[abarro81]

8A+ = approx 8c. I always had E8 in my head as being safe 8a or 8a+? So I'm not sure the E grade gonna help make sense of anything here if it's E8 

[ToxicBilberry]

Get Gresh, Pearson and Randall to make sense out of it with their wanky e-grader

[remus]

8A+ = approx 8c. I always had E8 in my head as being safe 8a or 8a+? So I'm not sure the E grade gonna help make sense of anything here if it's E8 

Presumably going for the Dave Mac school of thought where sport 8b+ solo and sport 7b solo can both be E8 (I know which I'd have a chance on and which I definitely wouldn't).

[andy moles]

Really? OK, never seen mention of it.

I think the direct start is Leap of Faith, described as a direct entry to Lost Cause, which IIRC shares that first hold above the break on this.

E8 does seem a bit silly at 8A+ when Transcendence next door seems to be considered too hard for E8 at 7C+.

Source: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2019/03/third_ascent_of_transcendence_e8_6c_by_dan_varian-71896

Then again, isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+? It's almost as if trad grades are not very good for really bouldery routes.

[Will Hunt]

isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+?

Pah, luxury! Layby Arete (7B+) is E2 6c.

[remus]

isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+?

Pah, luxury! Layby Arete (7B+) is E2 6c.

I wonder how many E2 climbers have onsighted that? 

[cheque]

isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+?

Pah, luxury! Layby Arete (7B+) is E2 6c.

Walk On By 7C+/ E3  unlike WSS the route and bouldering grade have never been used in the same guide though

[Johnny Brown]

Having done all three, the only one which feels worthy of an E-grade is West Side, for which E4 would seem (fair without a pad). The other two are pretty standard boulders. Be interesting to know if Gawthorpe topped out though, no one does now.

[abarro81]

West Side, for which E4 would seem fair

Because WSS is, in the overall way an E grade should work, 1 grade easier than than Bat out of Hell and comparable to the Knock (just to pick a couple of examples in the same valley) 

[Nemo]

The idea that WSS as an E4 makes any kind of sense whatsoever is ridiculous.

The problem with giving highballs E grades is that lots of people for way too long have conflated doing highballs after lots of work with onsighting trad routes.  How many people have actually onsighted WSS?
If you compare doing it after work to headpointing trad routes, which is the only thing that actually makes sense - then WSS would be at least E6.
And Layby would be E5, Careless would be E8 etc.
ie: headpointing Careless is probably a bigger deal than headpointing E7/8's like EOTA or Gaia, probably not as big a deal as headpointing E8/9s like Meshuga.
flashing Careless is pretty much world class - bigger deal than flashing EOTA or Gaia, but probably not as big a deal as flashing Meshuga.

That's the only way it's actually consistent.  The downside (at least to people trying to make a living out of hard headpointing) is that means that lots of "E4 climbers" suddenly find they can and have climbed E7's - which makes hard E grades suddenly look a lot less remote.

Easiest way to deal with all that is just not to give highballs E grades.  And certainly not to give them completely pointless, inconsistent and confusing E grades.

[andy moles]

Easiest way to deal with all that is just not to give highballs E grades.

What about routes like Purgatory, which is definitely not a highball, but where the difficulties and risk factor are roughly equivalent to a highball? 

[Nemo]

Then, as should always be the case, you give it an E grade, consistent with how hard it would be to do other trad routes in an equivalent style.  ie: As long as you compare how hard it would be to flash relative to flashing other routes.  Or compare how hard it would be to headpoint relative to headpointing other routes.  etc.  Then there's rarely much problem. 

[Johnny Brown]

Shauna's ascent is amazing. Gav is obviously trolling.

Reluctant as I am to continue this sorry 'debate'.

Then, as should always be the case, you give it an E grade, consistent with how hard it would be to do other trad routes in an equivalent style.

That's not what anyone has ever done though, because it's not useful info. Generally people want to know two things - how hard is the boulder problem, and how hard is the scary bit. E4 7a for West Side gives you this. Upgrading it because 7a is dead hard is pointless, we already have that information. If you do the 7a bit, you then have to do an E4 bit to get the tick - it's 6a move at 4m, which is why it's the same grade as The Knock, which is a slightly easier move slightly higher, although in that case it's only 6a to get there. The same logic applies to the other examples, and is the reason why Verandah buttress is still HVD despite a greater tech/trad discrepancy than West side.

(At Slipstones they did get a bit carried away or confused admittedly, and as you go right along the crag the trad grades become superfluous. But it's an old guide now, and an isolated example.

Honestly beggars belief why people philosophise about how they think grades should work, and then go back to complain about how they are wrong, rather than just looking at the given grade and applying some common sense to why it might have been given.

[Nemo]

Shauna's ascent is amazing.

This is the wrong thread for this. But...

"how hard is the scary bit"

. 
And therein lies the fundamental problem.  What you say is how many people use E grades (particularly those like yourself who don't spend much time climbing safe long cracks etc).

Many others say how hard is it overall, which is the only thing that actually hangs together.

Whilst ever that is the case, then people will continue to "philosophise" about it, as you put it, because currently it's a complete frickin shambles where someone gives E11 to something that someone else says is E8.  At which point lots of people take Shark's view and say E grades should be ditched altogether.

My point in this and other posts is just that it doesn't need to be a shambles.  It could and should be completely straightforward, if people just accepted that "How hard is the scary bit" isn't a grading system.  And it could be done without regrading large numbers of routes (as said above, for highballs, the way to avoid regrades is just to not use E grades at all). 

But I know continuing this with you isn't going to go anywhere useful.  Thankfully a lot of guidebook writers these days are moving away from the silliness of the past and starting to do more sensible things.

[ferret]

how hard is it overall, which is the only thing that actually hangs together.

I'd agree, nothing that would get 8a as a bolted route makes any sense at E4.
If you have 2 routes that have are both safe and would get the same French grade they should get the same E grade regardless if one has a short very hard crux and the other is a pump fest. It's the technical grade that should change not the E grade.

[lukeyboy]

What JB has described is UK 7a then E4, i.e. a boulder problem with a micro-route after. IMO this is not the same as E4 7a and does not convey the same information.

Thread split? It's a shame for this to be hijacking what is a phenomenal achievement by Shauna. So inspired and impressed to see what she's achieving whilst being a new mother.

[Ru]

I'm with JB on this one. If a grade has to describe how hard something is, E4 7a for WSS makes no sense. If a grade has to describe what to expect, then it works perfectly.

[Fiend]

I bloody love a THE UK TRAD GRADE IS UTTERLY TERRIBLE / COMPLETELY WONDERFUL FOR GRADING TRAD ROUTES debate, great fodder for "Someone is wrong on the internet". Can we have a topic split and really let rip, please??

[Johnny Brown]

many people use E grades (particularly those like yourself who don't spend much time climbing safe long cracks etc).

Many others say how hard is it overall…

Many use them both ways. Grades only make sense in the context of the rock they are applied to. That context is always obvious from the guide or the crag, and within that context the grade is just shorthand for various properties of the route, the properties varying with the route. That’s it.

But people sometimes ignore that context. Why would they do that, when the two things are inseparable? Usually because they are hoping to reduce the comparison of apples and oranges to two numbers. This usually falls down, because there are lots of styles of climbing, and lots of types of climbers, and while (I have just discovered) some climbs are harder than others, not in a way that you can predict without knowing the climber and the climb, and even then not reliably. You’re back to context again: the map is not the territory and the grade is not the climb. (Which is what Shark used to think, so let’s not take his views too seriously.)

And I’ve done plenty of long safe cracks thank you very much, although a lot of them were graded YDS. On some E plus tech would have given me more information up front, but on long routes the usual NA approach of grading sub-sections on the topo is better anyway.

[abarro81]

While I see what JB is getting at, in 20 years climbing and 10,000 hours on forums I've never encountered the proposal that an Ex y is a y grade boulder followed by an Ex... Does that make Pilgrimage with the chossy top groove VS 7a?

I don't think this is willfully ignoring context, it's just an idea I've never encountered, and probably makes no sense in various examples (e.g., if a route is a trivial approach to a 7B+ boulder with baby bouncer protection to a scary E4, is that also E4 7a or is it now E8 7a??!)

[Johnny Brown]

As much as i think imaginary grades for grading imaginary routes is not going to help, let’s try a more concrete example.

Switch the top and bottom of WSS around. Same overall difficulty right? Would it be useful to give the real and imaginary versions the same E grade?

[Fultonius]

 Makes me even happier I've never climbed on grit and had to deal with this nonsense!

Imo, trad grades should, as a minimum, give you an idea of how "onsightable" a route is, and that an equal number of bold climbers should be able to climb an E4 5c, as good crack/face/technical climbers should be able to I'm an E4 6a...

I always think the hypothetical "balanced trad climber" should have an equal chance of onighting all E4s.

So having to be able to boulder 7B+ is just plain bonkers and cannot work within the trad grade range. E4 & 7B+, on the other hand, seems fine as a hybrid grade.

[Nemo]

What Fultonius said. 

Same overall difficulty right? 

Errrrrrrr.  No.  This is getting daft, if it wasn't already in the first place.
Does this really need saying on here?  The overall difficulty includes the danger bit, obviously.  ie: the second one would probably be at least E8 as it would have a top end Font 7B+ boulder problem a very long way off the ground.
The first one is a 7B+ boulder problem with a much easier finish (which to me, I wouldn't bother giving an E grade, but if insisted on, then the only one that would make sense is E6 or perhaps E7).

Generally, if I was writing a guide, I wouldn't bother giving highballs E grades unless the E grade is actually different to what it would be due to pure difficulty alone.  Then this entire (one thing we agree on) silly debate evaporates.

is that also E4 7a or is it now E8 7a?

Clearly some people would give it E4 and some E8, hence the shambles. 
If people can't agree what the number is even meant to represent, then the arguments about what the number actually should be seem utterly absurd.

Like you, I get what JB is saying, I just don't agree.
You can compare an 8c at Raven Tor with an 8c in Siurana.
You can compare an E5 at Gogarth with an E5 at Millstone.
The comparisons obviously aren't perfect, some people are better at some things than others.

But essentially grades work, they are useful, they allow us to pick routes at the standard we want, and they allow climbing news to be possible.  Not perfectly, and there's always routes that for certain people are going to be vastly harder / easier.  But for the most part, they work.

But they only work if you pick a style of ascent and compare climbing route X in that style with lots of other routes climbed in the same style.
If you try and grade something you've done after many attempts by comparing it to things you've onsighted, then grades don't work at all.  That's what giving WSS E4 is doing.  (Or at least it's what most people giving WSS E4 are doing - admittedly as abarro has pointed out, JB is actually suggesting something entirely different, but it certainly doesn't take many other examples to point out that that doesn't hang together at all.)

To me, the only reason to keep the current shambles is that clearly some people actually enjoy the controversy, BS and endless debates.  It's never going to be perfect and noone is pretending that it is.  But when different groups of people can't actually agree about what the numbers are meant to be representing, then it's hardly a surprise when, shock horror, person X downgrades person Y's new route by 3 grades.  This stuff could work a lot better given a little thought.

[andy moles]

Makes me even happier I've never climbed on grit and had to deal with this nonsense!

It is pretty good tbf.

[SA Chris]

Agree. A disagreement over grades on a few problems / routes is not reason enough to feel vicarious about denying yourself the experience of climbing on one of few rock types the UK is famous for.