[Fiend]

You are right about my misunderstanding.... the curse of similar grade labels.

If only there was a bouldering grade available that wasn't so similar / nearly identical to British tech and for that matter French sport grades, maybe something simple and clearly distinctive, perhaps a letter like V, just followed by ascending numbers?? 

Thread needs more bitching, BTW.

[a dense loner]

We're not giving things V grades you fuckwit! Most people don't know how to spell practice or licence anymore ffs

[lemony]

I think Swastika Eyes is in the book at 7B+ or something equally mad? I thought 6A+.

[Mumra]

You still came across as a tit though

[Offwidth]

"I don't think it should be taken a criticism. "

I'm all for open and honest views on comparative grades, the bit that comes over as a criticism was "the wildly overgraded" bit, especially in the context of those who helped who thought otherwise. Will's grade view is clear and he kindly apologised for any offence.

Log piling the thread is OK by me but seems to show insecurity if people know of other problems that might need looking at. UKC logbook votes look useless in this, as once the grade is set votes get dragged to that, due to confirmation bias etc.   They just don't show the likes of Will's views (and contain too few comment to get a balance). I couldnt find W' Scar on Peak Bouldering.

[r-man]

I couldnt find W' Scar on Peak Bouldering.

Yorkshire stuff is still being added. Nobody has done W. Scar yet.

[andyd]

"I don't think it should be taken a criticism. "

I'm all for open and honest views on comparative grades, the bit that comes over as a criticism was "the wildly overgraded" bit, especially in the context of those who helped who thought otherwise. Will's grade view is clear and he kindly apologised for any offence.

Log piling the thread is OK by me but seems to show insecurity if people know of other problems that might need looking at. UKC logbook votes look useless in this, as once the grade is set votes get dragged to that, due to confirmation bias etc.   They just don't show the likes of Will's views (and contain too few comment to get a balance). I couldnt find W' Scar on Peak Bouldering.

Yeah well, UKB is Will's outlet for hyperbole. Wildly/very;it all suggests that the grade is wrong and i don't think anyone needs to apologise for pointing that out.

Log? What's the end goal here? will there be a list submitted to someone or a new website made to add clarity? if not then the whole topic seems aimless. It's not a new topic is it? It's a thread mirroring conversations about the relative difficulty of climbs regularly held at the crag every day (when it's dry!). Stuff like this grabs people's attention and time on the most recent drop down on the forum. I'm as guilty as anyone for engaging in it. I'd just be happy if it wasn't always in the top 6 on the home screen.

[andy_e]

I couldnt find W' Scar on Peak Bouldering.

Yorkshire stuff is still being added. Nobody has done W. Scar yet.

After an initial bout of interest and hard work put in by a few people, adding Yorkshire stuff to PB has slowed down considerably unfortunately. Anybody can add anything, please register and add away if you feel like you can contribute!

[Will Hunt]

Yeah well, UKB is Will's outlet for hyperbole.

Hyper bollocks more like 

People (some) have engaged with the thread and there's no reason I couldn't appeal to UKC/PB mods to initiate an immediate grade change citing this thread as evidence of discussion - I have already made this sort of appeal in some cases and I see Karjala has gone down to 6C+, so progress has been made. I've taken Bird Flu down to 6C.
It's not like I want to downgrade the whole of Yorkshire!  We're talking about a select few climbs in the cannon of YG. Given the very productive comments re: the Sheriff and others, I think the outstanding changes to be made are:
Ripple Effect to 7B (I haven't ticked this but have tried it. Felt 7B+ to me. Miles harder than the Sheriff [IMO] and Hot Dog Fromage Heel. Happy to bow to the consensus though and accept I wasn't on good roof form when I tried it)
Longbow to 6C
McNab Sit to soft 7B+
Count Duckula to 6A+ with an eliminate described separately if such a thing exists.
I'm fairly sure Trust should come down to 7A+ at least. Clearly easier than Racing Raymond for instance.

These are in my eyes the most obvious things in need of changing. I can't believe it's been so controversial to suggest that some problems might have been misgraded at first or have changed in nature since the FA. I really should have called some of my esoteric FAs 8A, safe in the knowledge that nobody could pas comment.

As to those who suggested logging the thread - a calm, measured discussion about bouldering on a bouldering website? Whatever next?

[r-man]

Mods don't need to change grades on PB. Just vote for your preferred grade and the grade will be automatically recalculated.

If you'd like more votes on a problem to get a better consensus, maybe post the link here. If the problem isn't on PB yet, add it then post here...

[Mumra]

It seems to me that Will had just managed to climb 7b+ and therefore wants to downgrade the world. For me underhand extension feels like 7b. Much easier than Kudos. What does this mean? Nothing at all. Hence why I don't start a "look at me and my middling grades thread"

[tomtom]

Meh. This thread exists because of the void now YG.com has gone. Nowhere left for Yorkshire grades to be fettled with...

Fill in and vote on PB.com - the more ascents the more votes the more a problem grade will settle.

We all know grades are indicative and for some problems elastic according to morph, style etc... It is after all a qualitative system. Why not take a longer term view - for a given grade you'll do a few soft ones, a few hard ones and a few about right.. It evens out in the long run...

Will - your posts are a little hard to follow. Why not just say I think X is soft, Y is hard - what does everyone else think? Far more simple non?

[andyd]

Meh. This thread exists because of the void now YG.com has gone. Nowhere left for Yorkshire grades to be fettled with...

Fill in and vote on PB.com - the more ascents the more votes the more a problem grade will settle.

We all know grades are indicative and for some problems elastic according to morph, style etc... It is after all a qualitative system. Why not take a longer term view - for a given grade you'll do a few soft ones, a few hard ones and a few about right.. It evens out in the long run...

Will - your posts are a little hard to follow. Why not just say I think X is soft, Y is hard - what does everyone else think? Far more simple non?

A conclusion! Perfect. Case closed.

[Will Hunt]

We all know grades are indicative and for some problems elastic according to morph, style etc... It is after all a qualitative system. Why not take a longer term view - for a given grade you'll do a few soft ones, a few hard ones and a few about right.. It evens out in the long run...

Will - your posts are a little hard to follow. Why not just say I think X is soft, Y is hard - what does everyone else think? Far more simple non?

 

OK, I will reiterate the purpose of this again. This is not a thread about problems which are hard or soft at their respective grades. It is about problems which, for one of any number of legitimate reasons, are clearly agreed to be graded incorrectly in their present state - i.e. it is agreed that their grade should be changed by approximately 2 or more grades. This has nothing to do with grades being subjective or indicative, or elastic - if I described Demon Wall Roof as 7B+ or 6C+ it would be clear that that grade was significantly off the mark.

This is something that has happened with a great many Yorkshire problems in the past after they saw more and more repeats (see this post for context: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,4129.msg54337.html#msg54337 ). My point is that it is entirely possible for something to be given an incorrect grade that needs to be subsequently adjusted - in the same way we have done previously. The problems that have been identified as those most in need of correction are Karjala, Ripple Effect, Longbow, McNab Sit, and Bird Flu are almost all (not sure about McNab) relatively new problems, or problems that have only started to see frequent attention in recent years (look at the ticks in the UKC logbooks) - i.e. it is only now, with the multiple repeats having taken place, that we have the information available to inform a grade change. If anybody still doubts that there could be a case for these grades being wrong then just go and climb Karjala at Crookrise. I guarantee that you will not think it is 7A+. It won't even be a hardship for you since it is such an incredible problem.

Voting on an online system is all very well but it is slow and vulnerable to all sorts of biases (people only voting when they disagree with a grade/people voting because they want to affirm an inflated grade because it represents a hard tick in their logbook etc). The UKC voting is crap because it forces you to select grades around the existing grade, and the data is only really collected to help Rockfax write their guides - nobody is doing a routine check of which climbs are consistently receiving up/down votes. Unfortunately (I am guilty too), PB is not seeing a lot of uptake in Yorkshire, so its the same people voting on the grades, which is hardly a consensus. Hopefully this will change in the future but, until then, if the case is so clear that a grade needs change, why not just agree on the new grade and change it? Why so much resistance to an online discussion?

[mr__j5]

I had read the main purpose of the thread as trying to point out problems that are graded effectively as an eliminate but yet the rules aren't written in the guide.

So, therefore they feel soft when you tick them.

I am finding more and more that peak limestone is the same and even Font.

[Will Hunt]

I had read the main purpose of the thread as trying to point out problems that are graded effectively as an eliminate but yet the rules aren't written in the guide.

So, therefore they feel soft when you tick them.

I am finding more and more that peak limestone is the same and even Font.

That was a bit of an off topic tangent, brought up after Webbo's discourse in response to Count Duckula being mooted, but still a valid point nonetheless I think.

[Mumra]

You still came across as a tit though

[Fiend]

You were doing well with your previous beef, but that is just lazy.

[Mumra]

I was just reminding the boy

[Bonjoy]

I had read the main purpose of the thread as trying to point out problems that are graded effectively as an eliminate but yet the rules aren't written in the guide.

So, therefore they feel soft when you tick them.

I am finding more and more that peak limestone is the same and even Font.

It’s a common problem. First ascentionist are often coy about mentioning rules as they don’t want their probs to be labelled as eliminates. Or worse, rules are applied/invented retrospectively to exclude new beta after it’s come to light. Folk climbing new things want their lines to be as pure as possible and often climb them in aesthetically pleasing ways which aren’t necessarily the easiest. Or guide writer save a bit of space by not mentioning stuff. It’s tempting not to mention for instance the exclusion of a plinth, or holds on an adjacent problem, or toe-hooks on a nearby arête, relying on this being ‘obvious’ to a repeater. What this fails to understand is that the repeater is less concerned about aesthetics and more about getting up a line by the easiest possible means, which includes using everything not specifically excluded. It always pays to state the obvious in descriptions of new problems. In many many cases, where the rule is clear, obvious and for a logical reason, problems are better as eliminates than non-eliminates. One option to preserve the illusion of purity is to call the new sequence a separate problem e.g. WSS and Ronside Force-it. Lime probs in general tend to be a bit lineless and are hence defined by the relationship with the problem next door, which inevitably is a huge source of confusion if folk insist on minimalist descriptions.

[lagerstarfish]

only vaguely related, but this is what sprung to mind when Will came up with this awesome thread - it is interesting to note that the double dyno at Isatis that Kurt does in The Real thing was at the time given 7A+ or something and now is given 6B+ Le Balancier (double jete)

it's not in Yorkshire

[205Chris]

only vaguely related, but this is what sprung to mind when Will came up with this awesome thread - it is interesting to note that the double dyno at Isatis that Kurt does in The Real thing was at the time given 7A+ or something and now is given 6B+ Le Balancier (double jete)

it's not in Yorkshire

Still  but one of the videos of that problem on bleau.info is genius for so many reasons:

[webbo]

Are you sure didn't that area of France wasn't governed by Richard of York  born 1411 died 1460 in the reign of Henry Vl

[lagerstarfish]

I'm pretty sure the rock was in the same condition back then - let's claim it

[a dense loner]

Eh the double dyno at isatis was given 7a+ and the non eliminate version of the problem 6b+. Me no understand your point largers?