UKC

Mathew Wright has made the first ascent of a new sandstone trad line at Wicket Gate Crag near Reiff in the Woods, just west of Stac Pollaidh in the Ross and Cromarty region.

Read more

Great stuff. Good to have another hard thing done on Torridonian sandstone to go alongside MacLeod's Seana Mheallan testpieces.

Wonder what the dislikes are for?

Funny innit! Wonder if it's the route name.... maybe people thinking he made up the phrase?

Its almost certainly the shocking aviators, it's not 1985!

It is a bit of a rubbish name but no worse than many another.

I wonder if it's just some folk thinking it doesn't look that good. But it's not always easy to get impressive shots when there's so many trees close up.

Yeah that's a bit weird. Is it because he's given it three stars? Seems fair if Mat thought it was a three star experience.

I won't be getting anywhere near it, but fair play to him.

Maybe from the armchair climbers on here who think that E9 6c is no longer hard enough to warrant reporting...

Apparently nothing that anyone is prepared to own up to anyway!

Not one of the detractors, but it's a young kid with not much trad experience and new sponsors, throwing big numbers around. Total speculation of course but we have seen similar before with JP. Hopefully we will get a repeat and put some thumb-downers in their place but I don't know if Dave has the stomach for crushing dreams like he did back when

I think he's done enough big numbers to not be massively over grading, but I think more experience (which he may or may not yet have) is required to objectively assess route quality.

The guys bouldered 8C. The news story would be if he couldn’t climb E9.

Top Gun ascent...  

Sorry I couldn't help myself

He should have called it 'Maverick'!

I thought a E9 FA was still nationally newsworthy. No one's on sighted that grade yet have they?

This is a wind up, same grade as the Indian face, makes you think!

Isn't Indian face about 7c on more snappy rock?  If this is slightly harder climbing but on more solid rock wouldn't it be equal to a similar grade? (given a similar level of protection)

I know that if the route is E1 and its got reasonable pro it'll probably be English 5b.  I think we need a consensus at a higher level of what each sport grade gets. 

e.g.

E7 = safe f7c, necky f7b, death f7a.

E8 = safe f8a?, necky f7c, death f7b?

Currently, when someone says the trad route is f8b+and relatively safe I've no idea what E grade that should make it.  Equally, is 'f8b+ climbing on good trad gear' or '7c+ climbing with death fall at the crux' far more useful than an E grade?

In practical terms it works the same way. Repeats should confirm (or otherwise) both the grade and the quality. FAs will always be a bit biased regardless of experience.

At 7c+ it's physically harder than Indian Face, with, according to Matt, very nasty fall potential. So a similar overall grading doesn't seem far fetched.

Indian Face really is the classic example of why you can't just work out E grades from formulas.

You've first got to define 'relatively safe'. As part of that, obviously I've no experience of top level climbing but you'd expect a massive runout would result in a higher grade, even if it's objectively totally safe. A string of 5c moves just above gear could be E2; the same thing but 10m above the gear (but with a fall into space) could be what, E4?

It doesn't need to be perfect, just pretty close.  You wouldn't want to leave climbers with nothing to debate would you!?

Now repeated by Robbie Phillips according to the other channel.

Flashed ascent by Alex Moore. 

Whatever that means 🙃

Deets please Adam

UKC News Bingo!

Grade questioned: tick

Newsworthiness questioned: tick

Dislikes questioned: tick

Armchair speculation, rebuttal of armchair speculation and defence of armchair speculation: tick

Reference to Indian Face: tick

Reference to grit: come on guys

Why? We all know grit is just a poor relation of Torridonian sandstone.

BINGOOOO

E8 flash, bloody good effort!

Write up by Robbie on his and Alex’s ascent. They reckon E7 with the additional gear and probably E9 for the way Mat did it
 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CgB87Ids5jH/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Ooh, can we now have a debate about only one grade is allowed regardless of whether all the available gear is used or not 😁

Deet is horrible stuff. I had it melt the plastic bottle it was in once, and to think we put this stuff on our faces! 

Yes we can! Although Mat accepts on Instagram that the cluster of wires that Robbie said made the route totally safe is fair play he does go on to say that the bomber cams that Robbie also used are on an adjacent route ie side runners. However, it sounds like you only have to traverse one metre left to place them.

I personally think that if you are placing additional gear on the same line that the original ascensionist missed then the route deserves a downgrade if it genuinely makes the route safer. That being said if additional gear is being placed off line then maybe it is a variant but defining off line is a bit tricky! 

Super grey area and an issue that I come across all the time climbing in the County

Well done to Mat regardless, looks bloody nails! 

Either way, if the line is indistinct enough that you can step off it to place more gear, maybe the number of stars needs thinking about.  From the safety of my armchair/keyboard obviously. 

I can understand why Robbie did what he did. He found he could place a nest of small wires in a seam which is on the line which he said made it totally safe. He then also found a couple of bomber cams just to the left of the wires which Mat says is on another route. Instead of fiddling in the dozen wires on lead Robbie just put in two and placed the cams to create a ‘baby bouncer’. It sounds like a logical way to climb the route given the cams were only one metre to the left of the line.

Mat had a different vision and didn’t spot the potential of the seam to protect the route. Future ascentionists will have to take a view on whether the side runners ‘destroys the nature of the route’ as Mat says or whether it would be contrived to not place the cams.

Bet he'd have spotted the micros if he wasn't wearing those sunnies!

There are side runners and there are side runners. If you're climbing up and back down a different line to put them in, or traversing substantially off route, that's quite different to just stretching sideways. Whether or not the placements are shared with another line is not that important in my view - trad climbing is about finding natural ways up the rock, along with whatever protection that provides. If you're excluding easily reached runners then the route is eliminate and by definition not three stars.

I don't know where exactly this case falls, but if that stack of micros are collectively good it's academic anyway as far as the grade goes, which I think Mat acknowledges in his post.

Robbie said he thought the wire collection made it ‘totally safe’ but Mat checked the placements out after and says in his latest Instagram post that he didn’t think they were that good but acknowledged he wasn’t experienced enough with trad pro to be sure. There are photos of there are photos of the placements in both of their Instagram posts. 

+1 to this. If the cams are really 1 metre away from the wires (which everyone agrees are on route, even if they disagree how good they are?) then depending on the hand holds its plausible you could reach them with the other hand basically directly above/below the wires, which makes it feel quite eliminate to leave them out (and if they are on an established route, also makes the route itself potentially quite a tight line and/or quite easily escapable at that point?)

Excellent! We shall all be able to judge their worth and therefore the grade, quality and ball size of the various ascentionists from the comfort of our armchairs.

It's interesting how a 'line' factors in. From what I've seen, Mat climbed up to the gear and placed it, then climbed back to the bottom for a rest. It's interesting how stepping left 1m to place a bit of gear to make the route safe detracts from the route but incrementally climbing up and down it does not. I'm not suggesting that's not the case either, I just find it interesting. It's not like you're skipping around any of the climbing by going out-and-back, is it.

Personally I think, if it's only a minor deviation, it makes sense to use the side runners if it's the difference between a chop-route and something you can safely go for an onsight. Most times in guidebooks, routes with sensible side-runners are described in that case with the extra/over option of making it more dangerous without. Does choosing to solo a protectable E5 make it an E6, or does it make it an E5 solo?

The latter, obviously. 

+2

I don't think that in itself necessarily matters too much. Not many routes are totally inescapable from bottom to top, and plenty of classics have junctions with other easier lines (e.g. Resurrection with Left Wall, to pick an obvious superclassic). What matters is whether it's a compelling enough line to feel worth it, and be independent enough having left the junction that it doesn't feel contrived.

No, that's fair.

Thinking about it, potentially I'm just looking at the initial sales pitch and then the timeline so far and - it's this perfect compelling bold hard line, and then suddenly there's a nest of fiddly but good gear in the middle of it, the climbing is a grade easier (7c from Robbie/Alex Vs original 7c+, if I've got that right), then there's gear 1m to the left that's "off route" but bomb proof, then this gear that's fairly close is also on another route which essentially means it's got a junction with a potential safe and easier escape..... 

I suppose I'm just getting skeptical and wouldn't be wholly shocked if it turns out to be a fairly tight line as well as quite eliminate gear. But no-one has actually said that, so probably my cynicism is running away with itself!

You can see where the gear is in Robbie's photo here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CgB87Ids5jH/

It's definitely off 'the line' but very close to it. 

Alex Moore ascent video:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CgCRKafD_K4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before (or rather hadn't paid enough attention to see that the runners were visible).

Impressive work and I think suggesting a grade is important. If we come down hard on people for suggesting higher grades then won't they just err on the side of extreme caution in the future and end up sandbagging everything just in case? I would imagine estimating grades is a learning process just like climbing and just as we shouldn't treat people badly for not being able to climb a grade, we should treat them badly if they get a grade estimate wrong..   (this armchair is very comfy)

He didn't get the grade wrong. He just missed some gear and graded according to what he used/climbed. Just because the grade has changed doesn't mean the FA got it wrong. 

While I can guess what you're driving at, that logic doesn't really make any sense for missing gear unless you're a fan of #biggradesforbadbeta. If someone uses bad beta on the FA, their estimate of the grade is likely to be wrong, after all we grade routes not ascents. There's just an obvious reason why it's wrong - the bad sequence or missing of gear, rather than their "gradar" being off. (Obviously if it's an eliminate and Robbie/Alex didn't follow the "rules" that's a different story; but let's not go too far down that rabbit hole for now - the difference between something being an eliminate because you should avoid X and X clearly being off route can be grey or clear-cut depending on the situation). Anyway, getting the grade wrong isn't necessarily a big deal, it's hardly the first time the grade of a route has changed after a few ascents. 

I don't disagree with you.  The point I was trying to make (possibly badly!) was that I don't think he's poor at grading, just poor at spotting gear.  Which seems very forgivable seeing as he's not done loads of trad climbing.  I prefer to think of the grade as having 'evolved' with the emergence of better gear/sequences rather than simply being 'wrong' to start with.  'Wrong' seem a harsh way to describe it.

That was meant to be "we shouldn't treat them badly if they get a grade estimate wrong" hopefully that was obvious