I have no real idea about what's
actually being debated here. But I'm not going to let that stop me from weighing in ...
I think Northern yob and JB might feel a particularly strong identification with being a "British trad climber," steeped in the culture, history and yes, the grading system of it. They grew up, if I'm guesstimating their ages correctly, in the glory days of British trad
That's me, in age, much more than JB and NY (is NY Jason Pickles? If so, I've only just realised). Both tech and E grades were very new and still being worked out when I started. They emerged as elaborations on the existing system, itself a product of earlier elaborations, in order to give a fuller picture of the difficulties and character of a given route. It's just struck me that it's as much about the character bit as it is about the difficulty bit: not only hard is something, but also what is it
like. That's a question that is much more relevant to the kind of trad found in Britain than, say, on most sport climbing. I'm not saying British trad is completely unique but it has particular qualities that are reflected in the grading system that evolved to describe it (and, again, I think a grade is a description as much as it is some kind of ranking device).
So, the grading system was never really "designed" but evolved alongside climbing's evolution. And for the most I always found it incredibly fit for purpose, flexible and nuanced. Difficulties at the top end are probably as much about the difficulty of grading at the top end under any system as they are about faults of this specific system.
Anyway, like I said, I've not really been able to work out what is actually at stake in this thread, so who knows.
Recent Posts