|
|
1
Cycling did this with the world hour record. They disallowed all the records done with aero bars and the likes and would only allow equipment similar to what Eddie Merckx used in 1972.
In running the equivalent would be barefoot. The marathon WR has stood since the 1960 Olympics at 2:15:16, I'm sure there is someone out there who could beat the record tomorrow, but its not going to sell any shoes...
2
« Last post by andy moles on Today at 11:05:25 am »
it's clearly not consistent with how the grading system normally works
I think what you mean is how grading systems normally work. The beauty of the E-grade is does both, and edge cases are clearly flagged by unusual overall/ tech grade combos.
What I actually meant was 'not consistent with how the British trad grading system normally works', and I think that statement is true, on the understanding that the first part of the grade normally describes overall difficulty. Neither E4 4c nor E4 7a are the most useful way to describe those respective types of experience IMO - though I'm conjecturing in the first case because I haven't done one! Presumably no gear, a shit belay, very sustained and extremely loose. I'm curious why E4 seemed more useful than HXS? On that kind of terrain, why not E3, or E5? It's so far outside the normal distribution of the grade range, how do you pick a grade? I have done ungraded choss approaches that have felt more of an ordeal than climbs of a given standard and joked that they were E5 4a or whatever, but really all that's doing is shoehorning a different (though, like highball bouldering, related) kind of experience into a grading system that isn't great for it. I agree E4 4c and E4 7a do give a reasonable idea of what to expect, but I think there are other ways of grading that do a better job. Since they exist anyway, we might as well use them (in the case of WSS, I think everyone actually agrees).
3
Yes, exactly that.
NB, when WSS was given E4 7a: a) there were no bouldering mats, and b) no one used font grades except in Font.
The most useful/ popular modern grade would, I suppose be 7C(!). Although the (!) scheme hasn't been universally adopted, and doesn't really tell you if the hard climbing is high up or not, whereas E4 7a clearly implies it can't be.
4
« Last post by jwi on Today at 10:58:57 am »
I saw a good one in French today on twitter: "passer du coca a light" (lit. change from Coke to Light) instead of the more traditional "passer du coq à l'âne" (lit. "change from rooster to donkey", meaning making a non sequitur).
(Twitter is the best place to learn the very lowest registers of english/french/spanish etc... Increadibly useful for language-learning even if the eyes often start to bleed).
5
I think most are fine with the principle of same E grade with low tech grade for bold/sustained or high tech grade for safe/short-lived, but for the latter isn't that what E4 6b is? Or perhaps 6c at a stretch?
So do we agree 'standard' E4 is around 5c/6a? So we are fine with going down to the 4c/5a grade in extreme cases - bold, sustained, loose, poor protection. But if we go up the same amount - to 6c/7a - it's somehow unacceptable? Why? Admittedly West Side is an edge case because the crux is off the floor. If you had to do that move off a rope, yes, it would be E-harder.
I also think the other end of the scale is nonsense! I'm not fine with E4 4c either.
4c is the extreme bold end of E1 e.g. California Arete, which I'm sure you know but just for general context - a 50m solo.
Are there any E4 4c? Perhaps Fiend knows some, but I'd suggest they are way outside the mainstream of climbing, unlike WSS.
I guess I'd summarise by saying that for WSS and similar, a font grade and knowing that it's a highball (for which you only need eyes) is enough, and more useful than an E grade.
And if one insists on giving it an E grade then it's too hard to fall within the spectrum of E4 (IMO generally 5c-6b, extreme ends 5b and 6c), however short or safe.
Absolutely E4 is irrelevant with regards wss,before bouldering mats it was very relevant see also Ulysses! I don’t think jb/Adam is saying it should be given e4 anywhere he’s more explaining why it was, and therefore why it’s a bad example to rail against e grades as it actually shows they work perfectly well….
6
« Last post by slab_happy on Today at 10:51:11 am »
Currently playing a bunch of World of Horror, which has been very accurately described as Junji Ito's Arkham Horror: The Board Game. Fun if you like a mean little roguelite. Though either combat could be more interesting or I'm not using it to its full potential.
Update: I was not using it to its full potential.
7
« Last post by lukeyboy on Today at 10:43:05 am »
I think most are fine with the principle of same E grade with low tech grade for bold/sustained or high tech grade for safe/short-lived, but for the latter isn't that what E4 6b is? Or perhaps 6c at a stretch?
So do we agree 'standard' E4 is around 5c/6a? So we are fine with going down to the 4c/5a grade in extreme cases - bold, sustained, loose, poor protection. But if we go up the same amount - to 6c/7a - it's somehow unacceptable? Why? Admittedly West Side is an edge case because the crux is off the floor. If you had to do that move off a rope, yes, it would be E-harder.
I also think the other end of the scale is nonsense! I'm not fine with E4 4c either. 4c is the extreme bold end of E1 e.g. California Arete, which I'm sure you know but just for general context - a 50m solo. Are there any E4 4c? Perhaps Fiend knows some, but I'd suggest they are way outside the mainstream of climbing, unlike WSS. I guess I'd summarise by saying that for WSS and similar, a font grade and knowing that it's a highball (for which you only need eyes) is enough, and more useful than an E grade. And if one insists on giving it an E grade then it's too hard to fall within the spectrum of E4 (IMO generally 5c-6b, extreme ends 5b and 6c), however short or safe.
8
JB - does E4 4c actually exist? I've seen 5b... Yeah, I've done one. Several E4 5a's on Cilan, although it's quite common to go to alternatives like XS, HXS. For the pitch I did. I think E4 4c contains more info than HXS 4c. It was a horrowshow on many levels. it's clearly not consistent with how the grading system normally works I think what you mean is how grading systems normally work. The beauty of the E-grade is does both, and edge cases are clearly flagged by unusual overall/ tech grade combos. If it's about imparting useful information, I'd rather know an independent boulder grade for the top section, personally (what is it? I never got that far) It feels* about 6a, at a height that is uncomfortable but not guaranteed too injure. Compared to other highball E4s like No More Excuses, it's a bit easier and shorter but you've done harder moves to get there. *would undoubtedly feel easier at ground level having not done uk 7a to get there.
9
« Last post by Fiend on Today at 10:23:08 am »
10
« Last post by Fiend on Today at 10:22:48 am »
Maybe in the obscure microcosm of parochial grit weirdness E4 7a makes sense? But in any place where you have to put more than 3 bits of pro in before topping out, it's bonkers and breaks the system.
Surely given you're in your 9th decade, have been climbing trad all over the world for 87 years and something to do with this number of E-blah and that number of E-whatever, you'd realise that in an otherwise very functional system there will be the occasional outlier that won't quite fit into how that system usually describes and overall challenge, but will still convey some comparable information. As an E4 climber you won't get up the extreme outlier of West Side Story, as a 6a climber you won't get up the extreme outlier of Rubble.... This fixation on the most extreme outliers - particularly ones that were graded in a different era for a different style of ascent and are now accurately described as highball boulder problems - is really not the most useful way to see if His Royal Majesty's Great Brexitish Traditional Grading System still works well...
|
|
Recent Posts
