As an aside, for Broughton regulars, the 'Burly One' seems to suffer from indoor undergrading in my view and is never F8a in a month of sundays. I would say the whole link is Font 7c (2 font 7b's back to back?) but with no rest inbetween. According to the chart, it should be F8b but i would probably say F8a+ as it is not a short route and is straying into power enduro territory where a separate table would be needed
In North Wales we've always gone with Font 7b+ = F8a, Font 7c = F8a+ etc, but then the assumption was that you were talking about the whole route and not just the crux. Obviously this only really works with long problems.
Is this about right or are there any glaring exceptions?
Pump up the power, font 7c+/8a+?
The problem is that even a few easy but strenuous moves before a boulder section can make it harder
I always thought font 8a = 8b french ish, or maybe 8b/+ french.
I'm sure we've done this topic to death before. I remember Panton saying I must be shit at routes or something
with extended boulder problems that have dodgy landings should we be giving them a french grade followed by some kind of danger/seriousness indicator?
boulder problems given a sport grade are always easier to do than actually doing a route of that grade simply because you don't have to pause to clip, and you can generally pull on and work every move.
I think what cofe is driving at, is that to combine a difficulty rating such as the Australian, or even UIAA, system with a letter denoting the danger, would give more information about the extended boulder problem in question. So for example, if you rocked up at Rubicon and were eyeing up Bigger Splash Direct as your project for the afternoon, a grade of, let's say, 23 R would give a much better idea of the hazards involved in an ascent than just 7a+.
Quote from: Somebody's Fool on November 25, 2008, 02:39:57 pmI think what cofe is driving at, is that to combine a difficulty rating such as the Australian, or even UIAA, system with a letter denoting the danger, would give more information about the extended boulder problem in question. So for example, if you rocked up at Rubicon and were eyeing up Bigger Splash Direct as your project for the afternoon, a grade of, let's say, 23 R would give a much better idea of the hazards involved in an ascent than just 7a+.eureka!
This bouldering lark is witchcraft anyway, give me a nice 20m pumpfest any day!!
Coming back to the point of the thread,
if the Groove really is Font 7c+ as reported by Kevin, according to the scheme above, this would equate to around F8b (Pump up the Power excepted). (Obviously if it turns out to be Font 8a then F8b+ or even F8c may be merited). F8b equates to well protected E8. Should the first part of the Groove be graded E8 finishing up the much much easier Fern Hill finish? I don't know as I ain't climbed it. However, applying my powers of reasoning and going on Kevin's reports on the danger involved, I might perhaps add an E point due to the dodgy fall involved and to acknowledge that leading the route may well be 'serious' due to the fact that your belayer might have to run backwards a bit if you came off the crux. Would E9 be unreasonable as a wild stab in the dark?
Though now you seem to have deviated somewhat yourself, but i'll join in....since when did ground-sweeping falls become classified as safe?!
miles harder than on caviar for example.