[dave]

lets just give everything highball font 7a and have done with.

[Moo]

 

[David S]

Wow Dave, I didn't realise that John Welford had joined the discussion!

[Will Hunt]

I'm gonna wad Si, Dave and Jon methinks. I really like Si's idea and the philosophical shift it would create but the other two raise very good points about rules and regulations and general confusion. I think climbing has enough rules already without the inevitable headline scandal "Wad A seen at the bar of The Fox House while Wad B demonstrated the moves of Fr8b x testpiece to Wad C prior to Wad A's supposedly ground up ascent! "

It'd be rife on Cocktalk.

[Jaspersharpe]

I heard you were prime suspect in the Cocktalk sabotage case Will.

[Pantontino]

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.

In media terms I think there has been a disproportionate emphasis upon headpointed ascents. It's easy to see why: aside from the Hard Grit hype, there is the simple mechanics of the situation:

News item 1: First ascent of headpointed route A is presented to an editor with massive shock value E grade, plus several picture perfect images.

News item 2: Ground up repeat of the relatively modest E grade (originally headpointed) route B, normally with no photograph, or a rubbish cat-in-a-coal-bunker image taken by passing tourist.

Which grabs the head line - which makes the front cover?  They are both outstanding climbing achievements, but only one stands out in the crowded pages of the media.

And for clarification, I'm not suggesting that headpointing is not a valid or important part of Brirtish climbing culture, just that we are talking about chalk and cheese (or in the parlance of UKB: apples and pears). It's a bit like having the same grading system for a bouldering and onsight trad climbing - they are different games, and rightly we grade them differently.

[SA Chris]

So the grading system should be changed due to the response of the media to the respective achievements?

[grimer]

I still think E grades work perfectly for what they are designed to do - tell a climber what difficulty to expect on a route.

Do i understand correctly that the thrust behind the argument is not a failure in this respect, but that there are some tremendous climbers, Caff, Peter, Neil Dickson etc - perhaps the best climbers in their style there has ever been, and they are not getting the credit they deserve, from a historical perspective. The way that a generation before, George Smith and Paul Pritch are all guidebooks, but Adam Wainwright much less so. That the worry is that in 10 years, everyone will remember macleod and Pearson, but you won't be quite sure what james Machaffie did.

As far as i can tell, this is the issue. I kind of have a lot of sympathy for that in many ways because what they have done is incredible, but the new systems seems unworkable. Climbing ground-up is open to too many variables, leaving pure on-sights as the standard that would need to be applied to claim a route. And can someone who claims a route willing to say they know nothing about a route? Video evidence? A video of their entire life to prove that they have never learned anyting about the crux of Strawberries?

T_B mentioned that i kept a record of ground ups and on sights in BMC guides, but i have to say, I'm going off the idea. It takes a lot of research, and still i got facts badly wrong. You run into issues like Rich Simpsons weirdly secretive 'hidden flashes'.  Stranger again, one of the Peaks more prolific ground-uppers, wouldn't allow his name to appear in print. People playing games like this soon put me off the idea, as it invalidates the process. As well as that, a lot of people who climb like that don't make a fuss. Like the example of Mike on Strawberries in Jack's Rocktalk thing. You'll never be sure. The Dougie Hall factor.

"Hi Dougie, can you remember if you had any prior knowledge of Eyes of Fire when you did it in 1991, because we here at the First On Sight Ascent Award Committee of the BMC Peak Area are considering awarding you the first on-sight ascent."

The world on on sight climbing is a murky one.

[slackline]

In media terms I think there has been a disproportionate emphasis upon headpointed ascents. It's easy to see why: aside from the Hard Grit hype, there is the simple mechanics of the situation:

News item 1: First ascent of headpointed route A is presented to an editor with massive shock value E grade, plus several picture perfect images.

News item 2: Ground up repeat of the relatively modest E grade (originally headpointed) route B, normally with no photograph, or a rubbish cat-in-a-coal-bunker image taken by passing tourist.

Which grabs the head line - which makes the front cover?  They are both outstanding climbing achievements, but only one stands out in the crowded pages of the media.

Whichever sells more units cleary, but its a circular argument, since its the people who buy the articles who are attracted to certain headlines, and that re-inforces the editors choice, which in turn re-inforces the notion that one is more worthy in the mind of the people who buy/read the magazine/website.

If News Item 2 were given the same column-inches and did have a decent set of photos to accompany it then the public reading the article would perhaps treat them as equal.

[Jaspersharpe]

Is this about how people are revered / remembered by the general climbing public or is it actually about how much sponsorship they get? 

[nik at work]

"Hi Dougie, can you remember if you had any prior knowledge of Eyes of Fire when you did it in 1991, because we here at the First On Sight Ascent Award Committee of the BMC Peak Area are considering awarding you the first on-sight ascent."

Genius

If the problem is the perception that on-sighters aren't getting the recognition they deserve then it's a non-problem. If people want recognition for hard onsights then they should get out there pimping to the numerous websites and mags with photos and write-ups, just like new-routers and headpointers. If they'd rather just quietly crack on then so be it. Who gives a fuck whether John-posts-on-UKC-about-his-noisy-neighbours-how-to-cook-and-how-the-liberals-will-be-along-soon-to-say-it's-society's-fault-from-his-comfy-office-chair-Smith knows or is impressed by what the uber-wads are doing.

I'd rather the respect of my friends than the recognition of strangers.

[Fiend]

What about the recognition from your friends??

"Short, hairy, funny squint....yeah I think it's Nik..."   

[nik at work]

That's the kind of respect I'm talking about....

Just re-read my post and the last sentence could be read to imply that I consider myself an uber-wad in some way. Obviously this is laughable but in the interests of clarity let me state that I am not, never have been and sadly never will be an uber wad. Now I'll just get back to sewing these badges on my chalkbag.....

[Stu Littlefair]

I've got to say I agree with Dave, Nik and Niall here 100%. The main purpose of a grade has got to be to give an indication of the difficulty of the route, and the E-grade works fine here, at pretty much all grades, in my experience.

The question of whether onsight climbing gets enough recognition is one I can sympathise with, but the grading system is not the way to sort the problem out. The media is driven by simple needs, and I don't see headline grades as being the dominant factor. I was just reading a three page article about Steve Mac repeating Mandela; hardly a big-grade event. Media-worthy ascents are ones with good photos first and foremost, and good narrative second. If the people doing onsight ascents really want the recognition they feel they deserve, then they simply have to play the media's game. Arrange for a good photographer to record your onsight. Find an angle and pitch to the mags. Simple.

At the moment it seems more like those doing hard onsight ascents are just getting on with it, and it's their peers who are complaining they don't get the respect and attention they deserve. Well, no-one gets the attention they deserve - they get the attention they seek.

[aly]

I think climbing has enough rules already...

Climbing has rules?  I'm glad I missed that bit of the instruction book.  ???

[JonI]

If the problem is an imbalance in the respective recognition that the media gives to onsight and headpoint climbing, then I don't see how changing to a different grading system will make a difference.  Part of this is that headpointed ascents, on the whole, are much easier to report in the media - the length of the process itself means that there is more opportunity for filming, taking photos, and writing - look at Dave's and James' blogs.  But this isn't about the media, the real question is do the grades work for climbers?  I can't see that a sport R/X grade gives any extra information that an E grade doesn't.

[Bonjoy]

I fully agree with Stu, mainstream recognition is largely down to how much a climber is willing to pimp their ass, so to speak. A new grade system will not change that basic fact.

[andy_e]

I think climbing has enough rules already...

Climbing has rules?  I'm glad I missed that bit of the instruction book.  ???

Of course it does- No thumbs on crimps and no gay feet.

[Bonjoy]

If the problem is an imbalance in the respective recognition that the media gives to onsight and headpoint climbing, then I don't see how changing to a different grading system will make a difference.  Part of this is that headpointed ascents, on the whole, are much easier to report in the media - the length of the process itself means that there is more opportunity for filming, taking photos, and writing - look at Dave's and James' blogs.  But this isn't about the media, the real question is do the grades work for climbers?  I can't see that a sport R/X grade gives any extra information that an E grade doesn't.

Good point.Where are the blogs of the hard onsighters?? I'd would love to read them, but they either don't exist or are off my radar.

[Jaspersharpe]

As mentioned there's a very well publicised film out devoted to this style ascent and to be fair to Jack G on UKC he is making sure that as many cutting edge onsight / ground up ascents as possible get recognition on that site. These guys are actually getting far more publicity than their peers from a generation or so ago did. I agree that it's up to the individual if they want to gain more publicity. Those who shout the loudest generally get noticed.

But anyway, as Nik said, why is this publicity important to people? As I said, is the real issue sponsorship and where it goes / doesn't go? If it's not about making a living then why give a fuck if you're in the magazines or not?

[fatboySlimfast]

Anybody remeber Gomersalls article about redefining the grading sytem....
1983 I think......

[Moo]

to be fair to Jack G on UKC he is making sure that as many cutting edge onsight / ground up ascents as possible get recognition on that site.

Much more than the mags although it pains me to say it, despite the dickwads on the forums, UKClimbing.com is leading the way in more balanced reporting of ascents.

[slackline]

Anybody remeber Gomersalls article about redefining the grading sytem....
1983 I think......

Nope but if anyone has it could they scan and add it to this thread (even if it wasn't published in Crags).

[Pantontino]

Media-worthy ascents are ones with good photos first and foremost, and good narrative second. If the people doing onsight ascents really want the recognition they feel they deserve, then they simply have to play the media's game. Arrange for a good photographer to record your onsight. Find an angle and pitch to the mags. Simple.

At the moment it seems more like those doing hard onsight ascents are just getting on with it, and it's their peers who are complaining they don't get the respect and attention they deserve. Well, no-one gets the attention they deserve - they get the attention they seek.

If only it was as 'simple' as you suggest - ground up/onsight ascents often happen randomly; the chances of there being a photographer around when s/he is needed is unlikely.

Maybe blogs are the answer, and like Bonjoy I would love someone like Caff or Pete to write one, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

It seems that those who have played up to the media the most in the last 10-15 years have also been strong proponents of the headpoint ethic. I would draw conclusions from that, but you'd probably accuse me of being a cynic.

You seem happy that history is written by those who shout loudest, fair enough - personally I'd rather have a more objective version of the truth.

And as Jasper and Moo said, fair play to Jack on UKC for shining a more discerning light on cutting edge trad activities - a welcome change.

(I mentioned this thread to Kate, the editor at Climber and she said she would get Adam's article up on the Climber website, so that people can read what he said.)

[Moo]

(I mentioned this thread to Kate, the editor at Climber and she said she would get Adam's article up on the Climber website, so that people can read what he said.)

Webs where it's at. No one reads the rags anymore. Getting here to put it on here where it will actually be read.