UKC

Sixteen years afters James Pearson's ascent, the original line has received its first repeat.

Read more

In reply to UKC News: Kudos to Alex! It must be flipping hard to have waited so long for a repeat!!!

In reply to UKC News:

Congrats to Alex, can't believe it's 16 years since first ascent.

As a punter, here's some thoughts on whether an ascent of the groove is "on line" purely from looking at photos of the rock at Cratcliffe (and having stood underneath 😁)

The lower bit of the groove is fairly straightforward, climbers body is to the right of the groove but the edge is clearly being used for left hand so definitely climbing the groove feature.

The upper bit of the groove curves over to the arete on the left:

• If it was climbed similarly to the bottom bit, i.e. climbers body to the right but left hand on the edge then I'd say that was climbing the groove feature.

• If it was climbed with the climbers body in the groove itself (the bit where the crack fizzles out), then regardless of whether finished above and left hand on arete or pull up/out left and right hand on arete then I'd say that was climbing the groove feature.

• If it was climbed with body to the left of the arete (from the horizontal break at the top of the twin cracks) with right hand on the arete especially before the groove closes off, then I'd say that was not climbing the groove feature.

Note that I've no idea how any of the 3 ascentionists did those moves, or where the route as "defined" by the first ascent exactly goes. It's purely me conjecturing what would be a valid ascent of the totality of the groove rock feature, not whether someone's validly climbed a route or not.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Cratcliffe was my local crag for a long time and I do love the place.. but the Groove (route) just doesn't really seem a great line, and maybe that's because its called the Groove, but the route isn't in the groove, but to the right/on the right edge. It's strange as well that clearly its really hard and yet looks quite safe from the videos (1 hard move with gear, then appear to be at the next bomber gear). It's certainly not as aesthetic as Gaia, Meshuga, Partian Shot, The End of the Affair etc. But kudos to anyone who can climb it!

Edit - looking at pictures again... the groove is an impressive line, but the climb doesn't really climb the actual groove. So I think really it's been poorly named, which confuses things for me! But what do I know ! 

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think that this dissecting of the style of ascent by climbers at our level is kind of sad. There´s a line and an obvious feature; how you climb it is your own decision, as long as you stay on/in the feature and don´t avoid the difficulties which were the signature of the first ascent (as Jorgeson did, so only two true ascensionists to date, not three).

There are parallels to other major Grit testpieces. To quote Mick Fowler, writing about Profit of Doom (E4 6b) in Extreme Rock: "On the first ascent, John Allen bridged the whole thing, but nowadays you reach for a hidden hold on the left arete". Nobody quibbled about the new beta; the groove had been climbed, so or so, and that was enough.

Same with Parthian Shot (E10 6c); Dunne, Grieve, Bransby and especially Pearson all used different methods, but all these ascents were celebrated.

I honestly don´t think it´s up to us punters to discuss the finer points of ascents at this level. Alex said that he was terrified during his ascent (even though Simonfaraway writes that it looks quite safe); who are we to judge?

In reply to McHeath:

If you read my post properly you'd see that I explicitly wasn't dissecting the style of ascent by the climbers who have done all/part of the route.

I was discussing what line would be considered to have climbed the actual groove rock feature.

With regard to Profit, whichever method is used, the climber's body is clearly within the groove. If you're to the left of the arete then you're on The Fall (E6 6b).

In reply to UKC News:

Flipping good effort. I had a play on toprope a few years back. I found the top crux harder than the first crux. Though the former has undoubtedly the worst 'foothold' I've ever used.

In reply to UKC News: the no hands stand up move looks like one of the best moves I've ever seen!

In reply to UKC News:

Ace! That video’s class! 
nice one Alex 

In reply to Michael Hood:

It´s universally considered to have been climbed, twice, so I honestly couldn´t see the point of your post, which I had read several times.

In reply to UKC News:

Outstanding effort and a great little video

In reply to Michael Hood:

I've done Cemetery Gates a couple of times and there aren't any gates to be seen! Or for that matter a cemetery. The bare faced cheek! 

In reply to McHeath:

My post started out because in the interview, Alex had expressed some doubt because he'd climbed it differently to James.

The bottom crux is on more than 1 video. I've not seen a video of the top crux - is there one? - and I don't know how James's route deals with the top bit of the groove or where Kevin and Alex's ascents went except that Kevin's isn't accepted as a total ascent and Alex's is - so I deliberately didn't comment on where the route went, who'd done what, etc. I merely looked at what line might be considered climbing the geological groove feature. Whether the actual route coincides with that - I don't know and I didn't venture there.

As to whether my post had any point, not much, but that's the nature of a lot of stuff on UKC.

But the most important thing I want to know about this is with 23 downvotes (and counting) on my 1st post, who gave it an upvote, and why 😁

In reply to Michael Hood:

The first linked video shows James Pearson climbing the top crux.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks, I'm sure I must have watched that 16 years ago. Apart from "age" I wonder why I hadn't remembered it showing the top crux.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Just given you a like for the line about most of the stuff on UKC has no point  

In reply to UKC News:

As an out and out armchair pundit, I'm intrigued at the progression of hard grit grades over the years.  Notably that they all seem to converge on E9.  From Parthian Shot, Widdop Wall, Meshuga, The Groove, etc.  So question is: how much harder is Equilibrium than any of those (assuming it's retained its E10 status) ?

In reply to UKC News:

Jeez, 16 years ago!? Now I feel old.

Regardless of the grade etc it seems like a route that was ahead of its time. It looks like a modern competition problem - a one-handed dyno into a static dyno. Kudos to James (and Alex).

In reply to GrahamD:

AFAIK, no-one has ever suggested a downgrade for Equilibrium. Of course, Dave MacLeod made the point that different routes are harder for different people. But even taking this into account, James Pearson climbed Equilibrium before he put up his own routes such as The Promise and The Groove, and presumably compared those with that route when deciding on grading. So I would not write off his grade for The Groove, at least without further repeats. What's strange is that it seems to have been downgraded without ever (prior to Alex's ascent) being repeated!

In reply to GrahamD:

Also, bear in mind Equilibrium is not quite out on its own; there are other grit E10s now. Sleepy Hollow for one, also the modern Parthian Shot. There are probably others which I can't recall.

In reply to Brendan:

Struggling here, what exactly is a static dyno?

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's one that you struggle on - due to a lack of dynamism.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Sounds like my sort of dyno. More of a 'wobble' really.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Sounds like something Ian Vickers would do in the 90s. Faced with a clear and obvious dyno move, he invariably would pause for quite a while, failing to commit to dynoing it, before eventually finding a way to do it static by virtue of being both stronger and more technically proficient than the rest of us combined!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Dr Doolittle for instance

In reply to john arran:

I can remember watching IV once at St Werberghs in Bristol clearly able to rest halfway up a route where it was apparently obvious to everyone except him that there was no possibility of a rest.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Haha, sorry, I was jokingly referring to a quote from the report.

"my dyno is very 'how-high-can-you-jump' dependent, and I have a very good static jump, I can't comment on Kev's."

Maybe 'deadpoint' makes more sense?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Looking at the videos, I’m guessing “static dyno” refers to the fact that you are just standing up and jumping from a static squat position rather than being able to swing about on the holds with the dyno being a follow through from the momentum already gained. If it’s the move I’m thinking of, deadpoint doesn’t really fit because it looks like at least 3 points of contact are lost during the move.

Perhaps somewhat analogous to the difference between a standing jump and a running jump on flat ground.