UKC

Surely there should be a wider range and less subdivision in the voting for lower grade routes (can't speak for the higher grade ones ). For instance if a route is currently given VD you can't vote it any higher than HVD or lower than HD. It's not unusual for routes to move from VD to Severe or down to Diff. There are even V Diffs that some people might consider worth VS (and I know one that's barely even Mod)

In reply to Iain Thow:

Particularly since HVD and HD aren't whole grades anyway. A bit like for an E1 only allowing up to hard E1 and down to hard HVS.

In reply to Iain Thow:

I think this is already on the admins' agenda from previous threads about it.

In reply to Luke90:

I remember it coming up a year or so back, but nothing seems to have changed so no harm in raising it again. The current situation is daft, either use more space or have less subdivision.

In reply to Iain Thow:

You can't vote FB as 6a tech, Zimpara is distraut

In reply to Iain Thow:

Any routes you have in mind regarding this? I have one route in mind, where this applies: Woodbind (D)

It's given a "Diff" grade, but I've always found it a bit more of a struggle than expected. Then I took less experienced people up it and watched them repeatedly fall off it, when they'd been climbing other Diffs, VDiffs, Severes and even VS routes without too much difficulty.

I suspect that the route may have changed a little since its original grading, as the remaining stub of the rotted tree stump is much less useful than it might once have been, and I seem to remember a couple of loose holds and a couple of polished little feet. Funnily enough, the route has also been given the bouldering grade of f4+ which equates to 5a! I think it's more like 4a or f3, but it illustrates several different points about the variability of the grading system(s)...

In reply to C Witter:

Straight Ahead (VS 4c) went from Diff to VS a few years back, and Modesty Chimney (D) is harder than the HS next to it.
Going the other way, Matterhorn Ridge (VD) is Mod at the most (I'd give it Grade 3)
As you say, there are some odd grade translations around too.

In reply to Iain Thow:


Just as long as they're not persuaded to prioritise it above mending the UKH mapping function!

In reply to Iain Thow:

Unless something broke off in the last few years Modesty Chimney is certainly not harder than the HS next to it. Its most likely you have done something wrong or need to work on your skills. The grades on Offwidth (where it was first listed) are checked by several very experienced lower grade climbers and I can't recall where we ever got anything more than an old grade step out (ie ignoring the H bits). Its on our to-do list to reassess.

http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/guides.html

In reply to Offwidth:

Still haven't managed to get up Modesty Chimney yet, despite 4 or 5 goes, while I've soloed Modesty quite often. Done every other Diff on Stanage, including several other scrotty chimneys (and some good ones of course). Once failed on it a few minutes after soloing the then-Diff-now-VS Straight Ahead. I would certainly vote it a harder grade (assuming I manage to get up it sometime) which is my original point.

In reply to Offwidth:


Since I doubt you'll find many more experienced lower grade climbers than Iain, I'd be careful who I'm suggesting might need to work on his skills!

In reply to petestack:

If he is right something has changed. We simply don't grade tough HS chimneys Diff. As a comparison of the sort of thing in the grade range Iain proposes, when checking for the BMC guides we thought the old Diff cleft, Straight Ahead, was on the HS/VS border (now VS) and I nearly fell off it onsight solo. We have been obviously wrong on rare occasions but only by missing the easiest method... as an example we trusted Chris Fitzhugh had a 4c method to do Verandah Buttress but couldn't find it despite trying very hard (and began to doubt). He showed us and its logical and 4c.

In reply to Iain Thow:

HD, HVD, MS and MVS already are subdivisions.

In reply to Jamie B:

These grades should no longer be used (especially HVD!). They are mainly examples of ancient sandbags (now mainly got rid of) or guidebook authors sitting on the fence. Similarly split grades - E3 / 4 or 5c / 6a should not be used. Decide which way to go and then, if neccessary, put a note in the description "near the top (or bottom) of the grade".

In reply to Jamie B:

My point is that at present you can only vote for grades very close to the existing one. e.g. if the UKC grade is Severe your options are HS to HVD. It wouldn't be unusual to want to vote for VS or VD, especially on an unfrequented route. Changing by more than one full adjectival grade would be unusual but it does happen, Straight Ahead being an example. My suggestion is to drop the "hard HS", "mid HS" and "easy HS" etc and just offer the adjectival grades.

In reply to Iain Thow:

I disagree completely about HS as it is used (alongside an equivalent MVS) in a way which is as wide as any E grade. Also plenty of routes of VS and above we climbed in guidebook checking, moved more than a full grade (an HVS at Stanage North to E3 I think) so the problem isn't unique to lower grades. I do think you have an important point which would improve UKC logbooks sub severe, especially as HD and HVD are pretty narrow. Still... Lands End Long climb has plenty of standard VD UKC votes and I'm pretty sure that is HS and has at least 3 pitches of Severe or above.... too many climbers clearly lack feel on these routes.

In reply to Offwidth:


HS seems a valid grade to me (as I'm sure you're saying), I presume you are suggesting that essentially HS and MVS are the same grade (which is my view). In which case, we should definately drop the rarely used MVS. As I've said above, I'd also get rid of HD and HVD, but the case is not so clear cut.

In reply to Offwidth:


But Iain's saying don't subdivide HS into hard/regular/easy for the voting, not don't use it. So just:

E-whatever
HVS
VS
HS
Severe
(HVD?)
V Diff
(HD?)
Diff
Mod

Though I'm not sure if he's suggesting keeping HVD and HD as discrete grades or not when many of us don't think they are?

In reply to Mark Kemball:
Yes HS is a proper wide grade band and yes use HS and MVS interchangeably. The irony on HD is Rockfax don't use it but UKC do! As for HVD (and HD if it's retained) maybe include it as one voting step.... its simply not as wide as a full width grade. There is also an argument that VS and HVS are more than three steps cf grades on either side.

HD and HVD are no longer sandbag grades in the Peak and in some cases never were.

In reply to petestack:

I know that and I disagree.

Using Peak grit as an example I think there are easy HS climbs (Green Gut on the Rockfax grade) standard HS climbs (like PMC1) and tough ones (like Mutiny Crack). The subdivisions for Severe or E1 for me would be no wider than that for HS (even if the wider grades of VS and HVS on grit would).

In reply to Offwidth:

Specific HS examples don't help because he's saying don't subdivide *any* grade for the voting, not just HS.

In reply to Offwidth:

I suspect you're right that HS covers as wide a range as E grades, although I've not done enough of the latter to tell, but I don't think it's as wide as Severe (or VS, HVS or VD, but I guess you agree there). In the cases you cite, I would have Green Gut as Severe (as in the BMC guide, editor one Steve Clark), PMC1 as HS and Mutiny Crack as MVS (I know it's well protected 4b but it needs a "VS head").
If HS kept its subdivisions in the logbook voting then the solution could be to just use more space, so that the options for Severe (for example) could run from VD to VS (with or without the easy/mid/hard)
I realise that higher grade routes moving more than a full grade isn't unusual either (there are several E1s that I originally did as VS), just feel that I'm not qualified to comment.
Agree about Long Climb, by the way, and would put Clogwyn y Ddysgl's Gambit in the same boat.

In reply to Offwidth:
For what it's worth I would have:
Mod/ Diff (with the 3 subdivisions)/ VD (with subdivisions)/ HVD (one band, for routes with just one out of step hard move)/ Severe (with subdivisions)/ HS (one band)/ MVS (one band)/ VS (subdivided)/ HVS (subdivided) etc.

In reply to Iain Thow:

Oh, so you are! :-O

Seems contrary to some things you said earlier (e.g. 'and just offer the adjectival grades'), but at least that's clear. FWIW I think subdivisions for all grades or none, otherwise some grades are more grades than others. But perhaps they are (in which case they maybe shouldn't all be grades?)!

In reply to Offwidth:
"so many classics so little time" HVS to E4

Tony

In reply to Iain Thow:


I'm surprised - seems to go against the original point of the thread. Don't think I would subdivide stuff where tech grades aren't usually used (Easy, Mod, Diff, V-diff). Personally I'd get rid of HD, HVD, MS and MVS.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Ha, I forgot about Easy! :-O


Yep, me too. Then either subdivide or don't.

In reply to petestack:

Hi Pete,
My main concern is being able to vote for a wider grade range than currently, and less subdivision is a way of achieving that. I think subdividing HD and HVD is a nonsense, and personally I wouldn't subdivide HS either (or MS or MVS). If there's space for subdivision in the full grades while still getting all the likely voting grades available then seems OK to use it. Obviously grading is never going to be an exact science given human variability both physically and temperamentally so the "false levels of accuracy" question rears its head though. As always, the sensible attitude is not to take grades too seriously (see the Yorkshire Guide text discussion on another thread)

Congrats on the totally loopy run series, by the way.☺

In reply to Iain Thow:


Yes, understood from the start.


Me too. Though having them at all seems to be a bit of a regional thing?


But here I (like many) regard HS as a full grade and the others you've quoted as subdivisions.


Not Easy Hard Very Difficult anyway!


A fraction of what Ron Hill achieved, so Easy Hard Difficult to his E15!

In reply to Tony & Sarah:

Thats another one I should have remembered ahead of my example: Magnetic North.

In reply to Iain Thow:

To me in bottom end Severe BMC terms you could choose Black Hawk Hell Crack; top end could be Balcony Buttress. Thats no wider than the range of grit HS climbs. You're right about Green Gut in the BMC (fair as its a notch easier than PMC1 in my view) replace it with Holly Bush Gully Left if you like. There are plenty of HS climbs in the BMC grit series harder than Mutiny Crack...YMC grades a bit harder again.

In the end we have to use the systems we have and UKC grades are default Rockfax grades where Rockfax have a guide (coverage is increasing by the year and will likely accelerate when all the Aps are fully operational). UKC could get rid of HD and MVS but little beyond this.

In reply to Offwidth:

If UKC is tied to Rockfax grades then fair enough. I think the grading system works pretty well on the whole (still think that Severe covers a bigger multitude of sins than HS though!). I would keep HD (for one hard move off the ground jobs) and MVS (for head games).
As I said in my initial post the bit that doesn't work is the subdivisions, as it means that you can't vote the outliers up or down by more than half a grade, which of course is where voting is really useful.

In reply to Iain Thow:

In the context of the spread of grades taken as a whole, these distinctions seem unimportant and unnecessary. However most people climbing at this grade won't be looking at the whole spread of grades, just the range they are capable of climbing. For them, dividing the range up to say Severe into several grades rather than 2 or 3 is meaningful and useful (whereas for them dividing the E grades is an irrelevance).

Furthermore, these grades often represent more than simply a point further along a spectrum of difficulty, they represent a real and noticeable change in the nature of the climbing. HVD in particular carries a warning, especially on grit. A HVD may be easier than the Severe next to it, but the Severe is more likely to be straightforwardly technical whereas the HVD is more likely to require low cunning and/or brute force. If your're climbing at that level then HVD is a whole grade, in the same way as HVS is.

It follows that, for these grades at least, a greater voting range would be desirable to allow these nuances to be voted on.

In reply to Howard J:

I'm not arguing for the abolition of HVD, or any other adjectival grade for that matter (and I agree that an H in front of a lower grade says "beware"). I'm arguing that within the UKC voting system subdividing the adjectival grades into (for example) Hard HVD, mid HVD and Low HVD as is done at present is both giving a false sense of precision and restricting the possible range of votes unnecessarily. For example, the votes available for a Severe range from "Low HVD" to "High HS", whereas in reality it's not unlikely for someone to want to vote a Severe up to a VS and I can think of examples of Severes downgraded to Diff (Narrowing Chimney on Stanage, for instance).
As for your point on HVD specifically, I spend most of my time these days at the level of V Diffs & Severes these days but still don't consider HVD a "whole grade" in the same way as S, VS or HVS, merely a warning that "there's a hard but safe move here somewhere".

In reply to Howard J:


But perhaps this is a grit-centric view?


Not in areas (e.g. Scotland) where HD and HVD as formal grades are all but unknown.


But the current range of available voting subdivisions may equally be saddling many areas with irrelevant/distracting nuances (e.g. 'grit' grades applied to Scottish mountain routes, where 'hard Very Difficult' with a small 'h' is quite nuance enough for climbers at any level and 'HVD' of any kind essentially meaningless)? So doubt I'd vote a route to be any kind of HD or HVD (unless possibly in an area where they mean something?), but more likely look for the next available option...

In reply to Howard J:

>HVD in particular carries a warning, especially on grit. A HVD may be easier than the Severe next to it, but the Severe is more likely to be straightforwardly technical whereas the HVD is more likely to require low cunning and/or brute force. If your're climbing at that level then HVD is a whole grade....

I have to disagree, HVD is a non-grade. Take, for instance, your two most recent: Oread (HVD) This has been given VD in the current and previous definitves (which seems reasonable to me) although for some reason Mark Glaister gave it HVD in West Country climbs and so fixed the UKC grade in stone (I moderate Bosigran, but can't change the grade...). Black Velvet (S 4a) at the Roaches - UKC voting says bottom end severe (HVD is again fixed by Rockfax).

In reply to Mark Kemball:


Aye, where do we stop? Let's invent some more...

Like MVD and MD to go with MVS and MS for those who still believe in them. Then we've got:

HVS, VS, MVS, HS, S, MS, HVD, VD, MVD, HD, D, MD, Mod and Easy

If that's not nuanced enough, we can subdivide Mod and Easy for consistency, then start on MHVS, MHS, MHVD etc. Or maybe just accept that (logically or not) HVS and HS are the ones that have established themselves as true whole grades nationwide and use guidebook text wisely to save the mind boggling from the rest!

In reply to Mark Kemball:

You've forgotten some important grades which I wish to see in the north coast guide Mark. These are grades for specific footwear. Severe in rubbers etc. I also wish to see grading for particular body shapes and sizes, fitness, bravery, dicky body parts, fear, bravery, stupidity etc. I hope this helps you in your guidebook endeavours Mr Kemball! See you tomorrow.

In reply to james mann:

Sorry, shan't be at the Barn toorrow - picking Ali upfrom Heathrow...

In reply to petestack:


That's not inventing more, it's resurrecting and renaming some very old ones - "Just Very Difficult" etc

In reply to Iain Thow:


Actually, it came up in a big way much more recently than that, in a thread on this forum: "Grading in selected route guidebooks".