[Johnny Brown]

How can we give someone stick for giving a high grade to something and then it gets downgraded

Because it can be perceived as a cynical attempt to get the requisite publicity for the 'hardest route in the world' rather than the grade and hype it more probably deserves. Were you not around for the Walk of Life E12 fiasco?

Personally I don't get annoyed when people opt not to grade routes. Preferable to waving a massive fake willy imo.

[spidermonkey09]

I see not offering a grade as willy waving. Total copout, and comes across as saying you think its harder than everything else but don't want to actually say it in case you get proved wrong.

[edshakey]

I'm obviously aware of the issues around hype, WOTL controversy, etc etc.

The solution in my eyes is not to discourage people giving grades, but to just make slightly less of a big deal when stuff is put up at a high grade. If we put a little less weight on the grades, then massive fake willies become a bit pointless, and we get to hear more honest opinions from people about how hard they found a route. And let's be honest, what's the reason for slapping outrageously big numbers on stuff? Maybe naivety (they'll learn), seeking sponsorship (companies will cotton on soon enough), wanting publicity (after a few "boy who cried wolf" scenarios the publicity will wane too).

I'd much prefer this to not giving a grade. Grades are very useful for the vast majority of climbers, and are a simple way to give an idea of difficulty. I appreciate that they can get wavy at the top end but I don't see that as a reason to forgo grades completely, just give people more leeway with whatever they say and let it settle over time.

To be clear: not a fan of cynical willy waving. I'd just prefer to enable people to give honest opinions and descriptions of difficulty (grades are handy for this), rather than doing away with grades all together.

[Wellsy]

I know that Franco is a wind up merchant, but if he does the Meltdown, which Caff says is 9a, and then does this and it feels roughly a grade harder, then it makes sense that this would be 9a+. There's no reason not to give that grade, if that's what he thinks it is compared to the 9a that it straightens out.

I suspect if Caff had given Meltdown 8c+ then Franco would give Dewin Stone 9a, on account of his own self-admitted lack of experience grading hard sport routes.

If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.

[Johnny Brown]

Don't you think it would have made more sense for him to say that he has no experience climbing or grading hard sport, having only done one route harder than what, 7c? And therefore to say it felt harder than Meltdown but no idea if a full grade. Instead, what we have is someone who's entire sport resume is one ascent of the Meltdown, grading the hardest sport slab in the world. Which isn't bolted btw. The whole thing's a joke.

[Wellsy]

I think it makes sense for him to say I did this, which is apparently is grade X, and this varient feels like X+1, therefore I'm giving it X+1

I honestly have no idea what the issue is there. If Caff does it and downgrades it then he does it and downgrades it and the world turns ever on, if he says yeah 9a+ is fair then he says that... really I don't get the issue with the man doing a climb and grading it, if he didn't grade it he'd be slagged off for that and if you do a climb imo you're allowed to offer an assessment of how hard it is in grade form

[mrjonathanr]

How can we give someone stick for giving a high grade to something and then it gets downgraded

Because it can be perceived as a cynical attempt to get the requisite publicity for the 'hardest route in the world' rather than the grade and hype it more probably deserves. Were you not around for the Walk of Life E12 fiasco?

Personally I don't get annoyed when people opt not to grade routes. Preferable to waving a massive fake willy imo.

Bring back John Redhead.

[Will Hunt]

This is coming across as Andy F style anti-Franciscan zealotry, JB.
He's done Meltdown, he's now done a variation on Meltdown which he reckons is substantially harder. He's offered a grade. It's not unreasonable. If Caff downgrades it and says it's easier than Meltdown then so what? An FA grade being wrong is hardly a surprise.

If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?

[remus]

If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?

Someone (Franco in the recent UKC interview?) said Meltdown isn't actually very logical, and goes where it does because it's got some cool moves on it.

[Teaboy]

If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.

I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)

[SA Chris]

If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place?

Dawes.

[Teaboy]

If this is easier than Meltdown it makes me wonder why Meltdown didn't take this route in the first place? Is it a less obvious line on the wall?

Because it was always considered a trad line! 

[Wellsy]

If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.

I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)

Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible. And if it did get 9a then like, if one did a variation that's harder then giving it 9a+ is fair. To me!

I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame, which to me seems rather baseless, he did do Meltdown after all... it feels like this is more "Franco is a cock" than a legitimate argument against his grade

Maybe he is a cock. Maybe he's a cock that's climbed a new 9a+ though.

[petejh]

...in twenty years time, the hard "adventure" routes will be become relics only living in fading memories and UKC logbooks. Climbers will be afraid to do routes in anything but the most orthodox way in to avoid a circular cantankerous dressing down from UKB. In response, the UKTR (UK top route) forum will be created and seen as the voice of reason.

Bollox. Firstly this isn't a 'hard adventure route', it's a bolted-single pitch-that-someone-couldn't be-bothered-bolting, at the bottom of a big quarry 15 minutes from the road.  All that's at issue here is one person needlessly, possibly selfishly, creating a mess for others for no good reason.

Leader protection is a part of the visceral experience in climbing. Creating new sport routes requires committing your reputation, time, effort and skill to placing permanent protection. When done well it works in concert with the moves and rock so that the route flows, or at the least isn't a frustrating or needlessly dangerous experience. Creating new trad routes requires committing to working only with what the rock offers. Looks like Franco, for all his undoubted psyche and talent, isn't committing himself to the hard choices, but wants the satisfaction of an ascent and is prepared to use shoddy short-cuts as a means to achieve his desired end.

'Personal ropes affording temporary safety' (PRAT for short) isn't some daring counter-culture at the cutting edge - it's an easy and lazy way to rig some protection for a new route and it's an option that anyone who does enough new routes at whatever level of difficulty knows that they could use, if they wanted to be careless and inconsiderate over their new-routing addiction. It isn't progressive in enabling future ascents, or use of new technology - it's easier for literally one person and shitter for everyone else, and it's dumber technology in that it was a method that's been made obsolete by good bolts and lightweight drills! We could all say 'damn the constricting orthodoxy' and drop knotted ropes down anything we fancy climbing, and once we've done the moves claim new routes. At all different grades not just hard stuff. Quarries full of crap boltless-but-protected-when-I-did-it 5s and 6s, crags covered in crap gearless-but-protected-when-I-did-it E10s and 11s. It leaves a practical and ethical shitshow for everyone else. Similar but different to how we're currently left with a practical and ethical shitshow from other historical short-sighted ways of claiming new routes by placing pegs and non stainless bolts for protection on sea cliffs. One extreme to the other from leaving crap to not bothering to leave anything!

[Teaboy]

I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame,

To be clear I’m not saying that just indulging in some climbing nerdery!

[yetix]

If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.

I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)

Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible. And if it did get 9a then like, if one did a variation that's harder then giving it 9a+ is fair. To me!

I think that some people are saying that Franco's grade 9a+ is a cynical, deliberate overgrade for the purposes for fame, which to me seems rather baseless, he did do Meltdown after all... it feels like this is more "Franco is a cock" than a legitimate argument against his grade

Maybe he is a cock. Maybe he's a cock that's climbed a new 9a+ though.

Ukc says whatever the moderator says it is.

Caff said 8c+/1+9a when he did it as seen on 8a.nu...
https://www.8a.nu/news/james-mchaffie-sends-the-meltdown-project
 

[Adam Lincoln]

Ukc says whatever the moderator says it is.

Caff said 8c+/1+9a when he did it as seen on 8a.nu...
https://www.8a.nu/news/james-mchaffie-sends-the-meltdown-project

That's not always the case. Mods can't change grades that are in guides. They have to put a case to Alan and he will either agree or disagree

[yetix]

And guidebook grades aren't always written as slash grades like caff essentially gave there?

[Kingy]

FWIW Angus opted for a slash grade on his recent repeat of the Meltdown;

https://www.instagram.com/p/CtJUsdhNl1G/?hl=en

[abarro81]

If Caff now says this is 9a and Meltdown is more like 8c+ then that's hardly Franco's fault.

I thought Caff originally gave it 8c+/9a on account of the fact he was unsure as he had little to go on (had he repeated the Big Bang at that point?)

Sure but then it says 9a on UKC, 8a.nu and such, like I think that saying that it got 9a is defensible.

What UKC or Jens think of the grade is 100% irrelevant. If Caff gave it 8c+/9a then it 'got' 8c+/9a.

[Snoops]

Its clearly opaque bullshit. Either bolt it and lead it as a sport route, or lead it as a trad route. FA is still there for the taking.

[Franco]

If you'd like a gresh-style essay, I'll have a go at replying. Apologies for taking a while to reply, I was busy belaying people on projects/celebrating and then finishing some DIY. As this is UKB critism thread #483, I think you'll know that I'm open to criticism. I know I do things my own/weird ways and am happy to take a bit of crack/answer questions, but being called a sociopath/ liar / chipper are not really on. This episode is almost entirely about me having not bolted a direct start to a sport route and instead super-extending a draw. I think some of the responses on here are deranged tbh.

To start, I'll acknowledge my faults first in the hope we can reach some common ground - I gave something a "big grade" without any idea of what those grades are, badly resined a hold up that appeared, didn't bolt a new sport line, left some bright orange ropes hanging.

The hold: I first worked the line and figured out a sequence for the headwall. I worked it a lot like this and then did the direct finish. Shortly before leading this, one of those very thin slate spikes broke and left a small useable hold. This ruined both the jump move (you can use this hold with your right hand for that) and the hard rockover (you can use a lower foot on this hold). For me, a significant part of the quality of the route was this dynamic and wild headwall sequence. The two best moves were ruined by this new hold and it wasn't something that was initially there. With the new hold, both moves would just be standard rockovers, without any of the complexity that was originally there. The bit that broke off here was tiny and disappeared, so I did a shit repair job by sprinkling bits of dust and tiny slate pieces on super glue. This looked terrible, but rendered the hold unuseable, which was all I was after really. Obviously it's significantly easier to do this headwall with the new hold also, but I didn't care so much about that, it was mostly the pursuit of quality that guided my actions (I've acted in the opposite ways in the past when new routes I've put up have been made easier). Quality is the most important thing to me in climbing - hence all the daft debates about lines. Obviously there are ethical issues with using glue or resin on routes, but there is precedent on this wall, with the repair that has taken place of the meltdown jug (not by me) with cement, not to mention Dawes' desire to add a bronze hold!! So there really is no contoversy to see here.

I climbed this new route with the good sequence, not using the new hold. This repair job was still in tact shortly before I redpointed the route, so I assume it was still in tact on the day I did it, as I didn't notice any change. When I next went on the line, a couple of days after I'd done it, I noticed part of the repair had come off. This could be my poor repair job, as it was just bits of slate glued on a hold (this seems unlikely timing), or someone could have broken the repair off by using it/ deliberately prising it off (we're talking about a very small stone coming off that was filling in a small hold). Either way, I was keen to restore the line to the original state and the way I did it. This next time, I did it with resin, which I hope stays on and makes the whole (small) hold slick and unuasable. So criticise me for repairing the route, for repairing it badly and making a mess, but trying to read more into this is, I think, unfair. As for "believing whether Franco used that hold on his ascent", I honestly am not that bothered what you believe. If I had used the new hold, I'd want to go back and do it without, cause the route is way cooler and having to execute those moves when you're pumped is one of the best challenges I've had on any route. But I also see this route as very much a stepping stone project to the trad challenge - I really don't see it as a major achievement in its own right. Leading a sport route with massively extended draws is obviously still leading the sport route and with the hanging rope it means that sport and trad can coexist on the same line, which is pretty cool.

The hanging rope thing is totally straightforward for me - I just didn't want to place bolts. There's a long history of oddities like this (I don't remember anyone criticising Pete for his weird bamboo draws on baron greenback for example), it's just a bit of fun really. (FWIW, I think the route's probably more difficult with the knotted rope, as it moves and you have to hit it so it bounces back to clip, as it's almost out of reach. The bolts are pretty much in the same place, apart from more bolts low down).

No one's likely to do this line without top roping it, so the rope's not a logistical problem, just one of aesthetics - only from the theoretical world of the UKB armchair is it a problem . I've belayed 2 people on The Medium and 2 people on The Quarryman over the last couple of weeks and all have extended bolts - it's common practice on slate routes if you want a 'sport experience'. The only argument I accept here is that I shouldn't publicise an ascent of a 'sport climb' when I haven't bolted it. This is kind of fair enough, but I was totally honest about the way I did this. For the guy who said I wasn't upfront about this, I think your argument is really unfair and mean-spirited. I posted 2 videos of me trying the lower wall and clipping the rope as I went a few posts before I climbed it. On one of the videos I talked with loads of people about the style I was trying it in. I haven't hidden the style at all. I'm not going to put a paragraph at the bottom of every post trying to pre-emptively bat away every possible criticism someone could throw my way. The first proper interaction I had with UKC, I also made this clear. I'm not one of these climbers that sends in press releases to websites. UKC contacted me when I was out (in the quarries) and I responded very quickly and gave them no detail. It does annoy me that people think they can publically throw around accusations of deceit or whatever from the safety of their anonymity. It's a big deal to call someone a liar or say they've been hiding things, when in fact they haven't, you just don't know the facts. I'll post the email interaction I had with UKC below - I think you'll agree it was pretty brief, it's not like I've deliberately omitted key facts. You've made a mistake by reading a long UKC article and assuming I wrote it/ sent in a massive press release. That's your reading error, I hadn't at all:

UKC:
Hi Franco,

Congrats on The Dewin Stone, amazing achievement!

I’m going to put a piece up on site today, but I'd be keen to ask you some questions about the route and your time on it, and get a longer interview on site at some point in the coming week or two, if you’re free to answer some questions?

Let me know, if so I can send you some questions over later today.

Cheers, and congrats again!


Me:

Sage. Thanks!

Earlier the better really for me

UKC:

No worries!

Quick question or two for the piece going up today if that’s ok - should have asked these earlier, sorry! No need for extended answers, unless you feel the answer demands it!

- Does The Dewin Stone follow the same finish as The Meltdown Direct?
- Do you know how many sessions you spent working out the lower section of the route (up to the hardest move)?
- How does the route compare to your direct finish to The Meltdown, in terms of both quality and difficulty?

Cheers,


Me:
Nah, it's totally different.  See topo.

Nah, i don't know. Quite a long time. Leading the route vs doing it on a top rope seemed quite a lot harder, as you have to hold stress positions

They're both really good. This seemed harder, as it packs so many moves together//////

When it comes to the ethics of the rope hanging, I can see why it would annoy you if you're a die hard sport climber and why it can seem like I'm trying to be controversial. I think I know enough people in person these days for people to know what I'm like. Most of all I want to have a laugh and occasionally a bit of a wind up, but I'm not into winding people up with what I do in my climbing. However, like someone above said, I'm also not bothered about being seen as controversial and I do like things being a bit weird. In an ideal world I'd climb some cool stuff, get moderate support from companies as a result that will allow me to try more cool stuff. Being controversial has no positive impact on being able to do this (or is perhaps even detrimental). That said, I'm not going to start drilling holes in a rock face in order to avoid controversy (the fact that that sentence makes sense blows my mind btw - drilling is now the done thing... I find that pretty sad). I get the hypocrisy of claiming a sport line when advocating not placing bolts, but I like to be a pragmatist and the bolts in Meltdown were already there, so hanging the rope down from the bolts and leading the route as a stepping stone on the way to the trad project made sense. For me, there was a 'natural' designer danger challenge already set there - of getting into the metldown groove on trad and then running up this with the bolts to the top, a bit like leading a thin seam trad route on mostly old pegs. We can talk about ethics in a pure sense, but if you start from the position of not wanting to place any more bolts, but dealing with what you already have, then that thing was actually very inspiring to me. I can see that hardly anyone else would see things that way, but I like to just do what feels right for me. I wasn't told that the line had been bolted, so when I went back with Anna to try the other project, I was really sad to see that it had been unilaterally bolted. That trad line (and then entirely without bolts) was something that was really on the aspirational horizon for me and a difficulty and style that is really rare. That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested. We basically disagree on one point (placing bolts) - if you park that issue, all of my actions are logical.

The grade: I regret giving it 9a+. I have no experience at the grade and it's a load of shite me trying to point at grades in this range. The 'hardest slab in the world' stuff has acted as a massive red rag for people to attack all the stuff evident in this thread and a really good route has been overshadowed as a result. Just to make it totally clear, I never reffered to it as the hardest slab in the world - I suspect some of Zeni's routes like Eternit could well be harder. I don't actually think it's that hard. I've spent so much time on this wall that the moves on this and meltdown feel pretty steady.  I'm way more interested in the harder project lines, as they're proper hard. 9a+ is of course a big grade for a slab though and maybe giving it that was a bit brash. I kind of thought Meltdown was accepted at 9a (it's not got a slash grade in the guidebook I don't think, everyone I know refers to it as 9a, and there's that vid of caff doing it where I'm pretty sure it's bigged up as a 9a? The story I heard was that Caff was considering giving it 8c+ because Pete Robins was close to doing it and he didn't want him to have climbed a 9a? - don't know what of that's true) and that 9a+ was a grade that wasn't really that big-a-deal anymore, but that was likely pretty stupid of me. What's weird for me is that I gave the slate modern 9a+ last year and that didn't see anywhere near as much attention, in spite of that being a multipitch (hardest multi pitch in the world  ) . I suppose I did a better job at click-baiting it this time round with a snazzy title and a build up (kind of shows you why people do this, much to all of UKB's annoyance I'm sure...), but it is strange how certain things get so much more interest, when on paper they're exactly the same, or even less significant. I can see how easy it is to be beaten into giving things lower grades you don't think they are - it would have been much easier to give it 9a or 8c and have an easy life, even if that's not the grade I thought it was. I always thought the 'not grading thing' was kind of pathetic, but that too is becoming increasingly attractive - just to forget about grades all together. I still think it's a solid grade harder than Meltdown, as the start has multiple tiring moves rather than just one and the end is way more difficult, tiring and dropable, so I don't really know how else I should have graded it. A full breakdown of the two routes would be... Meltdown: 7c into a shake, couple of easy moves left into a hard move to gain the groove (shorties/unbendy people often find this the hardest move of meltdown), meltdown groove (4 or 5 hard moves, culminating in foot pick up, shake, moderate boulder problem down and right, easy climbing to top. Dewin Stone: easy climbing, two moderate moves, hard move getting foot up compressing a small groove, hard move spanning and then slapping into base of the meltdown groove (I found this the hardest move on the route on the link), straight into 4 or 5 hard moves in meltdown groove, shake, droppable balance move, hard jump move with bad feet, massive hard crimpy move, hard high foot rockover, 3 more straightforward moves to the top.

The spider web comment about ropes was because there was a bright orange rope I was using as my rope extension, an in-situ top rope (used by me and someone trying the quarryman), and a rope the whole way down the quarryman (not used for this climb). It was unsightly, but there are often in situ ropes on this face.

So to summarise, feel free to criticise, but maybe steer a clear of calling me a liar or a sociopath because what I do annoys you. You can look at this mammoth reply and think "strange that every route he climbs, there are so many points that need to be discussed", but ultimately these things all seem to stem from one initial point of disagreement, whether that's about line, clickbait nonsense or whether I should have bolted a line. People then chuck in loads of other accusations. The result is that I look really dodgey, but the only criticism based on truth is that I didn't bolt the route, gave something a big grade and repaired a hold. There are loads of examples of other people leaving ropes hanging on projects or repairing holds etc, but strangely there don't seem to be UKB threads slagging them off. Also strange that there is no criticism of the unilateral retro bolting of this new line, even when I quite clearly said I'd prefer the line to remain unbolted. I'm not one of these people who thinks the FA of a route has any more say over whether a route should be bolted or not, but nor does the person who went and decided on their own that it should be bolted. If it's accepted that all new lines can be bolted on slate, then slate trad effectively has no future. Of course a route is always going to be easier on bolts than on gear (thus quicker to work and climb), so a route is always going to be climbed on bolts before it is climbed on gear, unless it is missed or left in some way. If people are just going to start unilaterally bolting every new line (and lets remember, we're talking about a difficulty and quality of trad route that is incredibly rare to find world-wide), then I think that begins to ethically justify bolt chopping and retro-tradding routes. I'm all for both types of climbing living side-by-side and enjoy both, but the scales are tipped way too far in the direction of sport at the moment. Fashions change and we've seen that bolts are (socially) incredibly difficult to get rid of once they're in, so what happens if people want there to be slate E13s in the future?


P.s. I love that the Raven Tor story has evolved so much that someone now actually believes they were a victim of my 'theft'! What actually happened is that a mischievous older climber put me onto striping some draws from Raven Tor when I was a kid and didn't know what sport climbing was. I went there on my ow :chair:n and asked someone who was climbing at the crag (maybe Simon?) what the ethics were about taking the draws there, as I thought they'd been left behind. The person told me in clear terms that they weren't fair game! A stupid story and shows how little I knew at the time, but no draws were ever taken!

[andy moles]

That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested.

You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it

[Will Hunt]

That being bolted was a total gut punch - I actually shed a tear when I saw these bolts, it was really, really sad to see something like that being destroyed in that way. I don't expect anyone else to see it my way (which maybe even makes it even sadder), but that is the strength of feeling I had towards that challenge. It wasn't a piss take or frivolous. Perhaps I shouldn't have publicised the fact I had done it sport style, but I thought people would be interested.

You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it

I think this is it. If you'd said "wow, so psyched, I've linked my trad project. The climbing is about 9a+ and I climbed it like this as a step towards leading it on gear" then it probably would have been left alone.

Fair play with the long reply. The main thing that concerns me is the precedent over filling in a hold that appeared in order to retain a sequence. I can live with the argument of preserving what's there to begin with, because after all we do glue holds back on for the same reason, but I can see a future where someone develops something and fills in any existing holds that they don't want to be there to force a sequence/difficulty. They'll use exactly the argument you've made as justification. For me the magic of developing stuff comes when you find rock that gives you a great sequence or hard moves entirely of its own accord. It's special for the very reason that it's rare. I hope we don't lose that.

[abarro81]

You definitely shouldn't have claimed it as a sport route if you feel that strongly about bolts being put in it

Quite.

Like Will, I don't particularly like filling in holds that appear due to breakage. I also don't like gluing holds back on unless strictly necessary. Holds break and things get harder. Holds break and things get easier. Sometime both things happen on the same route. It happens all the time and shouldn't (and doesn't) necessarily mean things getting glued, even at crags that already have plenty of sika.