Megos The Path 5.14/ E10 flash?

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

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

I wonder why they did that? :-\
 
jwi said:
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.
 
No loose rock or avalanche risk is an objective danger. It is dangerous regardless of my abilities.
 
andy moles said:
MischaHY said:
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…
 
Duncan campbell said:
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

mrjonathanr said:
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!
 
I put in 7a+ for PGMG but think that’s mainly because I onsighted it. In the Llanberis guide it gets 7b and I was going well that year, so could well be. I might have put well protected but it’s got a bit of a wiggy bit at the start.

For Lord I put 7a and a bit runout. But that’s probably not fair as there is that bit low down that’s protected by hooks…
 
jwi said:
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.

OK, but what I meant by danger being subjective (until it suddenly becomes very objective), was that 'true' danger is hard to quantify until it's too late. So we rely on using subjective judgements to try to work out how dangerous we think something is.
Your term 'danger' can be called 'risk'. Risk is often formally calculated using a risk matrix, by estimating a likelihood of a bad event happening, say on a scale 1-to-5 from least likely to most likely. Then multiplying likelihood by the consequences should the bad event happen, on a scale 1-to-5 with '1' being fuck-all and '5' being death. You can formalise risk this way but it does still come down to a certain level of subjectivity in making the estimates, due to not knowing the exact likelihoods and consequences in advance due to a lack of crash-test people repeatedly spannering themselves in the exact circumstances of whatever it is you might be stood in front of contemplating.

With loose rock - not that I'm a loose rock specialist or actively seek it out - the cliff is still standing, therefore the whole cliff isn't about to fall down with you on it, just small bits of it! So as long as you identify as you're climbing which small bits will likely rip out if you pull on them or step on them, and use the bits that aren't those bits, then in theory you 'should' get up ok. And there's often lots of available protection in cliffs with loose rock, because they have lots of cracks! So if you fall off a climb with loose rock you might have tons of gear, some of which will likely hold, stopping you hitting the ground.

It might work out as: 'likely consequence of a fall (due to loose rock) = '3'. Where '3' = potential for a broken limb.
Likelihood of a fall (due to loose rock) for a typical climber on that route = '3'. Where 3 = 'possible but not probable'.

Meanwhile if you fall off your unprotected 6b example, then nothing's stopping you hitting the ground. So the breakdown might be: consequence of a fall = '5', death. Likelihood of a fall for a typical climber on that route = '2', unlikely but possible'.

Loose 6b route = risk rating of 3x3 = 9.
Solid but unprotected 6b route = risk rating of 5x2 = 10

Which is more 'dangerous' really? You'd need to run an experiment with countless soloists and loose rock climbers - maybe at the next Olympics - to see which version of climbing damaged the most people.

In your example of avalanche, not a great deal of personal climbing skill can change the outcome if it happens, but knowing how often an avalanche releases over a particular route gives you a likelihood to work with, to start to determine approx risk level.

Anyway, as it applies to eGoader I think they've over-done the number of risk ratings. Better to have kept it to 5 or 6 levels of 'danger' imo.
 
Duncan campbell said:
I put in 7a+ for PGMG but think that’s mainly because I onsighted it. In the Llanberis guide it gets 7b and I was going well that year, so could well be. I might have put well protected but it’s got a bit of a wiggy bit at the start.

For Lord I put 7a and a bit runout. But that’s probably not fair as there is that bit low down that’s protected by hooks…

Yeah sounds like you were being too conservative for those. A bit runout = basically safe, no one regards Lord as a chill route to fall off! It wouldn't take a whole lot to go wrong for it to be dangerous. F even hurt herself taking a 'safe' but awkward fall from the very last move, that alone is 'a bit runout'.
 
Honestly, I can’t even see why this is a matter for serious debate. It’s obviously not going to be hard-and-fast correct in all/most/many cases. Apparently Black Magic is E7 or E8, E1 6a is ‘easy E1’ and Count’s Buttress is E3. I’ll stop there.
 
mrjonathanr said:
Honestly, I can’t even see why this is a matter for serious debate.

Only because it's endorsed or semi-endorsed by a bunch of famous climbers and is therefore at risk of becoming more influential than it should be.
 
mrjonathanr said:
Apparently Black Magic is E7 or E8

What did you put in for Black Magic? I put 6c and very runout which gives hard E5 which is spot on. Entering 6c+ and dangerous gives easy E6 which isn’t miles off.

I wonder if the problem isn’t that the egrader gives too high an E grade, but rather people are overestimating the French grade and/or danger that they are entering for routes?
 
kingholmesy said:
mrjonathanr said:
Apparently Black Magic is E7 or E8

What did you put in for Black Magic? I put 6c and very runout which gives hard E5 which is spot on. Entering 6c+ and dangerous gives easy E6 which isn’t miles off.

I wonder if the problem isn’t that the egrader gives too high an E grade, but rather people are overestimating the French grade and/or danger that they are entering for routes?

Is it possible you're at cross purposes between Pentire and Pex Hill?
 
The eLookatmeLookatme doesn't work. People are absolutely hopeless at translating the grade of trad routes (maybe with the exception of Pembroke/mountain routes) into French grades or boulder grades, thus the whole thing crumbles. I spoke to someone the other day who thought the HVS 5b they tried at Stanage was a Font 5 into a bad rest into Font 6A. Can you fucking imagine that? Crescent Arete into La Marie Rose, putting in gear as you go, is HVS 5b :lol:

I really want to slag it off but I'm reluctant to bump the relevant threads. I just want to wake up in a world where it never existed, where we're not all talking about Tom Randall's vanity project. I expected this sort of thing of Gresh but I'm disappointed in Steve McClure.

Absolute cringefest. If you wanted to give Lexicon (which would be a shoe-in for shittest hard route name ever were the competition not so strong. GreatNess Wall, Hard Cheese for fucks fucking sake) E12 then just fucking give it E12 and save us the pathetic publicity stunt.
 
andy moles said:
Is it possible you're at cross purposes between Pentire and Pex Hill?

Ah yes - could well be. I was talking about Pentire.

I would still be interested to know though what grades mrjonathar input for the Black Magic at Pex. It’s been over a decade since I climbed there, but remember looking up at that wall and thinking they were all proper solos - whereas a lot of the other stuff at Pex given route grades felt like extended highballs.
 
I gave it 7a+ and 2.5 danger. You could argue for 7b I think. Not sure about the French grade tbh. You can protect the top moves (about 5b) with cams in the break, but it doesn’t make much difference imo. I soloed it, no pads (not invented then), I think most people would.

I bouldered up the start on a visit last summer and found the high step move unexpectedly hard to do. Obviously the crux is up from there, but I wouldn’t want to fall off any of that.

My personal grade would be E6 6b/c (in ‘normal’ ie non Pex grades). I am sure others will beg to differ.
 
Dunno - sounds hard and scary, but not E7/8 (not that I’m really qualified to comment). I guess it partly depends how high the crux is.

The only thing vaguely comparable I’ve done is Toltec Twostep which gets E6, 6b/c - the crux is at highball boulder height (I thought english 6c or font 7a-ish). After that there is probably nothing harder than 6a, but you’d be fucked if you fell off higher up.

I think these sorts of routes are better graded in trad grades - the tech grade and an E grade is more helpful IMO than a French grade, and I wonder if they don’t work as well in the egrader as the longer sort of routes where a French grade is more transferable. For example stuff like Right Wall, Resurrection etc seem to come out about right.
 
kingholmesy said:
Dunno - sounds hard and scary, but not E7/8 (not that I’m really qualified to comment).
Nor me :lol:

I guess it partly depends how high the crux is.

From about 5m up to 7m. Doesn’t sound much but you would not be in control falling off. FWIW a mate fell off the low traverse under it at 0.5m and broke his foot.

The only thing vaguely comparable I’ve done is Toltec Twostep which gets E6, 6b/c - the crux is at highball boulder height (I thought english 6c or font 7a-ish). After that there is probably nothing harder than 6a, but you’d be fucked if you fell off higher up.
Agreed, sounds very similar.

I think these sorts of routes are better graded in trad grades - the tech grade and an E grade is more helpful IMO than a French grade, and I wonder if they don’t work as well in the egrader as the longer sort of routes where a French grade is more transferable. For example stuff like Right Wall, Resurrection etc seem to come out about right.

Agreed.

TLDR; mathematical models for grading are more effective strategies for marketing than grading.
 
mrjonathanr said:
From about 5m up to 7m. Doesn’t sound much …

Sounds high enough. Just looked on logbooks on the other channel and it gets a few votes for soft E7.

mrjonathanr said:
TLDR; mathematical models for grading are more effective strategies for marketing than grading.

:lol:
 
Will Hunt said:
but I'm disappointed in Steve McClure.

I don't know Steve personally but nothing he puts out suggests a guy whose home game is promoting a grading algorithm. Speculation alert, is this not just a case of, Steve we've got this brilliant clever thing that fixes the E grade, can we put your name to it yes great just sign here? Roping in the likes of Charlie and Hazel, who clearly have reservations but do their mates/clicks a favour by offering some quotes, for the same cred-enhancing reasons?

Anyway, good rant. I was willing to give some benefit of the doubt, but :boxing: is more entertaining.

The irony of the thing is, if you enter the data on the egrader and you don't press the Convert Grade button, just giving a French grade and a safety rating, you've got a pretty useful informative grade, at least for non-bouldery routes. Maybe they've solved it by accident.
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Back
Top