|
|
91
@Northern Yob - Generational thing? You being funny? I'm in my 5th decade and have been trad climbing for 20 years. I've climbed trad in Cornwall, Wales, northern Ireland and all across Scotland. E3 and E4 would be the zone where I probably have the best "feel" for grades, and, looking at my logbook I've done 83 E3s and 63 E4s. When I rock up to a new crag in a new area, I usually drop to the more comfortable grades and then build up. I'll look at the trad grade, description, maybe notes on UKC..., eyeball the route then think "aye, that looks a goer". So far I've found grades to be pretty consistent within +/- half an E grade and I've had similar success onsighting wherever I go.
Some places I've had more success, North Wales and Fairhead, for example - maybe I just had a good week, climbing well and good conditions, or maybe they were a bit easier? Who knows.
But fucking hell, if I rocked up to a crag and there was an E4 7a all I'd think is:
Are they on crack? 
Please put aside your straw man arguments about trying to relate back to sport grades... no one mentioned that, no one (in this thread) is arguing that. I'm not "back calculating", I'm using the UK trad grade exactly how most of the people I climb with use it - a scale that gives you an idea of the relative difficulty of onsighting a route.
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.
Evidently not…. We are basically the same generation. Isn’t this the same with all grades, there are always things which fuck it up…. A lot of 5.13 onsighters probably can’t get their heads around a 5.11 offwidth, how can it be the same grade as their regular warm up…. Have you been to font?? I like to think I can climb v6/7 pretty much anywhere (I can most places) there are things which equate to v4 in font, I can’t even get off the ground on. Does that mean they aren’t that grade? Adam ondra doesn’t fall off many v10’s I wouldn’t imagine? Yet he dropped Marie Rose. What E4 7a does is tell you it’s one of those rare problems before you even pull off the ground therefore doing it’s job perfectly… conveying information.
92
« Last post by lukeyboy on Yesterday at 09:44:07 am »
The wonderful thing about Uk grades is they have two halves. E4 5a tells you it’s death on a stick. E4 7a tells you it’s desperate, but short-lived AND not dangerous. Just because you don’t fancy either despite normally liking E4s doesn’t make them wrong.
Sure, 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? Font 7B+ just seems outside the realms of E4 however short or safe.
93
« Last post by webbo on Yesterday at 09:40:37 am »
Adam is JB.
94
« Last post by Bonjoy on Yesterday at 09:27:57 am »
This has reminded me. The crag is now added to the RAD - https://thebmc.co.uk/modules/rad/View.aspx?id=7836
95
« Last post by Fultonius on Yesterday at 09:21:30 am »
100% what Adam said… it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Is this a generational thing??
As Adam points out much better than I could, E grades aren’t sport grades… the whole point of them is to convey information, which they do in a not that complicated way, I really can’t get my head round why lots of people have such a problem with it or are against them. There’s got to be some serious miles in this…. Thread split surely.
Adam? Who's Adam? JB, you seem to have a very strong view on this. I don't - as I've said I have next to no experience of this highball/E-Grade issue. The closest I can think of is Looney Tunes at Cambusbarron which is (from very distant memory) around Font 6B at a *likely* ankle breaking height. I actually fell off soloing it once and managed to spin round and somehow miss all the boulders but I got very lucky! @Northern Yob - Generational thing? You being funny? I'm in my 5th decade and have been trad climbing for 20 years. I've climbed trad in Cornwall, Wales, northern Ireland and all across Scotland. E3 and E4 would be the zone where I probably have the best "feel" for grades, and, looking at my logbook I've done 83 E3s and 63 E4s. When I rock up to a new crag in a new area, I usually drop to the more comfortable grades and then build up. I'll look at the trad grade, description, maybe notes on UKC..., eyeball the route then think "aye, that looks a goer". So far I've found grades to be pretty consistent within +/- half an E grade and I've had similar success onsighting wherever I go. Some places I've had more success, North Wales and Fairhead, for example - maybe I just had a good week, climbing well and good conditions, or maybe they were a bit easier? Who knows. But fucking hell, if I rocked up to a crag and there was an E4 7a all I'd think is: Are they on crack? Please put aside your straw man arguments about trying to relate back to sport grades... no one mentioned that, no one (in this thread) is arguing that. I'm not "back calculating", I'm using the UK trad grade exactly how most of the people I climb with use it - a scale that gives you an idea of the relative difficulty of onsighting a route. 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.
96
100% what Adam said… it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Is this a generational thing??
As Adam points out much better than I could, E grades aren’t sport grades… the whole point of them is to convey information, which they do in a not that complicated way, I really can’t get my head round why lots of people have such a problem with it or are against them. There’s got to be some serious miles in this…. Thread split surely.
I think it is at least in part generational. Nobody cares whether West Side Story was once E4 in some black and white guidebook. In real life it isn't to >95% of climbers, its 7B+, and I'm firmly on team 'it doesn't need an egrade but if you insist its clearly not E4, its E6 at a minimum.'
I love E grades, they're great; to throw your point back at you, I can't get my head around why lots of people are intent on using them for things they clearly suck at and are in practice useless for.
Just to be clear I’m not insisting on anything…. I couldn’t care less what anyone calls anything, I was just pointing out how it’s actually quite a simple concept, nothing more nothing less….. agreed they don’t work for highballs, but they weren’t ever meant to, they are from a time before bouldering mats (which are ultimately why they don’t work for highballs) I think they convey information about certain things quite well…. Different systems can also do that. Ultimately it’s all subjective so it’s never going to be a science, which it seems some people seem to think it is. One man’s e4 is another’s e3 in the same way someone’s 7b is 7c.
97
100% what Adam said… it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Is this a generational thing??
As Adam points out much better than I could, E grades aren’t sport grades… the whole point of them is to convey information, which they do in a not that complicated way, I really can’t get my head round why lots of people have such a problem with it or are against them. There’s got to be some serious miles in this…. Thread split surely.
I think it is at least in part generational. Nobody cares whether West Side Story was once E4 in some black and white guidebook. In real life it isn't to >95% of climbers, its 7B+, and I'm firmly on team 'it doesn't need an egrade but if you insist its clearly not E4, its E6 at a minimum.' I love E grades, they're great; to throw your point back at you, I can't get my head around why lots of people are intent on using them for things they clearly suck at and are in practice useless for.
98
« Last post by shark on Yesterday at 09:07:33 am »
Back from Kalymnos but off on my travels again later today and weather permitting will have no signal from tomorrow till Sunday 12th I was told that the Peak MC reps were gagged at Weds evening’s meeting. It was pointed out to me this was a missed opportunity by MC as the article: 11.8.2 MC includes "may refer the resolution to members through area meetings for discussion & feedback" prior to accepting or rejecting. Certainly a primary role of MC reps is to feedback from Council meetings and this was pointed out pointedly by at least one attendee from what I heard. I gather one of the reps said that the published rebuttal document wasn’t endorsed/approved by Members Council despite the article saying it had been. I chased Andy Syme again for feedback on MC’s position last night by email and he replied this time saying he would provide a formal response today. I’ll share when I get it. Regarding verification I requested when I submitted the updated spreadsheets that the criteria was relaxed in light of the better understanding of how Change worked such that if there was a unique name on the BMC database that matched the Change list and the person was in the vicinity of the postcode or part postcode then that person should be approved. I also requested if the threshold wasn’t hit then a email was sent out to any no match names to ask whether they had signed the petition. I’m told that the deadline for supporting papers is the 27th May. I’ve done a lot of work already on a paper detailing about the background to previous recommendations at the BMC for a subsidiary and how it might work. If I can find time I’ll do a rebuttal to the published rebuttal document*. I’ve already indicated some of the flaws it contains online. I will also be away weather permitting with no signal 18-26 May so won’t be able to attend the Open Forum on the 21st May. I encourage everybody to go particularly if you have questions on the resolutions process, the finances and the published rebuttal document. At the suggestion of the CEO a few/couple of weeks ago I had agreed to having an Open Forum just for the Resolutions but have heard nothing back on this since. Finally it has been confirmed that the BMC has sought and received legal advice on whether the subsidiary was a special (75% majority required) or ordinary resolution (50%). As I have always said and contrary to that stated by Andy Syme, Offwidth et al it is in fact Ordinary albeit with a couple of caveats which I’ll explore if it gets on the agenda. Good to see sense has prevailed here too. It has been in short supply. * Rebuttal paper
99
100% what Adam said… it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Is this a generational thing??
As Adam points out much better than I could, E grades aren’t sport grades… the whole point of them is to convey information, which they do in a not that complicated way, I really can’t get my head round why lots of people have such a problem with it or are against them. There’s got to be some serious miles in this…. Thread split surely.
100
mo, trad grades should, as a minimum, give you an idea of how "onsightable" a route is, and that an equal number of bold climbers should be able to climb an E4 5c, as good crack/face/technical climbers should be able to I'm an E4 6a...
I always think the hypothetical "balanced trad climber" should have an equal chance of onighting all E4s. Oh jeez. Well you’ve done well to summarise the problem, which is people wanting an E grade to be like a sport grade, so they can say ‘I CLIMB E4’ and not have some weird exceptions bugging them. The wonderful thing about Uk grades is they have two halves. E4 5a tells you it’s death on a stick. E4 7a tells you it’s desperate, but short-lived AND not dangerous. Just because you don’t fancy either despite normally liking E4s doesn’t make them wrong. the overall difficulty includes the danger bit, obviously. ie: the second one would probably be at least E8 as it would have a top end Font 7B+ boulder problem a very long way off the ground. Sorry, I meant overall physical difficulty, but yeah I agree, makes sense. The first one is a 7B+ boulder problem with a much easier finish (which to me, I wouldn't bother giving an E grade, but if insisted on, then the only one that would make sense is E6 or perhaps E7). Makes no sense. Again: the 7a already tells you it’s really hard. Your E6 or 7 is a bizarre attempt to translate into some overall sport grade. That not the point of E grades. It’s E4.
|
|
Recent Posts