UKC

When James Pearson climbed Prisoners of the Sun earlier in the year, he was the third person to do so. The two previous ascentionists had offered quite different opinions on the grade of the route, with one proposing E10 7a, and the other suggesting E8 6c. We were intrigued to get James' take...

Read more

In reply to UKC Articles:

He wasn't cancelled. He was rightly vilified for being a plonker - 3 E-grades off. He decided to bugger off for a bit and calm his ego. This idea that he was cancelled is for the birds. 

In reply to Dawes of Time:

I don't like the way you've put it, but I also thought that referring to it as an early example of "cancel culture" was a bit of a stretch.

In reply to Luke90:

Yes, it's a strange phrase to use. He made a genuine mistake - youthful exuberance maybe - and was given a rough ride for it. That's hardly even rare, let alone unforgiveable. But I don't remember any 'cancelling' or any suggestion that he wasn't free to argue his case as he wished.

Rephrasing past events using the norms and language of today is never a great idea.

In reply to Dawes of Time:

I think everyone who's done both Once Upon a Time in the South West (E9 6c) and The Walk of Life (E9 6c) found the latter harder. Remember reading somewhere that someone thought it was towards the harder end of e9. 

It's also hard to grade things that are different style to what you've done before. Etc etc. He got it wrong but i don't think you can say it's right to vilify anyone - for climbing anyway 

In reply to Jim blackford:

I love this: ‘Towards the harder end of e9.’ I venture to suggest that c. 99% of climbers wouldn’t have a clue what this would be like. I certainly haven’t.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I was interested to read James opinion but turns out its just a click bait title for an advert for Kendal 2023.

In reply to Smith42:

I wouldn't have said it was click bait, given that three words into the title we already know it's about Kendal 2023. Not sure how it could be any more obvious!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Pearson is one of the best we have, total world class and I would argue the E12 fiasco was actually good for him, went away and prove that he's more than that and he's grown up to become a total machine eating up all the worlds hardest trad routes. Hats off to him! There's a rumour going around that TWOL is harder than Lexicon... go figure

In reply to Dawes of Time:

It must be nice to never make any mistakes/errors of judgement. What's it like? 

In reply to UKC Articles:

Better described as an early example of a 'pile on'.  But turns out he¨s a pretty good climber, and talks more sense than some I can think of

In reply to wbo2:

This, and one of the very best which should surprise no-one.

A Venn diagram of people who waded in with slurs and people who have a clue about what climbing and grading at this level entails would contain two very separate circles. 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

I think the different grade thoughts on this one are down to the fact that WOL is pretty height dependent. There's moves on it that would be just a completely different proposition for shorter people. 

In reply to Ramon Marin:

Yes! This!!

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm saddened that he feels he still needs to refer to the E12 incident. I thought we could move on from this after Redemption. I can only assume it's still a significant memory for him, and/or he feels he needs to remind a British audience of who he is, spending a significant time climbing elsewhere. He was a great climber then, and even greater now, if such a thing is possible. His list of ascents is  truly remarkable.

In reply to GDes:

Hmmm, grade-wise I find that difficult to believe. MacLeod is hardly tall, and the route has also seen female ascents. I'm not sure any repeaters has proposed more than E9?

In reply to Mark Collins:

1) it makes him money if he can chat about it/make films about it

2) find an article about James where someone doesn't bring it up. If the rest of the climbing community can't move past it then how can James? 

In reply to UKC Articles:

James is a brilliant climber, but I do wish he'd just say what he thinks rather than saying "it felt E10 to him, therefore it's a fair grade" etc. The main problem here is that folk, including James, see changes in grade consensus as just too big a deal. It shouldn't be at all. The FA gives their best guess, repeaters do the same, and a consensus emerges. Repeaters are generally going to be more on the money since they haven't gone through the whole process of not knowing whether the thing is even possible etc, but a consensus should hopefully still be attained through a good number of ascents.

If consensus dictates a grade goes up or down then so be it; it shouldn't be a big deal. But a consensus is never going to be reached in the first place if climbers just duck the issue and refuse to say what they think. And what use is that?  

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not that I've led it, but I've spent a fair bit of time on it, and there's quite a few moves that would be a lot harder for shorter climbers. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Or maybe we should all accept that a consensus above (say) E8 is almost impossible?

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Well it shouldn't be if climbers actually voice their opinion. As soon as something has three ascents you can gauge a rough consensus; with double that number you should start to get a fair idea of the likely grade.

In reply to PaulJepson:

WARNING, football reference.
Yes, quite so. It's a bit like Alan Hansen, forever being remembered for, "You can't win anything with kids", despite all the playing accolades. If you can't beat um join um I guess. Hey ho...

In reply to Jim blackford:

I believe some of the repeats of WoL also haven't taken exactly the same line low down as JP did, outflanking a bold and hard section.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's more difficult than that. Take a hypothetical climb with a reachy and unavoidable move. Short people may find it several grades (say E9) harder than tall people (e.g., E7). So what's the consensus grade? There isn't one that makes much sense.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Really? I'd be very surprised, given you'd have to outflank it by a long way. That is basically the line of dire straits, the original line that James straightened out. I'd be stunned if someone had climbed that and claimed to have done WOL. Completely different propositions. 

In reply to GDes:

Maybe I'm publishing Chinese whispers.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not really with scary limit climbing.  If something works for your particular physique , style, strengths then you'll find it a lot less difficult/scary and thus a lower grade.  You see the same in bouldering in sport grades - relative difficulty of things varies between climbers.

In reply to wbo2:

Surely climbers like MacLeod, Pearson, Caff etc have done enough 'scary limit' type routes to have a good idea of what's harder than what? I take your point that different routes suit different folk, but with enough ascents a consensus is going to cut through individual difference.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

But everyone apart from James when he first did it has said e9, just either hard or easy or middling. That's about as precise as you're going to get isn't it? Especially when body size comes into play, which it really does. As an example, (from the safety of a top rope I hasten to add) I recall a move on the headwall where I could just about reach some reasonable crimps from some reasonable footholds, a fair way out from the last bit of gear. Someone a few inches smaller than me would be doing a much harder, insecure move. Surely it doesn't surprise you that different people find the same route to be different in difficulty? 

In reply to GDes:

Might there have been a bit of reluctance for anyone to express an opinion above hard E9 after the initial "pile-on" to James's E12.

In reply to GDes:

Usually you'd expect so, but if a route is morpho it might be important what the people who didn't/couldn't do it thought too, especially if such people had done plenty at the grade.

No idea if that's relevant to TWOL as I've never laid eyes on it, but the principle is sound.

In reply to john arran:

Morpho tends to get thrown around if it's a definitive crux. From what I've read, TWOL is not one of those routes and is just relentless in its difficulty. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I really don't agree. Grading isn't an exact science, especially when you're at your limit, wherever that limit is. Some of my hardest leads on paper felt easier TO ME than many lower grade routes I've done. This is why so many first ascentionists of E8+ routes, especially weird, cruxy ones, are openly reluctant to give them a grade and often say "it was harder than Y but easier than X". I'll stick my neck out even further and say I bet that sponsored first ascentionists sometimes feel pressured to put a definitive grade on something because it makes better news when in reality they're unsure.

In reply to john arran:

Please could you remind me: was it Dr Doolittle you gave an H grade to instead of an E grade? Did you do that because you were unsure of an E grade or for another reason?

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Yes it was Dolittle. After having top-roped it extensively during two winters, and experimented to a fine degree with combinations of gear you wouldn't normally carry as part of a rack, the idea of rocking up and trying it onsight was simply ludicrous, and certainly well outside of the range of things that had at that time been onsighted. For some routes, notably ones with very obscure gear or obscure moves, there comes a point at which guessing at the added difficulty of onsighting, compared to the known difficulty of headpointing, starts to feel very contrived indeed.

In reply to john arran:

It also seems to be the case that routes are (increasingly?) actually graded more for redpoint ascents anyway, despite the somewhat idealistic insistence to the contrary. Most notably, anything well protected but with a really tricky move or sequence for the grade will typically get a particularly low E-grade 'because it's completely safe to fall off'. Which is all well and good, and certainly should be a factor, but how many climbers operating at a max of HVS will genuinely be able to climb 6b tech first try? If it's genuinely graded for the onsight then if it's 6b or more, it really can't be HVS.

This used to bother me, more in terms of its non-conformance to the stated intention than its lack of usefulness as a grade. People get used to adapting their expectations to the way grades actually are, rather than how the guides say they should be, and the system chugs along happily.

Is it now time to get rid of the 'grading for an onsight ascent' falsehood and accept evolved reality?

I remember Alan James, admittedly when talking about sport routes, declaring that grades tended to be given for the most common type of ascent, which meant that for harder routes this tended to be for redpoint and for easier ones it would be for onsight. I would actually contend that in practice they're pretty much all graded for redpoint. I also would suggest that trad routes should follow suit too. Where there's a notable difference, a simple icon or note to say 'hard to onsight' would be just as useful as whatever dog's dinner we have now. I realise that some may feel this would constitute a sell-out, changing the fundamental inherent ideal of our sport, but I'm not sure any such fundamental ideal is currently reflected in our grading system anyway.

In reply to Sam Beaton:

That in itself is useful info. Obviously if someone genuinely has no idea of what the grade should be, then so be it; they can't make themselves know. All I'm asking is that they give their best stab at it. If neccesary, give it a split grade. But when James says he can see how someone could give something E8 and he can see how someone else could give the same route E10, this is about as useful as a lame yak. What does HE think? 

In reply to john arran:

As you acknowledge, really this happens anyway. I really can't imagine Dave MacLeod or Neil Gresham (for example) have any thoughts about grading for the onsight when considering whether something should be E9 or E10. They're just comparing to other routes they've headpointed.

As an observer, I can't see any great problem with the above. Maybe adjust the grade when something gets onsighted (if it's judged to be different), and just accept, as with some easier routes, that some things are much easier with practice than others.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Is it more useful for James/anyone to say to a potential ascentionist "it's probably somewhere between E8 and E10 for most" or "it's definitely E9 for me"? When his/any first ascentionist's particular strengths and weaknesses won't be the same as anyone else's?

In reply to Sam Beaton:

I think it's more useful for folk to say what they think. Many (most?) FAs will take into account their strengths and weaknesses anyway when grading, and adjust accordingly. Not everyone may think the same; that's the whole point in achieving grades through consensus. It seems to work OK for sport routes and boulder problems?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Maybe I don't disagree with your view as much as I thought I did 😊.  I suppose my main point in this context is that I think it's unfair to criticise someone too much who grades a FA as E whatever and everyone who repeats it reckons it's a grade or two easier or harder 

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Totally agree. Grades shouldn't be controversial. The FA only makes a suggestion, and the grade should settle over time.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

It's not as simple as that. Not everyone is able to cope with being ripped apart on social media. That might sound dramatic, but I have seen some climbers feel a great deal of pressure from onlookers online to give an opinion which is then dissected and all sorts of motives attached to it that are often wildly inaccurate, but subsequently colour how those climbers are viewed for years to come. Some of the comments on this thread might seem innocuous to those writing them, but really tough for a young climber to read about themselves.

I say that as someone who doesn't worry too much about putting my opinion out there about grades. I just recognise that while I am comfortable enough handling criticism and/or defending my opinions where needed, others find this incredibly stressful and I don't think its a failing at all to wish to sidestep it altogether.

Moreover, it's not letting anyone down to delay or even decline to offer a grade with hard routes. Anyone can come along and try the moves, inspect protection and decide for themselves how hard it is. I've delayed grading a couple of routes in the past because there was not really anything to compare them to. At the time, I hoped I'd soon be able to repeat other similar routes, and others would repeat mine. But E9+ mountain trad is only being done by a tiny cohort of climbers. So it takes time.

I can think of a few examples of routes that had a big grade applied when it would have possibly saved a lot of hassle just to wait until other climbers had a chance to repeat and settle out the grade without a big public downgrade.

In reply to Andy Moles:

That is news to me if true. I took the same line as James and this section was around E8 6b. The difficulty in Walk of Life is more about keeping it together through the sustained upper section, in my opinion.

In reply to GDes:

WOL is not reachy. There are different methods for key sections depending on height, but plenty of options for short folk. This is distinct from another route of James' The Cratcliffe Groove. The 'easy bit' at the top of that route is a bit unrealistic if you are short. I could do all the crux fine but could not find any way to do the easy bit. I gather Kevin Jorgeson had the same issue.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

“James is a brilliant climber, but I do wish he'd just say what he thinks rather than saying "it felt E10 to him, therefore it's a fair grade" etc. The main problem here is that folk, including James, see changes in grade consensus as just too big a deal. It shouldn't be at all. The FA gives their best guess, repeaters do the same, and a consensus emerges. Repeaters are generally going to be more on the money since they haven't gone through the whole process of not knowing whether the thing is even possible etc, but a consensus should hopefully still be attained through a good number of ascents.

If consensus dictates a grade goes up or down then so be it; it shouldn't be a big deal. But a consensus is never going to be reached in the first place if climbers just duck the issue and refuse to say what they think. And what use is that?”

That’s very easy to say when you’re not the person at the receiving end of a UKC and social media pile on and hysteria for overgrading. It’s perfectly understandable if James is more circumspect about grading following the vilification he received in this parish and elsewhere following TWOL and other routes. It’s great and, for me, inspirational to see James climbing so hard and so well after all that crap from his critics years ago. 

Likewise Franco came under repeated criticism on here for overgrading in years gone by with a frequent subtext of ‘He needs to do some hard routes outside of the North York Moors before grading hard’ (which was similar to a criticism that was frequently levelled at Mark Edward’s’ grading of his hard routes in addition to bolts on Cornish granite etc - ‘Climb hard routes outside of West Penwith before you grade’). 

In reply to Cusco:

I agree. It's a shame that even after all these years, there is still a pile on whenever James climbs a new route - albeit more polite than in the past.

Whether it's E8, E9 etc doesn't really make any difference to the 99% of climbers who aren't operating at that level. It's just too hard!

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

I'm backing away from that statement with both hands in the air - on GDes's account it doesn't make sense, so I must have been misinformed, and I'm sorry that I posted it. For what it's worth, it wasn't your ascent that that rumour was about.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Fair enough. I remember finding a few moves and thinking it would be harder if you couldn't reach such and such a hold. But I'm also rubbish at slab climbing. But I think the point still holds that it would be easy for the route to be a different grade, or at least a different bracket of the e9 grade, depending on individual bodies. 

Case in point being Ali Kennedy, who is approximately 12 ft tall, insisting that WOL is only f7b to top rope. He is also a lot better than he thinks he is. 

In reply to Andy Moles:

Don't worry Andy, I don't think anyone was accusing you of anything... 

In reply to UKC Articles:

"James' futuristic proposal, and the route's swift downgrade, contributed towards him becoming an early victim of what would now be called cancel culture. "

What an awful press release. Who wrote it? James, Kendal Mountain Festival? A combo?

What a crock of. Cancel culture, indeed - nice attention grabber to sell tickets. James has form getting the grade of some of his first ascents badly wrong: Promise E10 to E7, WoL E12 to E9, probably others, latest one. Which is surprising considering his prowess as a climber and his history of fine repeats, or is it? Jack I think did the news report in 2008, then both Dave's (Scottish one and Lakeland one) repeated it (2009/10) and the grade came down to E9.

There was no braying mob (there wasn't much social media around then apart from the UKC forums), no cancel culture - no-one cancelled him (media, sponsors etc), there was discussion about grades as there always is, there had been some very significant down grades at the time and climbers were quite right to ask what the hell is going on. These over grades were significant. No wonder he had his tail between his legs for a while.

As well as being talented, James is very media savvy, in the early days he was very hungry for attention and he always had the ear of the magazines at the time who were hungry for attention themselves (they were dying) and I put it down at the time to youthful exuberance that he had done something significant, he had a bit, with a mix of attention grabbing.

Now it appears, grades are personal - morpho, better sequences, a move that didn't suit etc so Bon Voyage is now E8-E12 - take your pick! Brilliant, I'm now climbing 9a+ at 62 years old.

Mick Ryan

In reply to fotoVUE:

Interesting post Mick, I do like it when people aren't shy to say what they think. And I agree with you about that strange 'cancel culture' reference.

I don't think it's fair to use The Promise as an example, since James was doing it in an entirely different style to the repeats. No mats meant falling wasn't an option. Of course we can argue over which style (and therefore grade) makes more sense for a short route like that, but that's a different discussion.

Again, interesting. I didn't follow the online debate at the time, so will take either view on the situation back then with a pinch of salt. In favour of what you say above, I have noticed some refer to a 'pile on' with regards to other threads, when in reality there has been nothing of the sort. 

In reply to UKC Articles:

If anyone hasn't seen the film about James, Redemption, it's here for free:
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/episodes/redemption-reel-rock-s02-e07

Quite old now but worth a watch.

In reply to Cusco:

I followed those threads, and they read more like a personal vendetta from Andy F. The weird thing was there wasn't really overgrading. One line he gave H7 and Birkett said E8. Another, like the Promise example above, was more about different levels of safety reflected in the grades, in that case a total solo vs some hard climbing past a 'bomber' home made bit of gear!

In reply to UKC Articles:

What is ‘morpho’?

In reply to dr evil:

Wasn't he that little clay fella, mate of Tony Hart?

In reply to dr evil:

A move that is heavily affected by your size (height or wingspan) 

In reply to GDes:

Thanks, presumably derived from ‘morphology dependent’ although such routes would be outliers I suspect

In reply to UKC Articles:

I understood routes were graded for ON SIGHT ascents, therefor all the grade proposals are somewhat subjective as they were practiced on top rope first. 

Also, Dave Mac, made his comments some years ago, i think the consensus these days from Dave and others is the grades in Scotland are maybe harder than their southern contemporary routes. 

In reply to Smith42:

The Scottish stuff really needs more repeats before we can start making sweeping statements.

In reply to Smith42: While onsight is the style we should aspire to, grading for a hypothetical onsight ascent is difficult as onsight ascents will likely be done using a variety of sequences that will vary in difficulty and most likely be harder than the easiest sequence. Just because I missed a good hold on my onsight of a 7a and the sequence I used was 7b doesn’t mean that I onsighted a 7b - I just made a shit job of the 7a. So grading for the easiest sequence ie the red point grade makes the most sense to me.

In reply to dr evil:

That's fair enough in terms of grading the physical difficulty. For something that could conceivably see an onsight ascent, I guess one might err on the side of giving a high E grade for a bold route to reflect the commitment involved onsight if the easiest sequence is hard to spot (and just accept that it would be an easy headpoint).

In reply to Michael Gordon:

As a longish term reasonably regular user of UKC, I thought the whole WoL grade thing definitely DID have the feel of a "pile on". It certainly overshadowed what should have been a significant and (to me) laudable part of the story: - the complete elimination of pegs from the line.

In reply to UKC Articles:

One of the finest trad climbers out there! 

In reply to UKC Articles:

I went to this and it was a great event. James spoke well and had some really interesting thoughts on grading and all sorts. Was a shame there wasn't more time at the end for Q&A, but he had spoken for ages and I got the impression they needed to clear out of the venue. I'm curious to see whether he shares his thoughts from the talk more widely.

(The term "cancel culture" did not get used on the day.)