UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => chuffing => Topic started by: shark on October 10, 2021, 06:50:19 pm
-
I’d assumed that slash grades were just assigned to routes till repeaters/consensus decide to nudge it up or down. Or am I wrong and they are considered bona fide grades?
-
One could make an argument that slash grades are the only true grades, given the effect morphology can have on climbing difficulty; one climber's 7C is another's 7C+...or, 7C/+.
-
Proper, obligatory, and spiritually enriching.
-
Wanky fence sitting. I hate them.
-
I listened to an interesting interview with the guy who builds thecrag.com where he explained that he resisted adding slash grades for a long time but finally implemented them as apparently they are 'real' grades in some areas.
Maybe it makes sense in some grading systems (where the grades are wide), but I think they're overly specific in all the systems in use in the UK. It's hard enough telling the difference between a soft 7c and a hard 7b+, let alone a hard 7b+/c.
Fair enough if you're using it to mean "I think it could be 7b+ or 7c, I don't know for sure though so needs more options to confirm".
-
Don't give in to the ego. Accept the lower grade and move on.
-
I'm glad I don't have to grade things because even + grades feel like too much fidelity to me!
There are several climbs that i've done with a well established grade that I thought were easier than other climbs a whole letter grade lower (also well established).
-
Grades are for ascents, not climbs
-
Yes/No.
Or just introduce a minus like Alpine grades.
-
It seems fair for them to exist when maybe a FA has been done but the ascensionist is unsure and there's not enough consensus yet. Like "it feels about 6C/+ to me but hard to say" and then when some more people do it then it can settle.
Also at higher grades I think it's reasonable because the margins are so hard for the climber to train past. Ghisolfi saying Erebor is 9b/+ is him saying you get something more significant than a 9b tick for it even if it isn't 9b+ quite.
-
Wanky fence sitting. I hate them.
Yes, I think the same.
Lazy, cowardly bullshit. They exist mostly because people are scare of being wrong. They imply grading is or can be more accurate than is the case and they make routes less appealing.
-
They imply grading is or can be more accurate than is the case
Don't give in to the ego. Accept the lower grade and move on.
:agree: Thinking that grades can be anything but a rough guide to difficulty based on a rough consensus is the path to madness.
-
I always think of the slash grade as a broader range because the route hasn’t had enough ascents for a consensus. Okay for reporting new routes but shouldn’t be used in guidebooks, in my opinion.
-
Or maybe grading can't be more accurate because it's so subjective, maybe it just more makes sense to the male, average height/build morphologies? As bradders said maybe it's a good way to account for grades varying amongst morphologies etc. People of different shapes and sizes at the ends of the morphological extreme always seem to think grades make less sense.
-
I always think of the slash grade as a broader range because the route hasn’t had enough ascents for a consensus. Okay for reporting new routes but shouldn’t be used in guidebooks, in my opinion.
I'd say the opposite, linking to my point about morphology. If a climb has had lots of ascents, with half of the climbers saying 7A and the other half 7A+, surely the only option is for the guidebook to say it will feel 7A/+?
Notwithstanding the inherent tendency towards downgrading that the consensus system leads to anyway; grades being suggested only by those who have successfully done the climb, i.e. excluding those who have tried and failed, is the same as any system of voter disenfranchisement throughout history. A true consensus for all can never be reached when only a small segment of the population are making the decisions.
-
I always think of the slash grade as a broader range because the route hasn’t had enough ascents for a consensus. Okay for reporting new routes but shouldn’t be used in guidebooks, in my opinion.
I'd say the opposite, linking to my point about morphology. If a climb has had lots of ascents, with half of the climbers saying 7A and the other half 7A+, surely the only option is for the guidebook to say it will feel 7A/+?
Notwithstanding the inherent tendency towards downgrading that the consensus system leads to anyway; grades being suggested only by those who have successfully done the climb, i.e. excluding those who have tried and failed, is the same as any system of voter disenfranchisement throughout history. A true consensus for all can never be reached when only a small segment of the population are making the decisions.
You've got to account for the fact that a lot of those people voting 7A+ are those for whom another 7A+ in the logbook is a big deal...
We all know that grades are subjective to one degree or another - best just to plump for something and let people figure out for themselves which are the desperates and which are the softies.
-
Also got to account for those people with a reputation for downgrading everything to maintain... :whistle:
-
I'd say the opposite, linking to my point about morphology. If a climb has had lots of ascents, with half of the climbers saying 7A and the other half 7A+, surely the only option is for the guidebook to say it will feel 7A/+?
What you have described there isn't really a slash grade, it's 7A for people of one type and 7A+ for people of another type (two distinct grades for the same route dependant on morpho). What we are increasingly seeing is a slash grade to notify something that people are uncertain about, which is fine for one or two ascents but by the third ascent its time to shit or get off the pot.
-
I always think of the slash grade as a broader range because the route hasn’t had enough ascents for a consensus. Okay for reporting new routes but shouldn’t be used in guidebooks, in my opinion.
I'd say the opposite, linking to my point about morphology.
I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.
PS - I know this idea falls down when something has had no height average ascents. For instance something with a massive full stretch move off big footholds to tiny edges, put up by a giant, which might actually be impossible for the notional average. In my utopia such anomalies would be graded for the outsized ascensionist but carry a dagger symbol until climbed and regraded by a non giant.
-
+1 to Bonjoy's post (as always)
IMO... The weirdness with slash grades is that they add precision in an attempt to avoid precision. Which only works if they don't become accepted as "real" grades. It might be easy to tell that something is upper-end 9a/lower-end 9a+, but very difficult to put you finger on whether it's "9a.9" or "9a+.0". So long as they're considered fudge grades and "not real" the slash is a nice solution. Of course as soon as they become real you just made more boundaries and now the question is whether that "9a.7" is actually "9a.75" and therefore deserving of 9a/+... so for the sake of the reason behind their use, they should remain something that people strive to avoid as far as possible
-
Lily livered first ascentionist's who are terrified of having something downgraded (the ultimate humiliation) but want to dangle a carrot to the next person as an incentive to say it's the higher number.
-
to dangle a carrot to the next person as an incentive to say it's the higher number.
Presumably, it would be possible (if you were bored enough) to work whether slash grades are more likely see a grade revision than non-slash grades, and - if so - are they more likely to go up or down?
-
I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.
PS - I know this idea falls down when something has had no height average ascents.
I can see this might precipitate a rash of slash grade, but I disagree. Some problems are not only much harder for the very short they are also much easier for the very tall, so you can reliably add/lose a grade for every 2" extra reach you have/ haven't. For those a 7A-7C type grade would seem more appropriate. Otherwise you just get the very tall taking the grade with comments about how soft it is. Probably worse with routes tbh (Kaluza, On the Rocks etc), as folk assume the E grade isn't so affected.
-
I'm not a massive fan of hyphenated grades, once you let a foot in the door for personal grading who knows where it ends. But they're infinitely preferable to slash grades, and a reasonable fudge for dynos. At least they're unambiguously vague, rather than something that can be read as either fence sitting or hyper specificity.
-
I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.
That's great, except that's not how rock climbs are graded. It might be how you grade your FAs, but beyond that we grade by consensus, and people give their view of how it felt for them, not for the mystical average person.
I'm not a massive fan of hyphenated grades, once you let a foot in the door for personal grading who knows where it ends. But they're infinitely preferable to slash grades, and a reasonable fudge for dynos. At least they're unambiguously vague, rather than something that can be read as either fence sitting or hyper specificity.
Agreed, although I actually think of slash and hyphenated as the same thing for grades. It's an estimation rather than trying to be precise.
-
I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.
PS - I know this idea falls down when something has had no height average ascents.
I can see this might precipitate a rash of slash grade, but I disagree. Some problems are not only much harder for the very short they are also much easier for the very tall, so you can reliably add/lose a grade for every 2" extra reach you have/ haven't. For those a 7A-7C type grade would seem more appropriate. Otherwise you just get the very tall taking the grade with comments about how soft it is. Probably worse with routes tbh (Kaluza, On the Rocks etc), as folk assume the E grade isn't so affected.
Sounds ok to me as long as those shorties take a grade off every time full span wasn't needed due to their better power:weight ;)
-
I think it's a really bad idea to try to capture grade variability due to morphology in the grade. Much better to grade for the notional average height of an adult climber and use something else to communicate the reach dependency of the difficulty, be that descriptive text, or a reachy symbol.
That's great, except that's not how rock climbs are graded. It might be how you grade your FAs, but beyond that we grade by consensus, and people give their view of how it felt for them, not for the mystical average person.
Says who? Grades rapidly become meaningless if this is the case.
Take a problem which is either a reach of a ledge if you are over 6 foot 4 inches or a jump to a mono if you are under this height. Put up and graded for the jump by a mid height climber at V-hard. Seven years later the only people who have repeated it are tall folk reaching off the ledge, all agree it is V-piss and vote accordingly. In your system the new and correct grade is V-piss instead of V-hard. This despite the fact it is V-hard for ~90% of climbers.
This is an extreme example but the principle applies to a lesser extent on many many problems.
I'd like to hear what your female friends have to say about the new grade consensus which emerges and downgrades pretty much all their hardest ascents.
Thankfully I think you're wrong and most people know you wreck grades if you grade vote in this way.
-
I disagree with you on this one Bonjoy - I think most people do grade in that way, it's just that on most things, the consensus tends towards the "average" climber by the power of statistics.
Obviously v morpho things are a conundrum, and really it doesn't really matter if it's in the guide as "V15, but more like V11 for the tall" or "V11, but more like V15 for the short/average" but I think on the whole the VERY morpho stuff does tend to be graded in the latter style, although the somewhat morpho stuff gets less of that treatment and more big people taking the grade and running!
Why does this mean that things that females tend to do will get downgraded? Not sure I follow...
-
Maybe you're both right. Quite depressing if true. Anything reachy will slide towards the wrong grade for most climbers. Grades on average become (even) more wrong the shorter you get, hence on average more wrong if you are female (shorter on average).
-
Maybe you're both right. Quite depressing if true. Anything reachy will slide towards the wrong grade for most climbers. Grades on average become (even) more wrong the shorter you get, hence on average more wrong if you are female (shorter on average).
Grades become more wrong the further away from the average you get, whether that's tall/short, or exceptionally fat/thin fingers (especially at pocketed crags), or exceptionally well suited to thug (big build) or fingery (waif build) stuff...
I think with slightly easier for the tall (or slightly easier for the short) problems/routes, or routes where thin fingers help a lot but don't turn something "hard" into something "easy" people do adjust slightly towards it being "their style" or not... but I think for the hugely morpho problems it makes sense to grade for those who'll actually climb it, rather than the notionally average climber who won't ever actually go and do it because it would feel like 8B for them but a bunch of lanky 7C climbers would be saying it was 7C... if you look at stuff like Revolver at Anston I would say that fits the bill - I suspect the original 8A+ grade was designed to be this "average", but actually for everyone who's done it it feels like 7C+ and the midgets who'd vote 8B+ and average things out don't go and do it!). Less of an issue on routes as they usually even out more and are thereby less morpho, so I think it's fairly rare to get a route that's very disproportionately done by one size of climber to the exclusion of all others.
-
I disagree with you on this one Bonjoy - I think most people do grade in that way, it's just that on most things, the consensus tends towards the "average" climber by the power of statistics.
Obviously v morpho things are a conundrum, and really it doesn't really matter if it's in the guide as "V15, but more like V11 for the tall" or "V11, but more like V15 for the short/average" but I think on the whole the VERY morpho stuff does tend to be graded in the latter style, although the somewhat morpho stuff gets less of that treatment and more big people taking the grade and running!
Why does this mean that things that females tend to do will get downgraded? Not sure I follow...
You don't do a lot of grit bouldering do you Alex. A high proportion of problems are extremely heightist and as a consequence get a heavily height skewed set of repeats. This gets ever more true at the upper end. In your system these become graded for the average ascensionist rather than the average climber. This is most unhelpful for a visiting climber who doesn't know from his guide that half the supposed 7Cs in his book are somewhere between 8A and impossible for him/her.
Re female ascents. Statistically male climbers will be above the mean height for all climbers and females below, therefore even if we grade for the average it will be fractionally harder for females to climb a given grade where reach is a factor (it often is). Pushing down the grade of reachy problems based on the opinions of the tall (who get the lions share of the ascent therefore votes) only exacerbates this. Yes, there will be a subset of problems which are easier for the shorter, but these are the exception, at least on the rocks we get round here.
-
Grades become more wrong the further away from the average you get, whether that's tall/short, or exceptionally fat/thin fingers (especially at pocketed crags), or exceptionally well suited to thug (big build) or fingery (waif build) stuff...
Yes, but my average is more favourable to the short (and average) than yours, and I would say fairer as a result, not to mention more transparent and readable.
-
You don't do a lot of grit bouldering do you Alex.
Ha, yeah, grades definitely work better on routes than boulders and maybe on lime vs grit too! Go to RRG or Margalef - basically everything there is easier if you are small (light) with small fingers... the kids do well there because the grades have been set by the average person climbing the route (previously an average full-grown male), then things often get downgraded after lots of small people go and do things, and the average ascensionist of the route becomes smaller and more suited to the route. So yes, I think that the grades are generally for the average of who's done it not the notional average.. it surprises me that this surprises you - it's kind of what I'd always expected.
I look forward to your utopia in which I know how hard a 5ft 9 guy that's 10kg lighter than me will find a route/problem, and in which a 5ft woman/kid will know how much harder the 20kg heavier 5'9 guy will find a route/problem.. but I can't see how it will ever happen. How on earth would they predict how much the ability to keep a foot low on move X is offset by the extra weight through the small crimp? It's hard enough grading for yourself, let alone having to adjust to the "average" (which is porbably a moving target based on changing demographics anyway). Basically I think most people grade things based on how hard they found it, compared to other things in a roughly similar style... no more, no less.
I think most boulderers are used to the fact that grades have a huge spread because problems are so specific (e.g. 7C for me is anything from a flash to failing to do the individual moves after multiple sessions) so I don't think your example of the travelling climber is surprising
-
. This gets ever more true at the upper end.
I don't think this bears up to rough observation - I think my insta feed of hard grit problems is probably about average height (Billy, Alex, Jim, Nathan, Ned, Dave, Orrin etc)
-
That statement was specific to grit and didn't imply there was nothing for smaller climbers. There are a lot af grit things you will never see Jim demonstrating on your feed.
Obviously folk vote in random idiosyncratic ways, and my utopia is a dream destined to stay mostly in my head, but grades will be better and more representative if there is an effort to grade to a standard model. And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents. Something that things like the UKC database could do better, given that they directly generate guide grades in many cases.
-
And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents.
I guess that's the crux isn't it, but we've just shown that even among experienced climbers there's no real consensus on whether we should try to grade for a notional morphology or just grade as we feel and let statistics take care of averaging things out...
-
Well quite.
-
Bonjoy, in your utopian grading scale, how would you deal with those gritty offerings from taller FAists that are essentially impossible for the average statured vitruvian man of grading?
Seems like the only thing that makes sense in these cases is just to specify they are morpho and give a grade based on those that can reach?
-
Bonjoy, in your utopian grading scale, how would you deal with those gritty offerings from taller FAists that are essentially impossible for the average statured vitruvian man of grading?
Seems like the only thing that makes sense in these cases is just to specify they are morpho and give a grade based on those that can reach?
For that I'd refer my learned colleague to the postscript of the reply I made at 12:19 today.
Essentially what you said, with added daggers.
-
Sorry missed that one!
A 🗡-🗡🗡🗡 scale to denote the level of morphoness?
-
Sorry missed that one!
A 🗡-🗡🗡🗡 scale to denote the level of morphoness?
If you're really really lanky, but not the most lanky, you can give a morphoness level of🗡🗡/🗡🗡🗡.
-
I quite like that the 7+8 guidebooks often give two grades for morpho climbs. Very helpful for quickly deciding what to avoid.
-
What symbol will we add to recognise the disadvantage that taller climbers are at when climbing things that aren't morpho and were put up by shorter climbers? Must we list the FA's height along with their grade?
-
We should use the world’s smallest violin for that
-
The violin symbol is already widely in use, legend has it that it once appeared in the first batch of the original 7+8 guide, but it turns out it was only a typo.
-
We should use the world’s smallest violin for that
....one so tiny that only a physicist like yourself will have the equipment to determine it's existence!!
-
Surely a massive violin very very far away would suit Stu better?
-
Maybe, although, like the post author it's all a bit academic, given how rarely it would warrant usage.
-
And that starts with agreeing/communicating what a grade represents.
I guess that's the crux isn't it, but we've just shown that even among experienced climbers there's no real consensus on whether we should try to grade for a notional morphology or just grade as we feel and let statistics take care of averaging things out...
Got to agree with Barrows entirely on this. Grading is subjective enough without trying to guess how it would feel for someone else. Grading is currently based on opinions plus averaging. I can't recall many occasions where I've heard folk offer not theirs, but the assumed average guys grade.
Though I can see how it's easy for Bonjoy to cheerlead for his utopian vision with his perfectly average physique, but not so for us giant shinned beanpole/ broad shouldered but short legged outliers respectively. Maybe a Squid game for them eh?
-
Like the proverbial stopped clock, at least my notional guide would be consistently right for someone, rather than unpredictably inconsistent for everyone. And yes JB, that someone would conveniently include me.
Here’s a though for all you defeatists. As a parent of a young climber I see more and more competent climbers starting at younger and younger ages. If some of these were to start developing new problems, would you still think it correct for them to grade for their height? In practice I’ve regraded the few things Spike has done for the average height rather than take his height skewed estimates.
I agree that it’s hard for climbers to guestigrade outside of their own physical parameters. Rather than try to fudge it, my solution is for people just not to vote on grades when they know they’re finding something easy because they are reaching past the difficulty (the dagger system thing covers FAs where a vote is required). There’s a functional difference between having an opinion on what grade something is for YOU and voting on a website where it directly contributes to the proposed grade that the climb is for others. Which is fine if the votes are from a representative sample of climbers but less so it it’s from the subset who find the climb the easiest, who are then being told by pundits on UKB that they should vote according to their own lived experience and shouldn’t take into consideration that the grade is supposed to be as right as possible for as many climbers as possible.
Obviously whichever way you cut it grades are inherently messy and inaccurate, I just think we should start out with a method which aims for consistency and accuracy. Grading involves a lot of guessing and that can include adding a bit or taking a bit off to account for your height (or listening to your tall/short mate).
-
We should use the world’s smallest violin for that
....one so tiny that only a physicist like yourself will have the equipment to determine it's existence!!
And the tiny fingers to play it with.
-
In terms of FA I would prefer if people went for a grade and used an adjective if they were not sure exactly where it sat, so hard 9b or soft 9b+ in case of erabor.
As a 6ft 3 climber I find the topic of height in climbing really interesting. Please dont shoot me down as I dont post often but I think the assumption that height in climbing is a big advantage doesnt stack up. I am always inspired but taller than average climbers at the elite level but I think they are in the minority. Taylor McNeill, Jan Hojer, Kai Lightner are all over 6 foot. Jimmy Webb and Sharma are around 6 foot. Sorry I dont know what height Alex is but guess over 6 foot?
In terms of grading I think there are more morphological factors at play than just height. However, I have not climber much on grit so appreciate it may be more height dependent than other rock types.
Personally I always assume grades are averaged out from opinions/ morphologies and so expect to find somethings easier and others more difficult due to being above average height - with this affecting bouldering more than sport.
-
My ramblings are mostly aimed at short fairly unsteep grit things, where I think height is an atypically major factor in difficulty. I totally agree that on longer steeper things and rock types with lots of intermediates (limestone) reach is less of a big deal.
-
I suppose the issue may be that you are largely concerned with grading new problems, whereas most of us are just chipping in an opinion on something that already has an established/ suggested grade. For new problems and cutting edge ones with very few repeats your idea has merit, but only until the majority get to exert their averaged opinion. The validity of a grade is basically determined by n and will always be unreliable where n is small, whether you grade for yourself or someone you've imagined.
(or listening to your tall/short mate)
Exactly - average two or more opinions. The more the better. You aren't asking your tall/short mate mate to reimagine his experience as your average one before commenting are you?
Jimmy Webb and Sharma are around 6 foot.
6 foot is tall. UK/USA average is 5'9- 5'10". I would say the most common elite build is not outlandish, >5'10" and <70kg. There are lots of very good short climbers too but I think there are a lot more climbs much harder/ impossible for the short than for the tall. Not being able to reach a hold generally causes a step change in difficulty.
-
I'm not going to comment on the "is height an advantage" thing because it's been done to death, we usually forget about ape index which IMO is more important and none of it explains Brooke Raboutou.
But I am going to try and bring peace to the warring tribes of Barrows and Fullwood, cos I reckon most of us actually do something in between. If someone asks my opinion on a grade I'll usually tell them what it felt like for me. Which is what Barrows said. BUT if the route/problem is really morpho I'll probably add caveats to my opinion or proffer a guess at what the grade would be for normal people.
So I reckon reality is problems/routes gradually acquire something more like a weighted average of people's opinion, where opinions from those at the extremes of the height spectrum carry less weight.
Of course - that's in the ideal world where grades are assigned based on general consultation with thoughtful and well-chosen individuals who don't use rubbish beta all the time. It's total bullshit in a world where grades are assigned based on the 10 people who felt strongly enough to vote on some online platform.
-
Surely we just need to replace grades with a 2 axis plot of perceived difficulty on the vertical axis and some kind of vitruvian man height / ape index on the other.
Non- morpho problems would have minimal grade spread, morpho more. Super morpho would have a ramp to infinity above a certain height.
We could even have weight on the third axis, but maybe in the ED conscious modern world, we can just ignore that aspect?
-
V8+ (r2=0.46)
-
In terms of FA I would prefer if people went for a grade and used an adjective if they were not sure exactly where it sat, so hard 9b or soft 9b+ in case of erabor.
Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a. Sometimes a hard 8a actually is tougher than a soft 8a+ in reality. But as long as we all generally know which are which, it's just climbing history, adding to the rich tapestry of our experiences...
Slash grades are a bit whack. Just pick one and then let (sensible) consensus either up-or down-grade it. Or just take the higher grade and run!
-
6 foot is tall. UK/USA average is 5'9- 5'10". I would say the most common elite build is not outlandish, >5'10" and <70kg. There are lots of very good short climbers too but I think there are a lot more climbs much harder/ impossible for the short than for the tall. Not being able to reach a hold generally causes a step change in difficulty.
6 foot is above average, not massively tall - look at a sport that has some advantages for the tall like tennis, the significant majority of top players are over 6 foot. Climbing is nothing like that.
When you say the most common elite build is >5'10 are you talking only about UK grit bouldering, other wise it doesn't make much sense. Can't find heights for everyone but Stefano Ghilsolfi is 5'7, Megos 5'8, Nalle 5'8, Daniel Woods 5'7 Steve Mac can't be more than 5'7. Ondra is always looks like more of an outlier when you seem alongside other climbers at comps.
As Stu says this has been done to death, but there seems little evidence that there's a particularly strong correlation between height an climbing ability, and any correlation there is would seem to be around or slighly below average height.
Maybe grit bouldering is populated by load of tall people lanking all the soft touches ;D
-
Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.
Whoa there! - Not me!
It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.
At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.
I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.
-
Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.
Whoa there! - Not me!
It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.
At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.
I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.
Now we are talking, old school versus new school grades… see Lancashire quarry E6 6c’s or any 80’s E6 (peak limestone) 7c on a rope, marginal/shit gear. Most would probably get E7 if done now. As climbing trends change certain styles become harder/easier. Does that mean the grades should change?
Back on topic ultimately I think you can only really say what grade something felt to you. And whilst we all factor in our own weaknesses/strengths trying to guess (ultimately that’s all it can ever be) what other people will think is at best inaccurate.
On reach it’s a very interesting debate, after years of setting ,including numerous World Cup/championships etc it’s really hard to gauge! I’d say the optimum size is below average, plastic has less options (no itermediates etc) than other rock types yet more often than not there is a short way round a big reach/span see anyone of thousands of kids finding amazing solutions to problems set for adults. I once went climbing with lynn hill (check me) it was a humbling experience and definitely stopped me using the reach card as much. Certain rock types suit different body types more or less,with grit probably suiting the taller quite often, I’m still saying 5’ 8 and below 70kgs is overall better than Adam’s average human across the board.
Oh and slash grades are bollocks
-
Makes me think of Zoolook - everyone considers it right at the top of the grade, but it still gets 8a.
Whoa there! - Not me!
It was the first 8a I did (1994!) and the first 8a for a couple of my mates with similar climbing profile. And yes it was super polished then too.
At the time I done one 7c+ and two 7c’s and a ton of E5 trad climbing. We had stamina and technique but were weak. As an indication I literally didn’t have the strength to dog the moves on Raindogs let alone the even harder moves on Baboo Baboo or GBH and it took a lot of work over the following few years to get up to the level of strength. I’m sure this weakness is laughable to Millennials but it shows that Zoolook is still doable by someone who would be shut down on easy steep boulder problems.
I think it is an interesting case where the profile of the notionally average climber has changed in the same way that Brown/Whillans cracks became averagely harder as climbers spent less time crack climbing. For climber’s now Zoolook might feel relatively harder than climbers back then. Whether that means it is 8a+ now because of changing trends I have no idea but it feels unlikely.
Was it a relatively quick tick for you back then Shark?
I’ve only hadn’t quick tickle but it felt tricky for sure - haven’t been on raindogs or GBH though. I had only climbed a couple of 8as back then and none in the uk. It’s one I’m very keen for at some point though
-
"One of the best and hardest 8a's" - Ondra
-
Was it a relatively quick tick for you back then Shark?
I’ve only hadn’t quick tickle but it felt tricky for sure - haven’t been on raindogs or GBH though. I had only climbed a couple of 8as back then and none in the uk. It’s one I’m very keen for at some point though
Definitely not a quick tick. It was a long time ago and I didn’t keep records. It felt like a massive siege at the time with attempts spread over just over two years after doing New Dawn. I was doing a mix of trad and sport and in a demanding 9-5 job. It was totally at my limit and I was conscious at the time that it suited me so I’d have to take a step back and get stronger to progress. It was 5 years before I ticked my next 8a - Raindogs.
My main point is that it’s not a route that you need to be strong for and the grade should reflect that (though it seems everyone is comparitively strong these days). It’s pretty sequency and conditions make a big difference - I ended up ticking it in November on the unlikeliest of days and by the skin of my teeth.
-
I once went climbing with lynn hill (check me) it was a humbling experience and definitely stopped me using the reach card as much.
Yeah sure BB and others don't seem to struggle often, but OTOH I bouldered a lot with Hazel on grit over a couple of years and a lot of stuff was basically impossible. Her conclusion was that grit bouldering grades were quite often useless, simply not applicable for someone of her stats.
6 foot is above average, not massively tall -
Funny that, cos 3" below average and everyone says you're short. And I said tall, not 'massively tall', no one would say 6 foot is 'massively tall'. In short, thanks for reiterating the bleeding obvious.
-
Big up the massive massif!
-
I’m calling bullshit. Impossible is a strong word. I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them, which is probably quite telling. I bet if hazel was to revisit them she might actually find that some of those impossible problems aren’t actually impossible for her anymore.
Ben’s a great example, there are quite a lot of moves at Stanage,turns out there’s only one which might be impossible for him, I think shorty’s should stop moaning. As should lanky streaks. In general 99.8% of the time it’s an excuse.
-
I’m calling bullshit. Impossible is a strong word. I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them, which is probably quite telling. I bet if hazel was to revisit them she might actually find that some of those impossible problems aren’t actually impossible for her anymore.
Ben’s a great example, there are quite a lot of moves at Stanage,turns out there’s only one which might be impossible for him, I think shorty’s should stop moaning. As should lanky streaks. In general 99.8% of the time it’s an excuse.
I agree, if it's not too bad for me therefore it can't be all that bad for anyone else. They just need to try harder.
-
Ye sorry I had meant sharma and webb as further examples of tall climbers at 6 foot. As already mentioned this has perhaps been discussed too much before and is only one factor. However, out of interest checked spread of heights for those who have climbed 9b+ and/ or 8C+ on wiki or 8a;
9b+
Adam Ondra 6'1, Stefano Ghisolfi 5'7, Megos 5'8, Sharma 6'0, Schubert 5'9 and Bosi (?)
8C+
Daniel Woods 5'7 , Dave Graham 5'10, Jimmy Webb 6'0, Daisuke Ichimiya 5'3, Griffin Whiteside (?), Shawn Raboutou (?), Pirmin Bertle 6'0, christian core 5'8, Rustam Gelmanov 5'5, Charles Albert 5'9, Dai Koyamada 5'5, Giuliano Cameroni 5'9, adam ondra 6'1, Taylor McNeill 6'3
So pretty broad spread of heights and so perhaps we should just get on with it :2thumbsup:
-
Like I said, height doesn’t tell you much. Two 5’7” climbers could have wingspans from 5’5” to 6”.
One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.
-
One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.
Exactly. We've all been out climbing and seen someone tall reach past the crux, and we've all seen someone short have a whole new crux handed to them. The reason short climbers are well represented in the upper echelons because if you're short you have to get really good to compensate for your height. Likewise the very tall are under represented because, operating on climbs overwhelming developed, graded or set by shorter climbers they rarely get the opportunity to develop any actual skill when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be had by lanking everything. Meanwhile those pushing the standards - Livesey, Fawcett, Moffatt, Moon, Sharma, Ondra, Honnold etc - are all 6 footers or at least a couple of inches the right side of average. Tall enough to have an advantage but not so much they miss the boat.
I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them
Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude. Here in the North of England we call it as it is, and if it's a grim November afternoon and you're getting nowhere on some piece of shit problem anyone not a total midget has already lanked and moved on, you're entitled to call it impossible. Even if what you really mean is somewhat harder than the given grade. I don't remember you being so enthusiastic about Marc LeMenestrel's growth mindset platitudes. Or is he just the wrong sort of shortie?
-
I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them
Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude.
Nothing to do with a mental attitude (or some other self-congratulatory nonsense); it's to do with crimping on stuff you wouldn't consider viable.
-
Yeah likewise Hazel was trying the crux of green traverse by crimping on some nothing intermediates. Not impossible, not 7a or whatever it gets. She's projecting this desperate and not particularly good variation while everyone else has lanked the move and left. Sure Yob would have hung around to spot Lynn on it tho.
-
Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude. Here in the North of England we call it as it is, and if it's a grim November afternoon and you're getting nowhere on some piece of shit problem anyone not a total midget has already lanked and moved on, you're entitled to call it impossible. Even if what you really mean is somewhat harder than the given grade. I don't remember you being so enthusiastic about Marc LeMenestrel's growth mindset platitudes. Or is he just the wrong sort of shortie?
Ha ha I’m Always on the brownies. So calling it like it is, is saying it’s impossible when it’s actually not, it’s just a bit cold and you can’t be arsed to persevere, because the people with you have lanked it.
From up here in Lancashire that’s nothing like impossible or telling it like it is.
Menestrels another whinging fucker, but a good example of not pronouncing it impossible and finding a way look at Brad Pitt, seemed to favour the giant, thanks to him now possibly easier for the short.
It’s got fuck all to do with mindset bollocks and everything to do with finding a way. I think you must still be stoned if you think I’m spouting about a positive mind set on here. As MrJ points out it’s about pulling like fuck, and footwork
-
One of them is going to get up brass monkeys and the other isn’t.
Exactly. We've all been out climbing and seen someone tall reach past the crux, and we've all seen someone short have a whole new crux handed to them. The reason short climbers are well represented in the upper echelons because if you're short you have to get really good to compensate for your height. Likewise the very tall are under represented because, operating on climbs overwhelming developed, graded or set by shorter climbers they rarely get the opportunity to develop any actual skill when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be had by lanking everything. Meanwhile those pushing the standards - Livesey, Fawcett, Moffatt, Moon, Sharma, Ondra, Honnold etc - are all 6 footers or at least a couple of inches the right side of average. Tall enough to have an advantage but not so much they miss the boat.
I can't tell whether you've just typed a load of drivel as a joke or in earnest.
-
I too can't tell if JB is trolling or just doesn't understand physics :shrug:
-
Are you ok Adam?
-
I bet lynn hill wouldn’t say they were impossible even if she couldn’t do them
Seriously? Have you been on the brownies again? Fuck Lynn Hill and her positive mental attitude. Here in the North of England we call it as it is, and if it's a grim November afternoon and you're getting nowhere on some piece of shit problem anyone not a total midget has already lanked and moved on, you're entitled to call it impossible.
This is wonderful stuff. JB's turned into the Andy Gray of bouldering.
https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-does-can-they-do-it-on-a-cold-rainy-night-in-stoke-mean/1f7alegnrwfr01i5vj34vak59k
-
Yeah likewise Hazel was trying the crux of green traverse by crimping on some nothing intermediates. Not impossible, not 7a or whatever it gets. She's projecting this desperate and not particularly good variation while everyone else has lanked the move and left. Sure Yob would have hung around to spot Lynn on it tho.
I probably would have spotted them both, as would you. I’d have been sat there anyway moaning about conditions or venue… That has fuck all to do with anything anyway! My point was things tend not to be impossible, short or tall. What’s your point? Hazel found the grit hard? I find southern sandstone desperate. So what
-
Are you ok Adam?
Best I've read on here for ages. Lovely stuff, Adam.
-
Top post JB, I admire your restraint and tact especially anticipating the inevitable gigantalankalope backlash.
Incidentally - Stu, when it comes to the equally inevitable "reaching past and avoiding hard moves" , I thought height made more of a difference than ape index for reaching UP rather than spanning compression moves. The additive bonus of ape index is for the total span so should be roughly halved for a single arm reaching upwards - the effective bonus being half the AI. Of course one still needs to take into account the arms in the massive advantage the taller climber has over the shorter climber. So comparing a, say, 5'8" +1 climber to a 5'10" +2 climber, the latter will have an extra 2 (height) + 1 (one arm) + 0.5 (extra AI compared to the former's AI), thus 3.5" more reach / 3.5" more crux-bypassing.
-
Does any of these mean I can sit on 2 mats to reach the holds my mate starts on from one mat.
-
I can't tell whether you've just typed a load of drivel as a joke or in earnest.
Got you right where I want you...
-
Errrrrm - when the taller climber hangs off straight arms their centre of gravity will be a heck of a way further down the crag than for the shorter climber...below the crux in more extreme examples.
-
Depends on the bodily proportions of the taller climber - for e.g. if it’s Ondra then most of his extra height could be in his swan neck. His COG might be the same as for a shorter climber but his head higher up. Maybe that’s his secret power.
:)
-
I too can't tell if JB is trolling or just doesn't understand physics :shrug:
Probably shouldn't be drawn in but unless it is trolling I'm amazed that anyone rational really believes that overall its an advantage to be tall as a climber. Never mind the physics , just look at the evidence, the best climbers have a fairly wide distribution centered around averageish height.
-
I'd love to see a graph plotting climbers' height against whether or not they think height is an advantage :-\.
Nobody likes to think they have an unearned advantage, especially if they're still crap.
-
I too can't tell if JB is trolling or just doesn't understand physics :shrug:
Probably shouldn't be drawn in but unless it is trolling I'm amazed that anyone rational really believes that overall its an advantage to be tall as a climber. Never mind the physics , just look at the evidence, the best climbers have a fairly wide distribution centered around averageish height.
Say's the taller than average climber ;)
-
Two pages later and no one has suggested a way I can get taller, or a method Alex can use to do something about his ridiculous shins.
Or explained Brooke.
-
Yeah likewise Hazel was trying the crux of green traverse by crimping on some nothing intermediates. Not impossible, not 7a or whatever it gets. She's projecting this desperate and not particularly good variation while everyone else has lanked the move and left. Sure Yob would have hung around to spot Lynn on it tho.
Jumping in, somewhat out of sequence. This is where the issue is.
The question about "Slash grades" arises from the nonsense of grading the "thing in itself" - the problem - a bit like trying to go to 15 decimal places to arrive at a more "accurate" (incorrect) number.
If you remove the larger holds from Green Traverse, it would "trade at a higher grade" because the most common level of difficulty of climbing required to do it would have increased. The difficulty of the sequence Hazel was trying doesn't suddenly decrease when you Araldite the holds back on.
Mind you, you'd be able to experience it first hand with new "shorter legs" if you chipped the jugs off.
Sometimes that climbing will be easier for the short/light, and sometimes easier for the taller/heavier.
Regarding attitude to moves that seem "out of reach", I find it easier to focus on where I can improve in terms of technique/strength, than to look at the rock for "reasons for not being able to do something". I don't even like typing the words ;D .. but then I know I have a vast ocean of improvement in technique/strength to enjoy!
Edit.
See what I did there. I'm of pretty average build. When someone shorter than me does something I find difficult, it's because they're lighter; if they're taller.. well, they're just taller. I like that.
-
Depends on the bodily proportions of the taller climber - for e.g. if it’s Ondra then most of his extra height could be in his swan neck. His COG might be the same as for a shorter climber but his head higher up. Maybe that’s his secret power.
:)
:off:
I noticed in the 4th pic in this post that "the neck" runs in the family, assuming that's his mum he's stood next to!
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUvWX5kKGXb/?utm_medium=copy_link
:off:
-
My point was things tend not to be impossible, short or tall. What’s your point?
The point is that while you can claim the rock is equal opportunities, climbing culture certainly isn't. Development, grading and guidebooks were all done overwhelming by middle class white guys. Whether or not you believe standards are generally pushed by the above average (see Bonjoy's point), factor in women and the disadvantaged and the demographic is significantly skewed. While we all strut about ticking this and that, when I've climbed with proper shorties it's clear they take grades rather less seriously. And with good reason. I feel lucky that pretty early on I was let into the secret that grades are largely a farce, but it's clear that isn't universally acknowledged. As we move towards a more inclusive future, should we be doing something about that?
-
As we move towards a more inclusive future, should we be doing something about that?
Like including a lot more slash grades??? :2thumbsup:
-
My point was things tend not to be impossible, short or tall. What’s your point?
The point is that while you can claim the rock is equal opportunities, climbing culture certainly isn't. Development, grading and guidebooks were all done overwhelming by middle class white guys. Whether or not you believe standards are generally pushed by the above average (see Bonjoy's point), factor in women and the disadvantaged and the demographic is significantly skewed. While we all strut about ticking this and that, when I've climbed with proper shorties it's clear they take grades rather less seriously. And with good reason. I feel lucky that pretty early on I was let into the secret that grades are largely a farce, but it's clear that isn't universally acknowledged. As we move towards a more inclusive future, should we be doing something about that?
Yikes it’s not an exclusive club, I’m sure they will work it out, grades are a guide and ultimately can never be accurate for everyone. Whilst we all like a tick I genuinely pity anyone who doesn’t see it for what it is…. What exactly are you suggesting a sliding grade scale depending on size, weight or any one of a thousand variables, I couldn’t care less if shorties wanna take an extra grade for everything on the grit, it means fuck all as you rightly point out.
-
Like including a lot more slash grades??? :2thumbsup:
Potentially yeah. But generally being a lot less dogmatic about grades, especially in print. And getting more input from shorties.
-
Like including a lot more slash grades??? :2thumbsup:
Potentially yeah. But generally being a lot less dogmatic about grades, especially in print. And getting more input from shorties.
Sounds amazing we could have a chart at the front of the guide where you work out which grade you can take for a given problem depending on your size/weight/gender , hold on we are including other variables aren’t we? Maybe a separate book of charts to work out what your due for your tick….. or we just accept it’s a guide and take it with a pinch of salt.
Either way I’m in! Just don’t ask me to get involved in guidebook writing.
-
Maybe a separate book of charts to work out what your due for your tick…
I think an app is the only way, with your stats inputted, and drawing on any variables for any given day - weather, number of spotters and mats, amount of alcohol consumed the night before, distance travelled to do the problem (to weed out local showponying) etc.
-
Maybe a separate book of charts to work out what your due for your tick…
I think an app is the only way, with your stats inputted, and drawing on any variables for any given day - weather, number of spotters and mats, amount of alcohol consumed the night before, distance travelled to do the problem (to weed out local showponying) etc.
Ha ha yes I’m showing my age here, an app is the way to go, but what about those who don’t have a smartphone, that’s not very inclusive. Jesus this is a logistical nightmare
-
Sorry, but if you identify as (heathen/non-smartphone), inclusivity doesn't cover you.
-
On a more serious note aren’t they the ones who’ve got it right if they aren’t taking them too seriously? Seems like you would only be delaying the epiphany that you luckily had if you try to level the playing field for them?
I suppose what I’m saying is it’s never going to be accurate and by trying to make it more accurate all you do is fuck it up and make it less likely people see it for what it is. A guide…..
-
but what about those who don’t have a smartphone
I'm guessing such people may exist, but I've yet to meet one. How on earth are they videoing their sends?
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/f1X08R8y5dAZXFUO1qLlwXERkHsGu-58ojNlGpVN-43Wdlcj0YEhDLrG7CT8Ovh8NTzZdSEau-FIvEwuiPS5G8Eu_-RTUCIDUFdv1nTDbr36kkdTS7gA71IGstt54855017P37qySzuo0mX9G9MBHepIU5IknQuMrSM1Q-OiTrCoqupCAHYHN3wsj0FKWT3DTJaH0wIna6207mX_FKGTZLl57J2yGsleL8JjLA2BfTJHi6bgRU8Pi3vQjBu24O9_FwrupkZVqFX1NI-WA06w63N4JNVibKUnvx9h_CjQA4J2zIVWPBz72oaR67G5C9v4yPdR7zDl0kR266Fv800G48jFK8LNtxsmr89BE2hvmGP3ahPPC_06Td5ESfy2NdbeTOmB4fROGhP1ZXjNzTgR9MdjWAJFMc3d5ovQBJDgSp0ZeZif5IHPQhtsLjIoxQxI30uBqmaZADbeTsJodNETwPCOEhqOzrE6IKU3JuX97cLX4-10ReaIFoYfM-Af5igj0piCLMzycHRYdJBTvG8JvJpiuzGZdOqk4SH3H45lVy1BRSB2YZlabfxdOt4Tf1IwozKXF4tlz8BBEFu2r0vlIW6IdqeYD0oRWab-SYFyO98aRz1Dllv9n8PBgX27wJZUCY960Zk7W1qJTtF3k1EzIwp935WpfEUDRGXMD9Xb9Fwfl-W2nrPUmd9n6aD2lGjbXfH_84mnLEeahXxBW1bOhOjq_w=w438-h914-no?authuser=0)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Ix3YtD89fkfPQrhesEFB4W6kRsbLLDal5He94_9kuk0XR_HKqITBykSWILB_I1XPT7OxP3pbGuiCZzkF4Q_KreLU6jXoj_Gea8I1l9Q2STqIifY4qWvJfT9_Px09MUsj4-Jhkp73GtN6qa8zwuL5XQFuF662rPO4aNd98t2sCL6mWbSQMmIZEjJ_Le09yajhPN1YSlEbWLJo_0fWS9BSjZxKSaQqcVbG-ONqeuG1gf2KJ_6TImCOzVi373fpVGmoaXnHGIW_hwuGo9jghTyCuicB3snsTLWmMAka4ZdVBi0qopy2XMCcFdDybqA2N3fTxB5cnnWUIFYMOyzcmTCzy5a_rwEIecgXjIxGnIp2hdPK5VwAgbrxJSCt0Pycv4MZPPSefdQovIjIK2Jeaz7UDLV7KijMPbTE4kwI5rdCjtGWExCg0-EfnlLgy4q62n8fJUOe-T6l_LahGaiN7A_9do5dCsyrUxGRXY6Xh_KJNviOIzfOaM3vJ-KSsRuMrflBpcwEPOuf15dbSWNkX05FxHKdA_1BZ47HGdgH_pbG3lqJ2leQxJe4J3rOfgQFhs28Et3zda4GckQnQSFvSXX6W0JP7J0t_fKZoiVrgtstWeZ4RLXJio0ndBcyFe2cy25pdaTiMbPVZRO-dcd0T_uxKergIujxJD35DXcbrYJOM7BZDBOBaFn2ynZ2WxakZNBMb_-zhdxO1x00c2veKpr5o8jA0g=w438-h914-no?authuser=0)
Just sayin'.....
-
Pure babble. Do the staff only let you use non - toxic wax crayons?
-
Grades are definitely nonsense in all sorts of directions and not fixable in this universe. There are too many variable to take into consideration. That's why I favour grading for a fixed/idealised set of variables, at least then you are acknowledging that the grade is not taking everything into account and you know what the baseline is from which you need to make your own calculation (good conditions and an averagely proportioned able bodied climber).
A more accurate means of grading might be to give the grade as a line graph of height against grade. This would only really be an increase in accuracy on very popular things where a large number of votes from a wide range of climbers was available. Obviously it would still be a blunt tool, missing out innumerable other factors. And even more obviously nobody would actually ever be arsed enough to do the legwork to regrade everything in this way. Might be worth the effort in select guides or articles on specific problems though.
Edit: - or what Fultonius drew
-
I'm getting memories of an identical discussion having taken place on this forum in the past. Can someone reboot The Matrix please?
A lot of the mental gymnastics goes away if you think about grades in a different way. Grades are not trophies that you award to a climber based on their ability (hence trying to come up with elegant solutions to save the blushes of competent short-arses who cant' get up a very reachy 7A). Grades are a means of comparing the difficulty of climbs, and grades are the best predictor of difficulty when comparing climbs of a similar style.
Thus a 7A reachy wall should feel similar in difficulty to other reachy 7A walls; 6B aretes should feel a little easier than 6B+ aretes and so on. Shorties are going to find 7A reachfests harder than 7A lowball arse-drags and vice-versa: what a surprise!
It's only really possible to comment on grades with any competence when you've done plenty of benchmarks at a variety of grades in the style you're trying to comment on.
-
Sounds like mental gymnastics to me. It also still falls down if one bum scraping roof is graded based on the opinions of tall people (on a mission to downgrade anything they can lank :whistle:)and the next based and the opinions of shorties, and you have no idea who voted for what.
-
Perhaps grades should have the estimate notation, e.g. 7B̂. Then everyone is clear it is just an estimate and not the true value. Unless of course it is benchmark (such as benchmark at Brimham) when the grade would be 7B. Enjoy adding circumflexes in your guides.
Has the bonus of looking a bit french
-
Chapter 14.
Kneepads...
-
This is the best thread in ages! 5 pages of bollocks basically going round in circles, isolation finishes tomoz I’m out.
-
This is like ukc with Font grades.
-
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVA0ZViNIpi/?utm_medium=copy_link
/thread
-
They need slash colours.
-
This is the best thread in ages! 5 pages of bollocks basically going round in circles, isolation finishes tomoz I’m out.
Half term finishes tomorrow, aye to that :beer2:
-
A few years back i did my usual Boulder set for Inverness Wall and graded the problems as fine single malt whisky.
"Rib blue on the 40 degree wall, Grade- 26yr old lagavulin, In the light, ultra-smooth and oily texture a sweetness briefly gleams, soon tinged with salt and pepper, the whole growing more savoury and smokier all the time. Here is all the precious sweet-smoky style of Lagavulin, in a glowing, well-rounded form. A puff of chalk, not needed, yet seems to heighten the harmony of flavours".
As you would expect it didn't last long but i still think the idea is sound.
We are discussing Art and no amount of words will truly encompass what we are/were and will be as we sprawl across our various Geology.
-
A few years back i did my usual Boulder set for Inverness Wall and graded the problems as fine single malt whisky.
"Rib blue on the 40 degree wall, Grade- 26yr old lagavulin, In the light, ultra-smooth and oily texture a sweetness briefly gleams, soon tinged with salt and pepper, the whole growing more savoury and smokier all the time. Here is all the precious sweet-smoky style of Lagavulin, in a glowing, well-rounded form. A puff of chalk, not needed, yet seems to heighten the harmony of flavours".
As you would expect it didn't last long but i still think the idea is sound.
We are discussing Art and no amount of words will truly encompass what we are/were and will be as we sprawl across our various Geology.
Give me an early bottle of Ardbeg Uigeadail any day....
-
In that context of course, it's good to remember that in gymnastics - and similar "movement" disciplines - the "grade" moves along with advances in technique/strength.
That was the idea behind Gill's B1-B3 grade system for bouldering.
Of course, Gill is a mathematician. I love Einstein's remarks about maths: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
We attach the "number" to the rock, and therefore think it's fixed/solid, which of course it isn't. Everything gets shuffled up the curve slightly.
-
I'm getting memories of an identical discussion having taken place on this forum in the past. Can someone reboot The Matrix please?
This
-
Perhaps grades should have the estimate notation, e.g. 7B̂. Then everyone is clear it is just an estimate and not the true value. Unless of course it is benchmark (such as Benchmark at Brimham) when the grade would be 7B. Enjoy adding circumflexes in your guides.
Has the bonus of looking a bit french
If Benchmark is 7B then Zoo York probably needs bumping down a tad.
-
Can someone enlighten me on what 8a/b is
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVVp0CCDDHz/
-
Can someone enlighten me on what 8a/b is
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVVp0CCDDHz/
The most accurate description I've seen of how difficult that problem might be for different people?
-
Can someone enlighten me on what 8a/b is
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVVp0CCDDHz/
The most accurate description I've seen of how difficult that problem might be for different people?
V10 in Cameron-Duff ;)
-
Can someone enlighten me on what 8a/b is
https://www.instagram.com/p/CVVp0CCDDHz/
The most accurate description I've seen of how difficult that problem might be for different people?
V10 in Cameron-Duff ;)
I refer you to my previous statement...
-
https://www.instagram.com/nilsfavre/tv/CXHGaQfIu4A/?utm_medium=copy_link
Apollo, ~8a\+
Genius.
Has the backslash been used before?
-
Backslash and the "approximately" squiggle :yes:
-
I think it is a really exciting time to be climbing, with all these new grades appearing. You don't even have to be climbing hard to get new grades, ~5\5+ is out there every night. Very egalitarian.
-
Grades are quite interesting from a philosophical point of view. An attempt to apply a relatively simple system of overall difficulty to something completely ahuman I.e not designed for that, or even designed at all.
I'd say tall people need to accept that tracksides is just easier for them and short light people just need to accept that ratty crimps on a limestone 40 degree overhang is easier for them. I suppose you could take it one step further; being tall is genetic, being small and light is genetic. Being good at pulling really hard on holds has a strong genetic element, as does finger strength, as does everything really. Would someone say "easy for me I've got genetically talented fingers" or "hard for me cos I'm naturally not suited to climbing" they would not. Height and reach are areas we sort of accept that it is okay though cos you can literally do fuck all about it (whereas you can get stronger fingers even if genetically you might be predisposed towards weaker ones).
Anyway I think a consensus should arise based on what an "average" climber would be required to do. If you can lank the crux well done, it's easier for you and you know it, so long as you can sleep at night all is well.
-
Absolutely. The confusion arises around what a grade is.
It’s an attempt to give an idea of the difficulty most people will encounter. Pulling it apart because it does not accurately predict the level of difficulty every climber will experience is nonsensical, because it is a simple impossibility to do that, people being hugely variable.
-
Anyway I think a consensus should arise based on what an "average" climber would be required to do. If you can lank the crux well done, it's easier for you and you know it, so long as you can sleep at night all is well.
It is.
-
I thought lanky Will just decided and chatted away until no one else cared anymore?
-
Anyway I think a consensus should arise based on what an "average" climber would be required to do. If you can lank the crux well done, it's easier for you and you know it, so long as you can sleep at night all is well.
It is.
Tbh I'm not even really joking! If someone lanks it then they can hardly help that. Of course if someone goes looking for stuff that's morpho, suits them, is easy for their body type, and is saying yeah I've done stuff at X grade when really for them it's not been that... well again if they can sleep at night no worries. Nbd.
-
I have already fixed all this with a nice elegant plot to replace the silly fixed grades.
-
That's the illusion though isn't it, and we encounter it similarly everywhere. Grades are seen as "Tags" that are attached to things (in a fixed way).
This is nice and succinct (from MrJR), and expresses how unconnected the grade (whichever sign we use) is to some thing in the rock:
Absolutely. The confusion arises around what a grade is.
It’s an attempt to give an idea of the difficulty most people will encounter. Pulling it apart because it does not accurately predict the level of difficulty every climber will experience is nonsensical, because it is a simple impossibility to do that, people being hugely variable.
It's annoying isn't it, that all too often, grades are just a sign of our ineptitude and weakness. We don't like it when they point to how crap we are, and would rather they pointed the other way occasionally ;D