UKC

Those mats look a very, very long way away...

Nice work, brings back memories.

Anna climbed Lenny Limpet E7 at Armathwaite rather than Scallop E7.

To my knowledge this being the second ascent of this fine slab.

Pete 

Also from the photos it looks like Anna may have used the undercut arch on her ascent of Plain Sailing, The route Sailing Shoes uses the arch but Plain Sailing doesn't as it goes up to the left of it and is not reachable if you stick to the blunt arete up which Plain Sailing goes?

I've led Sailing shoes which uses the overlapping arch, where it's possible to get some poor cams. I've only TR Plain Sailing, Mr Woodburn beat me to the first free ascent, but yes you do not use the arch on Plain Sailing but you could possibly reach across to place the poor cams in its left hand side - is maybe what Anna is doing in the photo??

What's the boulder grade? 

Kev Thaw went the full distance without mats I think?

I agree.  Even from the safety of a top rope, my memory is that it's a horribly sketchy, height-dependent and irreversible move over a slight bulge, right at the top.  Very hard to read until you try it.

Hard to put a boulder grade on a trad climb! The crux moves, if they were just above the ground, are likely 6B/C (don't know for sure as I haven't climbed it!) but you have to incorporate the risk factor which is why it gets the trad grade it does.

I think people are disagreeing with the given trad grade, when you would obviously expect to have the H grade.

It's enough to make you despair. 

Its easy to fix... remove the button so the children cant press it.

Very well done, that's really insecure at the top. Would have been better without pads though.

I hope you're joking.

Did Gresham get the name wrong on this vid? I'm not au fait with Armathwaite!

https://www.facebook.com/257464757936360/videos/543214672694699/ 

Better for who? Its individual choice. Everyone chooses their own style. 

Presumably not that height dependent? Jules is hardly tall!

An excellent ascent of a pretty bold route. As for the comment above, I don't think many would choose not to use pads on this.

I presume he simply meant "better style" in the commonly accepted hierarchy (and which really, therefore, goes without saying).

I agree with you, it just seemed a little unnecessary for him to say so. 

Is it really commonly accepted? I don't see why 'solo' is better style than 'solo above pads'. Both are solos. It would be like saying (for a different route) 'led without cams' is better style than 'led'. More impressive perhaps, but not better style.

Amazing! I remember watching Anna fly around the circuit board at Kendal in trainers on a route I'd just fallen off and thinking - Wow! - at getting so thoroughly burnt off! I heard somewhere (can't find it now) that she did a first ascent (E5?) in the Lakes somewhere, too, recently. Good work! Looks like a beautiful slab, but I can't imagine ever feeling secure on something that relies so thoroughly on friction!

To the pad/no pads debate: personally, I can't think of anything more boring to focus on, regarding this story.

It would depend whether pads are universally used and accepted without question in the same way as cams universally are (nobody ever talks about cam-less ascents). I would have thought not.

Well this is a silly debate.  The pads aren't going to stop you taking a ground fall, just slightly reduce the chance/magnitude of the injury.  This seems equivalent to arguing over weather an ascent would be a better or worse style if you wore a helmet or not!

It's more about the length of your legs!  There's a slight steepening and you need to get your centre of gravity over it before you sort of mantelshelf (on more or less nothing).    

I actually find it quite an interesting discussion.

So what you seem to be saying is that there are routes where pads are not considered a significant compromise of style, since the increase in safety is deemed marginal. While, at the same time, there are undoubtedly routes where their use is a major compromise (safe, multiple falls possible onto several pads versus likely serious injury on jagged rocks).

There's a big difference between universally accepted and commonly accepted. I would say they are 'commonly accepted' without question.

My take on it is pads don't make a difference to ascent style. On an attempted onsight ascent, multiple falls onto pads would make it ground-up and therefore obviously less good style than a first time solo, with or without pads. 

I think what he is saying is that an increase in safety doesn't always equate to an decrease in style. Few people nowadays will regard soloing a protectable route as being a better style, even though all will acknowledge it as being more dangerous. The use of mats here can be thought of as simply choosing to use available pro rather than choosing to climb the route solo.

Ultimately of course the grade would change, and if enough of a bouncy castle were to be erected its nature would change considerably. But, as with any other form of removable protection, why should we regard its use to be poorer style than soloing instead?

edit: typo

So is what you are saying that amongst those who do these pad protected routes, the pads are just seen as another form of removable protection like nuts and cams? If so, is this not a change in attitude to pads from only a few years ago when routes where graded for padless ascents and a distinction made in style? And, if this change has taken place, will grades go down accordingly just as they have with cam protection on some routes?

Anyway. Back on topic. Brilliant effort by Anna Taylor and ignore all that tripe above

I think in the world of gritstone headpointing, mats are very well accepted now, and people are under no illusion that they reduce danger and in many cases will do so enough to merit a different grade. The problem with publishing lower grades is that it's a sliding scale of benefit depending the number of mats used. Of course, the problem with keeping the grades as they are is that increasingly they are not relevant to the way certain routes are being climbed!

I don't think there's a simple solution, other than climbers accepting that given grades become increasingly irrelevant if large quantities of mats are used.

Having soloed the route myself, looking at that pad setup, I don’t think those pads would make much difference! You are not going to take repeated falls onto them that’s for certain!

I agree that they reduce the adjective danger though. It’s only E7 anyway, so with pads E6? Doesn’t sound too far fetched.

I can think of a very simple solution. Leave grades as they are and if you climb it with a mat for protection then you've climbed it with a mat for protection. 

Yes, obviously, as long as people don't try to kid anyone else that they have ticked a grade that they havn't (as with headpointing). They are, of course, welcome to kid themselves.

Thanks for your well informed and informative replies (and for not moaning about, well, discussion in a discussion forum!)

OK but you might as well grade for the way most will attempt a route. This is more so the case for stuff that can actually be highballed! I doubt mats would make a difference to the grade of a route like this where you are not going to be coming off well either way.

From the video it looks like Anna steps out right after the first part of Scallop into the undercut on Lenny Limpet. 

After getting on the slab recently it was a bit confusing as I thought LL came in from the right and Scallop's crux is heading straight up and avoiding the (first) flake?

I know you're the expert so thought you might be able to shed some light?

If you want an explanation, I used them because I had them in my van and in the end they were used as nothing more than a comfy place to sit and drink coffee as I never actually fell off I'm not the first and I won't be the last to use them on a grit route, and regarding the grade quite frankly I don't care. I climbed the thing because it's a cool piece of rock that I enjoyed working the moves of, and I'm afraid I wasn't going to go for the pad-less onsight and end up with broken legs purely for the approval of the UKC forums. End of story! 

Yes, Yes and Yes

If you want to see your news item on UKC then expect the rest! 

With all due respect, the above discussion has nothing to do with approval or not of your ascent.

With all due respect, you wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't for my ascent. And you're welcome as it's clearly given you something to do with your day  

No one worth worrying about needs an explanation

Top effort on what looks like a cool line.

Thank you!  

Re pads: I think the difficulty comes when routes that were put up as Solo's are subsequently climbed with Pads as normally the E grade is affected.

Some micro routes put up/ repeated recently such as things done in Northumberland and NY Moors are being given boulder grades as this gives a much better idea of the potential difficulties involved. Normally people who try these routes are capable of making their own decision regarding the consequences of a fall. 

Nowadays there's not really much kudos for not using pads when's it's wise to do so. 

And I wouldn't have been having this discussion if the UKC headline had been "Woman Enjoys Working Moves On Cool Piece of Rock". I wouldn't have even clicked on it. I blame the UKC big numbers clickbait for wasting my day.

Of course, apologies I was being thick again  

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Nonsense. The ethics and style of UK trad ascents is important, in fact it's the whole point - hardly something you can be unaware of. No one is "approving" or "disapproving", merely discussing its style, what with this being a discussion forum and all.

If you were looking for a universal chorus of backslapping, you've come to the wrong place.

And for the record, I think it's a terrifically bold ascent.

As you know, the trouble is with things like The Promise where nearly everyone is going to do it the E7 way (ground-up with mats), not the potential E10 way of a headpoint solo above rocks. 

I bet you would!

But I do find it interesting that all these headlines emphasise the big numbers (and undoubtedly attract interest through them), but then people get upset when grades and the ethics relating to them get discussed in the resulting thread.

Perhaps it's good to keep in mind though how easy it would be for it to be seen by some as "a bunch of old blokes mansplain the grade of a climb to the young woman who is actually the only one* good enough to have done it".

*With the honourable exception of Smelly Fox who a) appears to be a chap and b) appears to have done the route, and John A who, if he hasn't done it, clearly could from his record. Dave G - your top roping clearly doesn't count!

I don't think discussion is in anyway bad, its just on here they only seem to go one way most of the time and that is to burrow and dig to find the "bad" in any ascents. Its a uniquely British trait forget the positive things about an ascent lets see how we can pick it apart and try trivialise a persons achievements.

Obviously when you put your business out on a pubic forum you open yourself to discussion etc. 

But id imagine Anna probably put considerable time effort and energy and into this ascent and to home in and "criticise" the use of pads i would imagine takes the gloss off her achievement. The fact that most of this is done by people who have neither the inclination skill or bottle to a do route of this nature (with or without pads) just makes it even more churlish. 

Not aimed at anyone more just an observation of how these things seem to go. 

Well done Anna Top Send.   

I’m probably being really dumb but where are the pics of her on the other route? And the video mentioned?

It used to be that many people would not big up their achievements and would often go out of their way to display an often undeserved modesty about what they'd climbed, although there have always been notable exceptions.

As others have said, people should feel free to advertise their achievements but in doing so they should expect to be the subject of other people's opinions.

What I'm most impressed with is this being done when it's not even been that cold - it's not quite "mad Japanese climber" coming over and ticking everything on the grit in the height of summer, but neither is it Bon Con 1. Good effort!

I think that if anyone is daft enough to contrive to see it like that, then that really is their own problem. The discussion would obviously be the same no matter the age or gender of the climber.

While I can see why UKC like attention grabbing big E grades for non-onsight ascents in headlines, they should perhaps qualify them by mentioning the style in the headline (headpoint, ground-up etc). Though maybe it's ok as long as the text makes the style clear.

I concur (I'd not put it like you have) about pads not being a bad thing. Pads are 'better style' it could be argued, because they help to protect any plant life at the foot of the crag, and probably help to stop grit and bits and pieces from being carried up on climbing shoes and eroding the rock. Breaking something is still possible when falling onto pads, it might just reduce the number of breaks and fractures perhaps, in leaving feet undamaged but not limbs or joints (assuming feet are landed on). 

Sorry, but I simply don't think that is true - certainly not in this thread and I doubt elsewhere. 

Nobody has criticised her, not even in inverted commas.

There is absolutely nothing churlish going on. And it's ridiculous to disqualify people from well considered discussion on the grounds of climbing ability.

Why is that a trouble?

I think this is a marginal case. Sometimes on here we see a reported ascent belittled in comments about grade and style. While there may have been one or two suspect posts early on (I haven't checked), it seems to me that most are simply discussing the fact that mats are becoming more popular and the implications of that. I don't see much indication that Anna or her ascent is being belittled, but equally I can see that it may well come across that way to her.

For the record, my hardest headpoints were done with some limited mattage, in my case just to help with the bottom few metres of climbing, and I can well appreciate that a few cm of mat is going to be of pretty limited solace when 10m or more up the route!

Seems to me that if you have a few mats with you, it would be a pretty strange decision to fold them up and leave them to one side when they could even be of very limited use!

I guess if I said something at this point like: 'no one likes to be reminded of the privilege' I might fairly be accused of just gammon trolling.

But more seriously, did you hear the last Jamcrack podcast with UKC editor Natalie in conversation with Grimer? I might not fully agree with the views expressed about the UKC forums, but I totally agree that there is a strong perception of the forums 'out there' and some people might view what you see as the vigorous free exchange of opinion quite differently, particularly when the subject of the conversation is a young woman and all (or nearly all) the people doing the conversing are men.

It would make a given E10 grade seem silly when no-one is going to climb it in the way that 'earns' the grade. 

Thanks for the reply, good effort on OF and everything you've been up to in the Lakes btw.

What did you think of the difficulty between Scallop and OF? Certainly thought Scallop had harder moves but obviously with less serious fall consequences. 

Got to say I agree with Robert here. You seem to be choosing to see this as a gender issue when it isn't. The same comments on mats, style and questions about other ascents would appear if it was a male climber.

It needn't make it seem silly....? All climbing is arguably silly, if looked at from a distance. The late Paul Nunn talked about grades as being 'invented to bamboozle the gullible'. He was like the John Peel of climbing, kinda wise and chilled. 

Well that's the whole H-grade debate right there. Interesting that several people have made references to the grade potentially losing relevance by using mats but nobody has made the same comment about prior practice. Is this just because one is now more established than the other?

It looks like an amazing climb, and pads are good anyway to protect the ground with, whatever people approve of.

I was actually being annoyingly postmodern and not saying what I thought. I did say that I know some people will be see it that way. That's what all those discussion earlier this year/last year(?) focused on.

You don't to to criticise to appear critical though do you? Purely by taking conversation in a certain direction does take the shine off the achievement. .

Yes i don't think anyone should be excluded from any conversation, However knowledge experience etc adds weight to an argument and helps to validate and support an opinion. 

Overwhelmingly though getting behind someone and celebrating there achievement just seems a nicer thing to do things getting bogged down in the who what were and why. At least in this instance. 

This sums up exactly what i was trying to say. 

Thanks! I'm not sure to be honest...I think OF's a funny one as its really not hard at all until the crux, I think maybe Scallop has more hard moves on it but its quite a bit safer? I know I fell off Scallop quite a lot when I was trying it and was never up for falling off this one!

No. Sounds interesting though. I'll have a listen.

For a start I'll repeat that it is certainly entirely incidental that the discussion on this thread about pads has sprung from a news story about a young female climber, and it is simply absurd to suggest otherwise. I wouldn't even describe the discussion about pads as "a vigorous free exchange of views" - it was just a simple discussion amongst a few people who were interested in the status of pads in style and ethics. The only possible "vigorous exchange of views" is in this sort of meta discussion about that discussion resulting from those who seem to object to anything in such threads other than a bland series of "well dones" - if we bowed to these people and killed all considered discussion, the climbing forums would be as good as dead.

Not sure what that means!

I completely disagree. The achievement stands for itself.

What makes you think threads like this are so interesting?

(This is a joke)

Well clearly the pad discussion is interesting to some people. The news of the ascent interesting to others. People wouldn't discuss stuff if they were not interested in it........

E1 6b with mats

Simply what I mean is by choosing to direct a conversation in a certain direction it takes the focus of the overall achievement. Whilst to not critical the focus isn't positive either.

Climbing is a positive thing for most people and generally having conversation in that tone is what I like l. Provided no wrong doing has happened. I guess thats just a personal preference  

Quite different in style really, despite at first appearance both being slabs! 

Falling off those top (albeit easier) moves on Scallop would be pretty exciting. The day we were there a brush was necessary to clean each hold before you could climb any higher. You just don't get that experience on Grit! 

Well I see no negativity in this discussion (except perhaps from those who would stifle discussion).

Good point. I suppose the difference is that the idea of H grades has never been entertained by more than a tiny minority, while the use of mats (and therefore the acceptance of likely changes in grade) is widespread. With now-established highball routes the main question is whether to give them bouldering or route grades (or both), and I guess this has to be worked out through consensus on a case by case basis.

I think the other difference is that most high E headpoint routes haven't been done ground-up anyway, so everyone just makes allowances for them being, at best, guesstimates. As soon as they are done without practice they should be given the considered onsight grade (which of course may well be higher or lower than what it got before). 

Nobody seems to have taken on the elephant in the room, the pads talk is distracting, so I will...

How did the route end up being settled and reported at E8, when almost everyone I’ve spoken too who has done it disagrees with that, including the definitive guide (would be nice to hear what Anna thinks).

I know pure friction moves are hard to grade, but when I did it, I had only done a handful of 6b cruxes, and no 6c ones. In fact the day of the solo, I backed off piece of mind. OF is defo harder technically than POM, but is it harder overall? I’m not sure...

To summarise, would this still make the news at the probably correct grade of E6/7 6b?

This feels like a last word kinda of conversation so let's leave it at that then.

Night.  

You miserable old bugger!

Good Effort - Girl Power

I enjoy a bit of headpointing and I prefer to have a pad down if I have one with me.

I wouldn't worry about the UKC style police too much; I can't imagine ever having any regrets about giving myself the confidence to climb some routes that I wouldn't even contemplate without pre-practice and a soft(er) landing.

M

Obviously a brilliant climb and most people would get big kudos in the pub for toproping it clean as done before the climb. No one wants anyone to break their legs and there's no criticism of the climber making their own judgement on the level risk they view as acceptable, which is a intrinsic part of climbing (and worthy of discussion). In this case the top-rope wasn't the full experience and matless was too much risk.

One of the first maxims I ever learned in climbing is "it doesn't matter how you climb something as long as your honest about how you've climbed it". The second image in the story clearly shows 4 visible mats (and whatever might be underneath) so seems honest enough to me. 

I don't think it matters in an 'approving or disapproving' way if it gets F7a skyball (see Franco Cookson's article), E8 - with mats or E6. However, the above differences might provoke a discussion about how mats have changed the game in climbing, which if we're honest mainly concerns the top-end of climbing. For better or worse VS climbers don't tend to lug up their rack and a stack of mats with them to stanage so these discussions are invariably started in UKC articles about top ascents.

The above isn't meant to detract from a very skilful bold ascent. The achievement stands upon itself. Well done Anna. 

I find this comment quite interesting as in the video here; https://www.facebook.com/257464757936360/videos/543214672694699/ you have climbed Scallop until just before the its crux, and then stepped right into Lenny Limpet just after the two hard moves on that route. By doing this you seem to have missed out the crux moves on both routes, so climbed in this (perhaps more logical?) way the route would likely be more E5/6.

Similarly - in this picture of you on Plain Sailing https://www.instagram.com/p/Bi95GVYDRRR/?taken-by=anna_taylor_98 you are quite clearly climbing through the overlap on Sailing Shoes (not simply reaching across to place gear in it as Pete suggested might be the case as it is level with your knees!) and therefore you seem to have traversed around the crux move of this route as well which would again reduce the grade.

It would be great if you could shed some more light on both these ascents to both ensure accurate reporting is possible and to clarify the lines for others who may want to go and do the routes.

E8 slab in shoes and socks! Eh eck.

Great effort. 

Hmmm.  New user registered today and happens to stumble on this thread... and happens to have done surprisingly forensic research on the ascents... and happens to ask some passive-aggressive questions that query the ascents?

Cowardly.

(Although I do think Anna's response to questions is pretty immature too!)

For the guidebook I toproped all the hardish slabs in this area to try to rank them on technical difficulty, on sight, all on the same day, as I recall.

The result was:  Particle Exchange < Thin Air < Piece of Mind < Piece of Mind Direct < Obsession Fatale. Obs Fat was clearly a grade harder than the others (for me) and the only one I fell off (got it third go).

As for E grade, no idea, but has anyone onsighted it yet?  Andi Turner maybe?  Stuart Millis nearly did but I didn’t realise it hadn’t yet been done and kind of talked him out it (sorry, Stuart!)

I think because there is a consensus that prior practice will have a significant affect on the grade (for that person) that most people will be quite candid about their style in this respect.  If somebody asks me if I've done a route I will be quite open about the amount of pre-practice; "I took several falls from the crux I did it ground up", or "yes but it was a headpoint".

Similarly I think it's quite useful to clarify pad usage on routes where it could have made a difference, but this seems to be less well reported on the whole (for example, news reports will note whether an ascent is onsight/flash or ground-up but not how many pads were used - this would be useful.  Having said that, I have used pads on a lot of gritstone routes, and can only remember a handful of times where I purposely decided not to use any (interestingly, Obsession Fatale was one of them).  I'm not going to criticise anyone for using pads, it just makes sense to enjoy your climbing more, but an appreciation of the context and style in which most of these routes were done is also important.

I don't what you think, as you have far more experience than me, but as for the effect of pads in general I think routes which are significantly bigger than 'highballs', like Obsession Fatale, are precisely those where they could make a real difference.  I think you'd get the most bang-for-buck out of a few pads when they potentially change the consequences from 'likely injury' to 'unlikely injury'. I'd have no intention of falling off Obsession Fatale, but those are often the routes where they make the biggest difference.  I'm not sure trying to qualify how many pads were present makes a big difference, the average bouldering mat I see on the crag nowadays is bigger than every pad combined that I could have begged/borrowed/stole to protect a route 10 years ago.

In reply to: Smelly Fox - I agree with you about the grade, I'm pretty sure it's been E7 for years in the definitive guide (all the guides?), though it's always hard to grade those routes you just have to 'walk' up as there are no handholds!

In reply to the OP:  Congratulations, it's always great to see people enjoying climbing irrespective of the grade.  Nobody is trying to criticise your ascent but I think the pad debate is quite an important discussion to have, even if it just so people are aware of it.  Apologies if it feels personal, but I suspect people were sucked in by the clickbait grade in the title, and I'm sure that was UKC and nothing to do with you!

Haha - no worries Dave, one of my more sensible moments to actually listen to you. Personally I'd rather solo Obs Fat than Piece of Mind any day (Alton these days I wouldn't go near either), always felt far more secure on it...

Forget the grade, the real question is: is Anna 19 or 20?

BITD I used to solo quite a lot, albeit I was shite then, & am of course worse now, & could never have aspired to the level you're operating at.  Had there been pads though I'd have cheerfully used as many as I could get my hands on, & might even have more fully functional joints in old age.  One thought - it occurs to me that if you're soloing at a height where pads provide some credible risk mitigation you're still at a height where a helmet does too.  Again, BITD there was some logic to not wearing one - the two models available were so heavy & uncomfortable as to be a real distraction from the task in hand but - like FaceTime & WhatsApp - this is one area where the technology really is better.  Nowadays I'd as soon climb in my shreddies as w/o one.  & nobody wants  to see that.  

I still remember the guidebook meeting in The Wilkes' Head when it was decided to give it E7 rather than its original E8. The decision was based on the opinion of those sat around the table who had done it and Mark Sharratt's distaste at the amount who were doing it as their first E8, several who'd never previously lead much above E2 (usually with a Chalkstorm or Wings tick to bolster their logbooks). It stuck with me as I'm pretty sure at the time it was the only E8 Mark had done (I think he'd only been climbing a couple of years at the time) yet he was willing to take the hit on the grade  

He was also of the opinion that he'd never do Kaluza either, because everyone had done that too. A funny mindset, makes me smile a bit writing about it now, but he had a point. 

Well done Anna though, must've been scary as hell stepping back after being rescued, did it take long to get the rope to you?

Read half the thread, got bored, awesome ascent well done.

For the amount of flack people seem to get for doing something decent it seems hardly worth announcing it. The delights of social media.

I never intended this to happen when I commented, sorry. I've been up there. It's scary and feels a LONG way down. It's a really good effort, and may you climb many more like it.

Si.

No, it's worth announcing it both for the news value and for the spin off stimulating discssions about style and grades. 

In this topic boring old farts old fart.

Well done all! Belittling someones achievements. Hope you all feel amazing that you've got to be pedantic and stuffy. Makes you feel warm inside I bet. 

Well done on the climb! Looks thin and highball, you certainly wouldn't be seeing me up there regardless of the matting situation. 

Regarding the whole pads issue, it's just the way approaches to climbing have evolved over the years. Boulderers seeking out new rock and mats now being abundant has meant higher and high things have started to be looked at from a bouldering perspective.

So it's no surprise that people coming from that side of climbing are going to look at many of the small 8-10m "routes" of old often found on grit or sandstone outcrops and see the opportunity to do them in a highball style rather than a pure trad style.

So what you get here is a blurring of styles as the upper end of highball bouldering encroaches into the territory of the hard, small routes which came before. This leads to the climbers of that time being a bit miffed that climbing their once serious undertakings are now just a bit of fun for the new generation. 

Grade-wise, I've never been on this route so can't comment on the particular climb but in general yes a small route is safer with a stack of pads under it, but you can't give a host of separate grades for every style of accent of every route. Some of the very shortest routes have evolved into pure boulder problems now and will mainly get a bouldering grade but in most cases, including this one, it has a trad grade for a full trad, non-matted accent and it should keep that grade. 

All that matters is that you state/don't hide the style of accent you did. So a HVS is a HVS whether it's head pointed above 10 pads with pre-placed gear, lead on-sight, or solo'd with one hand behind your back. The relative boldness of the styles is easy to rank but you can't go claim E2 because you solo'd it or be reduced to VS because you padded it out.

All you can say is "I did X grade route in Y style." and let people decide for themselves how impressive it is.




 

No it's not. You clearly have no idea how the system works. The technical grade will be the same but the other bit won't.

If that were true, it would be impossible to give anything an adjectival grade.  As far as I'm concerned, the E-grade reflects the difficulty of an onsight trad lead using the best available protection (which is why a different grade may be given for side-runners).  If you choose to solo it, or even miss out a key runner, that doesn't make the route harder, just that you chose to make it harder for you. 

Whose achievements are being belittled? Have you even read the thread?

Yup.

Not in the sense that you can claim to have climbed the grade unless you have onsighted it. Where things seem to have evolved, as I understand it from this excellent thread, is that, with pads now the norm where they help, you can, in principle, claim the grade for a padded onsight, but that things are blurred by grades not having yet been accordingly reduced in line with this development.

I guess the point is that the adjectival grades attached to the majority of short grit routes are from a time when a large stack of bouldering pads was not available as the best available protection, and as such the serious or danger factor of the route may have been reduced, which will effect the grade.

I think that it's probably more acceptable for the upper grades. I'm pretty sure I'd be ridiculed for claiming an E3 for Archangel (E3 5b) if I climbed it above pads or a snowdrift, and rightly so.

I disagree. Adjectival grades are simply a subjective measure for relative difficulties of matless 'onsights' (quotes as restarted ground ups are OK) . You could define many different types of subjective grades that are equivalent to an adjectival grade for the specific rules of the game and they would have as much meaning as adjectival grades does (quite a lot in my view despite being subjective). H grades already exist and many of us could produce a fair list of solo adjectival style grades. So in my view an 8m HVS 4c could be equivalent to an 'E1' equivalent solo or a 'VS' equivalent headpoint or f4 above a big stack of mats. Most headpointing climbers claim they have led the route, not the E grade

Whatever the style, a lead of OF before the grit is 'called' is pretty impressive.

In reply to Anna Taylor

Chapeau on the route.

What I mean is you can say I have climbed, so and so route (graded HVS for a clean on-sight) in XYZ style.

That is what you claim, nothing more, nothing less. You're not climbing a grade you're climbing a route up a piece of rock. If said route is given HVS for a clean on-sight accent, that is to be taken as the base point. If you've done it in a style other than that then the description of that style is just added on or deducted from the achievement of climbing the HVS on-site. It's just a mental or written note in your logbook, there is no need to start trying to calculate the exact objective grade of what you have personally achieved that day on your climb. 

Otherwise, you end up getting into all the sorts of bollocks in this thread. What if was really warm? E1? or you solo'd it? E2?, what if it started raining half way up while you solo'd it, E3? It starts getting pointlessly complex if you start trying to account for all these factors in the grading system. 

All you do is climb your route, and state how you did it. You can spin a tale of how you had a total epic and brought the wrong sized gear, it rained, you miss read the move etc etc, but you're still getting the same tick at the end of the day regardless of how impressive your success may have been. 

As I said, you don't climb grades you climb routes. A route is given a grade for the default style of accent (clean on-sight) that is your base point. If the route you have head pointed happens to have a grade of HVS then you have head pointed a HVS.

Which is to say, you have climbed, in a head point style a route given a grade of HVS for a clean on-site attempt. The same applies for any other style of lead/solo ascent.  So, no you can't say you've lead (on sight) HVS, but you can say you've climbed a HVS graded route in XYZ style. 

To highlight it, let's say the hardest route you've lead on-sight is HVS. Then one day you find a HVS with gear but choose to solo it and you're successful. Can you then say you're hardest on-sight is E1, or whatever you personally deem it to be?  

In Anna's case, there is no doubt she's climbed the route called "Obsession Fatale" and that route gets a grade of E8 6C (for a clean on-sight). She is not claiming she's 'climbed' (aka clean on-sight) an E8 but that she has head pointed, above mats the climb "Obsession Fatale" which is given a grade of E8 6C (for an on-sight). As far as I see it nothing else needs adding, she is honest about what she has done and isn't claiming anything she hasn't. She's ticked the route. 

 

Well yes, we agree entirely then.

Good effort!

But no lid?!

I know you could devise such different grades (as indeed you do on your website!).  The point is you have start from somewhere as a fixed datum from which you can make your excuses for why it was harder for you on the day.  That point is the trad onsight with a reasonable rack of gear in reasonable weather.  Grading solos is just silly.

I take the point that obviously pads can make a difference, whether it's just to protect an awkward unprotected start, to cover a possible impact point on a swing, or the (mostly apocryphal) 'massive pile of pads' onto which the implication is that you could safely swan-dive off the top of the crag.  For this we have H grades.

I completely agree. It doesn't look to me as though Anna's pads are doing anything more than keeping her feet clean! 

You could argue climbing is silly let alone grading of climbs. The question is, are the labels we use useful or not, from a huge variety of possibles on the many micro-variations of climbing games. Most people think some at least are, so we have all sorts of establisehed grading systems.  Some prefer more: so add P grades (or film ratings in the US) and beyond that we get ancillary symbols: and the books that use them (Rockfax and Jingo Wobbly) seem to do well enough with that. In the UK things are broken at the highest trad grades as the tech grades are too wide and the adjectival grades are designed for something else than the style of the vast majority of ascents. Hence on the grit list you get extra grades like French grades and bouldering crux grades. Despite all this, most who lead, solo or highball such routes know the score... just be honest in the style of ascent.

http://gritlist.wikifoundry.com

I see H grades more as they were first written... for routes where the crux sequence is hard to suss out onsight.. not particularly for the very popular trend of ground-up above mats. It's one of the reasons I think some form of solo grades will be published (probably online) in the not too distant future. Grit in particular is almost made for soloing, especially if you know the routes well. Many people have experimented with solo graded lists already.

Bold climbing - I wouldn't fancy falling onto mats that far away !

I'd take slight issue with the headline stressing the age of the ascentionist (and this is a common theme with other similar articles, i'm not just picking on this one) - I'd be even more impressed by an 80 year old doing it ! Personally, my highest climbing grades were achieved between the ages of about 20 and 24 - I'd be most impressed with myself if I could repeat some of them !

Congratulations Anna, this sounds like a fine ascent of mentally challenging route. To go back on it after backing off once shows some real focus

and anyone else whose daft enough to read this.

Well this is all very confusing. It's not as though I even understood it before they introduced E grades. That was bad enough, particularly if you went off to try an Al Manson route which he thought was HVS and now seems to be E5. Over the last decade or so it's proved really difficult to even grasp what you've just done. Did I do an "on sight", "ground up", "headpoint" (is that where you do it wearing one of those track cycling helmets). I've remained reluctant to say I've been high balling as I have quite short legs, and I believe flashing can still get you into trouble. Anyway, I thought simes303 was the man to sort it all out for me as he clearly knows when someone doesn't understand the grading system. So I had a look at his profile and gallery. He adds useful comments to several of his photos indicating that he has not used "cheating pads"... OK that's clear, pads is cheating. Then he lets me know that he did one route after a nights clubbing and no sleep. Does this make it harder because you feel rough or easier because you don't know what you're doing. Then he tells me he did the route while his brother was asleep on the floor. That's it! In what way does the sleeping position of a close relative affect the grade?

So I'm going to stick with Steve McClure's idea that after a certain age you can claim an onsight for everything because by the time you get to the top you've forgotten the start of the route. Clearly Anna can't claim that one, but she must have had quite an adventure as she set off up it again having a clear memory of what it felt like to stand under the crux just 40 minutes before.

And did she do the route or get the tick, or both, or neither. If she go the tick she needs to keep a lookout for the rash, in-case it gave her Lyme disease.

Smiling face emoji

How can you know about emojis and be a climber and have missed 40+ years of arguments about style of UK ascents in the climbing magazines, new route books and more recently online?

(Good rant btw)

I'm sure quite a few of us have been rescued from 'crumbling psyche syndrome' under a crux (some many times). I'm always impressed with those who tie on again and get it done.

Actually there wasn't

Petulant teenager.

Condescending adult.

Jealous punter.

Solo graded lists I can perhaps understand, though do think it's a big part of the skill set of a soloist to pick their routes well! What form would 'solo grades' take though? Do you just mean the equivalent of H grades for unprotected headpoints?

Damn.  I was so close.  I predicted "patronising adult".

Yes mainly H solo grades, especially for extremes, but maybe onsight solo grades for lower grades. Soloing well inside  ones comfort zone is common fun for experienced gritstoners and I can see this becoming popular for newer boulderers who want some mileage on an easy day. They would also be useful for roped solos where the leader solos the route and sets a belay and brings up a second (one of my favorite ways to introduce mainly indoor climbers to grit).

Headpoint solo grades would obviously be how initimidating and difficult they are as a prepracticed solo: same as the H grade if the route is unprotected but as if they are unprotected otherwise. Onsight solo grades the same as the adjectival grades they would be if they were unprotected (I could grade most of Peak grit below VS pretty easily for this).

I like soloing (when it goes well), but try to restrict frequency! As far as I can tell, trad + tech grades seem to work fairly well for onsight soloing? A move that someone is comfortable or not comfortable on while soloing is so personal that attempting to grade specifically for that seems possibly problematic? Not an issue of course for headpoints as you know from having been on the route before whether you should do it or not. 

Just saw your edit. Yes, an interesting idea. For solos, the tech grade is probably most important I suppose, along with the style of route, escapability and how high the crux is.

Real classy.

Anna, if it helps contexualise this thread (and UKC grade debates). I don't know if you've seen the article covering Franco Cookson's fall off the 15m Academia (pad-less - although he did hit a rucksack before coming to a complete stop) and the 34-0 comment in the thread which blasted the use of such a high trad grade when someone can fall off the crux of a route and not be seriously injured for it.

Had he broken his legs maybe he would have helped confirm the grade in some people's minds! Glad this wasn't the case here. 

F7a R/X 

Problem solved.

I've just listened to this excellent podcast. They actually said very little about the UKC forums except to both be rather dismissive of them (which I think is somewhat unfair, because a lot of discussion on here is actually pretty constructive - maybe you agree. Not to mention all the useful information and good advice available). Anyway, from your post I was sort of expecting a discussion of the certainly perceived and perhaps real problem of the "maleness" of the forums, but it wasn't mentioned - Natalie's views would have been interesting.

Can't help but think that the ones tending towards infantilism are the ones that get upset about things as piddling as receiving a 'dislike'.  What happens when they receive a 'like'?  I'm hoping that for balance they go around high-fiving all and sundry and 'whooping it up'.

I've been wanting to try this route on a shunt for a long time (Roaches local), it was great to see your Instagram post appear, really motivating to try some more harder routes.

What are your thoughts on the technical grade?

It's so sad to see all this negativity, but then, you could post a story about rescuing a kitten on here and someone would find a reason to be snotty about it.

I don't think we get upset about receiving a "dislike" (at least I don't). I just dislike the undermining of constructive discussion by mindless unqualified "disliking".

A "like" is not comparable because it does not usually beg the question as to why it was given - it does not undermine discussion.

There really, really isn't any.

Oh come off it.

This is rubbish of the highest order. Feel free to dislike away

I don't recall that comment, but I do recall the grade and publicity around it being questioned by people who had actually done the route, which seems fair enough to me.

Most of us complaining about dislikes are not upset with individual people pressing buttons. I for one just want forum usage and debate to thrive. The problem with dislikes is they are evidenced to suppress some posting, breed anonymous negativity (a bane of the internet) and don't tell us anything of any worth about what's wrong in a post; all of which are bad for the health of a forum. Big players like Facebook looked at all the research on these problems and dumped the dislike as a result. Most of the drivers to dislike in harmful ways for a site amounted to childish spite or humour, so blaming children when obvious idiotic dislikes come up is fair enough in my view. Not eveyone who dislikes here is being childish, even on idiotic dislikes someone might just have been clumsy on the phone (another problem gone if there is no button). However the research indicates for forum health it's simply best not to have a dislike button. Its a complex but important issue and I will campaign on this until the button is gone.

There are other methods available to express dislikes... words are good (!!) and attributed negative karma with reasons can help build a profile of problem posters (as on UKB). Something like a dashboard of negtivity is something UKC could sorely do with to put off the nastiest and most childish culprits and bring many of the old adult posters back who got pissed off with this. UKC is very good at dealing with those who blatantly break site rules but less good with those who often play just inside these and add little to the site that is positive or useful.

I think some aspects of maleness are a big part of the problem here (dislikes are not the only problem)... adversarial aggression is much more of a male trait and I've certainly been picked up on it myself when discussing how to improve UKC  (touche!). UKB in contrast is a good bit more male on its % user base and yet feels like a community even in the big emotive debates.... a bit like UKC used to in the early days.... so it can be done in a vey male environment. 

Good effort. It takes some impressive calm and confidence to make those moves in that position.

The difficulty of the moves may be relatively modest but they are very high and very insecure, the few solo ascents it gets attest to the extra qualities required of those able to add it to their ticklist. For me it was clearly in the do-able but no-flipping-way-doable category as with many routes of this type. The ability to climb it and the ability to actually climb it are very different things.

Funny old game climbing.

jk

"What are your thoughts on the technical grade?"

Nowhere near 6c. On a low boulder it might even feel 6a - I top-roped it no-handed with one fall. It is just very, very insecure.

No it's not. Discussion is fuelled and directed by disagreement, so the discussion cannot be directed constructively by "dislikes" which usually lack any specific point of disagreement or alternative viewpoint. "Likes" are almost always just benign approval, so are a quite different thing.

Sorry, no. I never use them on principle. If I disagree, I will either remain silent or will say why as here.

I think this is very difficult.

I do think that UKC have been irresponsible in their reporting and promotion of this news item.

Anna's ascent is very good, in the context of current accepted styles. She has certainly stepped up to, and not away from a personal challenge. Worthy of congratulating.

But what seems to be becoming increasingly the accepted norm, doesn't reflect the accepted style and ethics more in vogue at the time that this route was established. I think this can be genuinely confusing for anyone relatively new to the sport, and I do think that UKC could do more to address this in the way that they report things.

From the guidebook:

Obsession Fatale E7 6b

The unprotected.. slab ..  crux at the very top. Regularly headpointed..

Also in the guide, about bouldering mats (page XV) "remember the effect their use will have on the grade of a climb. It makes them easier".

The E7 being for the ground up ascent. No pads - as said above.

In Graham Hoey's article, A Gritstone Retrospective:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/a_gritstone_retrospective-1642

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/guest_editorial_a_gritstone_retrospec...

I wanted to try to cover the way that a route doesn't exist in and of itself, it exists in the style of our encounter. It's an interpretation.

This will be different for different people - typically from different times! But to equivocate is completely misleading, and most of this thread seems to be about that.

Anna can only talk about her ascent in the styles of climbing familiar with her, but this is reported in a way which seems to imply something which is becoming increasingly less common.

Soloing Gritstone slabs, onsight, no pads, used to be the accepted norm. It isn't anymore, and I think that UKC could do more to highlight the difference.

I do think it's probably intentional that you can't see the pads in the first photo in the news item. You can in the second shot. 

This is reported in a way that implies something which hasn't happened. It's the discrepancy which isn't made clear - not even in the way that it's suggested (addressed, quite responsibly) in the current guidebook.

Well done, nice route

Grade and style debates can be interesting and valuable, they don't by default imply critcism.

Reading this thread is like using the outside lane on a motorway to overtake in heavy traffic and being tailgated and flashed at by someone who wants to do it at 100, who is himself being pushed on by a whole line of tailgaters who want to do it at 120. It's why there aren't many women posting on UKC. Whatever happened to praise where it's due and climbing for pleasure?

Well done Anna, and don't let them get to you.

Spot on Dave.

Agreed.

Given that the grade seems to have been reduced to E7 without anyone having ever onsighted it (unless I've missed that), maybe it's a good case for retaining the E8 onsight grade but reporting that an ascent was made at a grade of H7? I haven't ever been on it so I'm just hypothesizing, but this kind of extreme insecurity is a kind of climbing that gets proportionally quite a bit easier once well practiced.

I think that's an indication of character to post the above. 

I think this is a good analysis.

The crux of the route is really not hard if you have some flexibility and leg strength. I'd hazard a guess if it was off the floor it would be a f6A+ boulder or thereabouts, however onsight above that landing and with the insecure style of the moves... I still think E6/7 (or (H6/7 if you like) is fair. Grit slabs like that are pretty unique though for sure!

It is pretty laughable in my opinion, that it gets the same grade on here as the likes of Icon of Lust and The Quarryman... I think grit needs it own grading system.

I thought the debate was fair enough too. 

I was more trying to make the point that it's not personal and happens to other climbers and maybe add a counterpoint to the sexism claim earlier in the thread that UKC forumers were 'manplaining the grade to a woman'.

Do you not see the paradox in what you have stated there? 

Or perhaps just comparing to the routes surrounding it. I don't even know where the E8 grade came from? Perhaps an early magazine report, or the Chutney Valley Recorder?

No, I really can't. Please explain.

If nobody has ever succeeded in climbing the route the way the grade is supposed to be for, it's hard to see how any kind of consensus could have emerged for downgrading it.

Edit: I can well understand that people who have headpointed it may think it was easier than other E8s they'd headpointed, but that's precisely my point about an H grade consensus not necessarily changing the E grade.

So not from the FA?

Haha yeah maybe

Never liked this argument, but fair enough. However, is it harder to onsight then than the likes of Against the Grain or Reg? 

Your post seems to suggest that the route has previously seen ground-up or onsight ascents. Has it?

Surely the issue is it's just difficult sometimes to estimate how hard an onsight would feel like from a headpoint? For bold routes the FA or guidebook writer may justifiably decide to err on the side of caution.

So, the first ascentionist, Jules, headpointed the route and thought "I'll give this route E8".

Subsequent ascentionists headpointed the route and thought "this isn't E8, it's E7".

Yet you're suggesting that it is irrelevant whatever anyone else thinks, until it is onsighted, and as such only the FA suggestion of a grade should count?

Johnny gave Kaluza Klein E8 when he first climbed it, yet that grade doesn't seem to be withstanding. It is possible to headpoint a route and get a good idea of what grade it is.

How can you not like the argument of comparing routes to adjacent routes, do you think it's better to compare them to routes far away? That's the whole point isn't it. How does ObFat compare to PoM, Thin Air and Chalkstorm? That's how you get the grade, combine that with the consensus of the people who've climbed the routes and you start getting a good idea.

Near Branston is it?

Well, as AtG and Reg both potentially have cruxes which are (in my opinion) at least fb7C, yet ObFat is (in your opinion) f6A+, then i'd have to say that ObFat is easier to onsight.  

That's just what it was called!

I like to think a of graded route of a certain style being a constant nationally. If I go to the Roaches or Fairhead, I know then with a good deal of certainty what I can safely get on.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of comparing the grades of routes next to each other to come to a consensus, but rather that then the resultant range is calibrated properly. I'm sure most would agree that OF is not really in the same league of difficulty compared to IOL... Pedantic to the max I know, and virtually impossible in practice I'm sure, especially for routes yet to be onsighted!

(edit spelling)

Perhaps, though I thought only about two people had ever looked at it

It was the name for the New Routes Logbook which was kept in the shop in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent. It's good that Google doesn't have an answer for everything.

I think the above is fair - you've got to go by consensus. Predictably (for guidebook writers), the eventual onsighter will probably say it feels about E8  

Which would still only be one person's opinion. 

Ultimately it's one insecure move, about fb6B at ankle breaking height (as proven by Kevin Thaw on his OS attempt). So it needs to compare with other routes of similar difficulty and outcome of failure of the same grade.

Condering you climb most of a confirmed E7 6c to get to the hard bit on IOL, even from an armchair you have to admit it sounds in a different league.

You're right that I was being a bit stupid in missing the point that the FA was in no better position than subsequent people to guess at an onsight grade. Oops!

I still think that most people will grade for their experience of headpointing though, compared to other headpoints, rather than truly trying to estimate onsight difficulty, which is likely to be a higher number for this kind of route. Chalkstorm may be a good comparison; lots of folk apparently headpoint it and say it's only E2, but how many have ever onsighted it who haven't aleady onsighted E4?

It seems there's a tendency to downgrade some routes so as not to provide a relatively easy headpoint tick rather than to accurately grade onsight difficulty. Given that headpointing is getting increasingly popular, I'm not sure there's an easy solution.

Me for one and I think I remember one other in a magazine article. It's perhaps worth mentioning that slab was my strongest suit at the time due to only attending an indoor wall once a week and the club I was in seemed to like slabs for some reason.

I don't feel I have enough experience to comment on the grade though.

Interestingly Chalkstorm would probably be 5.9 R at Indian Cove, Joshua Tree (I've climbed harder and scarier 5.9 R slabs there).

There is a reason certain bold routes become the common first onsights at a grade... inconsistently easy grades. Chalkstorm is not 2 grades harder than Something Better Change, for instance, using Andi's sensible criteria. I do wish the Roaches team had applied the same sort of logic to some of the brutal cracks though, Masochism in particular.

Indeed. There’s a reason why so many people top rope Piece of Mind and Obsession, then choose to do Obsession... if they both got E7, then perhaps that would buck the trend a bit.

I still don’t know why it’s classed as E8 here. Kaluza isn’t, Clipperty Clop isn’t, Beau Geste isn’t... grades get a consensus during their repeats. I thought ObFat had settled at E7 now. 

As for Masochism, well, Richie Patterson wrote that section of the guidebook for some reason and saw fit to leave Masochism at HVS yet bump Imposition up to E2. Clearly, he couldn’t grade flour.

I agree. However I still think the order of difficulty in headpoint graded lists can never match that on onsight graded lists. Wider use of H grades on bold routes might be helpful to assess posibilities and avoid press bs, especially if climbers report them more on headpoints of top E grades. I'd add that there are any number of tough E6 onsights/ground-ups  that are more impressive to me than headpoints of say The End of the Affair.

Things clearly do need to settle down a bit in some areas. From the Academia thread:

"An E10, which is an old E4, which might be an E6. Trade grades eh?

Andy F"

And perhaps if it had been given a more realistic grade it wouldn't be getting top roped into oblivion.

Agreed, athough it's been E3 for a while now. 

I would think this is quite hard. 

I would grade your metaphors as 'poor'

Didn't he grade The Italian Baker double-zero?

Hmmm, once a route is onsighted surely that becomes the standard ethic with which the challenge of the climb (and therefore the grade) is assessed? One person's opinion may not always count for a lot, but it would certainly carry more weight than the estimation of a few folk headpointing it.

Yes, I can't argue with that!

That's because you are too young to remember it's origin

You know the result of Thaw’s onsight attempt right? 

Well, me, for one. I think E2 is fair (I thought the onsight steady - gets easier the higher you go) but it's my only ever E3 tick! (So please don't downgrade it!)

That the broken ankles? Obviously there's a very good reason why it hasn't generally been attempted onsight but still, once achieved, the opinion of the successful suitor is going to be worth listening to.   

For me, I chose to do both, but failed on POM... thankfully without taking the fall! I’m not convinced it’s easier on the sharp end, it might be an easier move but it feels terrifying...

I wouldn’t argue with the same adjective E, or H grade in the spirit of the thread, for both.

Do you know if Piece of Mind has seen an onsight yet by the way? I'm guessing it probably has...

I agree. Both at E7 would work for me. Thin Air at E5. Chalkstorm at E3. 

I’m pretty sure Leo on sighted PoM and Adam Long left it long enough after trying it on a top rope to pretty much claim an on sight too.

Because someone who’s onsighted it hasn’t said “this should be E8” doesn’t mean it’s not E7. There’s plenty of E7’s in the area which haven’t been on sighted too. It doesn’t mean a grade can’t be agreed upon. It’s not like it has some trick/blind move on it. It’s just that jumping on these routes isn’t very nice. An E7 with gear on, even if it’s massively harder, is much more appealing; yet it’s still E7. A fb6B with broken ankle/leg potential isn’t really E8 material.

Cheers, always interesting to hear the history of these kind of routes. Leo really is a bold mofo... fair play!

Care to enlighten me old timer? 

I'd go with that but OF a bit harder than POM. Not sure I can construct a logical argument for why though...

Thirded. There are a few more nasty moves on OF than POM. 

To the thread in general, I would like to point out that a fall that results in two broken ankles could just as easily provide a much worse outcome if your feet aren't the first things to hit the ground. And (kind of obviously) with these routes, it's likely for your feet to pop off unexpectedly to cause you to fall, rather than missing when going for a handhold or pumping out and jumping off. And you won't be choosing which bit of you hits the boulders first. Which is what makes them so terrifying and hard to grade, onsight or otherwise. 

Definitely. Still, like any route where there is room for improvement in style, it's an ongoing process.

Hardly. It was at least 12 years but I could still remember the holds and the sequence. I don't remember Leo doing it but he would have been more than capable. I'd be amazed if it hadn't been onsighted.

Chalkstorm was my first extreme lead (with no side runners, much to the chagrin of my school climbing instructor who only had an SPA and was soloing up the diff to the right placing hexes I refused to clip). E3 seems fair, it's a bit harder but not as high as San Melas?

I guess these routes don't get much easier as you improve as you understand and respect the risks better. But as a frothing teenager, you don't need the ability, stamina or strength normally required to onsight at the grade, just a bit of enthusiasm for danger. Same reason  they staff the army with young men.

Jordan onsighted POM back in the days when he used to be psyched for bold grit....he tried to os OF the same day - dithered on the crux, jumped into the chimney on the left (no broken legs), quickly dropped a rope down the top section to look at the move, then cursed himself for not committing as he found it really easy. 5 mins later he casually cruised it. Video available by beardown productions, called "a gritstone year". It's worth a watch. 

film also worth a watch for Jordan cartwheeling down the hill into bracken off something else (above and beyond the kinaesthetic barrier?)

Johnny felt it was E8 because of his height. There's no doubt it is easier if you are taller than him

How about OF at E7, PoM at E6, Thin Air at E5 and Chalkstorm at E3... just like in the guidebook

Indeed, but at the same time, it's not E9 if you're 5'4"; the consequences of a fall being similar regardless of height, it just makes the likelihood of falling off the reach for the flutings greater. We've all done first ascents, breaking the ground is often worth an E grade

Oh yeah, I'd go with that as well

Maybe... but the technical grade at a particular height does influence the E grade. A deckout 5b move at 10m doesn't get the same E grade as a 5c move at 10m etc. There may well be a limit or flattening off of the curve to reach a max E grade though as the tech grade increases?

It's not a metaphor, it's a pun.  It's not even Andi's.  You do know what grading flour means?

What does it mean?

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/430304939366790954/

"Because graded grains make finer flour"

This doesn't tell me what graded means... 

You'll need Google for that. My link just explains where the phrase "couldn't grade flour" comes from, which seemed like your question.

Firstly. That's a pretty weak 'pun' if we're going down that road.

Secondly, I contest that grading flour would take some level of skill and experience. 

Not really, you just need the right size sieve.

Yes, but who said it first? I've been racking my brains trying to remember!

And yes, as said above, the act of grading flour isn't difficult, it's autonomous (you basically push it over a sieve). A bit like organising a piss up in a brewery, the point of the pun is that it's something which should be simple.

You’ve done it now.  We’ll need a critical analysis of the relative difficulty of arranging intoxication in premises dedicated to the production of fermented beverages next.

First time I recall hearing the phrase, I think, was Berzins talking about Sowden's grading of a new route in the Lakes -- probably in a Mountain mag rock report. Late 80s?

Doubtless in circulation before that though.

id go with that.

there is very little between pom and of. compare o.f to other slabs and its easy, compare o.f to other local e7s and its easy.

my 2p added

An impressive ascent well done.

Grading gritstone will I think become harder as mats get better...

And does it matter?

Couldn't it be regarded as hilarious if one soloed Ulysses with say 20 mats, more being thrown on the pile as a climbing  joker shook his/ her way up the route...

I live in hope ????

In Italy I have heard that traffic lights are peraps at best an indication in Milan, more of a suggestion in Rome, simply artefacts in Naples... perhaps we should view grades on grit as no more than a suggestion?

...and an affront to masculinity in Palermo.