This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It is well known the British adjectival grade for trad is for onsight. But how about the British tech grade? Is it for onsight or redpoint (I mean, the move can be worked out)?
My feeling based on my experience is the tech grade is for redpoint. However, I have heard of the argument to claim it is for onsight. Which is correct?
For example, suppose there is an irreversible and committing dynamic move to a blind hold, and suppose the move can be done by a V3 boulderer every time once s/he knows where to grab, but is impossible even by V12 boulderers if the hold is missed, and it is impossible to guess where the best hold is without prior scrutinising. Is the tech grade for the move 6a (so V3 boulderers can do every time) or 7b/c (so V12 boulderers fail)? In my understanding, the move is tech 6a, and not 7b, but just blind, and hence if it is a part of an obligatory move in a trad route, the adjectival grade must be very high like E6 even if safe, or higher if unsafe.
What's the concensus or definition?
My feeling based on my experience is the tech grade is for redpoint. However, I have heard of the argument to claim it is for onsight. Which is correct?
For example, suppose there is an irreversible and committing dynamic move to a blind hold, and suppose the move can be done by a V3 boulderer every time once s/he knows where to grab, but is impossible even by V12 boulderers if the hold is missed, and it is impossible to guess where the best hold is without prior scrutinising. Is the tech grade for the move 6a (so V3 boulderers can do every time) or 7b/c (so V12 boulderers fail)? In my understanding, the move is tech 6a, and not 7b, but just blind, and hence if it is a part of an obligatory move in a trad route, the adjectival grade must be very high like E6 even if safe, or higher if unsafe.
What's the concensus or definition?
2
2
16
In reply to masa-alpin:
Tech grade simply speaks about the physical difficulty of the most difficult move on the climb done in the (currently known) easiest way and without consideration of any other factor.
The adjectival isn't an onsight thing either in reality (this is a contentious topic). It simply combines how many hard moves, how sustained, how serious the fall etc etc in to one grade.
So no, in the example you give the adjectival grade won't necessarily be high for the route you described. It would only be high if that 6a move is above a serious fall, or there are lots of 6a moves on the line etc etc. You get the drift. The fact it's blind makes no difference to the UK grade. It may just say "difficult to onsight" in the guide.
Tech grade simply speaks about the physical difficulty of the most difficult move on the climb done in the (currently known) easiest way and without consideration of any other factor.
The adjectival isn't an onsight thing either in reality (this is a contentious topic). It simply combines how many hard moves, how sustained, how serious the fall etc etc in to one grade.
So no, in the example you give the adjectival grade won't necessarily be high for the route you described. It would only be high if that 6a move is above a serious fall, or there are lots of 6a moves on the line etc etc. You get the drift. The fact it's blind makes no difference to the UK grade. It may just say "difficult to onsight" in the guide.
Post edited at 20:47
5
In reply to masa-alpin:
The grade of the move is the grade of the move done properly.
The grade of missing a jug & grabbing a tiny sloping edge next to it instead will indeed be higher, but since that's not the move....
The grade of the move is the grade of the move done properly.
The grade of missing a jug & grabbing a tiny sloping edge next to it instead will indeed be higher, but since that's not the move....
Post edited at 20:47
7
In reply to masa-alpin:
it is the grade for the move.
The physical difficulty of performing the move.
I can't believe in this age of communication people still can't understand something like that (it's bloody obvious).
The adjectival grade (E1 or whatever) is given for the difficultly of the onsight, which includes protection and the difficulty of working out the move at first sight.
it is the grade for the move.
The physical difficulty of performing the move.
I can't believe in this age of communication people still can't understand something like that (it's bloody obvious).
The adjectival grade (E1 or whatever) is given for the difficultly of the onsight, which includes protection and the difficulty of working out the move at first sight.
6
46
In reply to ClimberEd:
Well since UK tech grades are originally adapted from font grades its not as simple a story as you would indicate. If only we had kept our version of tech grades in line with font grades the UK trad combined grading would be one hell of a lot better.
Well since UK tech grades are originally adapted from font grades its not as simple a story as you would indicate. If only we had kept our version of tech grades in line with font grades the UK trad combined grading would be one hell of a lot better.
8
10
In reply to ClimberEd:
There's no need for that tone. The OP was merely using the wonders of the 'age of communication' to, err, communicate a question.
Having had the pleasure of explaining the British grading system to numerous bemused foreigners, I can assure you that it very much not 'bloody obvious' to many people.
> I can't believe in this age of communication people still can't understand something like that.
There's no need for that tone. The OP was merely using the wonders of the 'age of communication' to, err, communicate a question.
> (it's bloody obvious)
Having had the pleasure of explaining the British grading system to numerous bemused foreigners, I can assure you that it very much not 'bloody obvious' to many people.
33
In reply
5c will be easier on E1 because you can check and recheck the move to send it at 5c instead of possibly doing a flailing fingertips 6b version that you might find if knackered with little no chance to rehearse or step down on E3 or worse E4.
Of course lots of crux moves are obvious but I am informed here by my favorites which are the ones you work out, ideally with the expected difficulty since you do have a certain degree of effort for a certain technical grade. So 5c is not harder on E3 but there you go. It is E3.
5c will be easier on E1 because you can check and recheck the move to send it at 5c instead of possibly doing a flailing fingertips 6b version that you might find if knackered with little no chance to rehearse or step down on E3 or worse E4.
Of course lots of crux moves are obvious but I am informed here by my favorites which are the ones you work out, ideally with the expected difficulty since you do have a certain degree of effort for a certain technical grade. So 5c is not harder on E3 but there you go. It is E3.
1
1
Thank you, guys, for your comments! Enlightening.
The first comment by Brown is the simplest and yet clearest to me, which was then nicely supplemented by A Longleat Boulderer (thank you!).
I didn't know the British tech grades were "originally adapted from font grades"! (thanks, Offwidth!) They have come a long way since, then…
The first comment by Brown is the simplest and yet clearest to me, which was then nicely supplemented by A Longleat Boulderer (thank you!).
I didn't know the British tech grades were "originally adapted from font grades"! (thanks, Offwidth!) They have come a long way since, then…
4
1
In reply to masa-alpin:
Provided the sequence is obvious, generally I believe in practice it is for climbing onsight (but I am not saying there is any hard and fast rule or definition). If you work a route enough times it will often start to feel a tech grade easier through mental familiarity and muscle memory meaning you can do the moves more easily than on initial attempts. Say someone headpoints a new line at tech 6a, then someone else onsights it but says they reckon it is 6b. I think I would tend to believe the latter climber is more likely to be correct.
Provided the sequence is obvious, generally I believe in practice it is for climbing onsight (but I am not saying there is any hard and fast rule or definition). If you work a route enough times it will often start to feel a tech grade easier through mental familiarity and muscle memory meaning you can do the moves more easily than on initial attempts. Say someone headpoints a new line at tech 6a, then someone else onsights it but says they reckon it is 6b. I think I would tend to believe the latter climber is more likely to be correct.
2
In reply to masa-alpin:
It's the difficulty of a move / sequence if done in a 'correct' way (recognising that in many cases there will be different ways of doing moves / sequences at around the same difficulty).
I've always thought E grades are for the onsight until the higher grades where no one (or very few people) can onsight.
Having said that, the two tend to go hand in hand up to a certain level, e.g. the average E2 onsight climber should be able to onsight the average E2 move / sequence.
It's the difficulty of a move / sequence if done in a 'correct' way (recognising that in many cases there will be different ways of doing moves / sequences at around the same difficulty).
I've always thought E grades are for the onsight until the higher grades where no one (or very few people) can onsight.
Having said that, the two tend to go hand in hand up to a certain level, e.g. the average E2 onsight climber should be able to onsight the average E2 move / sequence.
Post edited at 22:03
4
1
In reply to masa-alpin:
Personally I like the tech grade because it makes sod all sense. I'm way more likely to find myself wobbling around above gear faced with a massive fall or a brick hard move because '6b' means anything from v3-v8. Here in Germany everything is annoyingly well graded meaning when you get on something it generally fits what was said in the guidebook, the bastards.
Personally I like the tech grade because it makes sod all sense. I'm way more likely to find myself wobbling around above gear faced with a massive fall or a brick hard move because '6b' means anything from v3-v8. Here in Germany everything is annoyingly well graded meaning when you get on something it generally fits what was said in the guidebook, the bastards.
9
6
In reply to MischaHY:
That's one reason why you need top look at the adjectival grade as well.
> ...........because '6b' means anything from v3-v8.
That's one reason why you need top look at the adjectival grade as well.
2
In reply to masa-alpin:
Not sure how the UK tech grade can be for the Redpoint. When it was introduced no one had heard of Redpointing
Al
Not sure how the UK tech grade can be for the Redpoint. When it was introduced no one had heard of Redpointing
Al
9
1
In reply to masa-alpin:
I've always taken it to be on-sight, because that is the predominant trad ethic. If part of the difficulty is groping around for a blind hold, then that will be reflected. If there are several viable sequences, then the grade will usually be for the easiest one. Variations are often graded separately, (e.g. Step left and up (harder direct, 6a)). The description will usually provide the necessary support for an on-sight ascent (e.g. reach up and right for a hidden hold).
It's sometimes said of the second pitch of Extraction at Tremadog that it's 5c on sight or 5b if you fall off, because you can see the hold then. Not fallen off it myself, so I couldn't say.
I've always taken it to be on-sight, because that is the predominant trad ethic. If part of the difficulty is groping around for a blind hold, then that will be reflected. If there are several viable sequences, then the grade will usually be for the easiest one. Variations are often graded separately, (e.g. Step left and up (harder direct, 6a)). The description will usually provide the necessary support for an on-sight ascent (e.g. reach up and right for a hidden hold).
It's sometimes said of the second pitch of Extraction at Tremadog that it's 5c on sight or 5b if you fall off, because you can see the hold then. Not fallen off it myself, so I couldn't say.
3
In reply to GridNorth:
By the same token no one had heard of on-sighting either.
> Not sure how the UK tech grade can be for the Redpoint. When it was introduced no one had heard of Redpointing Al
By the same token no one had heard of on-sighting either.
1
2
In reply to nniff:
True, guidebooks often give a detailed description about a move if it is obscured. Personally, I am not entirely sure if an ascent with such a prior knowledge is fully qualified as onsight... I know the general consensus is reading whatever written in a guidebook would not disqualify one to claim an onsight, but... (having said that, personally, I would never hesitate to claim my onsight in such cases! LoL)
True, guidebooks often give a detailed description about a move if it is obscured. Personally, I am not entirely sure if an ascent with such a prior knowledge is fully qualified as onsight... I know the general consensus is reading whatever written in a guidebook would not disqualify one to claim an onsight, but... (having said that, personally, I would never hesitate to claim my onsight in such cases! LoL)
In reply to masa-alpin:
The purist in me says, that you can't claim an OS if you even know that there is a route... never mind the grade.
The purist in me says, that you can't claim an OS if you even know that there is a route... never mind the grade.
5
2
In reply to masa-alpin:
Since the tech grade assumes you read the move correctly and the adj grade gives some leeway for red herrings but does not grade for following them, on some routes where its very easy to get led in to the wrong sequence the tech grade is going to feel more like its a red point grade even though it shouldn't be.
Also some moves definitely get a lot easier with practice than others I find and the tech grade should not reflect this IMO.
Since the tech grade assumes you read the move correctly and the adj grade gives some leeway for red herrings but does not grade for following them, on some routes where its very easy to get led in to the wrong sequence the tech grade is going to feel more like its a red point grade even though it shouldn't be.
Also some moves definitely get a lot easier with practice than others I find and the tech grade should not reflect this IMO.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
Aye, and mostly I'm a big fan of the combined grade - but you have to admit that the tech grade is a very weird place when 6b can have such a wide variance - and 6c isn't much better!
Aye, and mostly I'm a big fan of the combined grade - but you have to admit that the tech grade is a very weird place when 6b can have such a wide variance - and 6c isn't much better!
In reply to MischaHY:
Well as Offwidth says, I think it's at about that level where it all went a bit wrong and the grades became too compressed and thus less useful.
Well as Offwidth says, I think it's at about that level where it all went a bit wrong and the grades became too compressed and thus less useful.
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I would tend to believe the former.
> Provided the sequence is obvious, generally I believe in practice it is for climbing onsight (but I am not saying there is any hard and fast rule or definition). If you work a route enough times it will often start to feel a tech grade easier through mental familiarity and muscle memory meaning you can do the moves more easily than on initial attempts. Say someone headpoints a new line at tech 6a, then someone else onsights it but says they reckon it is 6b. I think I would tend to believe the latter climber is more likely to be correct.
I would tend to believe the former.
In reply to Scotch Bingington:
Really? Usually when we do trad routes it's onsighting, so were I to try the route, personally I would expect my experience to more likely correlate with the climber who had done it in that style rather than the one who'd worked it so many times the moves felt easy. That said, if someone reckoned a prospective route was 6b, the chances of me trying it at all may be rather slim...
Really? Usually when we do trad routes it's onsighting, so were I to try the route, personally I would expect my experience to more likely correlate with the climber who had done it in that style rather than the one who'd worked it so many times the moves felt easy. That said, if someone reckoned a prospective route was 6b, the chances of me trying it at all may be rather slim...
In reply to GridNorth:
However "practised on a top rope prior to ascent," was well known and is the same as redpointing, the name just isn't as cool.
> Not sure how the UK tech grade can be for the Redpoint. When it was introduced no one had heard of Redpointing Al
However "practised on a top rope prior to ascent," was well known and is the same as redpointing, the name just isn't as cool.
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
More usual I think, until the early 80s, was to call it "inspected on abseil", because overt pre-practice at the time risked discrediting the ascent. I believe it was Jonny and Andy Woodward who were most instrumental in exploding that hypocrisy.
> However "practised on a top rope prior to ascent," was well known and is the same as redpointing, the name just isn't as cool.
More usual I think, until the early 80s, was to call it "inspected on abseil", because overt pre-practice at the time risked discrediting the ascent. I believe it was Jonny and Andy Woodward who were most instrumental in exploding that hypocrisy.
In reply to masa-alpin:
To answer the OP, grades aren't really 'for' anything very specifically. They're simply a reflection of the experience that climbers have had on routes. If an easy route is almost always climbed onsight then people's opinion of the grade will reflect that. Similarly if a hard route is almost always climbed head/redpoint. And it's mainly the average of people's actual experiences that give a route its grade.
To answer the OP, grades aren't really 'for' anything very specifically. They're simply a reflection of the experience that climbers have had on routes. If an easy route is almost always climbed onsight then people's opinion of the grade will reflect that. Similarly if a hard route is almost always climbed head/redpoint. And it's mainly the average of people's actual experiences that give a route its grade.
3
In reply to masa-alpin:
I have always assumed that the UK tech grade was for the for the easiest method, with hardness to read, "trick" moves and unobvious/hidden holds built in to the adjectival grade.
I have always assumed that the UK tech grade was for the for the easiest method, with hardness to read, "trick" moves and unobvious/hidden holds built in to the adjectival grade.
In reply to Robert Durran:
There's a certain HVD 5b on Stanage that would suggest otherwise.
> I have always assumed that the UK tech grade was for the for the easiest method, with hardness to read, "trick" moves and unobvious/hidden holds built in to the adjectival grade.
There's a certain HVD 5b on Stanage that would suggest otherwise.
In reply to john arran:
Which for extra confusion people claim is only 4c if you know the trick to do, which suggests that for that route the adjectival grade is for the redpoint and the tech grade for the onsight! :P
> There's a certain HVD 5b on Stanage that would suggest otherwise.
Which for extra confusion people claim is only 4c if you know the trick to do, which suggests that for that route the adjectival grade is for the redpoint and the tech grade for the onsight! :P
In reply to masa-alpin:
For me the most valuable thing about a UK combined grade is that it tells me approximately whether I'm likely to succeed on a route, whether I'm likely to find it a worthwhile challenge, and whether I'm likely to come away uninjured if I fail. So both parts (adjectival and technical) should be for an onsight. If you're not onsighting, what do you need a grade for? You already know how difficult the route will be for you. You don't need a grade to tell you.
Martin
For me the most valuable thing about a UK combined grade is that it tells me approximately whether I'm likely to succeed on a route, whether I'm likely to find it a worthwhile challenge, and whether I'm likely to come away uninjured if I fail. So both parts (adjectival and technical) should be for an onsight. If you're not onsighting, what do you need a grade for? You already know how difficult the route will be for you. You don't need a grade to tell you.
Martin
4
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...