[Fiend]

For Jim 

I'm not really sure how to sum up the debate any better than Moo put it:

Peak Sheffield View.... ain't broke, don't need fixin' KEEP THE E GRADE

North Wales View ... it ain't fair... fix it, USE FRENCH GRADES WITH AN AMERICAN GRADE

Scotland? King McClud RULES

Lakes .. too wet to care

Continue as you will ladies and gentlemen.

[Pantontino]

Adam's article is up online now as promised:

http://www.climber.co.uk/categories/articleitem.asp?cate=1&topic=16&item=171

[SA Chris]

I think everything from Fiend's Reply #35 on: October 14, 2008, 06:33:18 pm should be put here, agree with Jim.

Is this possible? Mods?

Thanks

[Fiend]

Thank you Pantontonius, that will be useful reference for this debate or just for any interested parties.

I find on-sights of harder routes (well of any route that's challenging someone but that's another story) to be worthy of plenty of respect - more so than much harder headpoints, unless the latter are new routes at the cutting edge.

However like some people mentioned in the previous now-off-topic thread, I don't have any particular problem with the usage of E-grades for higher end headpoints. I automatically assume they're headpoints so there's no direct nor qualitive comparison with on-sights (so I don't read about an E9 headpoint and thing "OMG awesome dude" and then read about an E7 onsight and think "two grades less, meh, whatever" - quite the opposite in fact). I think the E-grade (for a hypothetical on-sight and in the context of scale and in comparison to other routes down the scale which have been on-sighted) works fine as a system, as long as people apply it right. E.g. Walk Of Life would 5 grades harder to on-sight than an E7 so it deserves E12. Sure it can be innaccurate but it's a sensible, functional system.

If one really wanted to change this system, then I think John Arran had it right all along with H grades. Make them directly comparable to E grades i.e. an H10 would be E10 to onsight, give all high end new routes H grades until someone onsights it (not ground up beta flashes or any other the other styles Bonjoy alluded to in his post), and then change that H to an E (and maybe the grade goes up or down if the initial estimate wasn't quite right. E.g. Walk Of Life is H12, in 2040 someone onsights it, says yeah this is two grades harder than To Hell And Back what I onsighted the other week and confirmed as going from H10 to E10, so I can confirm this as E12 now. If one really needs a change I think this has elegance and simplicity.

People also might like to have a bouldering grade as well as the tech grade because climbers back in the 80s fucked up the tech grade by not extending the system in proportion to difficulty, fair enough, stick that in too, it would make sense.



The media issue is a bit of a seperate one, I don't have much to add to that. I'm interested in big numbers but equally if not more interested in good style.

[slackline]

You lot need to start another thread.
Its kinda sad that a thread about the worlds hardest trad route turns into a grading debate especially when most of us know or are mates with James.
Well done yoof, keep cranking

To be fair the discussion, until you mentioned this, was focusing not on the grade of the route (which would detract from a stunning ascent) but the appropriateness of the grading system used which to my mind doesn't detract. Now that its been mentioned there are a few posts on the progression of the upper limit of climbs in different styles, but none of these are doubting the grade and still does not detract from James' achievments.

[SA Chris]

So what if If I headpoint the FA of an HVS? What grade does it get then?

(no need to dignify this with an answer).

[dave]

H grades are a frankly idiotic suggestion. what next? R-grades for sport routes no-ones flashed yet? get a grip, seriously. appart from all the other obvisou factors of it being totally unnecessary, its just another factor to get out fo date instantly in guidebooks.

as everyone has asserted in the other thread, all these grading suggestions are "solutions" to a problem which doesn't exist. thus the discussion is moribund.

[Fiend]

thus the discussion is moribund.

You still love it though Like many of us

As I say, I don't see any real need for changing the system, not least because in terms of INFORMATION, it works. I just think that H is the lesser of two evils.


My own personal thing with grades: I am interested in, and fight for, accuracy. I think the system (apart from maybe high-end tech grades) works very well for giving good information about the expected difficulty of a climb regardless of what climb it is and what style it was put up in. And that includes working very well to equally describe an E6 death route at Gogarth and an E6 highball on Grit - it's bloody obvious from the style of route what you're going to get. I only take issue when grades are wrong and can be made righter (particularly at levels relevant to me).

[Jaspersharpe]

With all due respect to Adam, that article is bollocks.

He states....

The fact that we aren’t sure where the line should be drawn between E7 and E8 seems astonishing to me when the headpointers are claiming they can climb routes three or four grades harder.

But then also that Rhapsody (under his system) would be 8c+ R and The Hollow Man 7a+ X.

Now, call me stupid if you wish but I don't find it astonishing in the slightest that a route ten (yes ten) grades harder in actual difficulty is possibly three E grades harder in overall "E grade difficulty" to climb.

The whole thing smacks of bitterness to me and I'm not really sure why people are kicking up such a fuss. 

What was the gist of John Grisham's reply by the way?

Fiend - better than the "lesser of two evils" chuck the whole idea (H grades and all) in the bin where it belongs. 

[Pantontino]

H grades are a frankly idiotic suggestion. what next? R-grades for sport routes no-ones flashed yet? get a grip, seriously. appart from all the other obvisou factors of it being totally unnecessary, its just another factor to get out fo date instantly in guidebooks.

as everyone has asserted in the other thread, all these grading suggestions are "solutions" to a problem which doesn't exist. thus the discussion is moribund.

Firstly, the advent of wikis means that up to date info on what has or hasn't been done ground up could easily be kept up to date. So, the supposedly unbearable scenario of a guidebook being out of date would matter little. The info would be there if anybody wanted it.

And secondly, there may be support for your view on this forum from various people (mostly Peak based though), but everybody I've discussed this with in the North Wales scene (none of whom are active on website forums) agrees that it is a good idea. You might think this discussion is dead, but in the wider climbing scene it is being considered. On the publishing side, the Climbers' Club are very interested in the concept - Pete Robins has produced a sport grade list for the E6 and up routes for the revamped Llanberis guide. It has been seriously discussed for the forthcoming Ground Up Gogarth books, for example the intention is to describe Tim Emmett's Chicama at Trearddur Bay (the only real modern headpoint route on the Gogarth crags) as F8a+ R, rather than E9 6c.

The bottom line is that lots of people see the logic in Adam's argument, even if you don't.

[dave]

theres logic to a lot of things, doesn't make them right. theres people who swear blind that drinking a cup of tea on a hot day cools you down, despite all the incontrevertable evidence to the contrary.

having just read that adam article its full of holes so numerous that if i sat here typing up a post to highlight them all i'd probably miss my ferry to font next saturday week. if people have already choosen to ignore these holes, and to ignore the counter points, then theres nothing any amount of discussion will change. I'm not about to go on a christian forum and try and make athiests out of them all.

[Jaspersharpe]

Si that post sounds incredibly cliquey. It appears that views which don't concur with yours will simply be ignored. There are some valid points raised here but you've just taken your ball home without answering them.

[Fiend]

Dave how about I help you out with some holes.

Just from the intro:

Sonnie himself gave his variation Direquiem ‘5.14a, R’ meaning that the route is 8b+ and “that you can expect long but safe falls if you lob”.

That's because he has no experience with our British grading system so gave it something he actually knew and understood.

Mick Ryan states that this grade “is a lot more honest than giving pre-practiced routes an inflated, hypothetical, headline-grabbing E grade”,

Mick Ryan talks so much cock that if you laid it lengthways across the channel Dave wouldn't even need to catch his ferry. He is a total politician and spin doctor and will say whatever will grab attention, and appear to put him or UKC in an interesting light.

Secondly, the focus of Sonnie Trotter on the grade of E11 which has inspired him to make two trips to the UK and spend quite a while in a small quarry on the outskirts of Glasgow. Britain is full of incredible climbing but only one E11 and this example begs the question of how grades affect our behaviour.

Not really. It begs the question of how the World's Hardest Trad climb affects our behaviour. E11 just means "World's Hardest Trad Climb (probably)" and I strongly suspect that's why Sonnie came over, because there was a piece of information about how hard it was that told him it would be hard enough. I also strongly suspect that it was his style of route which helped too.

Will continue reading...

[Pantontino]

Si that post sounds incredibly cliquey. It appears that views which don't concur with yours will simply be ignored. There are some valid points raised here but you've just taken your ball home without answering them.

Nonsense, I've spent a considerable amount of time typing/reading and discussing this yesterday and today. It was me that opened up the discussion in the first place (albeit after Fiend posted his questions). I just objected to Dave's emphatic declaration that this issue was dead in the water. Is it not of interest to you that other people are taking it seriously?

[Jaspersharpe]

Yes but as you have obviously made your mind(s) up already it is dead in the water!

[tc]

For Jim 

I'm not really sure how to sum up the debate any better than Moo put it:

Lakes .. too wet to care

 

[richdraws]

Why have an alternative grading system for headpoints? it is suggested the alternative is more suitable for headpoints.
Is it not also equally good as a replacement for his treasured onsight trad grades? He seems unable to view his personal preferences in the same critical light.  Why would the sport grade for difficulty and some reference to danger/gear not be more suitable for onsight trad too? Flashing or onsighting high sport grades is always reported positively, it is never suggested poor performance for being 3 grades lower than cutting edge efforts.

Forgive me if this seems a little naive, I would like to understand....

[Fiend]

Continuing:

If you were to go and ask many of today’s headpointers what grade a certain headpoint is, lets pick at random Equilibrium at Burbage, then the answer you would get is that it is 8b+, together with an account of where you may and may not fall off the route and expect to walk away.

Would you??

Now this is useful information that tells you what to expect on the route; which is what a grade is supposed to be. The fact that it is written up as E10 7a is meaningless

What's the term for that flaw in one's reasoning again where one's reasons are based on the conclusion one is trying to support with them?? Why does 8b+ R give any more information than E10 7a??

as quite simply no one has any idea what E10 actually is.

Yes they do. It's something that would be 3 grades harder to onsight than E7s wot have already been onsighted. It's an estimated extension of the system - a system which consistent and which everyone is very familiar with.

E10 is a mathematical answer to the question “what does 8b+ with dangerous runouts translate to in the E system”?

Or is it the other way around?? What came first to describe hard trad: An estimated trad grade that's extrapolated from a familiar system, or a hybrid sport / danger grade that's only more recently been used??

Therefore an E6 grade tells us that we should expect an E6 experience with all the trials of route finding, placing protection as well as climbing the physical
moves. Normally, traditional climbing involves a certain amount of climbing within your grade, reversing sequences and attempting others until the leader is confident about performing the moves under the security of the safety net of runners. Once the climber has a route wired on a top rope then the experience
of ‘leading’ the route as described above goes out of the window and the route is reduced to a gymnastic sequence best represented by a sport grade – in the
case of a diffi cult headpoint; a very diffi cult one, and still potentially a very dangerous one although the risks are fully understood.

And that's why the hypothetical E-grade is used for, an estimate of the onsight experience to make it consistent with the rest of a very functional system. Everyone bloody knows that the headpoint experience will be different (in difficulty terms I believe it's considered an equivalent challenge to onsighting something two grades easier), the headpointer can still make a best guess of what it would be like...

...and thus provide useful information to future onsighters!! It seems a far more progressive attitude to give these routes E-grades (or directly comparable H-equivalents) so that onsighters have a direct and continual comparison with current E-grade routes they're onsighting and thuse know what to expect, rather than having to make them do a vague translation from a newly introducted sport+danger grade. If I was going to onsight an E9 I'd much rather know that it was estimated at E9 and thus two grades harder than E7s I was onsighting, than trying to work out what the fuck 8a+ R/X what supposed to mean...

In fact I almost can't be bothered to read and reply to the rest of the article. By Adam's reasoning, he's intending to make things harder and more obscure for future onsights rather than actually encouraging that scene....!!

[Johnny Brown]

I think its prompted by the feeling that N wales has some really remarkable climbers at the mo and the rest of the country is not recognizing it.

Unfortunately this has everything to do with personality and nothing to do with big E grades. The Onsight film should go someway to redressing this balance, but its still down to the fact that the lads don't play the media game the same way the headpoint heroes do.

[shark]

I am not sure why this debate is just confined to top end E grading. If I ever pulled my finger out to go tradding again then given the choice I would find the french grade and some form of risk pointer more useful than an E grade + tech grade.

In deep water soloing the original english grades used at Swanage have been ditched for French grades (the world's favourite grade) and a risk (S) grade by Mike Robertson without fuss?

Wainwrights' suggestion with regard to the top grades is I think useful from media point of view as it reassigns a bit of deserving kudos to the first onsighter to have 'permission' for the symbolic granting of an E grade but is really just a side(show) issue.

[Pantontino]

Yes but as you have obviously made your mind(s) up already it is dead in the water!

Nothing has been committed to print yet. If any of you convince me otherwise I would change my view (part of the reason I brought up Adam's article is that I wanted to hear more views). So far I haven't read anything here that has particularly swayed my view of the situation, apart from how it could be applied to grit routes. Obviously these differ dramatically from sport routes - Font grade + risk assessment would work much better here. In North Wales, most of the headpointed routes in question are physically arduous and thus fit well with a sport grade description.

[tc]

For Jim 

I'm not really sure how to sum up the debate any better than Moo put it:

Lakes .. too wet to care

 

Hang on a minute, young man! The Lakes was the birthplace of the E grade!
And what the fuck is a "hypothetical onsight"? Is this like a conjectural flash? A suppositious redpoint?

[Fiend]

I think its prompted by the feeling that N wales has some really remarkable climbers at the mo and the rest of the country is not recognizing it.

Unfortunately this has everything to do with personality and nothing to do with big E grades.

Yes you're absolutely right. Finishing the article it is obvious what's going on. Adam (rightly) has an issue with the relative publicity that headpointing routes gets compared to onsighting routes. However to make something out of this, he's trying to turn it into an issue about, as you say, big E grades - BUT trying to use a vaguer personality/media-driven concept to justify a clear cut information-driven concept, it simply doesn't work. His logic is at best inapplicable and at worst flawed to the point of supporting the opposite conclusion.

What it really boils down to is:

What should be happening is for climbers attempting E7 and E8 on-sight to be given full credit in the press for pushing standards and never to be compared with a headpointer’s E11.

Which is the actual issue and absolutely right. Although I think most enlightened climbers DON'T compare onsighting to headpointing and look at the highest standards in both fields as being equally exciting in both fields. As richdraws says above, it works in sport climbing - people totally respect 8c onsights.

(Personally, as I said earlier, I get excited and very respectful about hearing about harder onsights - they touch me personally more than hearing about headpoints)

These lads need to forget all this grading revamp nonsense (unless it's a directly comparable grade) and get themselves pimped out some more. As someone said on the other now-horribly-corrupted-and-disrespectful thread, Jack is going a real good job highlighting this stuff over at UKC, that's a start, the scene needs more of that.

[Jaspersharpe]

I think its prompted by the feeling that N wales has some really remarkable climbers at the mo and the rest of the country is not recognizing it.

Unfortunately this has everything to do with personality and nothing to do with big E grades. The Onsight film should go someway to redressing this balance, but its still down to the fact that the lads don't play the media game the same way the headpoint heroes do.

That seems to be exactly the case. And fucking about with grades is not going to change this at all.

So far I haven't read anything here that has particularly swayed my view of the situation,

Perhaps because you are not coming at this from an objective point of view. This is exactly what I meant. You are ignoring rational argument in favour of clutching at a misguided way to right the percieved injustice that you see occurring.

[Johnny Brown]

apart from how it could be applied to grit routes. Obviously these differ dramatically from sport routes - Font grade + risk assessment would work much better here.

Yes. Unfortunately this will make the whole messy idea even messier.

Si, did you not take Grimer's point about how the first true onsight would be awarded? No one can get to the ability to onsight such routes without picking up beta. So we'll never get true onsights. The only line that could be drawn is between ground-up and inspection/ practice from ab/ top-rope. A rather less impressive line, but one marking true progress in style.

The answer is to educate everyone, whether E1 or E10, that top-roping is poor style. What we really need is a Leo/ MacLeod with pure ethics and the ego to promote them.