UKC

Been thinking about this for a while and thought I'd finally get around to posting it...

What's the deal with the logbook grade voting system? 

In my mind this seems like a briliant resource for developing a clear consensus on route grades, yet whenever I look at things I've done that should be upgraded (or downgraded) no matter how many votes for a requisite grade there are, the original grade still stands...

Now this may or may not be true for all routes.... but I did wonder, is there an automatic criteria where a route gets moved to the new grade or is this just done on an ad hoc basis, when a new printed guide comes out or at moderators/Rockfax discretion?

If it's not done automatically (and I can see why this may not be done as it could theoretically be open to abuse - although why you'd want to do that I don't know!) then should this be a feature? Or perhaps even an added field in the route description/title for consensus grade....

Thoughts??

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

It could be that the majority are wrong.  

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

There are too many potential biases at work to treat the logbook votes as definitive consensus. There are some oddities in voting trends out there.

Plus some things will have recently changed because of the loss/addition of fixed gear or a hold or whatever, making the old votes irrelevant.

Not to say they aren't useful.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

I think there are many problems …

 - How to know you actually did climb it … before considering your submission into the grade?

 - How to keep manipulation (low or high balling) out?

 - Just because you climbed it - doesn’t actually mean you know how to grade it.

 - How to account for submissions from climbers climbing at their limit vs someone who can comfortably climb this grade?

 - How do you account for climbers having a bad day? Everything feels nails on a bad day.

 - How do you account for grade creep? What if it’s been a certain grade for 40 years and now we want to change it? Has it actually changed or have the climbers changed?

 - Is UKC logbook entries a representative selection of the climbing community? Who is not represented??

 - How do you account for climbs that are “just not my style”

Good idea in principle but IMO … not all grade opinions are equal. Just because you think its hard or soft for the grade - doesn’t actually mean it is.

I think we have a Technocracy model at present -  a model where grade consensus is reached by experts. I’m a vote to keep that model.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

The true grade always has been and always will be the grade in the definitive guidebook. By definition.

UKC voting is just punters' opinions.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Would be interested to see some of these as a lot of what I see out here (in Kalymnos right now) seems pretty on the money...

I get that's going to skew things but wouldn't that happen anyway?

I guess what I'm trying to gather is how much is this feature being used by guide writers and especially where digital guides are concerned whether it could be better used...

FYI, what's got me really thinking about it so much (on a chilled/rest morning) is at one of the new crags out here there are a number of routes here that are way out, grade-wise (F7c's that are really F7b's, F8a's at supposed F7b+ etc.), a consensus grade could at least deter overzealous bragging and misplaced bravado

In reply to Robert Durran:

Eh?? Isn't grade consensus in definitive guidebooks reached by... err... opinions from punters!! 

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

No, from experts with deep local knowledge and experience.

In reply to Robert Durran:

And what makes you think that some of the folk voting on grades on their logbooks don't have this too? 

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

Of course some will, but most will not.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So all those other opinions just don't count?? I'm sorry but I just don't buy that (and maybe I'm just giving the climbing populace too much credit but I think a good percentage would know when a route's a soft touch or a sandbag).
And while on the subject of definitive guides (which I agree should be the standard that all others are measured against), are you saying these never have errors or inconsistencies?
Finally as this topic is really about the Rockfax system, why are grades sometimes different in these guides and on the logs when the grade votes clearly agree with the definitive guide? 
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/horseshoe_quarry-148/southern_man-...
As an example.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

The UKC instruction to crag mods is to stick to the star rating (if there is one) in the definitive guidebook. That's what I do. Where there is no star rating in the guidebook or the route/problem is newer than the guidebook, I go with the logbook consensus as one develops.

In reply to ericinbristol:

Sounds fair...

You sound like someone with deep local knowledge and experience.  

In reply to Robert Durran:

A guidebook author once admitted they would make up/omit grades if they couldn’t remember from the last time they did the route.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

Go look at the easiest classic VS climbs on Stanage ....nearly all voted mid-grade, depite the fact all would be HS if Stanage had YMC grade levels.

Now look at classics like Land's End Long Climb (still brutally undergraded) and Bowfell Buttress (daftly overgraded) where the guidebook experts get things more wrong than the slightly less but still significantly wrong average voters. UKC logbook average votes are a mess due to number bias, different climbing populations, etc, but they do show up where local experts writing the definitive guides are wearing blinkers.

The best thing on UKC for getting grades right is the logbook comments: trustworthy experienced climbers operating at grades they can distinguish who clearly explain why a grade is wrong.

In reply to Mike-W-99:

Definitive or selective

In reply to Mike-W-99:

They might say that but it would normally be a climber's joke. If in doubt you just default to the last guidebook. Unless, of course, the climber was called Paul and the guidebook was his Peak selective, affectionately known as 'guess a grade'.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think UKC voting is good for identifying possible soft touches or sandbags, though they should always be taken with a big pinch if salt.

What I don't think one can do is claim an extra E point if the UKC consensus is, say, E3 but the definitive guide gives E2.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

Yep I was up all night thinking up that username. I hope that 33 years climbing thousands of routes/problems in Avon (e.g. a third of all routes in Cheddar North) and surrounding areas counts! Mind you, I am still a total noob compared to Guy Percival, Martin Crocker and others.  

In reply to Robert Durran:

You can claim what you want....it doesn't make it meaningful. Grades to me are not a trophy, they and the description guide me to routes where I can experience what I want onsight.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well they are certainly trophies for many people (as well as a guide to difficulty). Anyway, I probably should have used a winking emoji.

In reply to Offwidth:

Very much agree with this. There are particular people I can think of (e.g. Guy X Percival) who has climbed a mind-blowing amount and is extremely reliable on grade and reasons for the grade.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly: As ever we can refer back to certain gritstone classics... I just looked at the File, which has a mode of 'high' in the VS grade and a second peak at low 5a technically.  That means a lot of VS leaders have a fight on it, but, is that because it is indeed high in the grade, or because a lot of them haven't matured their jamming skills, find others with less technique easy, and are technically underequipped for this? Personally I think it's pretty soft if you can jam, interested in Offwidths opinion this.

Also bear in mind a lot of people are very strong now, but finding the easiest sequence isn't always easy. Still you can thug your way thro', and it's recorded as a sandbag

This is one place for technocrats! But honest ones

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

Regarding biases, Stu Poo identified a few in the post after mine, though his final point about trusting the experts could be another one - I think sometimes people vote with long established grades even when they've actually found the route harder. 

Again, not to say the votes don't often identify things that should be changed, they probably do in most cases, I just wouldn't take them as gospel.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

If you're looking for a meaningful 'consensus' then you're looking for some utopian ideal that can never exist. All grades are predicated on different set of abilities and motivations and to suggest that you can have a meaningful consensus (as opposed to an average) is naive. The current UKC system is probably quite reasonable: You can see what the 'guidebook' grade is, but also see the spread of opinions about how a range (undefined, but better than nowt) of climbers found that climb. Without classifying each climber by height, finger strength, mental strength, motivation, blah, blah, blah... you can't really do better than what we have.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

The UKC logbook grades are useful, but they are subject to significant biases and I would always take them with a pinch of salt.  For one thing, there's a strong anchoring effect - people are more likely to vote for the existing grade, or perhaps plus/minus one grade, than to suggest major changes.

There's also such enormous discrepancy between areas that it's hard to say what each grade really is.  If you spend most of your time in areas where the grading is quite soft, then you're going to feel that routes in areas where it's much sterner are all sandbags, and vice versa.  To illustrate: I've recently climbed Revelation (HS 4a) on Raven in Langdale, Porthclais Crack (HS 4b) in Pembroke, and Slab Route (Diff) on Sheepstor.  Guess which was the route where I was most concerned about both the likelihood and severity of falling off?

In reply to wbo2:

The File is similar in difficulty to quite a few 5.8 jamming cracks I've done in Yosemite and elsewhere in the US SW and all were top end VS to mid HVS in my view. The good news from this is: if people can jam The File efficiently they should be OK on most SW US granite 5.8 jamming....world class longer routes. Those people finding The File easy or mid VS are rarely VS leaders: most often competent on a good bit harder hand and fist jamming routes, so one might say they are just lucky with a skill set that means The File feels easier than say a tough VS wall climb. The bad news is: for the average experienced onsight VS leader The File IS tough, a minority who struggle with jamming a bit will find some grit extreme classics easier.

One of the most important skills of a guidebook editor in my view is learning to grade for the average experienced climber, taking into account their own individual strengths and weaknesses.

In reply to wbo2:

If climbers in general were to become less adept at a particular technique, say laybacking or jamming, then routes requiring such techniques would, by definition, need higher grades than similar routes without them, as proportionally fewer climbers would be able to succeed. Climbing grades really are a measure of required skills in comparison to currently common skills, and if a required skill becomes rare among climbers, a route needing it will need to be graded more stiffly to reflect the lower number of potential successful ascentionists. Despite what we may like to think, 'benchmark' route grades can only ever stay as such if the climbing required on them remains mainstream. The reverse effect is when fingery routes get downgraded because so many people have become relatively finger-strong from spending time indoors, turning what used to be a relatively rare ability into a more commonplace one.

In reply to john arran:

I think this touches on an important point; grades are supposed to reflect the difficulty that anyone trying the climb can expect to face. This should take into account the general capabilities of climbers, morphology, and so on. Which is impossible to do in a way that will be accurate for everyone, but is possible to do in a sense that a short person trying a reachy boulder problem can at least appreciate that it probably is 6C for most people, and someone with iron hard fingers can appreciate that for more ordinary people that probably is 7A etc.

I personally think that grade consensus should take community views into an account, because the only really useful application of grades is so that people can get a sense of how doable/challenging something is for them. If one person thinks it is 6B and a hundred think its 6C then for anyone else coming along it probably will be 6C, even though it can still actually be 6B for that one person! I'm a big fan of "ascents get grades, not climbs" as well

(Finally of course we get to the position they grades are all made up and kind of silly, an impossible attempt to impose human arbitration on a natural feature, especially bouldering grades, which as a boulderer I find amusing cos boulderers love grades)

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

To give some background on the UKC/Rockfax policy on this we operate slightly differently depending on whether the route is covered on Rockfax Digital or not.

Rockfax Digital routes
These have their grade locked and can only be changed by UKC/Rockfax staff and authors. This is because we need to make sure that the grades are consistent across Rockfax and UKC (it is the headache of trying to keep two separate databases synchronized). Whenever we produce a new book or update a digital package, we assess the latest information shown on UKC and make appropriate changes based on the feedback and our own local knowledge.
There is a button next to all Rockfax-locked routes to report grade problems and that is used frequently and acted upon where appropriate. The changes are then copied to the master data and should be reflected on UKC Logbook as soon as we make the alteration. It often takes a lot longer to send the update out to Rockfax Digital for various complex technical reasons, but the change is in the system.

UKC-Logbook-Only Routes
Routes that only appear on UKC can be changed by crag moderators. We encourage moderators not to do this very often though since if something has been a certain grade for 20+ years, then you need a really good reason to change it.

We recognise the flaws in the logbook voting system - to list a couple:
- Votes shouldn't be visible before voting but many people use the votes to assess a route before climbing it so to hide them until you have voted would negate one of the best aspects of UKC Logbook.
- People tend to be happier to vote something up that they have struggled on as opposed to voting something down that they cruised. For this reason, we advise moderators to only knock a grade up where the vote is a 2/3 majority in favour, but to go for a 50/50 when moving a route down a grade.

Despite this, the benefits far outweigh the flaws and make it the most useful resource available for guidebook writers and climbers alike when assessing grades.

Alan

In reply to Robert Durran:

I have been involved in a number of guidebook committees, and Chris Craggs has years of experience of such things. Whilst they do bring together groups of knowledgeable climbers, I don't think they represent any significantly more accurate assessment of grades than you can easily create elsewhere and they have some severe limitations.

One such limitation is the frequency with which the grade assessments are made. Hardly ever in many areas. In this respect, UKC offers continuous assessment reflecting changes in a route's character and opinions of people who have most often done the route very recently.

What about areas with no 'definitive' guidebook? The Peak District for example now has no planned updates to its BMC guidebook series.

What about new sport routes and boulder problems? Has any definitive guidebook ever really assessed these properly? In the case of boulder problems, I'd venture to say that they have never been given any proper consideration by what you refer to as the 'definitive' guidebook sector with a couple of exceptions.

What about the aging memories of these so-called experts? I can list numerous times that my memories of grades from routes done in my prime are treated with huge skepticism by my team at UKC. To quote Dominic Lee when we were discussing why the current crop of climbers seem to think that London Wall (E5 6a) is desperate, he thought back to a more recent ascent he had made and wryly suggested, "it is probably a bit harder than you remember it."

In fact Robert what you have suggested here is the tip of a much bigger issue. The definitive guidebook system has pretty much collapsed and it is likely that UKC will replace it as the source of truth moving forward. We didn't plan this but we did create a proper digital route database in 2002. It is now obvious that this single action was always going to create something more sustainable than the ad-hoc print system that sustained some areas well, but let others fall by the wayside, neglected certain styles of climbing and always relied heavily on the generosity of volunteers. Wonderful though that generosity can be, it is not reliable and sustainable in the long run and the neglect of sport climbing and bouldering in the last 30 years are indications of a system that can't move with the times. 

Alan

In reply to Andrew Wells:

???? 

hold up ….

I think there is some misunderstandings of how grading in climbing works buried in this.

You absolutely do not get to pick a different grade because you’ve got stronger fingers.  The same way you don’t get to pick a harder grade because you had a big lunch or a lower grade because the problem suits those with a large ape index. Females, who are “typically” less strong than males, don’t get female grades for the same problem.

“ascents get grades, not climbs” is another way of saying “I’ll pick the grade that suits me for that last one”.

If your top end is 7A .. it does not follow that you’ll be able to climb every 7A you come across.  Some will suit you and some might not. You might progress into being a 7C climber and still find the odd 7A hard or the odd 8A easy. That’s totally normal.

None of this means get to take a harder grade because you found it harder. That is absolutely not how this works.

In reply to StuPoo2:

That's not what I said though

In reply to Andrew Wells:

In that case pls accept my apologies.

what does “ascents get grades, not climbs” mean?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

So what went with the grade problem reporting system when I reported that wrong grade at Guadalest, started a thread on here and even informed crag moderator and it was left as is, 2 grades out from what the FA graded it at?

In reply to StuPoo2:

Well, that's a line that I nicked from Jon Fulwood. But the general idea (as far as I understand it) is that you climb something and you can say "for me, thats about 6C" while also having an understanding that you can reach the break from good feet, and if someone can't, it is harder for them. So in that sense you can grade your ascent but it is very hard to grade a climb universally, especially morpho stuff.

My point about fingers is more that if you have strong fingers you might just statically pull on something, and not really have to make much effort, and it might feel easy for you (just 6B!) but if you have 7C finger strength then sure, it will feel easy, it's trivial! But for someone operating at the grade it might feel bang on 7A for them I.e hard as nails.

I'm not hugely articulate so I'll try to summarise; a climb can feel like multiple grades at once quite easily. Tracksides isn't 7A if you are very tall, it certainly is if you aren't. So any consensus grading will need to try and show that, and incorporate it somehow. I don't think there's a remotely perfect solution at all mind you. Typically I'll just take whatever the guidebook says, even if it's totally out of whack from how it feels; it probably feels like that for someone after all!

Basically there is such a thing as realising that the grade one experiences is not the same as as the grade a climb might reasonably get.

In reply to Iamgregp:

*went wrong with

In reply to Iamgregp:

Exactly as described. It was upgraded to 6b L'Espill o Llibre (6b), corrected in the master document and will be rolled out when we release new data for the Costa Blanca.

Alan

In reply to Andrew Wells:

You aren't grading the feature though, you're grading how difficult it is to climb. There's going to be a significant human element to that by definition

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ah ok, great. Was under the impression that no changes were being made as nothing was communicated to me on PM or in the thread, but good to hear otherwise.

Would also suggest the unnamed new route that’s been squeezed in just next to it is added too (as per my post). It’s at maybe 6c/+? 

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Respectively ... I could not agree less.  That being said, outside of competition there are no referees in climbing - you do what makes you happy.  More power to you.

If we were to follow your logic - we would have different set of grades for the exact same problem for women (they are, on average smaller than men) - but we do not.  Similarly we would have different grades for Chinese, they are on average less overweight than the white population in the UK [1] - but we do not.  Perhaps we would need different grades for children - for the same reason.   Presumably Tommy Caldwell would have got a harder grade for the Dawn Wall .. given he is missing 1 finger on 1 hand?  Your logic is that the physical (or in theory mental) attributes of the individual determine the grade - even though the arrangement of rock features are identical irrespective of who climbs it.  I respectfully disagree fully.   I entirely agree with you that different people experience different difficulties/challenges on the same climb ... but I do not agree that the answer is to change the grade to accommodate the climber.  That removes the entire point of a grading system.  

Your approach neatly underlines why using the UKC log book reported grades is problematic.  If we all use the same "system" - then we can compare grades.  But if you've down graded something 6C .. what am I meant to understand from that?  Am I meant to understand that I will be able to climb it or am I to understand that I can only climb if I have a certain height?

This reminds me of the Franco Cookson Head point Grading system.  Franco felt that the trad 'E' system failed to adequately capture part of the difficulty of a climb if being head pointed.  In return, Franco wanted to provide 2 grades [2] ex:  Divine Moments of Truth E9 6c H10 - H10 being the bit that Franco added.  What I think is key here .. is that Franco added his H10 to the existing grading system.  What he did not do is as you are suggesting .. which is simply to take the existing grading system and use it materially differently.

My recommendation would be to follow Franco's approach and add to the existing system.  Perhaps you could do something like 6Cr (6C - reachy) or 6Csf (6C - strong fingers).  Simply down or up grading the problem but not telling people why you have done that ... that's the problem.  I don't think you should use the existing grading system but use it materially differently to how it used by everyone else and how other people understand it is used.

As I said though - no referees.  Do what makes you happy.

[1] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/diet-and-exercise...

[2] https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2015/06/franco_cookson_and_divine_moments_o...

In reply to StuPoo2:

I'm sure there used to be a route on grit somewhere that was graded something like E1 6a-6c, the tech grade clearly being determined by reach.

More generally, we have to think about why we have grades in the first place: they give an idea of how hard someone might expect to find a route, which is useful when choosing which routes to try.

Now for most routes, the difficulty is broadly similar over a good range of climbers' heights and relative strengths, and a one-size-fits-all route grade does the job pretty well. But for some routes, or for some climbers, a substantial ajdustment needs to be made to match the published grade with the expected or perceived grade. Routes that are particularly reachy (or particularly bunched up) will genuinely feel much harder for some climbers than for others of similar overall ability. So why wouldn't a route be described with a range of grades, to help inform a range of climbers what they might expect? That is, after all, the whole point of a guidebook.

The difficulty of that approach is that a grade represents a proportion of climbers potentially able to succeed; the higher the grade, the fewer climbers expected to be able to get up it. And putting a relatively high grade on a reachy-for-the-short route that most people can do quite easily runs counter to that definition. In practice, the grade things are given ends up broadly respecting the proportionality principle, which in simple terms means that if most people can do a reachy route the reachy way, that will be its given grade, but if most can't, then it will more likely be given a higher grade. Symbols and text simply help explain when such things are particularly relevant.

If it were practically possible to have individualised grades for each person, in theory that would be a grading panacea, as it would give each climber a much better idea of what they individually should expect. Which, again, is what a guidebook is for. But at the same time it would lose both the simplicity of a single grade and also the potential for direct comparison of performances among different people. And because we're fundamentally social creatures (yes, even climbers!), losing our shared yardsticks would be a loss to all of us.

In reply to StuPoo2:

It seems to me you are misunderstanding Andrew's point.

Let's assume the grade is a fair average. The experience of climbers who struggle with such lines (for whatever physical reason) will find it hard for the grade and vice versa. That's their physical reality. A big problem can arise in grading if an editor refuses to allow for their strengths and weaknesses compared to the average: overriding that average with their experience. The infamous grading in some old Peak supplements provide such an example.

As for grading allowing for women...why on earth not? ...it's crazy ignoring them in averages when so many more women are climbing trad these days. How many guidebook teams ensure they have female input?

Franco was right in my view. Using E grades for routes being headpointed is an obvious distortion (as although they usually correlate they measure different things): even if we might hope, as time progresses and skills improve, the E grade might become more relevant. I first came across its use when John of this parish used it to account for the complexities of Doctor Doolittle.

In reply to john arran:

I think I broadly agree John.

In respect to Andrew .. I think my point is "do not just take the existing system and make up your own way to use it - that defeat he entire point.  It's a single grade system that is for rating the climb - not the ascent".

If Andrew wants a new system where each route is assigned multiple grades using multiple different scales - then he should proceed to create that.  Perhaps there is a future world where routes are describes {single grade system}/{women's grade}/{childrens grade}/{short reach grade}/{run out grade}/{strong fingers grade}/{wet weather/greasy grade} ... 6C/7A/7B/7A/7B/6A/8A.  Personally though ... I'm not a vote for that.  

What I do not think we should do though is take the existing single grade system, that rates the route (not the ascent), and b**tardize it.   That the worst of both worlds.  If we follow this approach we have no idea whether you're rating it because you legit think it's over/under graded .. or because you had a bad experience on it.

In reply to Offwidth:

Hold on ... can you show me the place where I suggested to exclude women from guidebook teams or where I suggested to ignore them in averages?   

I certainly did neither of those things.

In reply to john arran:

Look Before you Leap (E1 6a)

That would be mine, I jumped the move, Martin Veale - who climbed about five grades harder than me couldn't follow it, hence I used the hybrid grade which appears to have gone now,

Chris

In reply to StuPoo2:

Where did I say you did?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Would you grade the same now? I can't see any logic or allowance for an average in an E1 onsight grade for such a route. I seem to remember a technical roof on Stanage of yours around the same grade where I felt the same.

In reply to Offwidth:

lol  ... touché. 

(I think your reply might have suggested to others that perhaps I might have.  But point taken .. you did not explicitly say I did.)

In reply to StuPoo2:

No problem, it's too easy to get the wrong idea from what someone is trying to say on forums, even before we start allowing for humour.

In reply to StuPoo2:

Again, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that a climb's grade, I.e its overall difficulty, is not the same thing to all people. A climb can be 6C and 7A at the same time. It is not the case that a climb will always have one grade that is always applicable, no matter how we might try to make that the case.

I'm not saying you get to make up your own grade (although you do get to have an opinion on the grade, and its just as valid as anyone else's). I'm saying the difficulty of the ascent objectively includes the morphology of the climber. It can't not. The only use of grades is to say "assuming you are an average climber, well rounded, this should compare in such and such way to that." And that will never work particularly well without consensus. If most people think that X is harder than Y then probably someone else coming along will too, so it makes sense to grade it accordingly. But this is only ever an approx 

Like any respectable person I always take the highest possible grade I can find across the guidebook, UKC grade, UKC votes and so on. It's only fair

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Respectfully .. I do not misunderstand you.  The point you are making is clear but I disagree with it.

I think the single grade should be for the sequence of features on the route and should be agnostic of the physical and/or mental experience of the individual climber on an ascent ... you think that there should not be a single grade and that instead there should be a spectrum of grades that reflect the physical and/or mental differences that exist between individual climbers experiences on an individual ascent. This is what we disagree upon.

My suggestion is that we absolutely can have what you want ... but that we should not co-mingle that with the single grade system for the route - they are not the same thing.  What you are describing is a different system of grading an ascent .. albeit using the existing scale used the world over, inc by the olympics, to grade a climb ... which is agnostic of height, reach, weight, gender etc ...

In reply to Andrew Wells:

I think your description is conflating "the grade" with the perception of the grade.  If a route is 6c it's 6c.  One day it may feel like 6b, another day it may feel like 7a.  Neither affects "the grade" simply the perception of the grade so in my book a climb cannot be 6c and 7a at the same time even though it may feel that way. So in a way you are saying "you get to make up your own grade" which is fine as long as it's only in your own head.  A grade is a very subjective measure that has usually undergone some degree of consensus before it is published. I have climbed up to 7a and E5 but one of the hardest struggles, that always sticks in my mind, was a VS at Ravens dale that was as near as I have ever been to falling off without actually doing so (I was climbing regularly at E2 at the time). It was bitterly cold, I was unfit and not really in a mood for climbing but I would not, for a second, suggest that the climb was anything other than VS as described.

In reply to StuPoo2:

I'm not saying there shouldn't be. I'm saying there isn't. If you can statically reach a small but good slot from the great footholds you are on, then that is easier than having to do a tricky dynamic move for it. Thats not debatable. Thats a fact. The same features often absolutely do not offer the same difficulty across morphology. That's... not particularly uncontroversial?

Let's go even further and assume this is the crux move on a FA. Is it 6A or 6B+? If the shorter person puts it up, 6B+. The taller, 6A. Neither are wrong, both are right, and the guidebook will subsequently be pretty useless in terms of grading for the other. This is hardly uncommon! The idea that a selection of features on the rock are the same so the difficulty, perceived or otherwise, is often just wrong.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

I totally agree with the first quote, but don't think I could disagree more with the latter - as written it's total bollocks. I suspect Jon wrote something more nuanced or sensible, since I usually agree with his view on grades (at least from conversations on ukb). 

In reply to Andrew Wells:

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying.

What I'm saying that what you are describing is a different scale to measure the difficulty of an ascent and is not the mechanism under the single grade system used to measure the difficultly of a climb and should not be co-mingled.

The single grade system, that same system that is used in the Olympics, is agnostic of age, reach, gender, strength, power, flexibility, conditions etc ... it is a grade that puts a single grade on a climb irrespective of how you personally experience your ascent.  It is in inherent in the single grade system, by design, that different people will experience the same climb differently - that's okay - but it does not hand out different grades for the same climb.  We all get the consensus grade unless the consensus grade changes (by consensus presumably).

You might validly be making the case for a system of multiple grades for the same sequence of features on a  rock ... but my point is that you should not use the single grade system for that new system of grading - that's the bit we disagree upon.  I am suggesting that you should instead use a different grading system of your own making so that people can understand whether you're grading the climb (i.e. the immutable sequence of features) or you're describing your unique experience of that particular climb on a particular day, with a given reach, high humidity, a move that suits one gender more than another, and you didn't like the mono so you used a harder sequence to get round it.

In reply to StuPoo2:

I'll throw another spanner in the works: How do you account for climb/hold "evolution". This is particularly relevant to certain Peak Limestone venues, where the climbs are, ahem, reset quite regularly. The historic average over x number of years is then very much not relevant, it would only be useful if it could be represented as the average over time but there may well not be enough ascents to provide this information.

In reply to abarro81:

Quite possibly he did yeah. I wouldn't say what I wrote was total bollocks but whatever 

In reply to Alkis:

Fair point .. I should not have used the word "immutable".  Clearly the sequence of features on a climb can change over time. 

If there is consensus that a hold broke and made a climb harder or easier .. then the single grade should be changed to reflect that consensus view.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ok, I was maybe being a little bit tongue in cheek and was more thinking in terms of a definitive trophy grade* which cannot be directly manipulated by voting rather than one purely for useful information on what one can expect of an onsight attempt on a route. At the moment I go to guidebooks for the trophy grade and to the voting spread on UKC for useful information.

So yes, you are probably right that accepted grades will increasingly become those given by UKC. But this does leave several questions. To what extent do the grades given by UKC reflect voting? How often and on what basis will they be updated? And people voting are a self-selected sample - if a representative sample of adequately experienced climbers are giving honest and well-informed voted, then all well and good, but is that really the case? I wonder how many people, like me, only vote when we feel strongly that the given grade (or stars!) is badly out. On the other hand, somebody mentioned the anchoring affect of the given grade - once voting is given a significant say in continuously changing the grade, it could easily be cast adrift (before we know it the file will officially be E1!). I'm not saying that UKC becoming the source of definitive grades is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it has its issues.

*Whatever Offwidth might wish for in an ideal world, grades are obviously widely used as trophies and I doubt many people really want to lose that function. Indeed, as an inverse measure of the number of people capable of onsighting a route, the UK adjectival system is, as far as I know, the only trad grading system which serves this function properly. I think this is the main reason why it should be preserved; many other two tier systems would give just as much useful information but no other really tells you whether you can reasonably safely say you have burnt off your mates or exceeded last year's E point total.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

I guess I'll take big numbers for bad beta, wet holds, too hot, too cold, etc then...

In reply to StuPoo2:

I suspect you have that backwards. If E grades had an 'onsights only' rule and H grades represented headpoints, I'm not sure the H grade would ever be a higher number than the E grade.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not sure I'll ever understand the usefulness of an H grade. Given how few E9s have seen onsight attempts, do you think H9 gives any more information than E9? As far as I understand it, H9 means a similar level is required from the climber as headpointing an E9. So first you've got to headpoint an E9, then you know what to expect from an H9

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I don't see why it is different from the top end of any grade system where a small number of very good climbers are pushing standards and making educated "guesses" at grades which may or may not be confirmed in due course.

It would make perfect sense to give every route both an E and an H grade (why should it just be a cutting edge thing?*). Route A might be E3 and H4 and Route B might be E4 and H3. It tells you that  Route A is easier than Route B to onsight due to more obvious moves and gear while Route B might be relatively easy if you know some trick moves.

*Perhaps because it would encourage a non onsight culture which might be seen as undesirable.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

unless I’m mistaken Franco originally graded that climb E10 7a H10 before it was subsequently downgraded to E9 6c by Mark Rankine. 

I don’t recall if Franco ever made the case for the H grade to be subsequently downgraded to H9 on the back of the E grade being downgraded to E9??? 

UKC logbook has it as E9 6C: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/kay_nest-8400/divine_moments_of_tr...

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's pretty simple: it tells you how hard it is to headpoint compared to an average E grade. A bunch of E9s might have headpoint grades from E9 (obvious technicallity and well protected) to E7 (say if bold with blind or weird moves).

In reply to Robert Durran:

My experience is that, beyond climbing humour, single minded grade chasing motivation in trad is usually self defeating. I'm not denying trophy grades exist, I just see it as a bit sad. Progressing honestly up the grades is a very different matter.

Although I'm greatful for UKC logbooks and Rockfax guidebooks, I don't agree with Alan on any terminal decline of definitives (or other selectives) in the next decade. On his example, if the BMC don't 'unpause' at some point (they haven't formally stopped for good) other teams will just take over in parts of the Peak (as direct examples: we had a newish guidebook dealing with obscure bits and bobs on moorland, that the BMC Over the Moors guide only overviewed; and new selective competition for Rockfax in the Peak has been coming out every few years). Other major definitive guidebook producers are not 'pausing'. Future guidebooks may be paper, online or mixed but they will happen, as guidebook work has always been more an act of love, obsession or compulsion, rather than profit.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

As a guidebook writer, (in the US) this is something that I've really wrestled with.
In general I would say say that I've been pretty disappointed with how the consensus grading on mountain project has played out. It's a far less useful tool than I would have hoped.
 

Interesting discussion.

Fwiw the idea of one grade for the 'average' climber is perfectly reasonable, but in my experience that doesn't happen at all; most grades assume that the average is an average bloke. I can't speak for the make-up of guidebook teams but that's how the grading is coming out. 

At average female height, when my 'well protected crux' is no such thing because I have to climb the ruddy crux to place said protection, this matters. Conversely I remember a 5'9"-ish friend struggling on a route described as 'reachy'. What on earth is the guidebook definition of a short climber-?!

I'm also reminded of a Diff that someone described in feedback as 'HS for the short' (conveniently next to a very soft Diff, and no mention of this in the guidebook). So - yes, def appreciate the voting and feedback, but question their reliability as well as that of the original grades, especially as at my level, UKC is mostly full of people boasting about how they've soloed it in 3 seconds wearing half their grandad's welly...

That said, I do wonder whether logbook voters are more representative of the true average climber than those who first graded the routes.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've altered your grades above for clarity, but can see your argument (personally I'm happy with the situation where folk just accept some routes are much easier to headpoint than others). But you'd definitely need to have both grades listed if you wanted to introduce H grades in a widespread fashion, to help provide onsighters with the knowledge that the line is a potential E9, not E7!

In reply to StuPoo2:

Given that they're effectively grading for the same thing (E9s are generally graded as such because they're a similar standard to other E9s, practically all of which are attempted headpoint style), I doubt he considered the case needed to be made.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I shall leave it in your most capable of hands to reach out to Franco and inform him that he got his headpoint grade wrong in the first place.   

In reply to redjerry:

I've noticed consistently reliable graders in the individual comments on Mountain Project and fewer "5.8? I could solo that in my wellies" r'soles. For what it's worth the lower grades, where I operate, don't suffer as much from large proportions of sandbags away from classics in the same way UK grading once did (Joshua Tree being the most likely place to find them, but there are tens of thousands of climbs there). It was a joy to be consistently leading harder in the US than back home. Your guidebook was the best of the bunch, IMHO.

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

Always comment. People like me look specifically for unhighlighted reach issues (where important) and sandbags.

PS has anyone showed you the trick of reef knotting nuts to gain 20cm of extra reach in placing it?

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

I've heard many climbers talk about height as if height is the dominant/most important factor in this discussion.  As I understand it - it is not - weight (or power-to-weight ratio) and technique play a much larger determination in whether you'll get up a climb a not.  To be clear - I am not suggesting that height and/or reach do not play a part .. I am only suggesting that there are other factors that play a larger part than height.

(The point is not meant to suggest you are wrong or diminish your experiences.  Only to highlight that there is another side to this particular conversation about height.)

To make my point:  See here - https://www.theclimbingguy.com/tall-vs-short-rock-climbing/ - they looked at height and weight comparisons for professional female and male climbers.

Their conclusion:

It seems clear that in order to be a top-flight climber, height just isn’t that much of a factor. It’s entirely possible to climb at mind bendingly strong grades, irrespective of your height.

If any thing, being slightly shorter than average is of benefit, as it doesn’t effect reach too significantly, but does have a positive impact on weight.

What is clear, when looking at the data is that most of the climbers in these groups are light…and I mean, really light!

For example, the legend Adam Ondra is a tall guy at 185 cm, taller than me, but weighs only 68 kg. I’m erm…a little heavier than that, (cough 20 kg).

A stiff breeze and he’d be airborne.

Power to Weight Is Critical

Something that did stand out from the data was the relationship between rank and height. There was a correlation between an increase in height and an increase in rank (rank getting worse).

This is the same for height and weight, which could lead one to argue that as you get taller, it’s harder to get lighter and so on average, this has an impact on your ability to climb at the very highest grade.

Why Do Taller People Seem Like They Have an Advantage?

My suspicion is that in the early years of ones climbing career, the inherent strength and reach advantage of taller people, coupled with the more vertical routes that are typically climbed means that taller people are generally at an advantage.

But as they progress into the intermediate grades and beyond, their smaller, lighter counterparts adapt their techniques, develop their strength and are then able to capitalize on their naturally smaller frames.

Of course, this all depends on what route you’re on. Some routes will naturally be easier for someone of a smaller stature, whilst others will be easier for our tall friends.

In reply to StuPoo2:

That reads as pretty patronising to me. Do I really have to point out to you that:

1) some rock types typically have more alternative solutions than others for the short climber

2) competition route setting specifically avoids stopper moves for the shorter climber.

3) shorter climbers appreciate information about stopper moves and potentially out-of-reach crucial protection.

4) height stats vs performance for elite athletes might be very different from those for  punters and bumblies.

In reply to StuPoo2:

Yes but... if you're assessing the adjectival grade, then whether you can reach the gear or not is as important a factor as how hard the move might be.

If a climb has a 4b crux move with a good gear placement that's a bit of a stretch above it, then a tall climber might get to do that 4b move with a runner above them - that's likely Severe or perhaps HS.  If the shorter climber is forced to do the same move but without the gear then, for them, it'll feel as if it's tough HS or, more likely, (M)VS.

In reply to StuPoo2:

It is, of course, well established that shorter people have a general advantage over taller people. But this is a general advantage pervading the majority of routes. Taller people will just generally find, say, E2's more challenging than short people do; it is pervasive and there will therefore be no surprises. The surprises are in individual moves where reach is a big help (or indeed where being short is a help) and the difficulty of the route will vary a lot for different people. This is not reflected in the grade, so logbook comments or the text in guidebooks is really useful.

In reply to StuPoo2:

The last part of that seems to be the most significant. Up to a certain grade, routes tend to be lower angled (or more bouldery) and the failure mode is more commonly an inability to do a particular move or sequence. A longer reach can then be a considerable advantage in offering more options to overcome hard moves. Harder grades are more typically on steeper rock, and increasingly the failure mode is endurance-based. In this case, being shorter - and therefore generally lighter - can offer a big advantage.

In reply to Offwidth:

I went to the effort to actually say in the post "The point is not meant to suggest you are wrong or diminish your experiences.  Only to highlight that there is another side to this particular conversation about height."

Please explain to me Offwidth how is it patronizing to point out that there is a 2nd side to the conversation about height in climbing, not shared by the poster, and that the data I can find does not support the idea that height is a primary determinant in whether you'll succeed at a climb or not?  

In the context of this thread - that's important ... more than 1 poster on this thread has suggested that height is important in respect to grades and that our current single grades fail to account for this.  But the data I can find doesn't support this .. and might even suggest that its preferable to be below average height in climbing and that its even possible that the relationship works in reverse and that taller climbers might even have it marginally harder than smaller climbers because taller climbers are usually heavier.

You believe this point should not be made on this thread?

@Queen_of_the_Traverse ... I did not mean to patronize you.  Please accept my apologies if you felt patronized.

In reply to john arran:

I think you are probably correct John.

Thanks. Appreciate the apology - I know it wasn't ill meant, we just get a bit tired of being told it's not just about reach by (often taller) climbers. We will have a much better idea of what it actually feels like to be that height than you will, and we are aware we could also be less weak, lazy and shit as well!

Anyway - I am talking most predominantly about grit in the sub-E1 grades here (though not exclusively). Grit often does very much have, 'can you reach the next break or not?' - there aren't always great ways around this - and the issue of whether you can protect your move. 

The data is interesting (esp on average heights of climbers). Obviously I accept there are plenty of outstanding shorter trad climbers, but their existence does not prove that grades are accurate, just that shorter climbers can be great (I also wasn't clear how many of those were actually comp climbers).

I would still argue that in general, guidebook grades do not always give a fair assessment of the level of difficulty and risk required to climb a route for an average female climber as should be expected at the grade they provide. If I were an outlier (say, 5'0" or 6'), fair enough. 

I suspect the collective concept of 'average height' and 'shorter climber' is skewed. Factor that in properly then we're away. 

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

So what about average suppleness and flexibility, does that need to be factored in?  And coolness under pressure? And "bottle"?  It starts to get complicated.  I would also argue that the number of situations where out and out reach make a climb possible or not for specific individuals is quite rare. A friend of mine who is 3" shorter can reach holds I can't because he can lock off at a lower level and twist his body with his lighter frame than I can with a heavier frame. I think it was Don Whillans a very competent but short in stature climber was asked what he did when he could not reach a hold, he replied I climb up to it.

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

If grades reflect the build and skillset of the "average" climber then they should change over time, though inevitably with a lag, to reflect the demographics of climbers. So, with the increasing proportion of female climbers, grades should reflect their generally smaller stature and, of course, greater flexibiity. Tall, inflexible males like me could be a bit stuffed!

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

What do you propose is the solution?

For example .. do you suggest that a 1-time exercise is performed to review and regrade everything in the UK, for example, in the Mod->HVS category ... so that, where appropriate, its single grade is made (presumably) harder to account for the fact that for the majority of the climbers operating in this range height/reach might be a larger factor in their success (than it is in the higher grades) and that that height component it is not properly being accounted for in the grades as they are currently set because they were, in the most part, settled upon by men who are, in the most part, taller than women??  

Or perhaps you suggest a 2nd grade to sit alongside the existing single grade to be used by the shorter height/reach climber or perhaps some nomenclature appended to the single grade to signal that height/reach may be a factor on a particular climb?

Or you have another idea?

(I am not meaning to put you on the spot - nor am I suggesting that this is a problem that women need to find a solution to.  I don't know what the answer is to this problem.)

In reply to StuPoo2:

Get some shorter climbers and women in the main editorial and route checking teams. On the small minority of routes where reach (or reach for pro) was a significant issue, mention it in the description (Rockfax have a symbol). Recheck lower grade routes as a priority, with climbers operating at those grades, if this hasn't been done in the previous edition. Also don't grade for the very tall/ reachy....there is no problem with occasional soft touches for the tall; other routes (eg bunched) will be harder for them. We did this where we could in the Peak grit guides.

Half the population are below average reach, including a significant majority of women, so it's a much bigger issue to deal with than any other morphological factors. It deserves proper focus.

In reply to StuPoo2:

Well, one person says E10/H10, another says E9. Not much of a consensus yet is it

In reply to Offwidth:

“Height has nothing to do with it, it is your strength that counts.”

Lynn Hill. 5' 2"

In reply to Darkinbad:

Strength and technique.

Back when I organised the route setting at a wall the most common complaint we had was about reachy routes. All the walls were quite heavily featured and more often than not the problem wasn't reach but that people didn't want to stand on smaller holds or smear to reach the next hand hold. I got such a complaint once from a bloke of average height about a route set by a woman who was under 5 foot. He looked suitably sheepish when I pointed the setter out to him.

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

Haven't read whole thread, but UKC grade suggestions need to be taken carefully. For example. Hubble has 37 votes on grade. Yet only 10-15 ascents.

Lots of people trying routes, struggling and upgrading. When in reality they may not have put much time in before giving up and not found decent beta. If they'd persevered and actually found the best way to do the route... the grade may seem more accurate.

Or people climbing way below their limit finding routes easy because they can rat on a tiny crimp on a 6a that isn't really an option for a 6a climber and thus downgrading.

The point: anyone can vote regardless of whether they did the route or not. True feelings on grade are far better found in comments where more context is available.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

But then their grade wouldn't be for the onsight.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I thought that sports routes were, in general, graded for the redpoint.  I do know of one exception, Orpierre, where the guide book specifically states "graded for the on sight".  

In reply to OCDClimber:

I'd always understood that they were usually graded for the onsight up to about 7b and for the redpoint above that (ie reflecting the style in which they are more commonly attempted).

So fair enough if we are talking about harder sport routes.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Really? I thought everything these days from the high F6's are redpoint graded (unless it's been overlooked in new guides, or explicitly defined otherwise). In my view all sports climbs should be redpoint graded, as sport grades measure the difficulty of the easiest way to climb a line (position and risk removed). Why do we need an arbitrary and vague dividing line with two different grading approaches?

Where there are additional risks I'd prefer we gave a clearer indication of that, maybe even a trad grade. Watching climbers new to the outdoors naively treating 'sports climbs' on areas of looser rock as they would indoor climbs really worries me as an editor.

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, I may have got the boundary wrong. Having said that, I did a 7a+ last week (newly bolted this year) which definitely seemed graded for the onsight (having had a failed onsight attempt, it felt no harder than nearby 6c's second go having found a crucial nubbin for my thumb).

We don't necessarily (I was just saying how I believed it to be done). Having said that, it might make sense; almost nobody sets out to work and redpoint a 6a  but almost nobody sets out to try to onsight a 9a. 

In reply to DaveHK:

Unfortunately this doesn't mean that all complaints about reachy routes are unjustified. There is still, unfortunately, far too much lazy setting - at the lower grades at least - when we can see the intended move is actually depressingly boring, but the challenge is just... reach. And reach again. That makes for a boring climb for plenty, a frustrating and boring one for shorter climbers, and no interesting moves for anyone. (Appreciate it's sometimes designed to be dynamic, which is acceptable though not my personal favourite, but not, I would argue, something that ought to be encouraged before the first bolt on a 5,  which I have seen).

If you're shorter and you've been climbing a good while we generally have a good amount of the technique - otherwise we'd have given up long ago - but not every move can be techniqued around, especially at a level that is vaguely appropriate for that grade.

Obviously your wall may well have been different (featured walls are definitely different, for starters) and it's nice to hear you had a shorter female setter.

Didn't Lynn Hill also dislike grit...?

In reply to Robert Durran:

As far as I'm aware French grades have always been for the 'easiest way up'. 

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

How about having the votes hidden until you vote, with a link that says "just show votes"? So people don't have to vote to see the current data, but they won't have a bias if they do want to vote.

In reply to Ale152:

It seems strange that existing votes would influence one's own vote. If I want to vote on the grade of a route I'll have a pretty good idea of what grade I want to vote for. If I'm unsure of what grade I'd give something, I'm unlikely to have an inclination to vote since I wouldn't know what to vote for.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's an actual thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect#In_politics

I definitely feel it affects me as well when I'm voting for a grade. I recently did a 7a that felt like a 6b to me, then went on UKC and found out that pretty much everyone voted for 6c. It definitely made me think "yeah, I guess it's probably 6c".

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yeah there’s lots of research in psychology to show the effect others opinions can have on our own. Google Asch conformity studies..

In reply to Ale152:

A potential advantage of this is that it would then be possible to record which grade votes were made before looking at the existing consensus and which were made after, and to analyse the distribution of both groups.

I'm not sure whether enough people would vote 'blind' to get a good comparison, or whether those that did would even be representative, but it's an interesting idea in theory.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If only... too many times it has become obvious that the guidebook writers don't know what they're talking about.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Re: collapse of definitive guidebook system...

Completely. The FRCC, for example, is barely able to publish its guides... decades pass waiting for guides to be published... But, on the otherhand, would an outfit like Rockfax ever publish something like a definitive guide? It's can't imagine it's profitable... UKC database is great but it isn't a guidebook - something different.

In reply to C Witter:

I have always found the word 'definitive' to describe guidebooks misleading since they are virtually always out of date and many don't give complete coverage. I made the point above about how the trad guidebook sector has never paid the same attention to sport climbing and bouldering that was given to trad climbing. However, the idea behind so-called 'definitive' guides is that they cover as much of the climbing as possible, irrespective of its quality or even its current climb-ability. It is an ongoing historical record which is certainly something worthy that we should protect. 

The problem these days is that the quest to document this complete record can become a huge burden to the practicality of the guidebook as a publication. Obscure routes are often the hardest to document and historical details difficult to find often delaying publication. The addition of pages of minor quality climbing makes the books un-appealing and hides the good stuff which is what the vast majority are after.

I have always maintained it is possible to publish a climbing guidebook to anywhere, and at the very least cover your costs, especially if you are working with volunteer authors (I know the figures for this). So the lack of financial viability shouldn't enter into it. Except it probably does since it is not very motivating to work on a total 'labour of love', that takes years to cover its costs, especially when there are competing selectives on the market.

With this in mind, I think we have come to the time when the definitive record should be online. UKC is obviously the place where most work has been done towards this although others have made a start. We have always been very open to working with other producers to help create the base for this record.

Having said all that ....

• Clwyd Limestone was pretty close to full coverage in 2014.
• Dorset Bouldering probably covered most of what was done when it came out.
• Our 1998 North Wales Limestone listed all the routes we knew about at the time.
• North Wales Slate was pretty close to covering everything.
• Lofoten covers most of the recorded routes (although I am sure there are lots unrecorded).
• The latest Dorset guide has pretty much all the sport recorded on Portland (and much of the trad) at the time of writing.
• There are more routes on Stanage in Eastern Grit than in the BMC guide dedicated to the crag.

So, yes, we can do comprehensive guides.

Alan

In reply to Robert Durran:

This discussion entirely misses the point.

Grades should only be changed by a retired Colonel who lives in Oxford and who last climbed with Colin Kirkus and only then when provided with evidence in the form of black and white photographs taken before the war.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I realise you're being a bit tongue in cheek, but this is a really dismal defence of the British grading system, and all the more reason to get rid of it (which I accept ain't gonna happen).