[dave]

people have been able to reasonably accuratley ascribe an E-grade to headpointed route for years. JD gave EOTA E8 after headpoint, 20 years later or whatever it gets done ground-up, it was E8, so he was right. OK he could have given it F7b+ R or some idiotc H8 grade, but that if anything would have given prospective ascentionists no more idea about what they were letting themselves in for. What is you'd hardly done any sport climbing for a kickoff, plus grit/gritesque routes especially tend to have climbing with zero in common to most sport routes, and must more conditioney, making comparison even more shakey)

I don't see any great discrepancies in the grading between routes headpointed and what they end up being when ground-upped (at least no greater discrepancies than for any other route), thus this problem everyone is theoreticising about doesn't exist. Thus we don't need a new system.

(also, you could argue that someone who's spent weeks or months working out a route (and has a decent background of trad behind them to appreciate the differences between headpoint and onsight) is better qualified to grade a route than someone who's only been on it once and flashed it. question?)

finally...:

The change is that we award E points for ground up ascents rather than for rehearsed ascents. It's a simple, but very important philosophical shift.

we don't award E-points to ascents at all (well some people do, and they are wrong). we grade routes with an E-grade scale. I don't see climbers with badges for E-grades sewn on their chalkbags like you'd sew a 100m badge on your trunks. The point here is grading routes to give information to future ascentionists, not dishing out ego validation awards points for climbers. Until people grasp this we're always going to be pissing in the wind.

[Bonjoy]

I don't think it adds confusion, quite the opposite, it clarifies the situation. The parallel grading system already exists. The sport grade and risk aspect is always discussed. The change is that we award E points for ground up ascents rather than for rehearsed ascents. It's a simple, but very important philosophical shift.

It doesn't have any affect on 99% of existing routes, just the ones that have only ever received rehearsed/non ground up ascents. So London Wall will still be E5 6a, but Leo's route Trauma on Dinas Mot would be F8a R. Once someone does Trauma ground up that person can then suggest an E grade (presumably something like E8 6c).

I’m quite sympathetic to the idea of this new grade. However the more I think about it there more complexity I can see it will create. For instance, what will constitute a sufficiently ‘ground-up’ ascent to apply the E grade? Is it kosher to scrutinise filmed ascents? Is it kosher to have your mate repeatedly clean, work, chalk, tickmark, and check out all the gear from a toperope whilst you watch? Does it have to be a flash or are falls allowed, if so does your mate have to strip the gear out between attempts? Would you have to be lowered off straight after the fall or could you work/clean/inspect bits of the route below your fall point as you lowered off? There is a world of difference between an true onsight and a ground-up with falls, or even a ground-up flash with maximum beta. Where is the line drawn and who arbitrates on the retrospective application?
Bearing in mind that if you create news value and a new target point ie realizing the potential E grade, people will have a tendancy to milk the rules. It could end up leading to more pedantry, less purity and less onsighting.

[nik at work]

I agree with Dave so much I'm gonna wad him. Just you watch. Yes siree. Here it comes....

[Jaspersharpe]

We don't need more bloody grading systems. For God's sake Si you're proposing two different systems for trad routes and were saying (on Cocktalk) that it would be a good idea to have V grades, Font grades AND motherfucking UK tech grades in bouldering guides?! I understand the ethos behind this (the former) idea but it's really not necessary.

Simplification not overcomplication. 

[Jaspersharpe]

I agree with Dave so much I'm gonna wad him. Just you watch. Yes siree. Here it comes....

Come off it. I've seen the "E8" badge on your chalkbag. 

[slackline]

We don't need more bloody grading systems. For God's sake Si you're proposing two different systems for trad routes and were saying (on Cocktalk) that it would be a good idea to have V grades, Font grades AND motherfucking UK tech grades in bouldering guides?! I understand the ethos behind this (the former) idea but it's really not necessary.

Simplification not overcomplication.  

An appropriate quote (who's attribution is commonly held to be Albert Einstein, but if you read Alice Calaprice's The Quotable Einstein you'll find that this attribution is incorrect) is...

We should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler

[dave]

I agree with Dave so much I'm gonna wad him. Just you watch. Yes siree. Here it comes....

BOOM

[Pantontino]

I’m quite sympathetic to the idea of this new grade. However the more I think about it there more complexity I can see it will create. For instance, what will constitute a sufficiently ‘ground-up’ ascent to apply the E grade? Is it kosher to scrutinise filmed ascents? Is it kosher to have your mate repeatedly clean, work, chalk, tickmark, and check out all the gear from a toperope whilst you watch? Does it have to be a flash or are falls allowed, if so does your mate have to strip the gear out between attempts? Would you have to be lowered off straight after the fall or could you work/clean/inspect bits of the route below your fall point as you lowered off? There is a world of difference between an true onsight and a ground-up with falls, or even a ground-up flash with maximum beta. Where is the line drawn and who arbitrates on the retrospective application?
Bearing in mind that if you create news value and a new target point ie realizing the potential E grade, people will have a tendancy to milk the rules. It could end up leading to more pedantry, less purity and less onsighting.

The underlying assumption here is that a headpoint is clearcut - it is not , never has been. There is a world of difference between, say Johnny's hp of Indian Face (i.e. very little rehearsal by modern standards) and massively practiced hps where gear is pre-placed on long slings etc. All climbing styles are open to abuse and fudging, even redpointing.

Clearly, when yo-yoing becomes hang dogging then you are drifting into the realms of headpointing. This is, as with all aspects of style and ethics, a personal standard issue.

As for a legit ground up ascent - of course you can watch film footage. I presume you mean for an onsight.

[Pantontino]

We don't need more bloody grading systems. For God's sake Si you're proposing two different systems for trad routes and were saying (on Cocktalk) that it would be a good idea to have V grades, Font grades AND motherfucking UK tech grades in bouldering guides?! I understand the ethos behind this (the former) idea but it's really not necessary.

Simplification not overcomplication. 

We can argue about bouldering grades on a different thread, but don't you agree that it is a positive move to make more of an event out of the first ground up ascent of a route?

[T_B]

I missed Adam's article, though I skim read Gresham's 'response' in Climber this month. I really don't see the point of a separate grading system. Just give us a bit more info in the guidebook description if you like e.g. the French grade or, as Dave points out, on a lot of grit routes a french grade is a bit daft because of the nature of the climbing. So a Font/V grade in addition to the E grade might help. There has been some talk about short solos that don't really need an E grade anymore as you can protect them adequately by pads.

There does seem to be a bit of hype caused by this new On Sight (shouldn't it be 'Ground Up'?) film, as if climbing routes ground up and on-sight is something new or unusual! And has no-one seen the f*ckin massive irony of the on-sight being blown by anyone who watches the film! James' E12 will never be on-sighted anyway as no doubt the potential wad 20 years in the future will have been inspired to climb by watching Committed II

Pantontino - I recall McClure writing something about the purity of redpointing in terms of 'rules' (i.e. climb bottom to top without weighting the rope), whereas 'on-sighting' is open to dodginess as Bonjoy says. I remember once being asked by A Famous Climber whether I had made a "Welsh On-sight".  Pretty funny in retrospect, but the point is that we (climbers) have been suckered into talking about grades ad nauseam, just because the media knows it helps sell advertising space (or the latest DVD). Grades are just an indicator of difficulty as Bonjoy points out and one person's soft touch is another person's nemesis. Try comparing Death Trap Direct with Art Nouveau. Utterly pointless.

[dave]

The issue of more of an event out of the first ground up ascent of a route is down to everyone - anyone who posts on a climbing forum, anyone who contributes to mags or writes news reports on websites, editors, sponsors, photographers, people standing below Gaia yawning loudly when someone has an overrehearsed headpint etc etc. A new grade scale won't do this.

[Pantontino]

finally...:

The change is that we award E points for ground up ascents rather than for rehearsed ascents. It's a simple, but very important philosophical shift.

we don't award E-points to ascents at all (well some people do, and they are wrong). we grade routes with an E-grade scale. I don't see climbers with badges for E-grades sewn on their chalkbags like you'd sew a 100m badge on your trunks. The point here is grading routes to give information to future ascentionists, not dishing out ego validation awards points for climbers. Until people grasp this we're always going to be pissing in the wind.

I believe that massive E grades do get waved around (like flags). You're talking as if ego doesn't exist in top end climbing - of course it does. All the good climbers I've ever known have huge egos.

[SA Chris]

I agree with Dave so much I'm gonna wad him. Just you watch. Yes siree. Here it comes....

Come off it. I've seen the "E8" badge on your chalkbag. 

I was someone with "E9" on their T shirt the other day

[travs]

Yes of course it's a big event when something is completed in a more pure style than the current. However, to suggest a parallel grading system is ludicrous Si as exactly the same arguments could be applied to both sport routes and boulder problems. Following your logic both these forms of climbing wouldn't get 'real' grades until they were on sighted or flashed. I think the most important thing is that we protect ourselves as climbers and don't start killing people. Individuals will always want to push the boundaries and this will potentially mean trying to ground up hard trad routes. Giving a trad route a sports grade gives the ascensionist no conception as to how hard or serious the route is going to be, surely this is what the E grade is for, so that E6 climbers don't accidentally end up on E8 routes? In addition we also have to cater for a large number of foreign climbers, how confusing would all these different grading systems be for them and how would they know that the route grade had changed without local knowledge as guide books are only updated every 5 years or so?

[dave]

people with egos will always find a cock to wave, we shouldn't rise to it by giving them another grade scale to abuse.

[Bonjoy]

I’m quite sympathetic to the idea of this new grade. However the more I think about it there more complexity I can see it will create. For instance, what will constitute a sufficiently ‘ground-up’ ascent to apply the E grade? Is it kosher to scrutinise filmed ascents? Is it kosher to have your mate repeatedly clean, work, chalk, tickmark, and check out all the gear from a toperope whilst you watch? Does it have to be a flash or are falls allowed, if so does your mate have to strip the gear out between attempts? Would you have to be lowered off straight after the fall or could you work/clean/inspect bits of the route below your fall point as you lowered off? There is a world of difference between an true onsight and a ground-up with falls, or even a ground-up flash with maximum beta. Where is the line drawn and who arbitrates on the retrospective application?
Bearing in mind that if you create news value and a new target point ie realizing the potential E grade, people will have a tendancy to milk the rules. It could end up leading to more pedantry, less purity and less onsighting.

The underlying assumption here is that a headpoint is clearcut - it is not , never has been. There is a world of difference between, say Johnny's hp of Indian Face (i.e. very little rehearsal by modern standards) and massively practiced hps where gear is pre-placed on long slings etc. All climbing styles are open to abuse and fudging, even redpointing.

Clearly, when yo-yoing becomes hang dogging then you are drifting into the realms of headpointing. This is, as with all aspects of style and ethics, a personal standard issue.

As for a legit ground up ascent - of course you can watch film footage. I presume you mean for an onsight.

I was wondering what the criteria envisaged by the proposers was. Ground-up suggests a lot of room for abuse. If the point is to give credit to purer ascents....

The the point with headpointing is that everything is valid prior to the actual ascent. The label assumes the worst style. The fact that people generally exploit this to the max gives weight to the idea that people will tend towards milking the rules. Within headpointing there is no incentive (free boots, kudos) to blur the boundaries other than for reasons of personal satisfaction. A headpoint's, a headpoint's, a headpoint. Nobody is getting credit they don’t deserve by claiming a headpoint after minimal practice. This is very different from someone milking the hell out of the new rules then bagging the supposed badge of purity that the E validating ascent would claim to be.

[Pantontino]

as Dave points out, on a lot of grit routes a french grade is a bit daft because of the nature of the climbing. So a Font/V grade in addition to the E grade might help. There has been some talk about short solos that don't really need an E grade anymore as you can protect them adequately by pads.

There does seem to be a bit of hype caused by this new On Sight (shouldn't it be 'Ground Up'?) film, as if climbing routes ground up and on-sight is something new or unusual! And has no-one seen the f*ckin massive irony of the on-sight being blown by anyone who watches the film! James' E12 will never be on-sighted anyway as no doubt the potential wad 20 years in the future will have been inspired to climb by watching Committed II

Pantontino - I recall McClure writing something about the purity of redpointing in terms of 'rules' (i.e. climb bottom to top without weighting the rope), whereas 'on-sighting' is open to dodginess as Bonjoy says. I remember once being asked by A Famous Climber whether I had made a "Welsh On-sight".  Pretty funny in retrospect, but the point is that we (climbers) have been suckered into talking about grades ad nauseam, just because the media knows it helps sell advertising space (or the latest DVD). Grades are just an indicator of difficulty as Bonjoy points out and one person's soft touch is another person's nemesis. Try comparing Death Trap Direct with Art Nouveau. Utterly pointless.

I like the idea of Font grade + risk value for grit routes, that does make more sense than a sport grade.

I'm not sure I get your point about being suckered by the media - the media (and those that manipulate it) has for the last 20 years suckered us all into over valuing hp ascents and under valuing ground up ascents. Adam's hp grade system will force a groundshift in how ascents are reported. Suddenly style matters - that is an entirely positive thing in my book.

[Jaspersharpe]

We can argue about bouldering grades on a different thread, but don't you agree that it is a positive move to make more of an event out of the first ground up ascent of a route?

"Making more of an event" might be a positive move. Making up another grading system is certainly not.

Let's be honest. It's only because the standard of onsight/ground up climbing has seemingly stagnated for a while that it's not big news all the time. If someone onsighted an E9 then it could be as big an event as James' or Dave Mac's routes are (if the person making that ascent wanted it to be  ). Those lads have broken new ground in that discipline (headpointing) so it's big news. Someone onsighting/ground upping E7 (or even E8) is very impressive but it's nothing new.

travs is spot on. 8a R could mean anything and could be dangerously interpreted.

people with egos will always find a cock to wave, we shouldn't rise to it by giving them another grade scale to abuse.

Totally agree.

[mark s]

There does seem to be a bit of hype caused by this new On Sight (shouldn't it be 'Ground Up'?) film, as if climbing routes ground up and on-sight is something new or unusual! And has no-one seen the f*ckin massive irony of the on-sight being blown by anyone who watches the film! James' E12 will never be on-sighted anyway as no doubt the potential wad 20 years in the future will have been inspired to climb by watching Committed II

i really cant get my head around comments like that.watching a video does not mean that i would climb the route in the same way the videod climber would.
if i went along and onsighted gaia and someone said you cant have the onsight because i'd seen hard grit,i would smack them on the chin.where does it end? onsights ruined by chalked up holds,even reading a guide and knowing the grade helps.
i think the grading of routes e7/8 plus takes into account they are head pointed.routes e7 and over are a big jump in difficulty from e6.the uk grading system works perfectly well.we dont need any more numbers and letters sticking on it.i'm having a nightmare as it is trying to explain to my new to climbing girlfriend the system as it is.

[T_B]

I'm not sure I get your point about being suckered by the media - the media (and those that manipulate it) has for the last 20 years suckered us all into over valuing hp ascents and under valuing ground up ascents. Adam's hp grade system will force a groundshift in how ascents are reported. Suddenly style matters - that is an entirely positive thing in my book.

I just think there's too much (and seemingly increasing) emphasis on grades per se, whatever style something is climbed in. The media makes too big a deal of trad grades when they are clearly very subjective.

In fact a lot of the early 'E7' ground ups/on-sights that were claimed before the nu generation of hard trad meisters (Caff/Robbins/Dickson) were on-sighting at this level every weekend, were actually really soft touches. Or not E7 at all. But you still see them reported in the media at E7 cos it sounds impressive. I don't see how that helps the ground up 'cause'.

What's more 'valuable', an on-sight of Giggling Crack (given E6) or of The Clown (given E7)? Both are f*ckin good efforts - most likely one would be harder for someone good at face climbing, the jamming specialist might find The Clown harder.

[Bonjoy]

i really cant get my head around comments like that.watching a video does not mean that i would climb the route in the same way the videod climber would.
if i went along and onsighted gaia and someone said you cant have the onsight because i'd seen hard grit,i would smack them on the chin.where does it end? onsights ruined by chalked up holds,even reading a guide and knowing the grade helps.
i think the grading of routes e7/8 plus takes into account they are head pointed.routes e7 and over are a big jump in difficulty from e6.the uk grading system works perfectly well.we dont need any more numbers and letters sticking on it.i'm having a nightmare as it is trying to explain to my new to climbing girlfriend the system as it is.

It’s not that preposterous an idea Mark. Onsight is defined as meaning an ascent without beta. Watching a person doing something, be that in the flesh or on a film is beta, hence demoting an ascent to a flash. I'm not saying this is a good thing, It's just what the terms are generally considered to mean by the majority of climbers
When I led Offspring at Burbage South it felt very familiar, as if I’d done the route before, simply from watching Stone Monkey a shit load of times as a youth. T
How would you separate an onsight from a flash if watching someone climb a route is not considered beta?

[Pantontino]

I just think there's too much (and seemingly increasing) emphasis on grades per se, whatever style something is climbed in. The media makes too big a deal of trad grades when they are clearly very subjective.

In fact a lot of the early 'E7' ground ups/on-sights that were claimed before the nu generation of hard trad meisters (Caff/Robbins/Dickson) were on-sighting at this level every weekend, were actually really soft touches. Or not E7 at all. But you still see them reported in the media at E7 cos it sounds impressive. I don't see how that helps the ground up 'cause'.

What's more 'valuable', an on-sight of Giggling Crack (given E6) or of The Clown (given E7)? Both are f*ckin good efforts - most likely one would be harder for someone good at face climbing, the jamming specialist might find The Clown harder.

Your second point does counter Jasper's assertion that onsight/ground up standards haven't really progressed. Standards haven't shot through the roof, but there is clearly something going on.

As for grades, there will always be soft/hard/dodgy/incomparable ones. This is not about that; rather it is about redefining what we value in climbing style.

[T_B]

Your second point does counter Jasper's assertion that onsight/ground up standards haven't really progressed. Standards haven't shot through the roof, but there is clearly something going on.

As for grades, there will always be soft/hard/dodgy/incomparable ones. This is not about that; rather it is about redefining what we value in climbing style.

I totally agree that people are climbing harder ground up and so they bl*ody well should be. But whether the level has moved on any more than the headpointing level, well, I don't think it has. We now have a few trad routes with Font 8a or F8c climbing on them and that certainly wasn't the case 10 years ago.

I don't feel that climbing on-sight is 'undervalued' really. Maybe there has been a bit of a shift already in how it is represented in guidebooks/media reporting. Grimer certainly made a point in some of the Peak guidebooks to highlight the first ascents done in GU/OS style.

But let's not end up undervaluing the cutting edge headpoints either. Both styles require a different balance of skills. One is not 'easier' than the other I don't think.

[Fiend]

So. It appears people understand Keenus's reasoning for E12 and support his proposed grade. That's cool, a refreshing lack of cynicism.

It also appears people still relish a meaty delicious and nutritious grade debate. Which is also cool .

[Moo]

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