[Will Hunt]

Sorry to be starting another grades thread.

From the Franco thread:

(exactly the same way andy went, 7A/+ as a highball grade)

I normally wouldn't read too much into this but in light of some recent conversations I've had, I think there might be some confusion around this.

Part 1 of the question is: What is your understanding of how the Font grade is currently used on highballs? Does the Font grade creep up if there are hard moves at height, making it scarier? In a similar fashion to an adjectival trad grade describing the totality of the physical difficulty and the gear situation.

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think this should be the case?

[Fiend]

Definitely seems to, in my experience - not just about scariness but also difficulty finding / assessing holds and working out optimum sequences.

And that seems okay with me, as long as it doesn't go too far.

[remus]

It seems pretty inevitable that the grade will take in to account the height, difficulty of working the moves etc. It's very hard to unravel all the different factors that go in to making something hard, so unless top roping becomes the norm (hopefully not!) then there's always going to be some 'cross-contamination' of the factors that go in to the grade.

[Will Hunt]

So some votes are in. Currently split with 48% saying Font grades should not reflect height; 52% saying they should. So there will be a snap BMC AGM and we'll then trigger a 2 year negotiation window with the UIAA to get this all sorted. It'll be a breeze.

I voted "don't know, and they should not" and am shocked to see so much support for Font grades being warped by height. I'll explain.

The point to remember is that grades should tell you how hard something is.
Some people enter a palsy when they're two moves off the deck. Some people take lobs all day from ridiculous heights. I think I sit somewhere in the middle, but amongst my friends there are people in both camps. So for one climb, a bed-wetter (no offence to bed-wetters out there) might give it 7B, and somebody else might give it anything as low as 6C. They can't both be right!

It's not quite as complicated in trad. If you've got 5c moves with splat potential you'd give it E4. If it's not that committing or escapable you might moderate to E3. If there's multiple splat 5c moves and they're committing then you might stretch to E5. Normally there isn't too much variation in what different climbers propose.

So to take some real life examples, The Great Flake at Caley gets touted as 7B. I'm absolutely sure that the climbing at the top of the flake is not 7B, but I have no idea how hard it actually is. Likewise, Psycho has been touted as 7A, but the crux isn't even that high, you can jump off in control if you want, and the climbing is about 6B+. Successor State - 6B+ near the floor, wiggy 6A+ mantel near the top; advertised as 7A. How is a climber who is just reading the guide supposed to know whether they can actually climb this stuff or not? If The Great Flake was 7B near the top then I wouldn't even try it. If it's 6C or less then I might be game. I don't need the grade to be inflated for height/risk because the risks are abundantly obvious from the floor.

The best information, in my view, is when you have a Font grade reflecting physical difficulty only, and the old trad grade for a padless solo given in brackets. The trad grade adds the context to the Font grade and gives you an indication of where the crux might occur, with the added bonus of getting an actual idea about how hard the climbing will be beyond 6a/6b/6c. You could even go as far as substituting the trad grade with "!" if you wanted to give less away.

[jwi]

Of course the boulder grade somewhat reflect the exposure. No one can find the absolute best sequence for a true high ball, their body would be forever broke before that happens.

With top rope practice all bets are off, of course. But who cares what topropers think about the grade?

[steveri]

The corollary would seem to be that *lowball* grades take lack of height into account. I was trying a V3 last night with an English 6b move (Cheshire sandstone) ...which seems harsh. Tougher grades for 2 fierce moves off the ground?

[jwi]

The corollary would seem to be that *lowball* grades take lack of height into account. I was trying a V3 last night with an English 6b move (Cheshire sandstone) ...which seems harsh. Tougher grades for 2 fierce moves off the ground?

I've found this to be somewhat true. Whenever lifting the ass of the ground is the crux it often seems unreasonably hard to me compared to other one-move wonders of the same grade.

[36chambers]

So to take some real life examples, The Great Flake at Caley gets touted as 7B. I'm absolutely sure that the climbing at the top of the flake is not 7B, but I have no idea how hard it actually is.

I'm not suggesting that the The Great Flake is 7B, but it is reasonably long which could bump the grade a tad without the individual moves being that bad.

Being a boulderer, it's hard stringing together 10 consecutive moves without making a significant mistake somewhere.

[spidermonkey09]

 If The Great Flake was 7B near the top then I wouldn't even try it. If it's 6C or less then I might be game. I don't need the grade to be inflated for height/risk because the risks are abundantly obvious from the floor.

Get on it! My instinctive response was to think of this problem and I settled on the answer 'Its not that hard, about 6C+/7A, but cause its so high it feels like 7a+".

I get your logical argument in favour of taking height out of the equation but in practice I can never see it working. People will always find moves further off the deck harder than they are, partly cause they're scared and partly cause they're tired from climbing to get there. You see the same phenomenon with routes (I make this mistake all the time) with people saying a bouldery sequence near the top of a route is 'about V5". Obviously the accuracy of this is dependent on the difficulty of the route but I don't think they're ever as hard as people say! Actually you see this wherever the bouldery bit is on the route; I've heard people say in earnest that the New Dawn start is V7! Bouldering wise I think the corollary mentioned above of desperate starting moves being minimised in the grade is accurate but can't think of examples off the top of my head.

[Franco]

Sorry to be starting another grades thread.

From the Franco thread:

(exactly the same way andy went, 7A/+ as a highball grade)

I normally wouldn't read too much into this but in light of some recent conversations I've had, I think there might be some confusion around this.

Part 1 of the question is: What is your understanding of how the Font grade is currently used on highballs? Does the Font grade creep up if there are hard moves at height, making it scarier? In a similar fashion to an adjectival trad grade describing the totality of the physical difficulty and the gear situation.

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think this should be the case?

If only we already had a grading system that took into account how scary, sustained and difficult a climb was..

You've beautifully demonstrated the reason why the status quo works so well - boulder grades are used for moves, E grades for highballs. The desire for people to start using font grades for highballs is just fashion. Of course now padding has improved, a few of the old short solos may need a slight down-grade, but the E-grade still works fine.

E grades don't have to mean a risk of death - there were always plenty of totally safe routes they were used for.


 

[Hoseyb]

Highballs do have their own grades, for instance say 6C+!
6C+ tells me how good I have to be, and the (!) tells me I'm going to get scared. In Wales there are a few (!!) where you're going to get really scared and even a (!!!) which should have an E grade.
Simples.

As to highballs being tech softer for the grade, I'm not sure. However a 2 move 7A+ is often a hell of a lot harder than a 10 move 7B, so go figure.

[Will Hunt]

Some interesting thoughts. Haven't the time to reply, but before anyone else makes the point: obviously steep highballs are going to have to account for some element of power endurance if they're pumpy. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't. It would be like saying sport routes should be graded for the hardest crux sequence, which would be obviously wrong. The question is specifically about whether the grade should be inflated because you're spooked when you're doing it.

[petejh]

Sorry to be starting another grades thread.

From the Franco thread:

(exactly the same way andy went, 7A/+ as a highball grade)

I normally wouldn't read too much into this but in light of some recent conversations I've had, I think there might be some confusion around this.

Part 1 of the question is: What is your understanding of how the Font grade is currently used on highballs? Does the Font grade creep up if there are hard moves at height, making it scarier? In a similar fashion to an adjectival trad grade describing the totality of the physical difficulty and the gear situation.

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think this should be the case?

If only we already had a grading system that took into account how scary, sustained and difficult a climb was..

You've beautifully demonstrated the reason why the status quo works so well - boulder grades are used for moves, E grades for highballs.

It might have been the status quo but I'd say it changed with the current crop of guidebooks. NW Bouldering has loads of highballs with as Hosey says the ! or !! signifying risk. I think this works well.
E grades emphasise overall difficulty and risk - the E part, with a vague attempt at signifying difficulty of a move. Bouldering grades emphasise difficulty, and the addition of a ! or !! is a vague attempt at signifying risk. Seems to work well, better than an E that doesn't seem to mean very much with the advent of pad parties.

What E grade would you suggest for crack approach to the top of The Young, presuming cams in the crack protecting the top, versus E grade for an ascent of The Young?

[user deactivated]

Sorry to be starting another grades thread.

From the Franco thread:

(exactly the same way andy went, 7A/+ as a highball grade)

I normally wouldn't read too much into this but in light of some recent conversations I've had, I think there might be some confusion around this.

Part 1 of the question is: What is your understanding of how the Font grade is currently used on highballs? Does the Font grade creep up if there are hard moves at height, making it scarier? In a similar fashion to an adjectival trad grade describing the totality of the physical difficulty and the gear situation.

Part 2 of the question is: Do you think this should be the case?

If only we already had a grading system that took into account how scary, sustained and difficult a climb was..

You've beautifully demonstrated the reason why the status quo works so well - boulder grades are used for moves, E grades for highballs. The desire for people to start using font grades for highballs is just fashion. Of course now padding has improved, a few of the old short solos may need a slight down-grade, but the E-grade still works fine.

E grades don't have to mean a risk of death - there were always plenty of totally safe routes they were used for.

What does the E stand for? Really?

[monkoffunk]

I always liked Mark Tomlinsons proposal for trad grades; replace them with french sport grades and a three scale faff factor. So difficulty is seperate, and a nice well protected single pitch with a good belay at the top gets 1 faff point and if you die when you fall off it gets 3 faff points. A similar system for boulder problems should be adequate.

[Andy F]

Why not give highballs a different letter, one which indicates they are highball and grade accordingly?

You could use a capital H... 

[Fiend]

Will the examples you have given definitely fall under the category of "going too far". If Psycho and SS are purely Font 6B+ physical difficulty but also quite high, then 6C or so would seem to be a sensible way of taking the extra difficulty I mentioned in my first post into account. 7A would not be a sensible way.

[Will Hunt]

But there's uncertainty there over how much you should inflate the grade? Somebody who has a real panic stricken wobbler might plump for 6C+ or 7A because they were so gripped. And yet the climbing isn't 6C+ in difficulty, its 6B+, so call it as such but recognise with the accompanying trad grade that it'll require some nerve. Then everyone knows where they stand.

[Plattsy]

How do they handle this in Fontainebleau?

I think I read somewhere they stick a grade on eg 7A up to 7A+.

[tommytwotone]

How do they handle this in Fontainebleau?

I think I read somewhere they stick a grade on eg 7A up to 7A+.

I think this is where it started. I read somewhere (one of the Montchausse guides I think) that a highball 7a (for example) would get an extra grade to cover this.

[Will Hunt]

So I guess we should also add a grade to sport grades if the bolts are far apart? Can anyone explain how this is different?

[monkoffunk]

Add a grade if they are closer together. More energy wasted clipping.

[tommytwotone]

So I guess we should also add a grade to sport grades if the bolts are far apart? Can anyone explain how this is different?

You can't / shouldn't deck out from a sport route?

[tim palmer]

So I guess we should also add a grade to sport grades if the bolts are far apart? Can anyone explain how this is different?

I think you might be trying to make grading make sense which is impossible (?and pointless?).  I think a lot of highballs are at the bottom of the grade simply because scary things feel harder, especially if they haven't been done before.   I think it is good that high things tend to get a generous grade, sees them done more often maybe and perhaps discourages people from getting out of their depth (for the route/ highball scenario).  I don't think high things should be upgraded as standard but I think if someone has done an fa and the grade is a bit soft (but not ridiculous) then it should be left as is.

[Fiend]

So I guess we should also add a grade to sport grades if the bolts are far apart? Can anyone explain how this is different?

It's different because on a sport route you can dog your way up, inspect the holds and work out the sequences at every single point equally. On a highball it's usually much harder to do so.

The previous uncertainty you mentioned can be resolved by consensus and common sense - like Plattsys and TTTTT's posts.