[Kingy]

Just seen on Tim Emmett's latest instagram post that The Path 5.14R is coming out of the new E grader calculator as E10 - this would make Megos's flash of this the only E10 flash that I know of.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CqqBtoTLR-S/

I have no interest in knowing the inner workings of the E Grader but thought this might be worth noting seeing as it was previously considered to be E9. I don't see how The Path wouldn't be E10 seeing as its runout and hard and the likes of Bon Voyage seems to get E10 which is also 8b+ I believe.

[andy moles]

The E Grader is upgrading a lot of things (sometimes by two grades), I wouldn't get excited just yet.

Nighmayer comes out E9, which would make Steve Mac's the first E9 onsight in the UK.

[Kingy]

OK, that makes sense. Can anybody explain why Bon Voyage would be E10 and The Path only E9?

[T_B]

The Path looks like a brilliant route but it’s not very ‘British’ looking ie yeah it’s runout but up a smooth wall with clean falls and presumably bomber cams in the horizontals. Should we give Serpentine E8?

This is why the whole debate seems a bit daft. Stick a sport climber on The Path and they will flash it. Not sure Megos would necessarily flash every E8 out there? Is the E grade for an on sight and if not then what’s the point? If you’ve worked it then you know the physical difficulty/sport grade and how bold it is.

And yeah the upGrader does seem to be very generous.

[spidermonkey09]

I would back Megos to flash the vast majority of E8s, if not all of them! Probably most of them in his approach shoes. Are there any you wouldn't?

[ferret]

I would back Megos to flash the vast majority of E8s, if not all of them! Probably most of them in his approach shoes. Are there any you wouldn't?

Probably loads of thin unprotected stuff on grit that I wouldn't be surprised if he wouldn't go for.
Also wouldn't put money on a flash of the angels share even if there was a pad party

[spidermonkey09]

Yeah, fair call re Angel's Share, luck based scrittle is a fickle medium.

Not going for something falls into a slightly different category for me. Guess I was thinking anything he would be prepared to try he would very likely flash.

[Kingy]

Interesting discussion. I think there are problems with saying the E grade only applies to on sight and not flash or indeed headpoint asents cos nobody has any better way of describing these 2 styles. 20 years ago, the 'H' grade for headpoints was coined which makes a lot of sense to me (H8 rather than E8 for a pre-practised ascent).

A 'F' grade would be the logical tag for flashed ascents, so Megos would be F10 for the Path rather than E10. Can't see this catching on however....

I don't see the need to expand the E grade beyond UK and Irish shores as its so specialised using a weird technical grade that non UK climbers don't get. I would be happy with just using the American system with R or X or a French grade and 'trad' after it. So Voyage 8b+ trad and The Path 5.14R - no E grade required, simples!  Everybody would get what a flash or onsight meant for non-UK/Irish routes without confusing matters with E points.

[Teaboy]

Not going for something falls into a slightly different category for me. Guess I was thinking anything he would be prepared to try he would very likely flash.

I have a 100% success rate on all the E8s I’m prepared to try.

[cheque]

I don't see the need to expand the E grade beyond UK shores as its so specialised using a weird technical grade that non UK climbers don't get.

 

E grades work for flash/ ground up climbing though surely? Don’t people just say “the E grade is for the onsight” as shorthand for “head pointing is different to normal trad climbing”? ‘Cos it is isn’t it?

I haven’t looked into the e grader thing because it doesn’t really have much to do with the climbing I do but it does seem like people who’ve made climbing their job trying to formalise something that’s fun and daft so they and their successors can have more easily monetisable CVs.

[Kingy]

I don't see the need to expand the E grade beyond UK shores as its so specialised using a weird technical grade that non UK climbers don't get.

 

E grades work for flash/ ground up climbing though surely? Don’t people just say “the E grade is for the onsight” as shorthand for “head pointing is different to normal trad climbing”? ‘Cos it is isn’t it?

I haven’t looked into the e grader thing because it doesn’t really have much to do with the climbing I do but it does seem like people who’ve made climbing their job trying to formalise something that’s fun and daft so they and their successors can have more easily monetisable CVs.

Yes, if you just say you flashed an E8 or headpointed an E8 then its all good, right! Nobody trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes AFAIK. Again, simples!

Haha, yes, seems like your worst nightmare, people poring over the merits of E grades in some dingy office, best as part of UK's rich tapestry of pub chat.

[andy moles]

I haven’t looked into the e grader thing because it doesn’t really have much to do with the climbing I do but it does seem like people who’ve made climbing their job trying to formalise something that’s fun and daft so they and their successors can have more easily monetisable CVs.

...and messing around the low to mid E grades, which aren't broken, in the process. Tail wagging dog, and not very well.

Given the coordinated press release and pro climbers giving it props on insta etc, you'd think they could have ironed out some of the obvious wonkiness it spits out first.

With a bit of tweaking it could be reasonably effective, but it might not give the results everyone wants.

[petejh]

Surely the equation is simple and doesn't require a new tool and a press release:

Greshamheadline-1 = E grade.

[Stabbsy]

Surely the equation is simple and doesn't require a new tool and a press release:

Greshamheadline-1 = E grade.

Was this personal dig necessary? It isn't even an accurate dig.

[monkoffunk]

Interesting discussion. I think there are problems with saying the E grade only applies to on sight and not flash or indeed headpoint asents cos nobody has any better way of describing these 2 styles. 20 years ago, the 'H' grade for headpoints was coined which makes a lot of sense to me (H8 rather than E8 for a pre-practised ascent).

A 'F' grade would be the logical tag for flashed ascents, so Megos would be F10 for the Path rather than E10. Can't see this catching on however....

I don't see the need to expand the E grade beyond UK and Irish shores as its so specialised using a weird technical grade that non UK climbers don't get. I would be happy with just using the American system with R or X or a French grade and 'trad' after it. So Voyage 8b+ trad and The Path 5.14R - no E grade required, simples!  Everybody would get what a flash or onsight meant for non-UK/Irish routes without confusing matters with E points.

Thought F grade related to a long ago touted idea to replace E grades with a French grade for difficulty, followed by a three point Faff grade for everything else.

[Aussiegav]

it does seem like people who’ve made climbing their job trying to formalise something that’s fun and daft so they and their successors can have more easily monetisable CVs.

 
Well put.

[MischaHY]

I haven’t looked into the e grader thing because it doesn’t really have much to do with the climbing I do but it does seem like people who’ve made climbing their job trying to formalise something that’s fun and daft so they and their successors can have more easily monetisable CVs.

...and messing around the low to mid E grades, which aren't broken, in the process. Tail wagging dog, and not very well.

Given the coordinated press release and pro climbers giving it props on insta etc, you'd think they could have ironed out some of the obvious wonkiness it spits out first.

With a bit of tweaking it could be reasonably effective, but it might not give the results everyone wants.

Out of curiosity Andy, what is an example of obvious wonkiness? (Genuine question).

I tested out quite a few euro routes that I've tentatively put e grades on over the last few years and this produced the same grades as I'd expected based on assessment. Also in the E1-E5 range.

[andy moles]

Out of curiosity Andy, what is an example of obvious wonkiness? (Genuine question).

I put a couple of examples on UKC of popular North Wales routes that come out a whole grade up (and there's nothing particularly unusual about them that should throw it off) - Cockblock Hard E6 and Pull My Daisy Hard E3. But more commonly it seems to give half a grade up, for routes in the lower extremes for which there is a well-established consensus and no call for an upgrade. For some routes it works fine, but it's not a small minority that get upgraded. I think maybe there is one too many steps between 'very well-protected' and 'very dangerous', which is probably because it's necessary to keep the algorithm simple.

[andy moles]

I mean it's all disputable isn't it, you could argue each case that I'm overestimating the sport grade or the danger, but if anything I've been trying to err on the conservative side.

[jwi]

I put in the normal grade for a few things I've done that mates have told me adjective grade for, and my mates seem to be sandbagging bastards. (Not that it matters, because when they say "E5" I say "what?")

But I must say that I struggle with the slider for protection/danger. So here is a question for you people: How to do you differentiate between objective and subjective danger? I rather climb a 6b without any protection at all then a 6b with OK protection but with large sections on really loose rock. I would find the former pretty safe and the latter really dangerous.

[mrjonathanr]

Um. Simplifying grading method results in oversimplification, shocker. But lots of attention for the sponsored climbers promoting it.

I wonder why they did that? 

[petejh]

So here is a question for you people: How to do you differentiate between objective and subjective danger?

Isn’t all danger subjective, until you hit the ground or get hit by a rock?

See: ‘that flake was the E9’, Grimes, Niall, 1998, Hard Grit.

[jwi]

No loose rock or avalanche risk is an objective danger. It is dangerous regardless of my abilities.

[Duncan campbell]

Out of curiosity Andy, what is an example of obvious wonkiness? (Genuine question).

I put a couple of examples on UKC of popular North Wales routes that come out a whole grade up (and there's nothing particularly unusual about them that should throw it off) - Cockblock Hard E6 and Pull My Daisy Hard E3. But more commonly it seems to give half a grade up, for routes in the lower extremes for which there is a well-established consensus and no call for an upgrade. For some routes it works fine, but it's not a small minority that get upgraded. I think maybe there is one too many steps between 'very well-protected' and 'very dangerous', which is probably because it's necessary to keep the algorithm simple.

What did you put in for cockblock and PMD, Molesy?

I put in what I thought for Pretty Girls Make Graves and got hard E5, tried to do one for Lord and got hard E5 but maybe for Lord underestimated the danger as there is a bit where you are protected solely by hooks quite a way up? (Though I haven’t done Lord.)

The thing with these grade calculators (both Darth Grader and EGrader) is that I find it very difficult to be objective about the difficulty.

I struggle to accurately say what French grade a trad route is. Or what French or boulder grade a section of a sport route is. Maybe I’m just stupid but very struggle to do what Caff does “from bolt x to the top is E6 6c” etc…

[andy moles]

What did you put in for cockblock and PMD, Molesy?

Slightly run-out 7b and very run-out 6a respectively. I do think Cockblock is nails for E5, partly because it's tricky to read, I guess as a worked sport route it might be 7a+ but I think realistically with putting gear in 7b is fair.

What did you put in for Pretty Girls and Lord? Having led neither, I'd guess they'd be something like Standard Trad 7b = Easy E6 (surely PG isn't easier or better protected than that??) and Lord 7a+ and...not exactly run-out because there's plenty of kit, it's just not good...but at least qualifying for the description of 'runout' so Hard E6?

For sure it is hard to be objective though. I mean, it's hard to be objective even about the difficulty of on-sighted sport routes, never mind with the added fuzz factors of trad.

But anyway, this

Um. Simplifying grading method results in oversimplification, shocker. But lots of attention for the sponsored climbers promoting it.

is probably as good a summary as any!