UKC

Off the back of a couple of other threads I was wondering...can you name one route that is absolutely, definitely harder than the grade it's got? Not subjectively, not just because you found it hard but because when you look back at climbing/falling off/dogging it you KNOW it wasn't an HVS, HS, VS, whatever. You have to have climbed it for it to count.

My vote goes to Looking for Today (HVS 5b) - I haven't climbed that many trad routes but even I know this one is ridiculously unprotected and blank at the top for an HVS. The log book comments and ascent styles back that up.

Maybe someone will notice our opinions and adjust the grades? Even if they don't then at least those of us with less experience will be forewarned!

It can be a horrorfest getting on to a route and finding it's right at your limits or beyond when you thought it would be within. Sandbags are part of climbing tradition and long may they be but I'm guessing there are a few routes that just aren't funny.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Lands End Long Route/Climb (can't remember the exact name). Bugger off is that a v diff.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

There's a VS at Stanage called 'Little Things'.
I couldn't touch it but someone on the Ukc logbooks reckon E3 and I've even heard E4 mentioned about it!!!

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Groove Above (S 4b)
Javelin Gully (HS 4b)

Both monster sandbags.

Mark reeves at the bottom of groove above warned me, 'it'll be the hardest severe you ever do'.

In reply to zimpara:







Haha. They're not massive sandbags. They're just at the top end of their grade.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:


I've never found sandbags the least bit funny. Often they seem to have been initiated by people with low self-esteem and little consideration for their fellow climbers.

I accept you can't always get FA grades spot on. But I can remember someone saying, "None of my FAs will ever be downgraded." Not my attitude.

In the past, low/sandbag grades were often associated with climbing backwaters. But these days, with well-travelled visitors, there's no excuse for them any longer.


Mick

In reply to deacondeacon:

You're sandbagging by merely saying that. Lol

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Strange Devices (6a+)

The old Climber's Club guide has this down as E2 5c if I remember correctly. Contrary to the description there are no bolts other than those for the routes on either side, and the incorrect grade has now propagated to the new Climber's Club guide, although Mr Titt assures me that was not his fault, someone changed it without consulting him.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:


I'm always curious when I see this 'unprotected for the grade' line. There is nothing inherent in any grade that says there can't be big run outs on them. It is especially problematic when you try to compress the information on an 8m route (probably a high ball boulder in many places) into the same one that you use on a multipitch climb like, say, Centurion.

Anyway back on point: run out climbing is not a sufficient reason, on its own, to warrant any particular grade jump.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Why not start with the premise that Lands End Long climb is VD ? (I did it when I'd only just started and VD was the hardest route I'd done). Then judge whether other climbs really justify a grade hike around it ?

In reply to GrahamD:

I think you'll find runouts are the contributing factor to the grade.
What does Hard severe (the grade) encompass in it's description then.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Fair point - hopefully this kind of thread will highlight some of those routes and reduce the chances of being caught out. I can only talk from my own experiences, which are very limited and the reason I'm asking the question.

In reply to GrahamD:



This doesn't seem to conform with the generally accepted view that the UK grading system uses the adjectival grade to qualify the technical grade. If a climb is made more dangerous by the lack of gear especially on the crux the adjectival grade can be raised to reflect this. A good example is Sunset Slab at Froggatt

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

For low grade classics... Lands End Long Climb which is solid HS in 2 places and brutal safe severe in another. One section that might seriously hurt someone one day is the serious HS finish. You can bypass all the hard moves but it seems to me you are not climbing anything like the route. Still VD in all the guides.

The most annoying is Little Things: VS going on E3. Outed years back yet the due upgrade is repeatedly ignored by Chris.

The most fun to watch is Masochism.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:
Pod crack at castle naze is a bit of a sandbang

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Sandbag (6c)

In reply to Rog Wilko:


"Specifically on the crux" is the key here. Not the fact that the easier climbing is run out (which shouldn't be seen as a danger). There is nothing inherent in a grade like HVS 5b that inherently implies no run outs or ground fall potential.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Boundary Corner (VD), Great Wanney. Would get VS elsewhere and should probably be VD 5a.

In reply to zimpara:


They are a contributor, but not the only one. A run out in isolation of the climbing on it does not warrant a particular grade. There are plenty of notable low grade routes with very long run outs which are correctly graded.

In reply to Offwidth:

In Cornwall, I never thought Lands End was a sandbag when compared with routes like Terriers Tooth. I have to say its a long time since I did Long Climb (at the time when I was pushing myself to get on a Severe) and I just don't remember it being that bigger deal. Maybe I did just bypass the hard bits or something. At around the same time I remember being much more gripped on Arrow Route (Skye) and Allens Slab (Froggat) - both of which I think are actually fairly graded.

In reply to Offwidth:


Little Things - I spotted the line with Martin Veale, it is all of three metres long. I slotted two cams onto the roof made a couple of tricky moves and had my hand on the top of the crag - it felt like a tiny 6a completed in absolute safety - you are top-roping the hard moves. Martin is short and couldn't reach the 1st holds so failed to follow it despite leading E5 at the time. That's how the grade came about - it may be accurate or it may be an historical anomaly. Either way, you can see exactly what you are getting involved with!


Chris

In reply to GrahamD:


I think the OP's point with Looking for Today, which I also recently got my arse kicked on, is that it legitimately is a bastard at the grade that it is given in current guidebooks: There's the standard grit HVS 5b start, i.e. climb a knobbly crack, stuff some cams in a break and then make a techy move off undercuts/flared jams/high feet, where if you come off you have gear at around knee height (fair for HVS 5b), but the top section entails more 5b moves (although they felt harder than that to me) and absolutely no more gear, meaning that it'd be both possible to deck - there's no gear to stop you - and not all that unlikely for the average HVS leader, in that the moves are relatively hard.
I realise that's missing the broader point you were making; mostly I just wanted to express solidarity with others who have been unfortunate enough to get on the route expecting an easy time.

In reply to Offwidth:

LELC is a bit of a pick and choose type route where its relatively easy to avoid the hard bits.

Undergrading IMO is fair enough if the gear is good (Picnic Pitch 2 Bos, Iron Cross Carn Barra) but not otherwise (cant think of Cornish eg)

In reply to GrahamD:


When you consider how many E1s (possibly a majority) have a technical grade of 5b I would have to disagree with you. I would expect a HVS 5b to be fairly well protected. But perhaps I'm missing something.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

The 5b bit might not be run-out.

In reply to GrahamD:

I suppose you could do it that way. I thought it was a considerably more serious outing than other v diffs in the area (commando ridge for example) and even then Cornish grades are generally harder than most of the country.

In fact thinking about it I'd like to nominate the whole of West Penwith as a sandbag.

In reply to Chris H:



A couple spring to mind ...
Chicory Chock HS 4b at St Loy: quite a few people seem to "escape" up the neighbouring VS
Cave Route HS 4b at Chair Ladder: an unpleasant, poorly protected struggle.

The HS grade seems to have more than its share of sandbags (I notice that Aramis at Haytor finally got regraded).

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I recently found Skylight (VS 4c) to be very tricky for both VS and 4c.

In reply to Droyd:

I don't remember having tried Looking for the Day (which may well be a sandbag) so my comments were more directed to the general statement:

" I haven't climbed that many trad routes but even I know this one is ridiculously unprotected and blank at the top for an HVS."

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Well protected on the difficult bit. 3pS being voted HVS (which I actually don't agree with) is a perfect case in point with a run out above a protected crux.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Its quite an interesting question : when does 'hard for the grade' become a 'sandbag', if ever? After all by definition half the routes at any particular grade must be harder than average and there always will be the maybe 1/4 grade overlap between grades due to the subjectiveness of grading and slightly different interpretations by guide book writers. So I don't think a route that maybe better fits into a band a full grade higher but is, nevertheless, a valid outlier at its given grade, is a 'sandbag'.

I think a 'sandbag' is a more personal thing rather than being an inherent misgrading or slight undergrading. To me a sandbag implies some sense of being lured into something I wouldn't normally do. So a big overhanging fist crack at HVS 5b might feel hard to me in my current state of climbing unfitness but its obvious what it is - point a crack climber at it and there won't be any undue surprises. So even if its really an E1 crack its not really a sandbag. A sandbag just implies some degree of deception beyond just a bit hard at the grade.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


In my experience, Cornwall is second only to Scotland in terms of softness for the grade...

In reply to Lemony:


It's easier than Great Chimney (VD)

To their credit, the local guidebook does virtually admit that all the VDiffs are wrongly graded.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I don't remember finding great chimney quite so bad, though still a sandbag, but getting high enough in that flared chimney bit to put my foot up by my nipple and rock onto it was easily the daftest move I've ever made on a VD.

In reply to Chris H:


I seem to remember it being pretty obvious what you were meant to do though - you could escape onto the path, but you couldn't really miss the line. And yeah, I'd agree that it's a total sandbag if you do follow the route.

I've also got a theory that microroutes tend to be tough at the grade, because people are a bit embarrassed to give a high grade to something that doesn't even feel like a proper route. This explains fun stuff like Calcutta Crack (S) at the Roaches.

In reply to GrahamD:

I agree with what you're saying about runouts but my statement was specific to that climb - it's not supposed to be a sweeping statement about HVS's.

Droyd summed up that climb nicely.

In reply to GrahamD:


Fair point - what the OP meant (I think, based on my experience) is that the upper section of the route is unprotected and that the climbing there is hard; that it's not a runout up easy ground following a tough but well-protected crux in the style of Three Pebble Slab, but that the gear recedes to the point that it no longer protects you and you're still pulling 5b moves, and so the route warrants an upgrade - I'd suggest to E2 5b, but will happily admit that I'm not much of an authority. Couple this with the fact that, from the ground, the route looks pretty innocuous - my assumption was that leaving the break would be the crux and I could then saunter to the top, whereas the moves above are of equal difficulty but less well (i.e. not) protected - and I think that's a good candidate for your definition of a sandbag: Something that, based on both its appearance in the flesh and guidebook description, should be a fair challenge (you get on it expecting an experience that falls somewhere between an easy time and an ordinary fight), but transpires to be physically harder and/or bolder/more dangerous in reality, to the extent that, had you known this, you would have thought twice about getting on it in the first place.


Edit, in the interest of clarity: All of which is to say that I very much agree with you and your point that the concept of the sandbag is necessarily grounded in subjective experience! I just want to argue that Looking for Today very much is one, and not just an easy runout at the top, as it's reasonably obscure (and very, very innocuous until you're on it, as it's not until you've committed to the upper wall that you realise).

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Dangerous and scary are not the same thing, though I accept your point. If the top is run out above a bomber bit of gear and you'll not deck it then there is no need to get the adjectival grade up but you'll be gripped climbing that route. If the climb is unprotected where it makes it dangerous then THAT goes with the general accepted view... or so I have been thinking for the last 15 years (sorry amend that 13 as it took me 2 years to get my head round British Trad grades!).

In reply to Droyd:

That is exactly what I was trying to say..cheers!

In reply to GrahamD:


I got on Silica on stanage because it was then graded HVS 5c and I wanted to try a well protected 5c. I was expecting a hard move to get over the o/hang to be well protected, which it was. I was *not* expecting hard(ish) slab padding up the unprotected arete (I could see it was unprotected, I thought there would be holds not seen from below) I made it to the top but have not been back since! (although I saw in the new guide it's E2)

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

'Seth' on Gower is a bit of a sandbag: -

Seth (E1 5c)

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

My first HVS lead, Secretaries' Super Direct (HVS). Of course, I should probably go and climb it again and still see if I feel the same.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

And of course, still HVS in the definitive Stanage guide, The Watch-Tower (E2 5b)

In reply to Chris Craggs:

That's a guidebook old farts view of the sort that I thought Rockfax was designed to sweep away. Its nothing like VS so it shouldn't be anything like VS.

In reply to GrahamD:

I think Arrow Route is top end VD (mostly Diff but with an airy few moves); Terrier's Tooth direct start was at least HS 4a before it fell down and Allen's slab is the grade on the tin (S 4a). There is evidence of a broken hold on the necky and sustained HS 4a final pitch of LELC but the corner a few pitches below is brutal S 4b, the delicate traverse is HS 4b (or the jump alternative is something like VS 4a).

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Fair enough. I guess style comes in to it a lot.

In reply to Rog Wilko:


Extending this theme a little I regard the default grades to be as follows: VS 4c. HVS 5a. E1 5b. Departures from this norm like E1 5a and HVS 4c suggest more dangerous routes and deparures like VS 5a and HVS 5b safer routes. If the anomalous coupling is for another reason the text should explain. The route the OP mentions does indeed appear to be a sandbag.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I'm amazed that there are any left what with all the online consesnus grading etc

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Saline Drip at Raven Tor. It was originally E4 but then went up to E5 which seemed about right. In the new BMC guide it's bizarrely dropped 3 grades down to E2. I think an E2 climber might find it a bit of a toughie.

But I think sandbag grades are a rarity. Overgrading is far more prevalent than undergrading.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I must have been unlucky that day

In reply to Liam Ingram:

Polished marble usually is.

In reply to planetmarshall:


I was desperately trying to think of that one.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Bloodshot (E1 5b)
Failed to lead this despite great gear and short 40 ft stature, good rock but brutal moves up a roof crack.
The American who lead me up this to dog behind was a resident of Yosemite and a bit good at granite cracks noted its diffculty. Hope this will be a bit closer to its true grade in the imminent new Dartmoor guide.
Chris

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Ha!. I thought silica was a bit of a sand bag at e2 - never mind hvs..

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Minion's Way (HVS 5c)

I appear to have had a tougher time with this than most but it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the grade, style or medium, it's just a rotter.
jk

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

It's nails if you're not used to that Cornish granite squirming! One of the hardest routes I've done all year.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Nothing wrong with a few soft and hard at-the-grade routes floating around. I think the key thing is to include in the description the correct warnings like "top of the grade", "unprotected", "bold on the crux", "gear hard to find", etc. etc. I might grump a bit about sandbags (along with everyone else on planet earth) but to me the really unacceptable thing is to create or propagate a route description which, if taken verbatim by a leader of that grade, leads a climber into a much more dangerous situation than the grade and description alone would suggest.
Sounds like there are a few contenders for this in the thread!

Obviously if a climb is 2 or 3 full grades out then it really should be fixed.

In reply to planetmarshall:


It's E1 5a in the new Highland Outcrops South.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm with you on that one. It's silly at HVS. It's also not 3*.

In reply to bigdrew:

I saw this thread and thought of silica (stannage) one of the few climbs I've got on, backed off and have absolutely no desire to try again and im normally ok at that grade.
I note the ukc now give it e3

In reply to ebdon:

Was the name a deliberate hint?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I guess the risk is the softening all routes over time due to human nature if too much of a consensus is followed. Though that is not to support the true sandbag.

In reply to GargoyleFeet: Re Looking for Today - just had a look at my logbook; I led it o/s in 1989 and commented "A very long reach followed by easier but bold moves"; I'm 6'0" with 0 ape index.

Didn't think it undergraded then, maybe it's just a top of the grade HVS. I think the problem with it is that it looks fairly innocuous and once you've done the 5b move you relax into thinking it should ease off. If you knew it was top of the grade you might at that point be thinking there's more to come. Also, maybe I was happy with that kind of finish at the time - it is gritstone after all.

In reply to Andy Nisbet:


So in a weird parallel of the other thread, I actually did skip HVS and go straight to E1...

In reply to Andy Nisbet:


It was also E1 5a in Ed Grindley's last little (2005) selected guide. But I'm not sure it can be because I've led it and I'm really only a VS leader who likes slabs... and also because neighbouring Twitch is both harder and more poorly protected at E1 5b (I took a leader fall off that, which you're just not supposed to do!).

For all you guys wanting something hard, Dinasty at Dinas Rock main crag. Graded at 8a and known to be much harder, and still waiting a second accent.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

How about this Route II Direct (S)

crap sparse gear and 4b moves are not severe IMO

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Apparently if the crux is protect-able then runouts don't influence the grade. I know...

My partner down climbed 10 metres of a vdiff after coming across ZERO gear.

In reply to zimpara:


They do influence them, but nowhere near as much as some people seem to think they should.


Happens sometimes.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

climbed thief of Baghdad at Gull Rock N Devon, HVS at the time, on ukc it's given E45c, I can almost talk about it outside of a therapy environment these days

In reply to bpmclimb:





Fair enough, though the pro and climbing itself is okay if you climb it deep in the crack. The stand out sandbag for that particular area though has to be Seahorse, which absolutely bonkers at HVS, even if you like wide cracks.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Not part of the main debate, but I have found quite a lot of difference in the gradings in different parts of Scotland - much less now than years back perhaps. Often the grades in Skye seemed soft (?) but generally over the years I came to expect more difficulty on Scottish routes. No experience of the hardest grades though.

In reply to JJ Krammerhead III:

Haha sounds sinister!

In reply to Lemony:

One of the most humbling solo outings I ever experienced was the four big VDiffs at the Wanney.
They should be on a list somewhere...

In reply to petestack:

Me too; secretaries Super direct is the easiest HVS I've done in Glen Nevis...

In reply to CurlyStevo:


its also a pile of greasy rubble...

In reply to zimpara:
The 4b moves are bold. If a severe has 4b it should be short lived and very well protected. I think it's closer to vs 4b than the given grade of severe. Also you are wrong about your crux theory. Very run out 4b moves can be hvs, but very well protected 5a moves can be hs. No reason why they both couldn't exist on the same climb making an hvs 5a but it's hvs for the 4b section. Can't think of any examples just now but there will be Climbs of this ilk out there.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
I'm sure such a route exists (5a first move into an HVS 4b) but would be interested in an example from someone. It would certainly need a revealing description! (or just compromise and say HVS 4c which usually means pretty bold anyway)

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Here's an obscure example of almost exactly that...

Gardener's Question Time (HVS 5a)

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Route 2 at Crookrise is a bit like that.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

another vote for Minions. Start crack is a hell of a lot more polished than the finish crack*.

and at severe - South Chimney Layback, Almscliffe. I think this is actually fair at severe but I've seen the start crack stop (some of the time) hvs leaders who can't jam.






*I'd imagine.

In reply to GrahamD:

Indeed. Cooper's Slab in the Rocky Valley, Ilkley springs to mind.

In reply to johnjohn:


Not really HVS leaders, then, are they ?

In reply to johnjohn:


I'd give it S 4c

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I'd give it S 4b as per the new guide (and the YMC tends to grade slightly harder than my norm). Where is the 4c move in your opinion?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

It's just that most people whose top leading grade is VS can't do 6a moves (I know I can't, or not at that angle anyway), so anything wth a move of that grade ought to be at least HVS, if not E1. When it comes to "one silly move off the ground" routes I'd have 5a as a ceiling for Severe, 5b for VS and 5c/6a for HVS. Also, you would normally take something with that much grade disparity to be a safe solo, with the move at ground level, but in Little Things's case it isn't as a fall would take you over the lower tier.

In reply to Offwidth:


I'd not disagree, it just feels a bit of an awkward VSish sort of crack, but straight off the deck and you need to dial it up a more than you'd expect for a severe. Even for an indifferent jammer like me it's not that much of an issue, just feels a bit sandbaggy, for a shite jammer it is an issue. Given the polish it's at least 4c to layback.

In reply to Offwidth:

About 3 feet off the ground The move to reach the top of the crack.

Edit: and I'm told that if you're really tall, the end of the traverse is almost as hard. Luckily I don't have that problem!

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I would nominate:
Easy Pickings (VS 4b) from Cheddar Gorge, graded S (!*@!?) as recently as the 2004 Avon/Cheddar guide - VS 4b in Crocker's Cheddar Gorge Climbs 2008, in reality (and other UKC comments seem to concur) it must be at least HVS 4c. I wouldn't argue with E1 5a, barely a reliable runner on the whole route and the moves are definitely on the 4c/5a borderline, not much let up until the lower off either, scary!
Honorable mention for Nat Not (VS 4c) on Gower as well, a very rare VS dnf for me.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I found Beaker Route at Bosigran (near Kafoozalem) interesting. It was my first climb on Cornish granite, and I got pitch 2. Anyone who has done it will most likely share my views - 4c sounds easy, but.....

In reply to gribble:

There is certainly one of the routes thereabouts which is total nails. Might have been slightly left of Beaker Route and Armchair though.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Ignore my earler statement I was muddling my cracks up... we have SCL as at least 4c and maybe HS due to some extensive polish and easier to jam.

In reply to The Ivanator: Nat Not is a bit of a weird one; funny to work out moves with enough gear lead onto a run out slab. I think HVS 4c would be reasonable for it, since most people whose top grade is VS would struggle on it (IMO).

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

With the odd exception, I tend to assume when I find something hard that the fault lies with me and not the grading.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I don't know if anyone has mentioned Lion in the pass, which seemed quite tough for a VS, and I suppose in my case it was a bit more of a problems as the main pitch is fairly long, I ran low on gear. I did not double up on anything. Yet I can't particularly say that it is not a VS. Just an odd route. I'd just be interested in other people's views.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think the run out slab would have been OK - if I had got that far! It was quite damp and slippy when I attempted it which certainly didn't help, and although I did find some gear a crucial runner was placed blind and I didn't want to commit to the crux moves without confidence in the gear. I suspect if I hadn't got spooked and had just "gone for it" it would have been OK - one to return to on a sunny day!

In reply to DaveHK:


Same here. But when everyone else also finds it hard, it becomes more likely that the grade is wrong.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


The problem is, of course, that you are less likely to hear from those that think a grade is OK and its hard to gauge sometimes how experienced people are to weight the value of their opinion.

In reply to DaveHK:


...and when I find something easy I tend to assume the problem is with the grading rather than the credit lying with me!

In reply to zimpara:



It's not the run-out, it's the difficulty of climbing v. the run-out/lack of protection.
Scrambles will usually be completed without any protection and are thus tremendously 'run-out'.

In reply to veteye:


Did it a year or so back. Seemed OK.

In reply to GrahamD:
"The problem is, of course, that you are less likely to hear from those that think a grade is OK and its hard to gauge sometimes how experienced people are to weight the value of their opinion."

I actually think the opposite is true: its possible to steer a good path through the vast swathe of information available these days (much of which tends to agree with current grades whether they are arguably right or wrong). UKC grade votes often suffer from confirmation bias, especially with too many climbers when well below their limit who are just not sensitive enough to tell. Yet good grading can still come from being very aware of one's strengths and weaknesses, finding and trusting others of a similar ilk and watching many people on routes (especially those near to their limit). Trusted teams applying such sensible practice and listening to comments from trusted climbers on UKC beat UKC votes anyday (eg where within the VS band Stanage easier VS classics lie). However UKC votes are rarely hugely wrong in large numbers (especially if backed by comments from trusted UKC climbers), hence vote averages beat teams claiming grades more than a full notch different (e.g. Bowfell Buttress).

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Harmer's Wood, Shrink Me (V0). A V0/font 4a that many good climbers I know cannot do. On my last visit a very well known climber fell off on his first go of the night even though he had done it many times before and knew what to do! They are going too far in bringing font grades to the UK (but at least it isn't polished)!

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

Nifl-Heim at Tremadoc. Used to be VS, now described as "soft" HVS 5a. Well, it's pretty safe but unless I missed some holds I can't see how it is 5a.

Judging by the UKC logbooks I'm not alone in this but I can't see how anybody thinks it's "soft 5a".

In reply to GargoyleFeet:

I'd suggest Freedom (VS 4c) (maybe was VS before it was so polished) and Fibre (VS 4c) -low HVS?

In reply to springfall2008:

Both Freedom (VS 4c) and Fibre (VS 4c) are routes on the VS/HVS borderline, but neither is a massive sandbag IMO.
Sure, if they got HVS you wouldn't argue, but I wouldn't say there is an overwhelming case for upgrading either route - proper tests for a VS leader though!

In reply to harold walmsley:

Ha, you got that right. V0 if you have fingers of steel and gravity was accidentally switched down a couple of notches. Fierce and a rude awakening for anyone coming from indoors