[andy moles]

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

From humble beginnings as an argument over whether E4 makes any sense as a grade for a 7B+ boulder problem with a highball finish, Nemo has struck out boldly to fix the entire application of the British grading system, conveniently glossing over the small matter of the grade meaning two different things in the arcane bracket of E5 to E8.

I think that more or less sums it up?

[jwi]

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

The obligatory grade is amazingly useful to figure out how hard it is to get up a route. It is also pretty "compressed" in the higher grades. It is really really rare to find a route where it is harder than fr 7b between the bolts.

[crimpinainteasy]

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.

I disagree, it's hard enough to get multiple people to agree on a grade as is. Things like technical skill required are even more subjective since for example what might be a piss heelhook for one person could feel desperate for another. Grades are only a rough guideline at best anyway, and trying to grade based on factors other than how hard it is to execute the boulder relative to other bouders of a similar style is just adding unnecessary layers of complexity imo.

[Nemo]

@Andy Moles:
I guess I asked for that with the way that last post started, which didn't really come out right.
Anyway, "stuck in grumpily" feels a bit more appropriate than "striking out boldly". 
And this started out as one conversation in a different thread, and then got split out to a general thread about E grades.  So, sure, I broadened the discussion out a bit.

[andy moles]

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).

To me this is a bizarre dichotomy and not one I'd ever even considered. For one thing, you can't fully separate strength from technique - the ability to execute a tricky heel hook requires core strength as well as coordination, for example. No amount of brute strength is going to get you up certain things without at least a reasonable application of technique, and the same vice versa, so it seems self evident that both count towards the grade.

[Duncan campbell]

Surely font grades take into account technicality?? Otherwise all slabs would get very low grades… ?

[andy moles]

Surely font grades take into account technicality?? Otherwise all slabs would get very low grades… ?

Yeah, exactly. I've never even heard of the idea that technicality doesn't count towards the grade.

[SA Chris]

Surely font grades take into account technicality?? Otherwise all slabs would get very low grades… ?

Or high grades depending how shit people become at climbing slabs..

[spidermonkey09]

Surely font grades take into account technicality?? Otherwise all slabs would get very low grades… ?

Yeah, exactly. I've never even heard of the idea that technicality doesn't count towards the grade.

Likewise. Where on earth has that idea come from?

[Wellsy]

That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.

[Wellsy]

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).

To me this is a bizarre dichotomy and not one I'd ever even considered. For one thing, you can't fully separate strength from technique - the ability to execute a tricky heel hook requires core strength as well as coordination, for example. No amount of brute strength is going to get you up certain things without at least a reasonable application of technique, and the same vice versa, so it seems self evident that both count towards the grade.

I agree with you completely and that's why I think it is ridiculous but still, that is what I have been told.

[mrjonathanr]

That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.

It’s a logical impossibility. Technique is the skill of weight distribution and movement. It can’t be 100% stripped out of dead hangs, let alone an activity as complex as climbing. They’re talking nonsense.

[spidermonkey09]

That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.

They're talking complete bollocks. Literally could not be more wrong.

[Wellsy]

Maybe so and yet I definitely think that some people are using font grades that way, indeed I know some people are.

I would say that I also think a lot of things are graded without real thought to the technical demands, especially on sandstone rock types, by people who ostensibly would say the grade should incorporate the technical difficulties. Although I think that's also an element of if you are good how can you know how hard something is to someone who isn't? That's not easy to get a good sense of.

[Wellsy]

Anyway an E-grade like system for bouldering would nicely show the difference between say, Gritstone Megamix and Mermaid that 7A and 7A does not.

[mrjonathanr]

What people say and think they are doing, and what they are actually doing, don’t always coincide

Think about the relentless focus on technique in repetitive activities like swimming, sprinting and cycling. Then tell me that it is possible to grade a climb ‘without technique’.

Just because you don’t understand what you are doing doesn’t make the misapprehension true.

[spidermonkey09]

Anyway an E-grade like system for bouldering would nicely show the difference between say, Gritstone Megamix and Mermaid that 7A and 7A does not.

If you were bothered about that you could just add a ! like eg. the North Wales Bouldering guide does. Its also fairly obvious from a simple look at the problems in question which one is highand which one isn't.

Anyone using font grades that way hasn't thought about whether it makes sense even remotely and they're using them wrong. Its as simple as that.

[Wellsy]

*shrug * the opinion is out there, anyway

[mrjonathanr]

I’m not having a go at you Wellsy.

[Wellsy]

Oh no I'm not saying you were, just that it is out there. I don't agree with it at all, personally. But it definitely is out there. Like Roswell.

[spidermonkey09]

Totally incorrect use of font grades is out there in the streets every day, as John Redhead might have said...

[T_B]

That’s the first time I’ve heard that. Kind of weird given Font is so techy/tricksome. Or maybe that’s the point?

My understanding is grades in Font get bumped up for exposure/height.

[abarro81]

Wellsy - whoever told you that is an idiot, as everyone else has pointed out. Fortunately they're also in a vanishingly small minority so their view is irrelevant.

[Wellsy]

Idiot is maybe a bit harsh. Incorrect though yes. I'm not sure it's such a rare view as you say but I've no real idea.

[abarro81]

First time I've ever heard of it in 20 years of climbing.. sounds like TB has never heard of it in even more.. plus it makes absolutely no sense, it takes about 3 seconds to realise it's not how grades actually work and another 3 to realise it's an approach that would inherently be doomed to failure (did my heel pop so many times on Fat Lip because I'm technically inept or because my hamstring is weak, or both?). So I'm pretty happy to say it's idiotic to think that unless you're a beginner.