[Greg C]

It has come to my attention that a certain guide book publisher, who is currently in the final throws of producing a guide book to a certain Northern bouldering area, has decided not to use the V8+ grade given to certain problems, instead they are going to dish out either V8 or V9.

Now here is my problem with that:
Bearing in mind most of these problems will be written up with out grade confirmation by either the writer or publisher (i.e. on the whole replicated from local topos) how in blue blazes do they decide whether something is V8 or V9!

Am I being pedantic or is this fairly bizarre to say the least?

I am not having a dig at the writer (as I know him and he's a sound geezer) but merely pointing out that if anyone who produces guides could even conceive of such an idea then they shouldn't even be contemplating putting together bouldering guides.

What are your thoughts?

[dave]

i think normal V grades work for everywhere else that uses them (that little backwater like north america). If you want to use V grades use V grades, if you want to use font grades, use font grades. If you want to use font grades dressed up as V-grades then use the V8+ system - personally i think its lunacy as it then doesn't tally with either normal V grades or font grades, which surely defeats the object of using an international system - you might as well use B grades, english tech grades or my Parry patented Unified Grading Theory scale.

just go with one or the other. If you want a system where font 7b+ is defined seperatley, then i got one for ya, its the one they use in that place near paris.

thats my twopenneth.

[AndyR]

Shock horror - they're planning to use the V-system as a simple linear scale without ad hoc additions thrown in? Are they mad?

Basically, what Dave just said.

[Jim]

I vote no to V8+

[Fiend]

I vote "yes" to V grades combined with english tech. Failing that, V grades on their own.

Okay so V8+ is an aberration, even an abomination, but if people find it a genuinely useful grade then fair enough, okay the system has a tiny blip but it's a comprehensible system otherwise.

[ferret]

wots wrong with v8/9 to denote a problem halfway between v8 and v9 the slash grade seems to work in all grading systems. there does seem to be some ambiguity in the v system between v8 and v9 to me this seems the logical answer rather than the v8+ which seems to be almost taken as a seperate grade in itself i.e. 1 grade harder than v8.

[Ian Hill]

get rid of the '+' ...nowhere else needs it...

[Ru]

Without knowing the particulars of the new guidebook situation, it seems that the problem isn't just about which grading system is best. More that Greg et al have graded lots of things V8+, that havn't been repeated, which will make their way into the new guide as either V8 or V9, (without being repeated). Am I right?

Greg (extrapolating for a moment here) is therefore concerned/worried/intrigued as to what grades the problems currently graded at V8+ will end up with as they are harder than the problems graded V8, but not as hard as the ones currently graded V9. Am I still right?

[clm]

spelling greg!!
it is throes, not throws.

[Sloper]

V8+ is a joke, in the same way that V5+ would be a joke.

[Greg C]

Sorry you have misunderstood my point (except Ru) I don't want a debate on whether V8+ is good or bad, more that I want to know how some one can contemplate changing grades without repeating the problems, which does not seem legit to me?

[dave]

greg if it was me writing this guide thne i'd ask soemone who had done the problem/s in question wether they thought it was bottom end V8+ or top end. top ends become V9, bottom ends become V8. anything in the middle gets a coin tossed. everyones a w(e)inner. gradings not an exact science anyway.

[Greg C]

if it was me writing this guide then I'd ask someone who had done the problem/s in question whether they thought it was bottom end V8+ or top end. top ends become V9, bottom ends become V8

Well yeah that's what I do, but the whole point of this thread is that said publisher is contemplating not doing that and going straight to the coin flipping idea.

[dave]

clearly this is not an ideal situation, no guidebook writer should be doing it be a grade conversion table, they aught to be out getting the info and checking for themselves - i woulnd't buy a guide thats put together from second hand info ("faxesque"???). but at worst things are probably going to be only 1 grade out - assuming the FA was right in giving it V8+ anyway, you never know the coin-tossing could actually clear up some over/undergrading. its probably just six of one and half a dozen of the other. Given that its easy for me to be flippant cos its not my local area.....

[cofe]

Well yeah that's what I do, but the whole point of this thread is that said publisher is contemplating not doing that and going straight to the coin flipping idea.

barmy. there's a whole world of difference between 8 and 9. like 8 1/4 pounders are easier to eat than 9.

someone has to do them or they should really go in at V8+ - as this is what they were given. at least this way you know roughly how hard they are, and specifically they're all about the same.

mud is clearer than that explanation. sorry.

[Bonjoy]

The solution seems blindingly obvious to me.
The writer is on to a loser if he tries to guestimate up or down for all probs concerned.
V8+ is a no go for the reasons listed by dave.
Contacting all the first ascentionists is a big ballache of a job, especially if you already have the big ballache of writing a guidebook filling your time up as it is.
Therefore the only logical solution is to use Font grades which can be directly converted for all V8/V8+/V9s.

[SA Chris]

If the person who is writing the guide will not be swayed on the issue of including V8+, in order to ease the situation, would it not be more productive to go through all the V8+ probs that are going in the guide yourself, and make a decision as to whether they are top end "V8", or bottom end "V9", and and let the guy know? That way he will be able to avoid tossing his coin, as it were. Be a pity to let all your hard work in producing the lakesbloc guides and doing the problems go to waste.

I'm only suggesting a solution, from an objective PoV, as I am unlikely to ever boulder much in the lakes, or at that level.

[Bonjoy]

Whichever way you look at it, any solution other than straight Font grades will be a botched job.

[andy_e]

that's silly you can't have any idea of how easy/hard something will be by looking at it. i think Joker looks a piece of piss but it obviously isn't. when i have to grade something i haven't fully done i put a ? after it in the topo, so someone can do it and tell me whta they think the grade us. that's fine on an easily-updatable pdf guide but niot practical in a book.

[Pantontino]

As Greg (and Ru) said, this has got nothing to do with your opinions on whether someone else's scene should or shouldn't use V8+.

The point is that any guide writer in the UK who chooses to use the original US V grade system has to sort out the grade 8-9 anomalies, because everybody in this country operating at that sort of grade (to my knowledge) is either using the Font system or (N Wales and Lakes mostly) using the parellel V8+ tweak. (or as Dave calls it, Font grades with a different name).

Grimer did it with the Roaches guide. Look at Welford's Ram Air at Ramshaw. Given 7b+ in Ru's guide, whereas Grimer made the compromise of effectively downgrading it to V8 so that it fitted his chosen grading system. In the end he decided that it doesn't matter if V8  covers a larger grade range than others? (He also added a note for Ram Air, saying that it was hard for the grade) Not that I am necessarily slagging Grimer here, as there is a parallel example in British trad grades: E6 is a much broader grade than any other (F7b+ to F7c+ we used to say back in the late 80s/early 90s).

Anyway, the bottom line is that you shouldn't be producing bouldering guides unless you have done the research. And that means climbing or trying every possible problem as many times as you can, in as many different types of conditions, and with as many different sequences as is humanly possible, and watching as many other climbers on the problems as you can, and  canvassing as many local and visiting climbers as possible for their opinions, especially if it is out of your league.

It is almost too obvious to say, but you certainly shouldn't be producing a guidebook to somewhere like the Lakes without involving the key players (such as Greg, Adam Hocking, Dave Birkett, John Gaskins, Tim Carruthers, Neil Kershaw, Tom Burns, Jim Arnold, Dan Varian, and a host of other folk whom I'm sure Greg and Hock could flag up)

Bonjoy said:

"Contacting all the first ascentionists is a big ballache of a job, especially if you already have the big ballache of writing a guidebook filling your time up as it is."

Maybe there will be the odd peripheral problem that is written up without a specific site visit or limited word of mouth investigation, but generally, I have little sympathy for guide writers who claim to be too busy to do the research, and neither should the guidebook buying public.

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy said:

"Contacting all the first ascentionists is a big ballache of a job, especially if you already have the big ballache of writing a guidebook filling your time up as it is."

Maybe there will be the odd peripheral problem that is written up without a specific site visit or limited word of mouth investigation, but generally, I have little sympathy for guide writers who claim to be too busy to do the research, and neither should the guidebook buying public.

 My point is, why do things the hard way? Use font grades and you can put the right grade, as specified by first ascentionist or later consensus, in the script from the outset. It's not a matter of Font v V, it's just a matter of common sense.
 It almost goes without saying that the writer should then pass the script round relevant parties for checking. If this doesn't happen, the book will be no better (and probable not as good) as what's already available on the net.

[andy_e]

v8+ is good to use because then there is a direct comparison between V grades and font, making it easier for visitors to an area with a different grading system.

The only thing in lancashire that would be V8+ is Jordan's Sitstart to Groundhog, he graded it hard V8, so i think hard V8 (and therefore soft V9) is better than V8+.

[Bonjoy]

v8+ is good to use because then there is a direct comparison between V grades and font, making it easier for visitors to an area with a different grading system.

This point is way off topic, but to address it anyway. As dave pointed out earlier, why have a direct comparison when you can have the real thing?

[Pantontino]

I don't mean to be rude, but your name should be Andi _ eh????

Where's the logic in combining those 2 statements. Either would be fine on its own, but together they spin my head.

[cofe]

aaah another grade debate. my money is on a 7-pager...

the difficulty in giving a 7b+ V8 only comes if you think V8 only and absolutely correlates to 7b. which it doesn't because as dave has pointed out on numerous occasions (and i've probably disagreed in the past) V6 - V11 and 7a to 8a have different numbers of increments which don't directly correlate and ipso facto (get me) can't match.

an example from le peak (sorry): blind date is 7b+ but going in the sheff guide at V8. West Side too is 7b+ and going in at V9. ideally it should all be font but these are examples of how two problems of slightly different difficulty have been accommodated into this system.

BUT, coming back to the original point - any writer should do his utmost to check every detail for a new guidebook. if not, then they deserve no respect, let alone their share of £18.95 of whatever.