[Fultonius]

OK, the measurements are off. I was hoping to make it so that the top out was sketchy but not life threatening, with a trivial start that added nothing to the difficulty.

Point being, adding a trivial start *only makes it more workable* not *more onsightable*.

So why would the grade change?

Unless you're saying the UK trad grade is *not* a measure of how hard it is to onsight. If that's the case then I've clearly been living on a different planet for the last 20 years.

[Johnny Brown]

I still can't get my head around E4 for WSS can make any sense in this context....

You've already explained it:

Or you could get a route with a few bouldery sections, but well protected. Harder to onsight, due to technical sequences. E4 6b.

Now imagine the same route with a single bouldery section and make the rest easier climbing - to still get E4 the move would have to be harder, so E4 6c yes?

Now make the route very short, barely a route at all, and put that single hardest move right on the floor...

Yes, I think a big part of the problem is the focus on 'onsightable'. I've never done a route where the E-grade is higher because it's hard to read. Astra on Pavey is the perfect example - steady E2 IF you find the hidden hold on the crux. Totally blind. It gets E2, would be E3 if you pushed through without. Have you any counter-examples?

On the above WSS example, grades have followed the logic above rather than placing a lower limit on what an average E4 climber could onsight, because otherwise you just end up binning all the bouldery routes into less grades, which gives less information. As I keep saying, the grade isn't E4, it's E4 7a. 7a tells E4 climbers they haven't a cat in hell's chance of onsighting it, but they can have a go without consequence. Verandah buttress is HVD 5b likewise.

some of the confusion in the harder grades would be reduced if we just binned the UK tech. grade substituting French or Font. grades as applicable. There is no requirement an E grade has to be followed by UK6c or something equally ambiguous.

Some, maybe. It wouldn't solve anything for me - mostly because I don't see big problems. Grades are subjective. Going to a narrower scale like Font grades gives an illusion of greater precision without necessarily increasing accuracy. Plus in Font, the scary highballs have easier moves - presumably we ignore these (not to mention traverse grades!!).

I find grading interesting - it arises universally with systems that should be easily translatable, but aren't, because simple number scales become imbued with cultural differences. I think it's more interesting to try to understand the differences in application than to try to homogenise them. Nobody's stopping anyone using all the scales when they discuss a route.

[Nemo]

Very little time today, and probably most of this week.  So not read all the above properly, hope I've not misunderstood the gist.  But very quickly:

"I've always had uk 7a starting around 7B up to 7C+ ish, with 7b covering 8A and up"

But that isn't how it's actually used right, except for on a small subset of micro grit routes?
Indian face gets 6c.  (ie: a Fr7b+)
Rhapsody gets 7a.  (ie: a Fr8c+)
(And given time, I could give more examples all day).

That isn't a frickin useful technical grade.

Whilst he didn't like it when I said it earlier, the truth is that as far as I can tell, JB tends to think about this stuff in terms of a particular subset of short grit bouldery routes.  Sure he's climbed longer safe stuff occasionally, but it doesn't seem to affect his views on grades as that's predominantly not what he's thinking about.
And perhaps more importantly, he has zero interest in headpointing (and indeed a lot of disdain for it), and so has no interest in a grading system that hangs together upwards of E8 (which is primarily where all the bunfights around this stuff happen and where we need a better system going forwards).

"if I recall correctly, is something akin to Xeno's paradox where any move can be subdivided into components no harder than 6c"

No, it has nothing to do with that.
It is the fact that for hard trad routes, all the people climbing them (even hard trad specialists) have climbed way way more things of that physical difficulty as sport or boulders.
And so they compare physical difficulty via the hundreds of similar level sport or boulders they've climbed, vs the one E10 that might have had similar physical difficulty.  That's just how it is.  You can complain about it all day, it just isn't going to change the reality of how people talk about physical difficulty on hard trad routes.

(Obviously there's all the separate issues around the tech grade not having a clear definition, being supposed to be the grade of the hardest move, but never really being used like that etc - put the crux of right wall or positron on the ground and they would be 4b).  It works fine up to around 6b, above that, it just isn't useful, has never been clearly defined, and everyone climbing hard routes stopped talking about physical difficulty that way a very long time ago.

Could say a lot more.
I may not get time, but If I get around to it in the next few weeks at some point, I may try and put together a very quick attempt at a graded list of everything out there over E9.  At which point when everything on the entire list gets 6c or 7a, with maybe one or 2 7bs, the argument about the pointlessness of the tech grade makes itself.

[Johnny Brown]

So not read all the above properly, hope I've not misunderstood the gist

Why bother then? You've misread. Who would possibly relate uk tech grades to sport grades? That would make no sense.

JB tends to think about this stuff in terms of a particular subset of short grit bouldery routes.

No, which is why I used lots of sea cliff examples. I'm using these, and grit, to illustrate the extremes, which seem to confuse people. No one is confused about the middle of the road.

I will admit to not being very interested about the grades of E9+. Grades are arrived at by consensus, and there isn't any here, because they have few ascents with less objectivity than normal.

Indian face gets 6c.  (ie: a Fr7b+)
Rhapsody gets 7a.  (ie: a Fr8c+)

Well, as I keep saying, these are half the grade and E9 6c and E11 7a do tell you rather more. As much, or more, as 7b+ X and 8c+ R?

The question is not 'are E-grades perfect' it's 'is there a better system?' If top climbers found it unusable, they would have adopted something like the above. Why haven't they? Because 8c+ R doesn't suggest something special, whereas E12 might. I can see if you've a preference towards safe, hard climbing, you might prefer 8c+ R because it suggests the difficulty isn't remarkable by modern standards, and wouldn't pull focus from the 'real-deal' 9b+. But others might think the opposite; there are many climbs, and many types of climbers, and plenty of room in the modern media to celebrate all of them.

[ToxicBilberry]

I’m not convinced the crux of Right Wall would be 4b off the deck?

[teestub]

Why haven't they? Because 8c+ R doesn't suggest something special, whereas E12 might.

I don’t get this bit; 9aR for Pearson’s thing for example still lets you know it’s amongst the physically hardest trad pitches ever climbed, and not a total clip up either; I don’t see what the extreme grade adds?

Top UK climbers probably like E grades as double digit ones are way better for column inches due to the punter interest!

[Nemo]

"Who would possibly relate uk tech grades to sport grades? That would make no sense."

Errrr.  Anyone trying to give the UK tech grade to any long hard route to satisfy the likes of yourself or an old skool guidebook writer, when they know perfectly well how hard it is in Fr grades.

"E9 6c and E11 7a do tell you rather more. As much, or more, as 7b+ X and 8c+ R?"

But not anywhere near as much as what you actually should have, which is E9 Fr7b+ and E11 Fr8c+
I'm not saying anything terribly novel here.
The above, for routes over about E6 has already been adopted in many guidebooks.

"Because 8c+ R doesn't suggest something special, whereas E12 might"

Sure.  On that we're agreed.  As said many times now, I'm NOT trying to get rid of E grades.  I'm trying to make them actually work as a coherent system at all levels of difficulty.  I agree that if used properly, they're better than all the alternatives for grading trad routes.

"Unless you're saying the UK trad grade is *not* a measure of how hard it is to onsight."

It is up to around E7.  As I said before, on stuff above this, it's not in practice how it's used.  Things E8 and above are graded on how hard they are to headpoint (and indeed some may be utterly ridiculous to even consider onsighting - doesn't mean they're given E15).

The question is not 'are E-grades perfect' it's 'is there a better system?' If top climbers found it unusable, they would have adopted something like the above. Why haven't they?

They have.  You just seem to not have noticed.  It looks like this (and this is obviously a very small subset of routes over E9 to illustrate the discussion - there's clearly loads of info missing - just posted where I got to with it earlier in the half an hour I had to play with):


E12?
Bon Voyage         9a         Annot (France)        James Pearson (2023), Adam Ondra   

Hard E11 ?
Echo Wall         8c/8c+        Ben Nevis      Dave Macleod (2008)

E11
Power Ranger              8c+                               James Pearson (2017)
Tribe            9a/9a+      Cadarese (Italy)   Jacopo Larcher (2019), James Pearson
The Best Things...      9a                               William Moss (2023)
Crown Royale         9a              Norway         Pete Whittaker (2023)

Hard E10 / E11?
Rhapsody         8c/8c+        Dumbarton      Dave Macleod (2006), >3 repeats
Lexicon            8b+              Pavey Ark      Neil Gresham (2021), >3 repeats
Meltdown                 8c+              Yosemite (US)      Beth Rodden (2008), >3 repeats
The Recovery Drink   8c+              Norway         Nicolas Favresse (2013), Daniel Jung, Pete Whittaker

E10                  
Choronzon         8b+        Pembroke              Neil Mawson (2014), Steve McClure
Equilibrium         8b+        Burbage                 Neil Bentley (2000), Neil Gresham, James Pearson
The Groove         8b        Cratcliffe                      James Pearson
Baron Greenback Direct 8b+        Wimberry                      Pete Whittaker
To Hell And Back      7c+        Hell’s Lum              Dave Macleod (2007), Dave Birkett   
Le Voyage         8b+      Annot (France)      James Pearson (2017).  >3 repeats, including a flash by Sebastien Berthe.
Magic Line         8c               Ron Kauk (1996), Lonnie Kauk, Hazel Findlay, Carlo Traversi
The Bull                 8b+               Jeremy Smith (2013), Ben Harnden
The Bigger Baron      8b+               Pete Whittaker (2014)
Stranger Than Fiction   8c               Mason Earle (2015), Brittany Goris, Lor Sabourin, Pete Whittaker
GreatNess Wall      8c               Steve McClure (2019)
Century Crack         8c               Tom Randall (2011), Pete Whittaker, Danny Parker, Fumiya Nakamura

E9/10
Hold Fast Hold True   8a/8a+      Glen Nevis      Julian Lines (2013), Iain Small, Franco Cookson

Hard E9
Face Mecca         7c+                Cloggy         Nick Dixon (1989)
Widdop Wall         8a+/8b      Widdop         John Dunne (1998), Jordan Buys

E9
The Long Hope Route   8b                       Dave Macleod
The Walk Of Life      8a+      Dyer’s Lookout   James Pearson
Dark Religion         8a+        Dinas Mot      James McCaffie (2016)
Holdfast                 7c+        Glen Nevis      Dave Macleod (2002)
The Fugue         8a+        Glen Croe      Dave Macleod (2002)
Achemine         8b        Dumbarton      Dave Macleod (2001)
If Six Was Nine      8a+      Iron Crag              Dave Birkett (1992)
Indian Face         7b+      Cloggy         Johnny Dawes (1986)
Mission Impossible      8a+        Ogwen         Neil Carson
Something’s Burning   8a+/8b   Pembroke      Charlie Woodburn (2012)
The Big Issue         8b        Pembroke      John Dunne
The Prow                 Font 8A+ Kyloe In           Andy Earl    
Captain Invincible      8b/8b+   Burbage South   Sean Miles (1991)
Baron Greenback      8a+        Wimberry              Pete Whittaker (2013), Ben Bransby
Gerty Berwick         Font 8A   Ilkley              Ryan Pasquill (2009), James Pearson
The Lizard King      8a+        Ilkley         Jacob Cook (2014)
Muy Caliente         8a+        Pembroke      Tim Emmett



Clearly there's a LOT more to add into that (huge numbers of routes missing, probably lots wrong in the above).  As and when I (or probably better someone else) have time, I'll try and improve it, but it may be later in the year.

But it's fine for demonstrating that the above is actually a cohesive grading system.  Giving all the above 6c, 7a or whatever, is not useful and it's not how pretty much anyone climbing those routes thinks about it.

Or at least, it could be a cohesive grading system, if everyone can agree how E grades should actually be applied, particularly for shorter routes.

[ToxicBilberry]

Why haven't they? Because 8c+ R doesn't suggest something special, whereas E12 might.

I don’t get this bit; 9aR for Pearson’s thing for example still lets you know it’s amongst the physically hardest trad pitches ever climbed, and not a total clip up either; I don’t see what the extreme grade adds?

Top UK climbers probably like E grades as double digit ones are way better for column inches due to the punter interest!

I understood it as ‘something special’ referred to the ‘imbued cultural differences’

‘I find grading interesting - it arises universally with systems that should be easily translatable, but aren't, because simple number scales become imbued with cultural differences. I think it's more interesting to try to understand the differences in application than to try to homogenise them.’

[Wellsy]

"Who would possibly relate uk tech grades to sport grades? That would make no sense."

Errrr.  Anyone trying to give the UK tech grade to any long hard route to satisfy the likes of yourself or an old skool guidebook writer, when they know perfectly well how hard it is in Fr grades.

"E9 6c and E11 7a do tell you rather more. As much, or more, as 7b+ X and 8c+ R?"

But not anywhere near as much as what you actually should have, which is E9 Fr7b+ and E11 Fr8c+
I'm not saying anything terribly novel here.
The above, for routes over about E6 has already been adopted in many guidebooks.

"Because 8c+ R doesn't suggest something special, whereas E12 might"

Sure.  On that we're agreed.  As said many times now, I'm NOT trying to get rid of E grades.  I'm trying to make them actually work as a coherent system at all levels of difficulty.  I agree that if used properly, they're better than all the alternatives for grading trad routes.

"Unless you're saying the UK trad grade is *not* a measure of how hard it is to onsight."

It is up to around E7.  As I said before, on stuff above this, it's not in practice how it's used.  Things E8 and above are graded on how hard they are to headpoint (and indeed some may be utterly ridiculous to even consider onsighting - doesn't mean they're given E15).

The question is not 'are E-grades perfect' it's 'is there a better system?' If top climbers found it unusable, they would have adopted something like the above. Why haven't they?

They have.  You just seem to not have noticed.  It looks like this (and this is obviously a very small subset of routes over E9 to illustrate the discussion - there's clearly loads of info missing - just posted where I got to with it earlier in the half an hour I had to play with):


E12?
Bon Voyage         9a         Annot (France)        James Pearson (2023), Adam Ondra   

Hard E11 ?
Echo Wall         8c/8c+        Ben Nevis      Dave Macleod (2008)

E11
Power Ranger              8c+                               James Pearson (2017)
Tribe            9a/9a+      Cadarese (Italy)   Jacopo Larcher (2019), James Pearson
The Best Things...      9a                               William Moss (2023)
Crown Royale         9a              Norway         Pete Whittaker (2023)

Hard E10 / E11?
Rhapsody         8c/8c+        Dumbarton      Dave Macleod (2006), >3 repeats
Lexicon            8b+              Pavey Ark      Neil Gresham (2021), >3 repeats
Meltdown                 8c+              Yosemite (US)      Beth Rodden (2008), >3 repeats
The Recovery Drink   8c+              Norway         Nicolas Favresse (2013), Daniel Jung, Pete Whittaker

E10                  
Choronzon         8b+        Pembroke              Neil Mawson (2014), Steve McClure
Equilibrium         8b+        Burbage                 Neil Bentley (2000), Neil Gresham, James Pearson
The Groove         8b        Cratcliffe                      James Pearson
Baron Greenback Direct 8b+        Wimberry                      Pete Whittaker
To Hell And Back      7c+        Hell’s Lum              Dave Macleod (2007), Dave Birkett   
Le Voyage         8b+      Annot (France)      James Pearson (2017).  >3 repeats, including a flash by Sebastien Berthe.
Magic Line         8c               Ron Kauk (1996), Lonnie Kauk, Hazel Findlay, Carlo Traversi
The Bull                 8b+               Jeremy Smith (2013), Ben Harnden
The Bigger Baron      8b+               Pete Whittaker (2014)
Stranger Than Fiction   8c               Mason Earle (2015), Brittany Goris, Lor Sabourin, Pete Whittaker
GreatNess Wall      8c               Steve McClure (2019)
Century Crack         8c               Tom Randall (2011), Pete Whittaker, Danny Parker, Fumiya Nakamura

E9/10
Hold Fast Hold True   8a/8a+      Glen Nevis      Julian Lines (2013), Iain Small, Franco Cookson

Hard E9
Face Mecca         7c+                Cloggy         Nick Dixon (1989)
Widdop Wall         8a+/8b      Widdop         John Dunne (1998), Jordan Buys

E9
The Long Hope Route   8b                       Dave Macleod
The Walk Of Life      8a+      Dyer’s Lookout   James Pearson
Dark Religion         8a+        Dinas Mot      James McCaffie (2016)
Holdfast                 7c+        Glen Nevis      Dave Macleod (2002)
The Fugue         8a+        Glen Croe      Dave Macleod (2002)
Achemine         8b        Dumbarton      Dave Macleod (2001)
If Six Was Nine      8a+      Iron Crag              Dave Birkett (1992)
Indian Face         7b+      Cloggy         Johnny Dawes (1986)
Mission Impossible      8a+        Ogwen         Neil Carson
Something’s Burning   8a+/8b   Pembroke      Charlie Woodburn (2012)
The Big Issue         8b        Pembroke      John Dunne
The Prow                 Font 8A+ Kyloe In           Andy Earl    
Captain Invincible      8b/8b+   Burbage South   Sean Miles (1991)
Baron Greenback      8a+        Wimberry              Pete Whittaker (2013), Ben Bransby
Gerty Berwick         Font 8A   Ilkley              Ryan Pasquill (2009), James Pearson
The Lizard King      8a+        Ilkley         Jacob Cook (2014)
Muy Caliente         8a+        Pembroke      Tim Emmett



Clearly there's a LOT more to add into that (huge numbers of routes missing, probably lots wrong in the above).  As and when I (or probably better someone else) have time, I'll try and improve it, but it may be later in the year.

But it's fine for demonstrating that the above is actually a cohesive grading system.  Giving all the above 6c, 7a or whatever, is not useful and it's not how pretty much anyone climbing those routes thinks about it.

Or at least, it could be a cohesive grading system, if everyone can agree how E grades should actually be applied, particularly for shorter routes.

I don't know anything about E-grades but your list would tend to suggest that if something is 8b+ it is E10 at a minimum and if something is 9a it is E11 at a minimum

So is it kind of a case of maybe, take the route grade in french, assume its bolted, safe, pleasant etc. Whats that E-grade? Then add on potentially more if it's spicy/dangerous/lethal?

[jwi]

What grade system we use is largely dependent on the users: first-ascensionists, early repeaters, climbers and guide-book writers.

In Scandinavia this has led to replacing Scandi grades with French grades for sport, but keeping Scandi grades for trad. The Scandi grades has 25% wider grade-bands but otherwise follow the same logic as French grades.

In the US they often quote grades as 5.13- 5.13 5.13 for trad and 5.13a - d for sport, making the bands 33% wider for trad. Same tendency.

I think that it is useful to have wider grade bands for trad as there are more confounding variables on trad routes; it is harder to reliably estimate the physical difficulty of a route when you also struggle with putting in pieces and are sometimes a bit freaked out etc.

I suspect that the wider grade-bands is the main advantage of the adjective grades over French grades for UK trad as well. Because the system does not appear inherently much better than any other system to grade trad routes. If it was, non-British climbers who have been exposed to the system would switch to the British adjectival system, but we do not.

[Johnny Brown]

I’m not convinced the crux of Right Wall would be 4b off the deck?

Obviously it isn't. Much as I'd like to think Nemo is exaggerating for comic effect, I don't think he is. It's not hard to see how you'd reach the conclusion that tech grades don't work, or stop at 6c, if this is the foundation for your wobbly logic.

I do expect E4 to be defined the same way everywhere, otherwise E4 doesn't mean anything.

the tech grade not having a clear definition...

I've never seen a grading system clearly defined. They all attempt the same thing - reduce the overall difficulty to a single number. The only variation is the grade width, and cultural differences in how they're applied.

I don’t get this bit; 9aR for Pearson’s thing for example still lets you know it’s amongst the physically hardest trad pitches ever climbed

I understood it as ‘something special’ referred to the ‘imbued cultural differences’

Partly that, partly the fact that 8c+ is a 35 year old grade of which hundreds of examples exist. E11 or 12 not so much.

The above, for routes over about E6 has already been adopted in many guidebooks.

Weirdly I've never see one. Which ones?

E12?
Bon Voyage         9a         Annot (France)   ... etc

Good effort pulling all that together, although given I joined the chat to explain the application of the E4 grade, I'm not sure we're having the same discussion. Is there a clearer logic you can discern in here? Sources in particular would also be useful given that we've very little knowledge of these routes between us, but appreciate that might be a job for someone else. For the grit ones I do know a bit about, from a quick google I can't find sources for the given french grades - are they yours? Whereas the news reports do inevitably use uk tech grades, occasionally font. So I can see why french route grades might make sense on similar terrain to sport  like Pembroke, but the argument is much less strong elsewhere.

I think that it is useful to have wider grade bands for trad as there are more confounding variables on trad routes

Agreed. The strength of the Uk system is, I think, that you have two elements, both quite broad, so individually the elements are more likely to be accurate for most people, but the combination of the two also brings precision as well as the flagging of variables.

non-British climbers who have been exposed to the system would switch to the British adjectival system, but we do not

Whereas Uk climbers abroad inevitably return convinced of it's superiority (I'm not talking about E7+ here), but also when the hardest routes are done outside the Uk, a uk trad grade is often offered. But as illustrated by this thread, I think there are issues getting to grips with it, particularly if you are an experienced climber who already understands other grades. At first it seems the same, but then you come across the exceptions... it is easier to discard it as nonsense than have the humility to understand.

The cultural element is also strong - I often think about pure crack pitches in YDS, because that's what most of them were given. 5.11+ might typically be something like E4 5b, but the vagueness can sometimes be more descriptive.

[SA Chris]

Which is fair enough given that generally in the US trad climbing = crack climbing due to the nature of the rock over there, and the popularity of places with quality climbs of this "genre". 

[petejh]

Sound logic and reason will get you nowhere jwi - the British E grade isn't a utilitarian tool for defining and labelling difficulty of climbs in order to make identifying suitable challenges more straightforward; like morris dancing isn't just about having a dance. Both are about celebrating a niche British culture which traditionalists don't want to lose.

I think British trad climbing has roots in/is influenced by the British class system, because it's unavoidable like the water you swim in (and something I don't like which is perhaps why I'd be happy for the E-grade to be adjusted to get rid of the tech part). When you change how to define British trad climbs to a more universally understood definition you remove some of the power of the culture. Away from the more obviously-amazing British cliffs, UK trad routes like lots of climbs worldwide are only 'special', to use JB's words, because of the culture surrounding them - i.e. the people and the stories told by them and about them - not because of the outstanding quality of climbing or magnificence of the situation relative to anywhere else. Traditionalists like JB are imo against change less for rational utilitarian reasons, and more because they're emotionally attached to a niche culture and how they see themselves fitting into it, and to a wider idea of being British.   

[Johnny Brown]

I think British trad climbing has roots in/is influenced by the British class system, because it's unavoidable like the water you swim in (and something I don't like which is perhaps why I'd be happy for the E-grade to be adjusted to get rid of the tech part)

Interesting perspective! Can you expand, I'm not seeing the links myself? Obviously mountaineering has upper-class roots in the Uk, but by the time tech grades were imported (from font, in the seventies right?) my impression was that a lot of the movers and shakers were working class.

Otherwise, yeah some of that is true, some of the time. I don't think it's the whole story at all. I don't think I'm particularly 'attached to... a wider idea of being British', for starters.

[SA Chris]

Spoken like a true Brexiter petejh !

[spidermonkey09]

I can see where Pete is coming from. I think Northern yob and JB might feel a particularly strong identification with being a "British trad climber," steeped in the culture, history and yes, the grading system of it. They grew up, if I'm guesstimating their ages correctly, in the glory days of British trad and when British climbers were expanding the sport overseas, the era of hard grit, Ben and Jerry, the idea that British climbing and particularly grit is somehow special. I can see how one might, consciously or subconsciously, kick a bit against the perception that the grading system, which embodies the uniqueness of the British climbing scene, was being homogenised in some way. We saw something similar a month or so back when Ted K was concerned about Rockfax ceasing to use tech grades in their guides (turned out to be not true.)

[Johnny Brown]

I can't speak for Jase but was never really steeped in British climbing culture. I am very attached to the British landscape, but not so much the population or culture. When I moved to Sheffield I found the scene pretty uninspiring tbh, was never a Ben and Jerry fanboi either.

What I am very attached to is the idea that trad climbing is, at it's core, about self-reliance and freedom. By this I mean the rock is left for others to choose their own adventure on, not 'made' into climbs. I'm not sure this is even an accepted British thing, it seemed to be implicit when I was a youth, but not so much any more. I took my son up the east face of Tryfan for the first time this weekend and, despite its long history of being climbed on, we didn't see a single piece of fixed gear of any kind. Almost anywhere else I've been climbing in the world that wouldn't have been the case. I hosted lots of foreign climbers on International meets in the noughties and despite being accomplished climbers, they were often surprised that many routes had no fixed gear at all. They were always impressed by this, and on more than one occasion remarked that 'every ascent is like a first ascent'. I think this is worth preserving on its own merits, not special because its British. Even in Britain it now seems to be a constant battle against a majority view that trad climbs are where you don't put all the bolts in so that punter tradsters can indulge themselves in placing cams.

E grades, honestly, are a more head than heart thing for me. I think they work fine and it annoys me when people say they don't. But mainly that's because, like the YDS example above, I've always measured trad grades to trad routes, whereas I've done next to no easy sport climbing so have no reference.

[Johnny Brown]

Thinking about this a bit more, I think my chief attachment to Uk grades vs other systems is that they reflect messy reality - trad climbs vary widely in many aspects and will resist being pigeonholed into any sensible order of difficulty.

[jwi]

Whereas Uk climbers abroad inevitably return convinced of it's superiority (I'm not talking about E7+ here), but also when the hardest routes are done outside the Uk, a uk trad grade is often offered. But as illustrated by this thread, I think there are issues getting to grips with it, particularly if you are an experienced climber who already understands other grades. ...

But this is only natural, non? Despite climbing routes with French grades on 95% of the time, when I do a traditionally protected multipitch route on the continent together with someone from Sweden/Norway I will inevitably talk about the pitches in terms of Scandi grades. Like "you really think that pitch was 8-? That seems a bit generous, no?" "Yeah, I found it more like 7+" etc... even if there is no limestone in Scandinavia. And if someone from scandinavia ask me about the routes I would tell them what I think the Scandi grade is, if it is trad.

British grades seems perfectly reasonable for the pitches I've been told the grades for. I have a pretty good idea what kind of grades I can get up with little effort vs huge effort vs not at all.

[ToxicBilberry]

I think British trad climbing has roots in/is influenced by the British class system, because it's unavoidable like the water you swim in (and something I don't like which is perhaps why I'd be happy for the E-grade to be adjusted to get rid of the tech part)

Interesting perspective! Can you expand, I'm not seeing the links myself? Obviously mountaineering has upper-class roots in the Uk, but by the time tech grades were imported (from font, in the seventies right?) my impression was that a lot of the movers and shakers were working class.

Otherwise, yeah some of that is true, some of the time. I don't think it's the whole story at all. I don't think I'm particularly 'attached to... a wider idea of being British', for starters.

I'm not sure about the class system, although I think it (the trad grading system) evokes a sense of belonging to the British Isles like reading the poetry of T S Elliot, Wordsworth or the writing of Tolkien. The traditional grading system is evocative of this in a way which would be poorly represented by adopting any other system, a bit like using a Rock Fax guide as opposed to something more authentic / sincere. A shit map of a map. In the book 'You and Your Profile, Identity after Authenticity' the authors discuss pre-enlightenment ways of being in the world as having a strong degree of sincerity - this referred to knowing your place in the world - like John the Blacksmith's son John who was to be a Blacksmith. Maybe the traditional grade is related to the class system at this level of sincerity. You don't have to be attached to the wider idea of being British when it's implicit in your sense of belonging to the place.

[Nemo]

Jeez, we've had the Karl Jasper's theory of the UK tech grade and this is now drifting into the Marxist analysis of the E grading system. 

"I'm not sure we're having the same discussion" - JB

Indeed.  If it's not already obvious, what I'm trying to do, is persuade a few people that it actually is possible to do what the eGraders tried to do but didn't get right.
ie: Sort out E grades so that they actually form a coherent grading system at all levels of difficulty.
I really don't think that's an impossible task.
But the trouble with any attempt at turning E grades into a coherent system is all the current idiosynchrasies, of which highball grit routes are high on the list.
You're trying to defend some of those historical idiosynchrasies, particularly at lower grades, without really caring about what happens upwards of E8.  Hence why we're not agreeing about very much.  Probably didn't help that we started by talking about an E4 that doesn't need an E grade, but you know, <someone is wrong on the internet> etc.

"So is it kind of a case of maybe, take the route grade in french, assume its bolted, safe, pleasant etc. Whats that E-grade? Then add on potentially more if it's spicy/dangerous/lethal?" - Wellsy

Essentially that's the gist, particularly for hard routes, and that was the starting point for the eGraders right.  But in general, there's lots of other factors that come into the equation - loose rock, soft rock, insecureness or otherwise of climbing, location and atmosphere of crag, level of commitment required, how weird the gear is, level of intimidation etc etc.  They all play into it, but certainly the physical difficulty should guarantee a minimum E grade for something in any sensible version of E grades. 

Which is my beef with JB's version of grading things like WSS, as with his way of grading you can have any level of physical difficulty and a very low E grade (as he's largely discounting the physical difficulty of stuff close to the ground).  Which makes E grades not the overall difficulty.  And means there's a disconnect between grading that kind of route and stuff a bit higher.  Which makes them useless for comparing stuff outside a local context (which JB clearly likes and I clearly don't).

"I suspect that the wider grade-bands is the main advantage of the adjective grades over French grades for UK trad as well. Because the system does not appear inherently much better than any other system to grade trad routes. If it was, non-British climbers who have been exposed to the system would switch to the British adjectival system, but we do not." - jwi

The wider bands are certainly part of it.  But there's definitely more to it than that. 
One thing that to me makes the UK trad scene different to pretty much anywhere else in the world I can think of, is the variety of geology in such a small space.  Within a 3 hour drive of most of the north of the UK, you can climb a completely bewildering array of different styles, angles and rock types.  You don't see that as a sport climber in the UK (which is nearly all limestone).  The bouldering has more variety.  But the trad variety is enormous. 

As SA Chris pointed out, a lot of the time, particularly for hard routes, trad climbing in many other places = crack climbing - and in that scenario, then E grades add nothing.  Obviously there are places outside the UK where there are hard bold routes, including Scandinavia.  But for the most part the more dangerous stuff isn't as widespread as in the UK, particularly in all the varying styles from death by sandy disintegrating sea cliff, to sliding down slabs stripping RPs, to decking from 40ft onto nasty boulders.  The thing that makes the E grade genuinely useful, is the ability to compare these varying different types of silliness and say that overall, when you take everything into account, they are E whatever.

And it really does work pretty well - at pretty much every grade, you'll find for example if you're a typical E5 onsighter, that for the most part you really can onsight (pushing towards your limit) various different E5's on various different rock types at various different angles with various different levels of danger.  Whereas E6's of all types can feel like a completely different world, and most E4's can feel relatively straightforward.  (Obvious caveat to that being known weaknesses, such as offwidths or whatever).  And yet those E5's that overall really do feel similar, with other grading systems may be given anything from 6a X to 6c R etc.  It just doesn't allow the same comparison you get with E5.

So I'm definitely in the E grades are good camp.  I just think they could be much, much better, given a little thought and consistency. 

"Weirdly I've never see one. Which ones?" - JB

<Pulling random book off bookshelf> - take a look at Lake District Rock. e.g even very traditional crags like Dove Crag, although lots of other examples in there.
To be clear, they've gone with the E7 6c (Fr7c+) type notation.
Not that the 6c bit tells you much, but at least it stops the likes of yourself spluttering your coffee all over your new guidebook   

"Sources in particular would also be useful" - JB

I'll sort out a much better version of that list in the not too distant future, and then can explain where all the info's from (simple answer is lots and lots of different places). 

"Is there a clearer logic you can discern in here?" - JB

It's actually an interesting exercise, and there's all sorts of things that become obvious when there's a proper list of hard routes to relate things to.  e.g: how far out the eGraders were even for their own routes, the fact that at the top end E grades are getting narrower relative to French grades (ie: they aren't staying 2 Fr grades wide as they roughly do from E5 to E8).  And lots of other stuff.

"Obviously it isn't. Much as I'd like to think Nemo is exaggerating for comic effect, I don't think he is. It's not hard to see how you'd reach the conclusion that tech grades don't work, or stop at 6c, if this is the foundation for your wobbly logic." - JB

OK, as said before, I didn't really want to get into the UK tech grade, as it just isn't relevant any more for hard routes in any way.  Really the discussion about this belonged in 1994, not 2024.  People have been talking about French grades for stuff upwards of E8 ever since I've been climbing (how on earth JB has moved in the circles he has and this has passed him by is beyond me, but presumably he just switches off his brain when this stuff gets mentioned).

But since it keeps coming up, since a lot of the confusion about the UK trad grading system in general revolves around it, and since JB has clearly never understood what I'm on about, I'll try and explain what I mean.  JB ain't gonna agree, but perhaps he may at least understand.

To be blunt, the UK tech grade is a poorly defined pile of nonsense.  Supposedly it is the grade of the “hardest move” on a route.  But any degree of thought shows that this is never how it has actually been used in practice, other than perhaps on extremely short routes.  And yes, I really do think that if you took the crux “move” off the headwall on Positron or the crux of Right Wall and transferred it to a bouldering wall that it might be pushing 4b if you were being optimistic.  It certainly wouldn't be 6a. 

Typically what the UK tech grade really is is how hard the hardest move feels in the context of the route.  Which is an entirely different thing, much more closely related to how French grades work than JB seems to want to admit.  Hence the main pitch of Positron is a 6a pitch because it’s pumpy, not because it has any “6a moves". 

The point is that there's always been confusion in the UK system as to where sustainedness belongs, with most people sticking it in the tech grade, but occasionally a few people trying to include at least some of it in the E grade.  Along with the grade of "the hardest move" being a ridiculous nonsense.  Which move?  A hand movement?  A foot movement?  A sequence of movement? – Oh wait – that’s what we use Font grades for…  (And yes, that's the bit that JB was mocking previously, but it doesn't remove the absurdity of pretending you're grading the hardest move).

This confusion around the tech grade is at the heart of an awful lot of the whittering about the “complexity” of the uk grading system – one of the main reasons it's complex is because the definition of the technical grade has been such a shambles. 

But at low grades it all hangs together fine.  For the most part those routes tend not to be that sustained so a lot of the problems mentioned above evaporate.  And for the vast majority of UK routes (ie: up to around Fr 6a), the UK tech grade is actually more specific that the equivalent Fr grade.  ie:

UK 4a, 4b and 4c roughly equates to Fr 4 and 4+. 
UK 5a, 5b and 5c roughly equate to Fr 5 and 5+. 
UK 6a roughly equates to Fr 6a – 6c. 
UK 6b roughly equates to Fr 6c+ - 7b+.
UK 6c, 7a and 7b roughly cover the ground from Fr 7b+ - 9a.

But the truth is as said above in various places, above E6 and particularly when people were headpointing stuff, the tech grade went out of the window decades ago.  Obviously you could take a list of hard trad routes like the one posted above, split them into different categories of physical difficulty, and then assign them all tech 6c, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b etc.  But what the hell is the point.  You then have created a new much shitter version of French grades, with confusion around where sustainedness lives, that no one can relate to the vast majority of routes that they've climbed of that physical difficulty.

Hence it was dumped a very very long time ago.  People just pay lip service to this nonsense and roughly give everything from 7b+ to 8a+ tech 6c and almost everything above tech 7a, except for the odd really bouldery thing where upwards of Font 8A+ it might get tech 7b.

To paraphrase T_B and Tom's conversation from the other thread:
So that route is E8 7b?
Yeah.
So...  How hard is it?
It's Font 8A+.
Ah OK, that makes sense.

Any grading system, where on being told two numbers, you then have to ask how hard is it?
Then get another number and then everyone knows what they're talking about.
Such a grading system is ridiculous.
Which is why pretty much everyone stopped using tech grades for hard routes a very long time ago.

It is too late in the day to change the entire grading system for all grades to an E grade and a French or Font grade - and it’s unnecessary, because as discussed above the technical grade works OK for routes roughly up to E6 (on the understanding that for the most part the tech grade is really the grade of the pitch, not the hardest move).  But above this cut off point (or perhaps lower in some places like Pembroke), switching to French / Font grades is the way to go, and in practice is how pretty much everyone discusses those routes already.

[Hoseyb]

While I agree with everything you've said Nemo, I do think ( as I said before much earlier in the thread) that for those of us operating at the lower end of the spectrum tech grades can indicate not only protection but cruxy- ness.

Although I can see that being relegated to the description

[Hoseyb]

I quite like the french use of obligatory ( 7b(6c+ obl) for that. Letting you know you can frig it 😁

[andy popp]

I have no real idea about what's actually being debated here. But I'm not going to let that stop me from weighing in ...

I think Northern yob and JB might feel a particularly strong identification with being a "British trad climber," steeped in the culture, history and yes, the grading system of it. They grew up, if I'm guesstimating their ages correctly, in the glory days of British trad

That's me, in age, much more than JB and NY (is NY Jason Pickles? If so, I've only just realised). Both tech and E grades were very new and still being worked out when I started. They emerged as elaborations on the existing system, itself a product of earlier elaborations, in order to give a fuller picture of the difficulties and character of a given route. It's just struck me that it's as much about the character bit as it is about the difficulty bit: not only hard is something, but also what is it like. That's a question that is much more relevant to the kind of trad found in Britain than, say, on most sport climbing. I'm not saying British trad is completely unique but it has particular qualities that are reflected in the grading system that evolved to describe it (and, again, I think a grade is a description as much as it is some kind of ranking device).

So, the grading system was never really "designed" but evolved alongside climbing's evolution. And for the most I always found it incredibly fit for purpose, flexible and nuanced. Difficulties at the top end are probably as much about the difficulty of grading at the top end under any system as they are about faults of this specific system.

Anyway, like I said, I've not really been able to work out what is actually at stake in this thread, so who knows.

[Wellsy]

One thing I find very appealing about the trad grading system is how it incorporated the difficulty, the exposure, the security, the danger etc

I think that font grades are let down by only considering the physical difficulty (opinions differ on whether they consider the technical difficulty bit honestly as far as I can tell they don't).

I'd love it if we had a bouldering grade system which incorporated other elements.