take your point, but the comments seem consistent in S/HS. Of course it's not possible to vote it down that far, so perhaps that is reflected in the votes. It felt a good grade or two easier than Hargreaves Original to me.

In reply to David Alcock:

Most votes would be at the bottom of VS in that case.

In reply to Offwidth:


Unless the votes were made before the range of options was increased. Previously the lowest available would have been "easier than HVS", and the hardest "harder than HVS". When the new options were added, these were migrated to "hard VS" and "easy E1" respectively. Which unfortunately has skewed the voting on a lot of routes - in many ways it's a shame they didn't just delete these votes and allow us to vote again.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

You are right. I forgot that. A good candidate for a public UKC reset? The votes still look odd for a certain HS though and its not Severe. I still know plenty who have done it who say VS 4c or VS 4b and there is a comment for VS 5a.

The fact that it might get S at Crookrise in the old guide where some VDs are nearly HS is hardly supporting the case

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


I think maybe you were! I think Alan Moore's comment is more in line with my own view. Have done this route many times, but I still find it engrossing, for want of a better word. Despite quite good pro you wouldn't want to fall on it for the reasons Alan mentions. Again, it's a question of grading for the first time leader who is reasonably competent at the grade.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Your memory of the specifics of most of those routes is probably better than mine but I don't recall thinking any of them were sandbags at the grade but rather that that's just what you have to do at that grade. If every route that's challenging for its grade gets upgraded then the next generation's expectations of what you have to do at that grade are lowered and the process keeps repeating itself.
Of the routes you've done, the ones I recall best are NW Arete and Slip Knot having done both 2 or 3 times, both seem quite reasonable at MVS to me, indeed I'm not convinced either is harder than Main Wall in the Llanberis Pass which is only HS (well it was the last time I looked!).

In reply to pec:

I don't have much time for MVS as a grade, in the Lakes I treat it as though it were HS.

In the NY Moors it's usually used for routes between VS and HVS

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Much Very Severe?

Bit of a classic grade in the old blue County guide

In reply to pec:

My theory is that upgrading sells guidebooks.

In reply to David Alcock & Offwidth: DId Bilberry Cake yesterday, in its current state I think it merits HS 4b or maybe 4c.

At about 4 meters there is a break, this has an excellent runner placement and an excellent handhold (both in the break) on the right not far from Bilberry Wall. I reckon that when the route was originally done this part of the break was full of earth/plants and the runner and handhold weren't available. Soloing the route without the excellent handhold felt like it was worth 5a and without the break it would be unprotected. That's where I reckon the original HVS/E1 5a grade came from and it probably wasn't properly checked for either guide.

In reply to Michael Hood:

There is always an explanation! In which case it's likely it was checked then excavated, when before Id guessed it was an misgraded route solo checked without enough sensitivity to the grade.

In reply to Offwidth: Having now done it Bilberry Cake (VS 4c) solo with and without the excavated hold, I can't believe that anyone would have given it HVS/E1 with that stonking nut placement right by the crux moves or 5a with that great handhold to make the crux easier.

It would be nice to see photos of this buttress before the route was done (90's, 80's etc) to confirm my theory.

In reply to Michael Hood:
I feel the opposite.... I've seen people consider grading things across a pretty enormous range. My tips on mortal grades would be to tr repeat after an onsight new route success (to take out any fear factor) and get others to lead it ASAP and if in doubt err on the side of caution (the tougher grade). Its also a lot harder for a solo checker to spot a 5a problem isnt E0 than a 4b problem and that nut placement may have been excavated as well.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I must get on this for my first HVS lead before someone downgrades it!!

In reply to BnB:

It's not HVS ...you are only kidding yourself.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm only kidding myself after I've climbed it!! I haven't got there yet!

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Is there HVD anywhere? They always were terrible sandbags, usually harder than most severes (Diamond Crack,Froggatt).

In reply to Mark Kemball:

South Crack on the In Pinn is HVD. The only one in Scotland! (I think)

In reply to Mark Kemball:

HVD has a very long pedigree in the Peak District especially

In reply to pec:

HVD is alive and well in North and Mid Wales too.

The whole grading system's idiosyncratic, but the HVD grade is there so why not make full use of it? It sounds so much better than Mild Severe ....

Not only is a HVD climb ''very difficult'', it's also ''hard''.

Clear as day.

I can't see a problem tbh.

Dave

In reply to Dave Williams:



Where in North Wales? It might just be alive, but it certainly is not well! In the latest guides, the CC has stopped using the grades HD, HVD and MS. (I'm helping write the North Devon and Cornwall Guide, and the same grading system applies.) I think this is "a good thing", frankly, those grades were seldom used anyway, and it is probably better to say "easy or hard for the grade" in the description. We are also trying to get rid of split grades E3/4 or 5b/c etc.