Impact Day has to be the least impressive hard route I've ever looked at.Interesting you say that (when mentioning Equilibrium in the same post!), how so? The rock is so nice on Pavey you can't go too far wrong surely?
Hmm. Burbage South is one of the bigger grit crags, and Equilibrium a full-height line up an arete. If you consider that unimpressive you're basically writing off the majority of grit routes.
Was watching Pearson on Equilibrium last night as I couldn’t remember much about it. It’s a bit of a funny one isn’t it, with the ledge you can sit down on, essentially followed by quite a short techy boulder you can’t fall off. How you begin to compare that in difficulty to this new one when the character is so different, I have no idea.
Answer is you don’t.
From my perspective, I climbed Equilibrium, a benchmark E10, two decades ago and I'm in way better shape now. When I did that route my best sport grade was 8b+, but I've climbed 2 grades harder than that recently and also done all sorts of strength-based PBs, which I was nowhere near back then. I know I'm a much better climber overall, yet Lexicon still took me right to the brink and required way more preparation.
Quote from: GreshamFrom my perspective, I climbed Equilibrium, a benchmark E10, two decades ago and I'm in way better shape now. When I did that route my best sport grade was 8b+, but I've climbed 2 grades harder than that recently and also done all sorts of strength-based PBs, which I was nowhere near back then. I know I'm a much better climber overall, yet Lexicon still took me right to the brink and required way more preparation.
Fantastic effort but I don’t understand all the soul searching when trying to stick the E grade on. The Uk tech grade is useless. Just give it fr8b+ R/X and we all know where we are.
Fantastic effort but I don’t understand all the soul searching when trying to stick the E grade on. The Uk tech grade is useless. Just give it fr8b+ R/X and we all know where we are.Am I being overly cynical to think preserving E grades is good for the British ego in a world where 8b+ just isn't very hard any more and is being climbed on scary / run out routes abroad relatively commonly without much fuss?
It would be interesting to see a consensus on how UK trad grades are supposed to relate to each other. To my OCD mind at least. As it seems there are two independent interpretations of trad grades running in parallel to each other at E8 and above. What could be termed the newer school version and the old-school version. One interpretation an E-grade above the other.I always thought the “old school” conversion applied where the route was almost like a sport route. Not particularly big run outs. More of a physical challenge than a head game. As soon as the runouts get big then the conversion goes out the window. An 80 foot fall is a completely different proposition to doing the same climb with several bits of good gear.
i.e. how can 8b+ sport standard and scary/bold/runout, but not exceptionally dangerous from the crux, be E11 in the following grade table:
safe-ish 9a-9a+ E11
safe-ish 8c-8c+ E10
safe-ish 8b-8b+ E9
safe-ish 8a-8a+ E8
safe-ish 7c-7c+ E7
safe-ish 7b-7b+ E6
safe-ish 7a-7a+ E5
safe-ish 6c-6c+ E4
safe-ish 6b-6b+ E3
safe-ish 6a-6a+ E2
safe-ish 5 - 5+ E1
Where:
Bold/scary/runout but not exceptionally dangerous from crux: +1 E-grade
i.e. loads of E5s/6s/7s, Strawberries (E7) 7c, Point Blank (E8) 7c+/8a, If 6 was 9 (E9) 8a+, Various Dave Mac E9s 8a+, Olympiad (E10) 8b, Prisoners of the Sun (E10) 8b - arguably dangerous from crux, Choronzon (E10) 8b+, Great Ness Wall (E10) 8b+/c, Rhapsody (E11) 8c.
Exceptionally dangerous from crux: +2 E-grades
i.e. easy but v.serious slabs, loads of E5/6s/7s/8s, Rare Lichen (E9) 7c - although v.questionable as people have taken the fall, Gribin Wall Climb (E9) 7c+.
Unusually safe from crux: -1 E-grade
i.e. Cockblock (E5) 7b, hard to think of many, perhaps people like to put stuff with well-protected hard climbing next to gear as 'benchmark for the grade' rather than drop the grade.
If only because I have a v.cool proj which is 7c/+ on gear, scary/bit runout but not dangerous, and it'd be nice to know what you're supposed to give it apart from the obvious which is 7c/+ on gear. Maybe the E number depends on whether I'm planning on starting a climbing business.
Fantastic effort but I don’t understand all the soul searching when trying to stick the E grade on. The Uk tech grade is useless. Just give it fr8b+ R/X and we all know where we are.Yeah. Although instead of the R/X weirdness we could just give it an overall grade that sums up the challenge including boldness. Maybe E11 or something?? And he's already suggested fr8b+ E11, maybe just stick a little extra hint of what the crux is and put it in a logical order, say E11 7a (8b+). :smartass:
I thought it was pretty interesting actually.Me too. Good to see the amount of detail behind it. Although if moose doesn't like the Ondra performance machine, God knows what he'll make of this. The main conclusions I took from it were that having good supportive people around you (paid or otherwise) and having good mental health were both pretty fucking critical :whatever:
Am I being overly cynical to think preserving E grades is good for the British ego in a world where 8b+ just isn't very hard any more and is being climbed on scary / run out routes abroad relatively commonly without much fuss?Yes. It's a grading system that has been around, and refined, for many decades and is exactly what almost all the target audience (and probably likely interested parties) are familiar with - and yes it does seem to work for a grubby 40' bit of rock in Derbyshire and a grubby 40' bit of rock in Cumbria (if a climber can grasp that there's a difference between a 1 move Font 7C and a 10 move Font 7C but both deserve the grade for different reasons, they can hopefully grasp the same with E-whatever). It's useful and interesting information in the context that it's used in, and I'm not sure there's a need to bring ego in as most Brits are hopefully aware of hard trad things being done abroad, nor a need for a drastic switch to 8b+ R/X given that covid has stifled incoming burners-off the last two years and no doubt Greta will stifle them in coming years.
Why do people refer to 'credit card sized holds'?! Even on a slab a hold that small is too small to use for either hands or feet.
... the Impact day wall is about 40ft high on the side of a bit of a gully. ... I just thought it was deeply underwhelming, Scafell it ain't.
The main conclusions I took from it were that having good supportive people around you (paid or otherwise) and having good mental health were both pretty fucking critical
Why do people refer to 'credit card sized holds'?! Even on a slab a hold that small is too small to use for either hands or feet.
Glad it's not just me that wondered. Although I thought it might be something like the holds are credit card sized in terms of the length of the edge, not the depth?
I'm confident that those in the know will appreciate the discovery of new lines and cool moves but it's the ones who are wowed that I feel sorry for, they get a warped perspective of difficulty, danger and who's in it together to make a buck out of climbing by using the media.
As mentioned the promo and hype seem to be a business model and in this day and age when climbing can be a job its going to just be this way.
Fantastic effort but I don’t understand all the soul searching when trying to stick the E grade on. The Uk tech grade is useless. Just give it fr8b+ R/X and we all know where we are.Am I being overly cynical to think preserving E grades is good for the British ego in a world where 8b+ just isn't very hard any more and is being climbed on scary / run out routes abroad relatively commonly without much fuss?
Have we learned nothing from Team America rinsing all the hardest grit routes in one season, or Babsi and the others ticking Pembroke in a few short weeks? :jab:
Good effort Neil.
Great comments everyone. Much crack.
"Hyperbole"Yes it's presumably hyperbole. It just seems incongruous in an otherwise very factual analytical piece of writing, to the point that a casual/non-climber reader might take it at face value.
Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
"Hyperbole"Yes it's presumably hyperbole. It just seems incongruous in an otherwise very factual analytical piece of writing, to the point that a casual/non-climber reader might take it at face value.
Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
"Hyperbole"Yes it's presumably hyperbole. It just seems incongruous in an otherwise very factual analytical piece of writing, to the point that a casual/non-climber reader might take it at face value.
Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
For all the sheen of rationality and factuality, I found the whole piece just incredibly hyperbolic - and basically one long advertorial.
I think people deliberately confuse pokey routes with very dangerous routes. There's a world of difference between an 8b with a bit of a slammy fall and a death 8b, especially if the climbing is really insecure. There really isn't much of the latter anywhere.Not sure people are deliberately confusing anything, and I’m not convinced there’s that much of a clear divide to be honest. A long slammy fall can go disastrously wrong. And a supposed ‘death’ route could have a lucky outcome. And there’s plenty of grey in between. I’ve done bolted ‘sport’ routes which are far more dangerous than a lot of hard(ish) trad. That’s not uncommon outside of the UK.
Parthian Shot's fall was safe until it wasn't...Exactly. That went from “death on a stick” to “safe as houses” to…”oh shit the flake broke”.
I think people deliberately confuse pokey routes with very dangerous routes. There's a world of difference between an 8b with a bit of a slammy fall and a death 8b, especially if the climbing is really insecure. There really isn't much of the latter anywhere.Not sure people are deliberately confusing anything, and I’m not convinced there’s that much of a clear divide to be honest. A long slammy fall can go disastrously wrong. And a supposed ‘death’ route could have a lucky outcome. And there’s plenty of grey in between. I’ve done bolted ‘sport’ routes which are far more dangerous than a lot of hard(ish) trad. That’s not uncommon outside of the UK.
IIRC Dave Mac fell onto that RP on Rhapsody and almost broke it - which would have turned it from a long but safe fall into possible death. How can you grade precisely for something like that? Why even bother, if it takes so much effort and thought to try and pin it down - especially when history has shown so often that the next person will have a different experience on it? I guess the answer is simple - look at the comments on UKC and it’s mainly just fascination with the ‘E11’ badge.
look at the comments on UKB and it’s mainly just moaning the ‘E11’ badge.:-\ :-\ :-\
To be fair, the new line is the line of the wall. ID skirts off to edge of crag for a decent rest before coming back in for top hard moves.
The new route is an arbitrary, less obvious variation to ID (with which it shares ground). It's got an indifferent new start, shares the middle, and then a different finish.
The history of minor ferns in the Pavey Ark East wall gully??
It's an interview with Gresh [...] what on earth do people expect the article to be about??
Have we learned nothing from Team America rinsing all the hardest grit routes in one season
Most people putting up routes with big E grades are geeks who aren't taking massive risks. If you're climbing 8c+s at Kilnsey all the time, I can see why someone getting loads of kudos for doing a bold 8b is annoying.
which is a long way from what some of us still hold as the onsight, adventurous trad ideal.
Quite. And what hasn't happened is the number of people operating 8c redpoint being matched by loads of E7/8 onsights. I don't think it's just fashion, it's that the skillset required is so much bigger, in a world which ever-increasingly values a number over an experience.
I think there is an argument for abandoning the E grade and I totally agree about the obsession with it. On balance though, it does inform in a way that 8b r/x does not - as you've just perfectly demonstrated.Inform who though? I'd argue it's only 'informing' the people who will never climb this route or even drop a rope down it (if so, then what's the point of it? - see arguments re: social media hype / advertorial bollocks). For anyone serious about repeating it they'll go and check it out and make their own judgement about the climbing and the risk, and 8b r/x is good enough, in fact better, to get them to that point.
I can see why someone getting loads of kudos for doing a bold 8b is annoying. If you hate the whole game then fair enough, but maybe live and let live a little? It would be like me saying everything anyone does in Parisella's Cave is pointless and only training for the real thing - untrue and just makes me look like a bit of a plum.Has nothing to do with who's getting kudos or comparing the validity of bum-scraping traverses vs bold trad. Not sure if that's aimed at someone else? It's simply about the pointlessness of spending weeks pondering over whether something's categorically E10 or E11. And personally I'd prefer to have a better international comparison so foreign climbers can judge our routes for what they are without having to navigate a very niche grading system (which most people operating at that level agree is probably broken) and vice versa.
Forgive me...but this thread is all about hyperbole!Quote from: ali kHave we learned nothing from Team America rinsing all the hardest grit routes in one season'All' is ludicrous hyperbole, for starters they tried Equilibrium quite a bit but didn't do it.
Can you divide fashion and skill set though? If something becomes more fashionable (like grit headpointing in days of yore) then more people do it and more people gain the necessary skillset.
If the move in climbing had been towards onsighting in the mountains being the thing, rather than big numbers, then you’d have a larger cohort taking part in the activity, with the corresponding increase in the elite.
It strikes me that a lot of us are of the age at which we remember new hard routes being talked about in hushed tones, maybe having heard a story about something outrageous that John Redhead had done, or someone had had talked to x and seen y trying something super hard and scary. The less you knew about it the more amazing it sounded. Moat of these things were like works of art - mysteries to gaze up at or dream about. And even when you had more detail, like Johnny's account of the Indian Face — that actually ramped up the awesomeness.
Good effort Neil.
Great comments everyone. Much crack.
Inform who though?
1. Steve Maclure, who will agree with everything Neil says.
2. Dave Macleod, who will praise the quality whilst subtly suggesting it’s two grades easier than Echo Wall.
3. Alex Megos, who will downgrade it to 8b R/X.
4. Sonnie Trotter flew over but was kicked out of the country before he could attempt it after being caught bivvying in the National Trust car park.
5. Cumberland Sausage
Without broadly agreed ethics we don't have a sport, but increasingly any discussion of ethics is seen as a sort of fun-sponge wankery/ peanut gallery vs the freedom to do whatever you like without comment....ethics debates are far more fun :2thumbsup:
Inform who though?
3 out of the 5 aspirants here:1. Steve Maclure, who will agree with everything Neil says.
2. Dave Macleod, who will praise the quality whilst subtly suggesting it’s two grades easier than Echo Wall.
3. Alex Megos, who will downgrade it to 8b R/X.
4. Sonnie Trotter flew over but was kicked out of the country before he could attempt it after being caught bivvying in the National Trust car park.
5. Cumberland Sausage
When was the last time someone did a new route above E7 without also giving it a French or bouldering grade and adding detailed speculation about how much falling off it would hurt as well? It certainly wasn’t this time.
Soloing a proper sketch 8a+ is still cutting edge in the bold Trad game.
I guess levels in soloing rise much slower than for other types of climbing. I am not sure that Hansjörg's solo of the Fish has been substantially bettered by anyone for example.
I guess levels in soloing rise much slower than for other types of climbing. I am not sure that Hansjörg's solo of the Fish has been substantially bettered by anyone for example.
Honwad's solo of Freerider (I agree with your point though).
Soloing a proper sketch 8a+ is still cutting edge in the bold Trad game.
I find this very interesting, as I have no understanding of the game. But I also know that Alain Robert soloed an 8a+ with very insecure crux moves up high 31 years ago (when his top RP level was 8b, what a lunatic). That Alain Robert 31 of years ago is still at the level of today's creme-de-la-creme is more than impressive to me.
I guess levels in soloing rise much slower than for other types of climbing. I am not sure that Hansjörg's solo of the Fish has been substantially bettered by anyone for example.
I would however be chocked if the likes of Adam Ondra or Stefano Ghisolfi wouldn't be able to solo 9a if the were so inclined. I cannot imagine them falling off a 9a that they had practiced.
I get the feeling that being the kind of person who trains hard enough to be climbing well into the f9s perhaps self selects you as someone who doesn't just take massive risks.
It's a lot more dangerous for Dave Mac to take a sketchy fall onto a slab than some loon who doesn't depend on his body for work and isn't a pro climber. Perhaps the future of really bold Trad therefore naturally precludes pros?
OTOH Fish it is reputedly much less secure climbing in general.
Quote from: Adam LincolnTo be fair, the new line is the line of the wall. ID skirts off to edge of crag for a decent rest before coming back in for top hard moves.The new route is an arbitrary, less obvious variation to ID (with which it shares ground). It's got an indifferent new start, shares the middle, and then a different finish.
Who to believe? :-\ What Grimer said, entertaining thread anyway.The history of minor ferns in the Pavey Ark East wall gully??
Now that I would be psyched for.
I think people deliberately confuse pokey routes with very dangerous routes. There's a world of difference between an 8b with a bit of a slammy fall and a death 8b, especially if the climbing is really insecure. There really isn't much of the latter anywhere.Not sure people are deliberately confusing anything, and I’m not convinced there’s that much of a clear divide to be honest. A long slammy fall can go disastrously wrong. And a supposed ‘death’ route could have a lucky outcome. And there’s plenty of grey in between. I’ve done bolted ‘sport’ routes which are far more dangerous than a lot of hard(ish) trad. That’s not uncommon outside of the UK.
IIRC Dave Mac fell onto that RP on Rhapsody and almost broke it - which would have turned it from a long but safe fall into possible death. How can you grade precisely for something like that? Why even bother, if it takes so much effort and thought to try and pin it down - especially when history has shown so often that the next person will have a different experience on it? I guess the answer is simple - look at the comments on UKC and it’s mainly just fascination with the ‘E11’ badge.
I mean Trad climbing is all about the subjective and perceptions. If you discount how a route 'feels' then obviously the E grade will make no sense. I think there is an argument for abandoning the E grade and I totally agree about the obsession with it. It's weird. On balance though, it does inform in a way that 8b r/x does not - as you've just perfectly demonstrated. Routes like Parthian Shot change with perceptions. Perceptions change with events, rock damage and the stories people tell. The main take away from that story is to not trust hollow flakes entirely.
Most people putting up routes with big E grades are geeks who aren't taking massive risks. If you're climbing 8c+s at Kilnsey all the time, I can see why someone getting loads of kudos for doing a bold 8b is annoying. At the extreme bold end though, it's a totally different game. Soloing a proper sketch 8a+ is still cutting edge in the bold Trad game. If you hate the whole game then fair enough, but maybe live and let live a little? It would be like me saying everything anyone does in Parisella's Cave is pointless and only training for the real thing - untrue and just makes me look like a bit of a plum.
As for Europe, I've been on apparent E10s there, where the climbing isn't outrageous and there are bomber size 2 nuts everywhere you want them. I've long thought that the semi-pokey 8b style Trad routes are going to end up getting downgraded as standards increase, as standards on death routes just don't increase at the same rate. But then maybe I would say that, as I'm weak and mostly climb death routes?
When was the last time someone did a new route above E7 without also giving it a French or bouldering grade and adding detailed speculation about how much falling off it would hurt as well? It certainly wasn’t this time.
Possibly within the last fortnight. But can't say for sure because Caff doesn't actually report what E grade The Pumphouse Party in Battleship Zawn is, let alone what French grade it might be or what the protection is like.
When was the last time someone did a new route above E7 without also giving it a French or bouldering grade and adding detailed speculation about how much falling off it would hurt as well? It certainly wasn’t this time.
Possibly within the last fortnight. But can't say for sure because Caff doesn't actually report what E grade The Pumphouse Party in Battleship Zawn is, let alone what French grade it might be or what the protection is like.
He shouted out all his coaches and gave rope diameter and belay device details though right?
To be fair, the new line is the line of the wall. ID skirts off to edge of crag for a decent rest before coming back in for top hard moves.
The new route is an arbitrary, less obvious variation to ID (with which it shares ground). It's got an indifferent new start, shares the middle, and then a different finish.
Also i saw it fully chalked and clean which makes a difference.
I get the feeling that being the kind of person who trains hard enough to be climbing well into the f9s perhaps self selects you as someone who doesn't just take massive risks.
I get the feeling that being the kind of person who trains hard enough to be climbing well into the f9s perhaps self selects you as someone who doesn't just take massive risks.
You could equally argue that people only do dangerous routes because they want recognition but don't have the talent or application to get good enough to compete on difficulty.
Both are pretty specious imo.
I enjoyed the write up, as an aging dad it filled me with inspiration that gains can still be made, but I can see that some found it lacking soul. However, having been to see Gresh speak once*, he was so enthusiastic, so open and so obviously obsessed with climbing the joy he got from climbing pretty much shone out of him and it's a shame that doesn't come through in the write up.
*Kenton Cool was on the same bill and that was dullest talk I have ever heard. Interestingly, my non-climbing wife felt the same. I though she'd like the mountaineering and find the minutiae of rock climbing dull but she said she found Gresh so engaging she really cared for what he was saying.
I know i'm an old man etc and that language evolves but I'm really struggling with 'bloc' 'send' E11 'for' Neil, (he wasn't given it) and all the other fucking nonsense in the climbing lexicon these days.
Looks like Steve McClure took huge whip off the top of this yesterday :jaw:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT6kxA5jUdV/?utm_medium=copy_link
Sounds like it’s safe then 😄
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT6wjIRoVYy/?utm_medium=copy_link
Dave Macleod is on it!!
Downgrade imminent??
:worms: :popcorn:
While Gresh's style on insta or the ukc write-up may leave some cold, as pointed out above, if you chat to him about his projects or climbing in general, it's clear that he's psyched off his tits for them/it.
... I'd have fewer qualms with [Neil's grading] if Neil didn't have a history of it: see Nike's comments (which have been echoed by others) and, e.g., https://www.frcc.co.uk/routes/fearless/
I have no more objection to it than the (to me) pseudo-intellectual waffle and condescending attitude of those at the other end of spectrum (e.g. Dan)
QuoteI have no more objection to it than the (to me) pseudo-intellectual waffle and condescending attitude of those at the other end of spectrum (e.g. Dan)
Cheetham or Varian?
Off topic, but Barrows I had a dream last night that you decked off a route trying to clip the 3rd or 4th bolt after skipping the first few. It was a nasty fall onto a steep rocky landing and I think you might have died. Can you confirm?I can neither confirm nor deny that you had such a dream, but I can confirm that I own a very long clipstick and nowadays have a very low tolerance to being bold, making this seem unlikely in real life. Are you sure I didn't just say take, moan about hard clips being shit, moan about my fingers and then lower off and sulk for a while? Sounds more realistic...
Cheetham or Varian?The former.
I get this but I can't help being a little cynical as to Neil's grading. See my previous comment.That's only off by 1 grade right? From my very limited experience of FAs I feel like being 1 grade off isn't a big deal, guessing how hard other people will find things is nails! From my experience of Gresh's sport grades - Freakshow he gave 8c, I thought bottom-end 8c but found an extra knee; Premonition he gave 8b+ and I thought middle of that grade; Kilnsey proj he guessed quite a bit harder than it turned out to be, but then its easy to miss a sequence swinging around on new terrain in a roof...... I'd have fewer qualms with [Neil's grading] if Neil didn't have a history of it: see Nike's comments (which have been echoed by others) and, e.g., https://www.frcc.co.uk/routes/fearless/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT6wjIRoVYy/?utm_medium=copy_link
Dave Macleod is on it!!
Downgrade imminent??
:worms: :popcorn:
I really hope Dave slags it. Don't let us down, Dave.
On gradingI get this but I can't help being a little cynical as to Neil's grading. See my previous comment.That's only off by 1 grade right? From my very limited experience of FAs I feel like being 1 grade off isn't a big deal, guessing how hard other people will find things is nails! From my experience of Gresh's sport grades - Freakshow he gave 8c, I thought bottom-end 8c but found an extra knee; Premonition he gave 8b+ and I thought middle of that grade; Kilnsey proj he guessed quite a bit harder than it turned out to be, but then its easy to miss a sequence swinging around on new terrain in a roof...... I'd have fewer qualms with [Neil's grading] if Neil didn't have a history of it: see Nike's comments (which have been echoed by others) and, e.g., https://www.frcc.co.uk/routes/fearless/
I think if you took an average of hard routes put up in the last 10-15 years, assuming no physical change (hold loss/gain), grades more often go down than up. This isn't surprising really, for all the obvious reasons - new beta/gear is found; theoretical danger factors become less theoretical (see Steve's fall of Lexicon and Seb's falls on Parthian); the FAer starts from a position of ignorance, the repeater starts from a position of knowledge; and the not insignificant fact that downgrades are quickly accepted, whereas confirmation and upgrade votes seem to count for less in the peanut gallery.
So it seems unfair to me to imply deliberate overgrading or even a poor ability to grade if an ascensionist's routes on average go down in grade. The alternative is to deliberately under-grade in expectation that you've missed some beta or whatever. I'd rather FAer just gave their honest best guess. It's pretty shit that as a community we treat downgrading someone else's climb as some sort of point scoring one-upmanship shit throwing exercise.
How about a thread on the demonisation of public critical review of well-known climbers' new routes...
For averagely safe routes
5 - 5+ E1
6a-6a+ E2
6b-6b+ E3
6c-6c+ E4
7a-7a+ E5
7b-7b+ E6
7c-7c+ E7
8a-8a+ E8
8b-8b+ E9
8c-8c+ E10
9a-9a+ E11
9b-9b+ E12
Bold/scary/long runouts but not exceptionally dangerous +1 E-grade
Exceptionally dangerous +2 E-grades
Exceptionally safe -1 E-grade
The process of grading trad routes shouldn't be that difficult. Certainly not as hard you make it out Bonjoy. There are only really two important variables to consider:
sport grade - any regular climber should be should be able to accurately judge this to within 2 grades.
danger - given the four options below someone should be able to judge this to within 2 options. When climbs aren't getting put up onsight/ground-up then danger isn't *that* theoretical. Uncertainties around protection, fall distances, severity of falls and other oddities can be quite easily cleared up.
How is the below so complicated to use as a guide:
For averagely safe routes
5 - 5+ E1
6a-6a+ E2
6b-6b+ E3
6c-6c+ E4
7a-7a+ E5
7b-7b+ E6
7c-7c+ E7
8a-8a+ E8
8b-8b+ E9
8c-8c+ E10
9a-9a+ E11
9b-9b+ E12
Bold/scary/long runouts but not exceptionally dangerous +1 E-grade
Exceptionally dangerous +2 E-grades
Exceptionally safe -1 E-grade
Obviously in a fair-minded world no-one would be expected to get it right every time. But in a fair-minded world no-one would be expected to get it wrong very much either, especially someone who climbs *a lot* and in fact does it for a living. If someone *is* getting it wrong and is also incentivised to pump their achievements, because for e.g. they've chosen to make a business out of being well-known for climbing and training, then questions are naturally going to get asked. It shouldn't be surprising or seen as 'shit flinging'. See 'demonisation of public critical review'.
sport grade - any regular climber should be should be able to accurately judge this to within 2 grades.
I think you've got that roughly right for safe routes. I think there are extra E points for super extreme danger and short/blind/slippy routes also. Taking away protection from a safish F8a will make it harder than making it a higher French grade.
Averagely safe routes
5 - 5+ E1
6a-6a+ E2
6b-6b+ E3
6c-6c+ E4
7a-7a+ E5
7b-7b+ E6
7c-7c+ E7
8a-8a+ E8
8b-8b+ E9
8c-8c+ E10
9a-9a+ E11
9b-9b+ E12
Bold/scary/long runouts but not exceptionally dangerous +1 E-grade
Exceptionally dangerous +2 E-grades
Exceptionally safe -1 E-grade
Taking this position would mean that E10 is a pretty wide grade and matching in diffculty near to the very top end of UK climbing on the sport side with only 1 route in the UK and 2 climbers who have done anything harder. This tends to make me feel that E11 is a pretty big number and it is ok to question it, while at the same time not wanting to take anything away from what looks to be an really impressive effort.Pretty sure it's 2 routes, Rhapsody and Echo Wall, and 3 climbers, DMac, SteMac, and Pearson. The other two contenders, Walk Of Life and Longhope Route got mercilessly downgraded ofc.
How is the below so complicated to use as a guide:
For averagely safe routes
5 - 5+ E1
6a-6a+ E2
6b-6b+ E3
6c-6c+ E4
7a-7a+ E5
7b-7b+ E6
7c-7c+ E7
8a-8a+ E8
8b-8b+ E9
8c-8c+ E10
9a-9a+ E11
9b-9b+ E12
Bold/scary/long runouts but not exceptionally dangerous +1 E-grade
Exceptionally dangerous +2 E-grades
Exceptionally safe -1 E-grade
As for E10s, quite a few off the top of my head, Equlibrium, Sleepy Hollow, Chorozon, that other thing in Pembroke, Rewind, To Hell And Back, Hold Fast Hold True, Parthian sans flake, etc. Not counting downgrades.Olympiad. Rewind was suggested as E9 by Wojciech so might be off the list.
Taking this position would mean that E10 is a pretty wide grade and matching in diffculty near to the very top end of UK climbing on the sport side with only 1 route in the UK and 2 climbers who have done anything harder. This tends to make me feel that E11 is a pretty big number and it is ok to question it, while at the same time not wanting to take anything away from what looks to be an really impressive effort.Pretty sure it's 2 routes, Rhapsody and Echo Wall, and 3 climbers, DMac, SteMac, and Pearson. The other two contenders, Walk Of Life and Longhope Route got mercilessly downgraded ofc.
As for E10s, quite a few off the top of my head, Equlibrium, Sleepy Hollow, Chorozon, that other thing in Pembroke, Rewind, To Hell And Back, Hold Fast Hold True, Parthian sans flake, etc. Not counting downgrades.
Rubbernecking the downgrades isn't necessarily as vindictive as Bonjoy implies. It's just a bit of fun to watch especially when climbers dance around the issue, trying to juggle maintaining their integrity, superiority, and social media credibility, no easy task. With something like Bibliographie it's a bit dull "Yeah more like hard 9b+ cos I used different beta" "Yeah he's probably right that it's not 9c, I hadn't fully refined my beta" blah blah the end. UK trad grade nitpicking is more fun.
Incidentally I'd like to reiterate my previous post in which I wasn't slagging off the UKC article, and by implication not slagging off Gresh's route nor his effort putting it up. I still stand by slagging off this useless trendy self-hating "british trad has a relatively low sport grade equivalent so let's all be ashamed both our punterdom AND grading system" bollox tho.
As for E10s, quite a few off the top of my head, Equlibrium, Sleepy Hollow, Chorozon, that other thing in Pembroke, Rewind, To Hell And Back, Hold Fast Hold True, Parthian sans flake, etc. Not counting downgrades.Olympiad. Rewind was suggested as E9 by Wojciech so might be off the list.
I can neither confirm nor deny that you had such a dream, but I can confirm that I own a very long clipstick and nowadays have a very low tolerance to being bold, making this seem unlikely in real life. Are you sure I didn't just say take, moan about hard clips being shit, moan about my fingers and then lower off and sulk for a while? Sounds more realistic...No you definitely decked - I was stood right underneath you, but might have moved out of your way. P.s. Can't believe Dunc has puntered me for dreaming about you! Doesn't everyone? :'(
Olympiad. Rewind was suggested as E9 by Wojciech so might be off the list.
Olympiad is 8b and safe as a DWS, therefore benchmark E9. Climbing it with the tide out is just poor tactics :whistle:I was gonna say similar but didn't want to confuse matters :worms:
Fiend - Ian was meaning 1 route harder than 9a+ and 2 brits who've climbed harder than 9a+...:lol: ooops which I'd know if I'd bothered to read the post properly instead of skimming over.
The process of grading trad routes shouldn't be that difficult. Certainly not as hard you make it out Bonjoy. There are only really two important variables to consider:I think you misundertood my thesis. I'm not saying grading is desperately difficult, just that assuming no dishonesty, if you get it wrong it's more likely you'll have overgraded than undergraded. In most cases this is because of new beta (including gear). This is a one way bias, routes never gain grades by losing beta. Nobody unerringly finds the best beta on every single ascent and everyone is working within subtly different physiological limits anyway, hence the most efficient beta may not even work for the FAer. The outcome we see is more top end routes shedding grades than gaining them (with most staying at the given grade obvs).
sport grade - any regular climber should be should be able to accurately judge this to within 2 grades.
danger - given the four options below someone should be able to judge this to within 2 options. When climbs aren't getting put up onsight/ground-up then danger isn't *that* theoretical.
Anyway I think the point is....ummm what was the point?? Something about the top end of Pete's grade table not actually working linearly in it's common application. Yes that's the one.Here endeth the thread.
It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
The process of grading trad routes shouldn't be that difficult. Certainly not as hard you make it out Bonjoy. There are only really two important variables to consider:I think you misundertood my thesis. I'm not saying grading is desperately difficult, just that assuming no dishonesty, if you get it wrong it's more likely you'll have overgraded than undergraded. In most cases this is because of new beta (including gear). This is a one way bias, routes never gain grades by losing beta. Nobody unerringly finds the best beta on every single ascent and everyone is working within subtly different physiological limits anyway, hence the most efficient beta may not even work for the FAer. The outcome we see is more top end routes shedding grades than gaining them (with most staying at the given grade obvs).
sport grade - any regular climber should be should be able to accurately judge this to within 2 grades.
danger - given the four options below someone should be able to judge this to within 2 options. When climbs aren't getting put up onsight/ground-up then danger isn't *that* theoretical.
Also, different topic (and can of worms) but I think you could come away with a very different conclusion on the direction of hard trad grades if we come back to this discussion 15 years from now. For the very different reason of all the bullshit heavily pegged sea-cliff routes that were E6, 7 or 8 but which have become E7, 8 or 9 after shedding their steel protection.This'll be great. They can all be re-climbed as quality 'new' routes without all the hassle of exploring to find them! Ultimately this is why I opted to do Big Issue without the peg even though it's still in there - so there's never an excuse to replace it. I'm hoping the same goes for all peg-protected routes, especially on sea cliffs (unless they can be hand placed and removed afterwards).
It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
Taking this position would mean that E10 is a pretty wide grade and matching in diffculty near to the very top end of UK climbing on the sport side with only 1 route in the UK and 2 climbers who have done anything harder. This tends to make me feel that E11 is a pretty big number and it is ok to question it, while at the same time not wanting to take anything away from what looks to be an really impressive effort.Pretty sure it's 2 routes, Rhapsody and Echo Wall, and 3 climbers, DMac, SteMac, and Pearson. The other two contenders, Walk Of Life and Longhope Route got mercilessly downgraded ofc.
As for E10s, quite a few off the top of my head, Equlibrium, Sleepy Hollow, Chorozon, that other thing in Pembroke, Rewind, To Hell And Back, Hold Fast Hold True, Parthian sans flake, etc. Not counting downgrades.
Don't get me wrong, the trad grading system works perfectly and with great clarity in the context of great British trad climbing, especially with the optional addition of a sport grade. But the adjectival grade doesn't quite rise in direct linear correlation to the tech grade nor sport grade of the physical challenge, hence why DMac's new thing isn't E10 and Indian Face isn't E8. But that's totally fine because it's very easy to understand the meaning of the grade/challenge compared to all the previous routes (usually below it, at this level).Anyway I think the point is....ummm what was the point?? Something about the top end of Pete's grade table not actually working linearly in it's common application. Yes that's the one.Here endeth the thread.
....until next time a new hard trad route gets done and we inevitably have the same discussion and conclusion :lol:
Also, different topic (and can of worms) but I think you could come away with a very different conclusion on the direction of hard trad grades if we come back to this discussion 15 years from now. For the very different reason of all the bullshit heavily pegged sea-cliff routes that were E6, 7 or 8 but which have become E7, 8 or 9 after shedding their steel protection.You mean the ones that are down to E5, 6, or 7, now that they've had stainless steel """eco-pegs""" drilled and cemented into place?? ;D
Anyway I think the point is....ummm what was the point?? Something about the top end of Pete's grade table not actually working linearly in it's common application. Yes that's the one.Here endeth the thread.
It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
This is a trite conclusion which misrepresents a wide variety of contributions.Did you think I was being serious? Where’s the tongue in cheek emoji, or have I missed it?
I can neither confirm nor deny that you had such a dream, but I can confirm that I own a very long clipstick and nowadays have a very low tolerance to being bold, making this seem unlikely in real life. Are you sure I didn't just say take, moan about hard clips being shit, moan about my fingers and then lower off and sulk for a while? Sounds more realistic...No you definitely decked - I was stood right underneath you, but might have moved out of your way. P.s. Can't believe Dunc has puntered me for dreaming about you! Doesn't everyone? :'(
P.s. Can't believe Dunc has puntered me for dreaming about you! Doesn't everyone? :'(
Sorry Ali! All in jest obviously!
In the chat about top end routes and potential downgrading etc, I don't think anyone has mentioned Mind Riot - which Dave Mac basically said, with some caveats, was harder than Rhapsody, but nevertheless gave E10. It would certainly be fresher in his mind as a reference point.
Did you think I was being serious? Where’s the tongue in cheek emoji, or have I missed it?
... this is why I opted to do Big Issue without the peg ...Big Issue E8 if you're tall tho, innit? :whistle:
I’m getting some legal advice. This isn’t the end of the story.P.s. Can't believe Dunc has puntered me for dreaming about you!Careful. First punter point is the worst. Think Stu had to undergo therapy
But why do you ‘hope’ that’s the outcome of Dave’s attempt? Wouldn’t you rather be proved wrong and it was E11 :shrug:It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
Big Issue E8 if you're tall tho, innit?Not relevant to the point I was making, but if you’re going off topic I’ll take the bait in defence of the taller gentleman! Is this suggested downgrade based on your experience of being (a) tall or (b) short/average height? If the latter then that’s great cos I’ll get busy with the downgrades of stuff I think’s easier for anyone shorter than me (or just upgrade them for me - either way works). So…minus a few exceptions that’ll be ALL routes more than a few degrees overhanging. Plus every sit start boulder problem that exists in the world :whistle:
So soft E11 (if you're a F9b climber) that uses a side-runner low down (not on the big lob upper bit), that might be a logical and sensible place to have a side-runner rather than climbing higher up Sixpence and reversing. Makes sense.
Ah right. I didn't see the original stuff on Insta, but someone was kind enough to send me this draft topo for the next edition of FRCC Langdale, which might help....
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gJtxL9h3okM/YUWiweKoyCI/AAAAAAAADOA/HnB0Gpyj7k8F3Gy733bicAoWdR7nOJDzQCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/47a9ac52-e26c-497c-81e3-9582ff6b7774.jpg)
(slight error on the lower line of Lexicon but I'm sure the proof-readers will get that fixed before it goes to print)
Have you ever considered a career with Rockfax?Wash your mouth out!! >:( :sick:
But why do you ‘hope’ that’s the outcome of Dave’s attempt? Wouldn’t you rather be proved wrong and it was E11 :shrug:It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
But why do you ‘hope’ that’s the outcome of Dave’s attempt? Wouldn’t you rather be proved wrong and it was E11 :shrug:It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
The grade will sort itself out. The fall sounds unpleasant but not beyond the realms of what could be considered averagely safe at this top end. I think the distances are probably being oversold. I know Steve's not massive bit I'm not sure how this can measure up to be a 10m runout, notwithstanding that it's still a big lob.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT9L_XhoPuN/?utm_medium=copy_link
My main beef was with the hype Vs actual quality of the line ratio. Dan has captured almost word for word what it was that I felt so please direct any further questions to him.
But why do you ‘hope’ that’s the outcome of Dave’s attempt? Wouldn’t you rather be proved wrong and it was E11 :shrug:It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
The grade will sort itself out. The fall sounds unpleasant but not beyond the realms of what could be considered averagely safe at this top end. I think the distances are probably being oversold. I know Steve's not massive bit I'm not sure how this can measure up to be a 10m runout, notwithstanding that it's still a big lob.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT9L_XhoPuN/?utm_medium=copy_link
My main beef was with the hype Vs actual quality of the line ratio. Dan has captured almost word for word what it was that I felt so please direct any further questions to him.
Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?
But why do you ‘hope’ that’s the outcome of Dave’s attempt? Wouldn’t you rather be proved wrong and it was E11 :shrug:It shouldn't be... seen as 'shit flinging'.This was a reaction to Will Hunt's comment about hoping Dave Mac 'slags' the grade on Lexicon. Maybe tongue in cheek but I do think it reflects a level of gleeful schadenfreude that exists among climbers regarding downgrading. My main objection to this is the distorting effect it has on grading - see old debates about the state of UK bouldering grades at the top end.
To be honest, I think a downgrade is inevitable but my comment was more motivated by a desire to see some rationality applied to something that has probably been a little over-hyped. I can totally understand being psyched off your head for your project, but it always pays to step back, draw breath, and wonder whether something is really as hard/dangerous/good as you thought it was in the moment; to try and present it honestly and to be prepared to have someone make a different assessment of it.
Time and inspection by others will tell. I just hope that they will feel they can give an honest assessment without it being seen as shit-flinging.
The grade will sort itself out. The fall sounds unpleasant but not beyond the realms of what could be considered averagely safe at this top end. I think the distances are probably being oversold. I know Steve's not massive bit I'm not sure how this can measure up to be a 10m runout, notwithstanding that it's still a big lob.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CT9L_XhoPuN/?utm_medium=copy_link
My main beef was with the hype Vs actual quality of the line ratio. Dan has captured almost word for word what it was that I felt so please direct any further questions to him.
Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?
Might want to do some fact checking
Steve reckoned he fell about 23m. So looking at the pic those figures are in the ballpark - he's more than 2m above the belayer but not 10m.
If a guidebook said a pitch I was about to try was 33m I’d expect it to be around 25-30.
If a guidebook said a pitch I was about to try was 33m I’d expect it to be around 25-30.
If a guidebook said a pitch I was about to try was 33m I’d expect it to be around 25-30.
This has not been my experience when climbing in the USA (or generally outside of the UK).
I always work on this assumption with the read route too but I came really close to getting caught out last week at haytor. It said aviation was 35 meters long but on my 45 I only had less than 5 meters spare if thatIf a guidebook said a pitch I was about to try was 33m I’d expect it to be around 25-30.
This has not been my experience when climbing in the USA (or generally outside of the UK).
Perhaps I should have made it clear - UK guidebooks overestimate trad route lengths. Always, no exceptions.
(Typed from a valley in Sligo with amazing undeveloped 50, no 60, no 70m cliffs!)
guidebook pitch lengths are a nominal length, the reality usually being very different. Probably comes partly from a concern about people abbing or lowering off ends of ropes because ‘the guide said it’s only 25m..’
If it is Blixt's guidebook to Kvaløya and it says that a pitch is 60m I would expect to be able to reach the belay with 60m doubles and some ten metres of simul climbing.
Totally off topic, but is Kvaløya good? Or rather, is it as good as people make out, and given a choice of there or Lofoten, which would you prefer? (I'm making the not outrageous assumption that you've been to Lofoten...) I've fancied a trip there for ages but don't know anyone who's actually been.
In terms of E10’s and above, I wonder if Steve has done more than anyone else? Rhapsody, the Nesscliffe one, a couple in Pembrokeshire, now this (prob missing some others too).
So Ste Mac has done it. Whatever the grade, super impressive to see him so psyched and still crushing at the highest levels.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUGKwg9I08O/?utm_medium=copy_link
My seconds were out of sight, and way down the wall as I look the ropes in, and I was amazed to see the middle marker just as the rope came tight. Yep, the massive 37m 2nd pitch of Redshift is actually 25m…
Neil
Seems like every man and his dog's on it atm.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUIBjWfIp8U/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Interesting topic to discuss :popcorn:
I found this interview with Magnus Carlsen, the world chess champion, about cheating in chess to be fascinating (english cc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcbHmHHwlUQ
Basically everything he says can be applied to using banned substances or false claims.
How would one cheat in chess when playing face to face?
And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.
And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.
You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.
And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever?
You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.
So this route is actually only E9 and everyone’s taking steroids to get up the thing. Standards have slipped since Brexit!
Does anybody seriously think that performance is relevant to sponsorship any more?
If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?
Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?
If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?
Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?
If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?
Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?
Cusping is what happens when a route, problem, or grade that was cool is made uncool by the act of a particular person climbing it.
Example: I used to think that 8c was a big number until Jim climbed Bat Route in the Great Cusping of 2019.
Seems like every man and his dog's on it atm.
/adds to Fiend's dog friendly crag list.
"The recent scenes on Lexicon have been unprecedented. Yesterday, @francocookson & @neiljmawson turned up for a slice of the action and at one point, 3 climbers (including @ste_mcclure ) were queuing for an E11! "
Excellent, I always feel slightly sorry for routes that people have put a lot into that immediately fall into obscurity.
The only way to know for sure is to pull his undies down to see if he has shrunken testicles. I’m game .
………The only way to know for sure is to pull his undies down to see if he has shrunken testicles. I’m game .
Surely you'd have to have knowledge of their previous size to be able to judge?
And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.
You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.
And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.
You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.
I'm not aware of any banned substances list for rock climbing, so who decides which performance enhancing drugs are ok?
Most people will claim an ascent is valid if the performance was enhanced by caffeine. Well at least testosterone naturally occurs in the body, so a little bit more of it can't be cheating, right?
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).
https://www.instagram.com/p/CUIBjWfIp8U/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Interesting topic to discuss :popcorn:
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).
Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things? Measurable increase in strength and recovery? Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids.
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned, I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.
Edit: typo
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).
Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things? Measurable increase in strength and recovery? Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids.
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned, I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.
Edit: typo
Re: I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned
To give one example, there's a huge amount of research on creatine showing that supplementation usually has a significant impact on performance and recovery. I imagine that little to no research has been done on the aforementioned peptides and other designer drugs that are now available.
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).
Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things? Measurable increase in strength and recovery? Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids.
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned, I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.
Edit: typo
Re: I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned
To give one example, there's a huge amount of research on creatine showing that supplementation usually has a significant impact on performance and recovery. I imagine that little to no research has been done on the aforementioned peptides and other designer drugs that are now available.
I would put my house on the fact that the effect of creatine is tiny and much more variable than that of stanozolol. Hence why one is considered cheating and the other isn't (?).
I am not sure I see the logic in saying that because there are things that may be cheating which aren't banned we should be on board with people using things which definitely are. Besides the fact that these designer drugs can't be that good if the top athletes still pop for the same old things.
done naturally without gear... no.Well Lexicon is pretty damn gearless on the upper headwall...
done naturally without gear... no.Well Lexicon is pretty damn gearless on the upper headwall...
I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.
There's a bloke fighting this weekend:offtopic:
I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.
I'm not entirely clear how much of this conversation is merely hypothetical and how much of it relates to Gresham in particular, but if the latter - is he "elite" in strength terms? As he says in the IG post below, things that represent major milestones for him are the sorts of things "the youth" warm up on....
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet
He's way better and way stronger than me and all that, so this is absolutely not intending to do down his abilities - but there's "making strength gains as an elite athlete in your 50s" and there's "getting to hang the bm2k slot one armed", and I honestly have no idea whether the latter is still in the realm of elite performance that means it is subject to biological constraints in the way the former is.
I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.
I'm not entirely clear how much of this conversation is merely hypothetical and how much of it relates to Gresham in particular, but if the latter - is he "elite" in strength terms? As he says in the IG post below, things that represent major milestones for him are the sorts of things "the youth" warm up on....
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet
He's way better and way stronger than me and all that, so this is absolutely not intending to do down his abilities - but there's "making strength gains as an elite athlete in your 50s" and there's "getting to hang the bm2k slot one armed", and I honestly have no idea whether the latter is still in the realm of elite performance that means it is subject to biological constraints in the way the former is.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet
"That’s crazy, most guys max out about 30! You’re continuing to get stronger towards 50! What’s the secret?"
I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.
I'm not entirely clear how much of this conversation is merely hypothetical and how much of it relates to Gresham in particular, but if the latter - is he "elite" in strength terms? As he says in the IG post below, things that represent major milestones for him are the sorts of things "the youth" warm up on....
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet
He's way better and way stronger than me and all that, so this is absolutely not intending to do down his abilities - but there's "making strength gains as an elite athlete in your 50s" and there's "getting to hang the bm2k slot one armed", and I honestly have no idea whether the latter is still in the realm of elite performance that means it is subject to biological constraints in the way the former is.
I think in Neil's case, much of the improvement has come from getting lighter rather than from getting stronger.
but there's "making strength gains as an elite athlete in your 50s"
"Go on a radical and potentially harmful diet and climb E11" is a strong message for the kids of today :yes:
I wonder if Malc will cave in and ask the direct question: "Neil Gresham, did you take any steroids or similar performance enhancing substances as part of your recent training to do Lexicon??". And then can get a simple yes / no answer....
If you’re not highly trained then you can improve whatever your age. If you’ve been training since the 1980’s and expect improvements into your 50’s then you may need to resort to keto dieting, recruitment training, or more realisticaly steroid/ growth hormones
Nibile: Usyk KO 11 for my money.
Regarding strength improvements in later years, has anyone considered prescribed TRT rather than outright steroid use? That's one way to get back 21 year old T levels whilst remaining legal!
I have a couple of friends involved in boxing at a high level and they reckon everyone is maxing out TRT doses to the limit of what is permissible, using non synthetic testosterone so they don't even need a script and TUE.
Disclaimer: none of this is related towards gresh or any climber in particular.
Nibile: Usyk KO 11 for my money.
Regarding strength improvements in later years, has anyone considered prescribed TRT rather than outright steroid use? That's one way to get back 21 year old T levels whilst remaining legal!
I have a couple of friends involved in boxing at a high level and they reckon everyone is maxing out TRT doses to the limit of what is permissible, using non synthetic testosterone so they don't even need a script and TUE.
Disclaimer: none of this is related towards gresh or any climber in particular.
But that is the crux of the issue, no? If someone is using synthetic testosterone, unless due to some medical condition, it is pretty disingenuous to promote their performance gains /longevity and then attribute them entirely to improved training methods and diet...
So climber A climbs a new 9B which is then repeated by climber B. Climber A then admits to using PED’s in order get up the route. Who is credited with the first ascent.
In other sports records are removed if an athlete is using PED’s.
My seconds were out of sight, and way down the wall as I look the ropes in, and I was amazed to see the middle marker just as the rope came tight. Yep, the massive 37m 2nd pitch of Redshift is actually 25m…
Neil
Sure they're not 60s?
This does remind me that what has been missing from the coverage of this route is the sort of sober analysis and depth of context we used to get in Rock Notes.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet
Looks like Inspector Malc already had his suspicions when that clip was posted. From the comments:Quote from: malcsmithclimbing"That’s crazy, most guys max out about 30! You’re continuing to get stronger towards 50! What’s the secret?"
He more or less has in this thread - https://www.instagram.com/p/CUCjto8oZ6K/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_linkYup that's exactly my point, he HASN'T asked directly.
Relative though isn't it. Strength now compared to strength then. I think Malc's point is;
1) Climbed and trained since he was a teenager.
2) Climbed and trained professionally for like, 30 years.
3) Had made personal strength all time PBs in his 50s
How could that happen? Either he's been training really badly for all that time, like incomprehensible so, or he's been training well and is dedicated (and he totally is, this is Neil Gresham) and is superhumanly gifted in his hormones, or he's found a way to make absolute strength gains in later life after decades of his job to literally be training hard. And there is only one known way to do that.
Incidentally the argument of "teenagers learn to do this as a warm up" to me says well there is only one known way to give you the hormones of a teenager when you are 50.
[Anyway, as others are saying, this is coming across as a bit of a bullshit witch-hunt. I don't know if Malc has personal history with Gresham, or whether his background in being extremely strong means he's looking at this through a very specific pure strength focused lens (when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail and all that), but this feels like pretty weak stuff.
He more or less has in this thread - https://www.instagram.com/p/CUCjto8oZ6K/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_linkYup that's exactly my point, he HASN'T asked directly.
Witchhunt, smitchhunt, willhunt, whatever. Another climber has publicly dropped pretty strong hints, that's what this all stems from. The speculation and rubbernecking on here is actually errring towards the side that such hints are unjustified and baseless, ergo no hunt to be had. And with that jolly jaunt on the go we've all forgotten about potential overgrading (which seemed to be limited to a few bah humbugs anyway)...
This thread is approaching a new low point for the site, a bitter, armchair critic, old mans club, low point.
Neils done more for UK climbing than the rest of us put together and whilst he can come over as overtly commercial for many tastes i have no idea how you all think he deserves the shit talk that has being going on in this thread.
Hes gone out of his way to climb what looks like a great route, good enough for Steve and Dave mc to make the effort to go try it, hes given it a grade based on what he thinks but that people doubt and might, with time, be proved to be wrong (didn't everyones hero Megos just do the same, wrote loads about it and even made a film) and wrote a bit of a long winded piece that may or may not be to peoples taste and now hes a drug taking, over grading cheat. WTF.
And re his amazing strength gains in his 50s what a crock of shit. If i lost a stone through dieting i could hang the beastmaker edge for 10 secs and do one armers no problem at all which would be a PB, its not hard and i would guess theirs loads of 50+ people could do it. Neils never been a strong boulderer so it no surprise that with a bit of focus and loosing a load of weight hes managed to do what loads of 7C boulders can do.
And re his amazing strength gains in his 50s what a crock of shit. If i lost a stone through dieting i could hang the beastmaker edge for 10 secs and do one armers no problem at all which would be a PB, its not hard and i would guess theirs loads of 50+ people could do it. Neils never been a strong boulderer so it no surprise that with a bit of focus and loosing a load of weight hes managed to do what loads of 7C boulders can do.
P.s. it's very possible to write nerdy things about training and be unable to smash out multiple one armers!
My seconds were out of sight, and way down the wall as I look the ropes in, and I was amazed to see the middle marker just as the rope came tight. Yep, the massive 37m 2nd pitch of Redshift is actually 25m…
Neil
Sure they're not 60s?
Yep - definitely a pair of 50s (the same pair I've been climbing on for the last few years)
This does remind me that what has been missing from the coverage of this route is the sort of sober analysis and depth of context we used to get in Rock Notes.
:-[ :lol:
I've a feeling the comment from Malcolm Smith was take out of context. I can't find it now but there was a couple of follow ups between NG and MS along the lines of 'I put it down to this and this', 'nice work, you've done well', 'I train better and harder than when we used to train together years ago'. I'm not sure there *was* an accusatory subtext.
I can't find the comments now and wonder if they've been deleted because of the way this thing has grown legs and been (mis)read??
Nibile: Usyk KO 11 for my moneyDo you mean Usyk wins by ko or loses by ko?
Bunch of cunts.
I’m setting benchmarks which exceed my own PB’s in my 20s. Pushed a 170kg bench yesterday, 10 higher than I’ve ever done before. Last time I lifted seriously was early 90s.
a bitter, armchair critic, old man
Nibile: Usyk KO 11 for my moneyDo you mean Usyk wins by ko or loses by ko?
Pushed a 170kg bench yesterday
2xBW.
2xBW.
bench press?
Bon effort to Gresham
Otherwise what Gav said.
now hes a drug taking, over grading cheat. WTF.
Great post gme.a bitter, armchair critic, old man
I know he’s traditionally a pin-up for this forum but this is certainly how Malc Smith comes across recently. Young lad climbs Hubble? Doesn’t count ‘cos he used a kneepad. Older climbers do a new high-profile trad route? Must be on steroids. ::)
You’d think someone who’d climbed at the cutting edge himself would feel secure enough to be humble when other climbers do well, at least in public.
Great post gme.a bitter, armchair critic, old man
I know he’s traditionally a pin-up for this forum but this is certainly how Malc Smith comes across recently. Young lad climbs Hubble? Doesn’t count ‘cos he used a kneepad. Older climbers do a new high-profile trad route? Must be on steroids. ::)
You’d think someone who’d climbed at the cutting edge himself would feel secure enough to be humble when other climbers do well, at least in public.
Nail on the head
The fact he has deleted said post says alot.
I know I can be a grumpy old twat with some climbing topics but seeing hard routes get done is inspiring and is what we should be seeing, especially after a summer of Olympic climbing (see earlier comment)
If I was him I'd make a public apology
I'm half tempted to be a Guinea pig and see how steroids would or would not benefit a climber. I am sceptical it would be a huge leap. A low dose to allow training everyday would be the best method. That's where I'd fall down as once a week hanging from a 20mm strip of wood is enough. Higher doses would only add weight. Muscle strength increase is fast, tendons cannot keep up and as soon as you pull hard the injuries will come.
Overall I don't see the point.
Great post gme.a bitter, armchair critic, old man
I know he’s traditionally a pin-up for this forum but this is certainly how Malc Smith comes across recently. Young lad climbs Hubble? Doesn’t count ‘cos he used a kneepad. Older climbers do a new high-profile trad route? Must be on steroids. ::)
You’d think someone who’d climbed at the cutting edge himself would feel secure enough to be humble when other climbers do well, at least in public.
Nail on the head
The fact he has deleted said post says alot.
I know I can be a grumpy old twat with some climbing topics but seeing hard routes get done is inspiring and is what we should be seeing, especially after a summer of Olympic climbing (see earlier comment)
If I was him I'd make a public apology
I'm half tempted to be a Guinea pig and see how steroids would or would not benefit a climber. I am sceptical it would be a huge leap. A low dose to allow training everyday would be the best method. That's where I'd fall down as once a week hanging from a 20mm strip of wood is enough. Higher doses would only add weight. Muscle strength increase is fast, tendons cannot keep up and as soon as you pull hard the injuries will come.
Overall I don't see the point.
Neils done more for UK climbing than the rest of us put together
I'm half tempted to be a Guinea pig and see how steroids would or would not benefit a climber.
Off the top of my head, inspired thousands of London climbers to jump up and down on the spot and wave their hands in circles of varying radii...
FWIW, in the interest of fairness, there has been a fair amount of criticism of the UKC article and some criticism of the purity / quality of the actual line, which may or may not be fair game for the armchair punt-dits.
Surely a negative contribution if anything then?
Not surprised Malc has deleted that post, seemed like a real random one.
Totally agree with Fiend, I think Gav's comments would have been far better directed at Malc (particularly given he is one of the few forum members who might have his number). Having reread the last couple of pages pretty much every post is looking at Malc's comment and concluding it is baseless, or discussing drugs in sport in a general way. The only post that could be read as endorsing Malc's conclusion makes more sense as an attempt to work through his logic.
The enthusiastic endorsement of Gav's post suggests either I've missed something major, or there are a lot of skim-readers on the forum.
I'm sure as baffled and disappointed by Malc's comments as Neil probably is, there must also be an acknowledgement that you don't attract bizarre criticism form such high profile pundits without doing something pretty exceptional in the first place. I'm actually struggling think of a bigger compliment to your training than Malcolm declaring you must be on drugs, it's like when people start quizzing you about what chalk or rubber you're using because they can't quite believe the gulf in performance. Fucking skill mate.
QuoteFWIW, in the interest of fairness, there has been a fair amount of criticism of the UKC article and some criticism of the purity / quality of the actual line, which may or may not be fair game for the armchair punt-dits.
It's a climbing forum. Clearly it is fair game. If you just want back-slapping stick to congratulatory commenting on Instagram and characterising absolutely anything else as 'the haters'.QuoteSurely a negative contribution if anything then?
Neil has a broad CV that only a handful can compare to and maybe Dave Mac is the only obvious person to have comfortably exceeded it, and his contribution to DWS was pretty major. So he deserves respect. But being the first pro climber to move to London to further their career definitely suggests that pro climbing is not going where many of us would like it to be going. Is that positive? For the people he inspired, yes. For climbing generally there is a debate to be had. And did Neil just do what he had to or did he help create that environment? Who knows. But it's encouraging to see he wasn't trapped by it, and moving to Kendal and doing hard new routes in the Lakes is surely something we can endorse.
The guy is from London. I'm not sure career can be the only reason he moved there.
climbing non-significant routes and making a big deal out of them
Quoteclimbing non-significant routes and making a big deal out of them
Are there any pro climbers in the UK making a living like that? Maybe Steve Mac? The rest are all coaching or have a job/ business.
Are there any pro climbers in the UK making a living like that?
Well I don’t think he can be accused of bigging up non-significant routes (I’m sure you didn’t mean to imply that)
his day job is route setting, coaching and other bits and bobs
Surely some of the young comp wads are living (although maybe not making a living ?) off not doing any routes at all
QuoteSurely a negative contribution if anything then?
Neil has a broad CV that only a handful can compare to and maybe Dave Mac is the only obvious person to have comfortably exceeded it, and his contribution to DWS was pretty major. So he deserves respect. But being the first pro climber to move to London to further their career definitely suggests that pro climbing is not going where many of us would like it to be going. Is that positive? For the people he inspired, yes. For climbing generally there is a debate to be had. And did Neil just do what he had to or did he help create that environment? Who knows. But it's encouraging to see he wasn't trapped by it, and moving to Kendal and doing hard new routes in the Lakes is surely something we can endorse.
The guy is from London. I'm not sure career can be the only reason he moved there.
Also, is a coach the same as a pro climber? I don't think it is. He was making money by coaching people, not by climbing non-significant routes and making a big deal out of them.
QuoteThe guy is from London. I'm not sure career can be the only reason he moved there.
Clearly he's free to do whatever he wants. The comment was in the context of the idea that he has "done more for UK climbing than the rest of us put together".Quoteclimbing non-significant routes and making a big deal out of them
Are there any pro climbers in the UK making a living like that? Maybe Steve Mac? The rest are all coaching or have a job/ business.
Not surprised Malc has deleted that post, seemed like a real random one.
Totally agree with Fiend, I think Gav's comments would have been far better directed at Malc (particularly given he is one of the few forum members who might have his number). Having reread the last couple of pages pretty much every post is looking at Malc's comment and concluding it is baseless, or discussing drugs in sport in a general way. The only post that could be read as endorsing Malc's conclusion makes more sense as an attempt to work through his logic.
The enthusiastic endorsement of Gav's post suggests either I've missed something major, or there are a lot of skim-readers on the forum.
I'm sure as baffled and disappointed by Malc's comments as Neil probably is, there must also be an acknowledgement that you don't attract bizarre criticism form such high profile pundits without doing something pretty exceptional in the first place. I'm actually struggling think of a bigger compliment to your training than Malcolm declaring you must be on drugs, it's like when people start quizzing you about what chalk or rubber you're using because they can't quite believe the gulf in performance. Fucking skill mate.
Getting accused of being on steroids is the best compliment you can have over your training.
If there was a drug to give you the cahoons like Neil and Steve, I want some.
I don't think there's many pro climbers making an actual living full stop, but theres definitely people who are trying to be pro climbers, and make money from just going climbing.
I've a feeling the comment from Malcolm Smith was take out of context. I can't find it now but there was a couple of follow ups between NG and MS along the lines of 'I put it down to this and this', 'nice work, you've done well', 'I train better and harder than when we used to train together years ago'. I'm not sure there *was* an accusatory subtext.
I can't find the comments now and wonder if they've been deleted because of the way this thing has grown legs and been (mis)read??
This thread is approaching a new low point for the site, a bitter, armchair critic, old mans club, low point.
Neils done more for UK climbing than the rest of us put together and whilst he can come over as overtly commercial for many tastes i have no idea how you all think he deserves the shit talk that has being going on in this thread.
Turdgate was great fun but IIRC Gresh was on the other side, thus he was one of the "victims" in the debacle.Unnecessary details. Not the right thread for facts this one. Anyway it was Franco that did the shitting - it’s all in the new Alastair Lee film.
I can see there has been a fair amount of mug slinging yes but I think it's fair to say that if you are expecting a Gresh back slapping fest then this isn't really the place. People question stuff, points are made about grades or even steroids. So what, it's an internet forum. I don't remember anyone actually directly accusing him. People aren't beyond criticism because they've climbed an E11.
It's a climbing forum. Clearly it is fair game. If you just want back-slapping stick to congratulatory commenting on Instagram and characterising absolutely anything else as 'the haters'.
Obviously it is 'fair game' to criticise and people aren't 'beyond criticism' but I'm struggling to understand what he's being criticised for....
The route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!Said no one in this thread. People questioned the extent of the new climbing on the pitch Vs common ground (shared with ID), and how this was reported.
He never said he climbed the LGP of the lakes but spotted a line that joined ID on good rock with good climbing, since confirmed.NG wrote "make the line independent apart from a junction with Impact Day in the easier middle section" and that it would be "an epic 8b+ power-endurance burn". As above, the reporting made the extent of the common ground very unclear (UKC has "crosses briefly through the easier climbing on ID"), especially given the clarity of everything else. Also the route is very close to Eclipse/Sixpence at the bottom and Sixpence again higher up but this isn't mentioned at all - just an observation, don't take it as a criticism!
The grade - I'm not sure what's expected here, He may have got this wrong but it seems it is harder than some E10s out there. Hang the over grader!My comments highlighted that 2 out of 2 of NG's recent trad routes have been considered (by people who have repeated or previously climbed parent routes) over-graded. Specifically, Fearless: E8 vs E9 (not really any harder than parent route); Final Score (given E10) not meaningfully harder than ISWN (E9, but which has become easier after its FA and 2nd ascent due to a block coming off).
The write up - ... The article might be long winded but if someone gave me a platform to talk about my best ever climbing achievement I'd probably ramble on a bit and also mention other people involved.I think people were largely/entirely criticising UKC rather than NG here.
Social media presenceI don't think anyone made any criticism that NG has a social media presence. I think it was just pointed out that if you only want to read congratulatory notes without any critical review then you're better off visiting athletes' social media pages.
but, but...he moved to London.....Not me guv'. No idea what this was about. Not really read that stuff or the doping stuff.
Simon Nadin highlighted the phenomenon 'Old Man Over Grading Syndrome'
Simon Nadin highlighted the phenomenon 'Old Man Over Grading Syndrome'
OT, but anyone have a link to this blog or article?
The route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!Said no one in this thread.
Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?
Oh yes they did... :jab:
Quote from: Tony S link=topic=31488.msg644810#msg644810
[quote author=TeaboyThe route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!Said no one in this thread.
[/quote]
Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?
With Impact Day, there's a peg which effectively splits the headwall into two separate runouts. These runouts are big by anyone's standards and those who've taken the ride from the crux have described it as a solid 40-footer, including rope stretch.
Yet with this project the fall would literally be twice the length.80 feet = 24 metres.
If you look at the breakdown of Lexicon (8b+ with 80-foot fall potential from a last move crux and the promise of a hard strike)
Whoops - I seem to have removed the topic by mistake - now reversed
:sorry:
No. Especially not where there's a fairly definitive objective answer. I always take people's descriptions of fall length as being measured in the same units as fish that got away, so knowing if this holds true for newsworthy ascent is of interest.
Is it wrong to want accuracy and factual reporting of things in climbing? I find it ironic that for a pastime so popular amongst academics there's so much that goes unexamined and unquestioned.
Whoops - I seem to have removed the topic by mistake - now reversed
:sorry:
There was me thinking Gresh’s Inner Temple legal team had been in touch!
I'm confused about how high this crag is supposed to be.
Firstly is it correct that a fall from ID is 12+ a bit metres?
1. Steve Maclure, who will agree with everything Neil says.
Isn't really the viewpoint for most of us "looks way harder than anything I'll ever do, who fucking knows"
1. Steve Maclure, who will agree with everything Neil says.
You can read if he did or not in this interview for the BMC (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/interview-steve-mcclure-and-lexicon-e11?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-teambmc&utm_content=later-21140947&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio).
Also updated topo from a different angle, showing the full scruffy insignificance of this 40' wall tucked away in a grotty gully. https://www.instagram.com/p/CUCjto8oZ6K/?utm_source=ig_embed
I really enjoyed the Lexicon film. It's a good looking line up a vague rib on the leaning headwall. Massive respect to Neil Gresham who clearly put alot of work into getting it done, and comes across brilliantly in the film, very inspiring :2thumbsup:
I really enjoyed the Lexicon film. It's a good looking line up a vague rib on the leaning headwall. Massive respect to Neil Gresham who clearly put alot of work into getting it done, and comes across brilliantly in the film, very inspiring :2thumbsup:
Alistair Lee had a good shot of Steve Mcs fall in his Brit Rock film which I thought would offer a good opportunity to try and work out how big the fall actually is. Thankfully he's just posted it on facebook so I whipped out the steve mc ruler, and it works out at about 9.5 x mid-fall steve mcs (from his feet at the top to his feet at the bottom:
(https://i.imgur.com/Eobgf0d.jpeg)
Say 1 mid-fall Steve Mc is between 1 m and 1.2 m tall, then the fall is probably about 9.5m to 11.4m. Conclusions: definitely not 20m. Definitely a long way. I definitely wouldn't be psyched to take that ride.
Assumptions: there isn't some crazy lense on the camera that'd be distorting the image. The stitching used to put together the pic hasn't stretched it weirdly. The top of the shot is pretty close to where Steve actually fell off. The bottom of the shot is pretty close to where Steve actually stopped.
Assumptions: there isn't some crazy lense on the camera that'd be distorting the image. The stitching used to put together the pic hasn't stretched it weirdly.
Assumptions: there isn't some crazy lense on the camera that'd be distorting the image. The stitching used to put together the pic hasn't stretched it weirdly.
Assuming the camera’s followed Steve as he’s falling (I haven’t seen the film yet ;) ) and it’s not on some kind of vertical slider then there’ll be some kind of perspective distortion because the camera’s pivoted on one point rather than linearly following the fall. Whether that makes much of a difference to this highly scientific measurement I’m not sure but it’s the reason that architectural etc. photographers who need to stitch photos together with total accuracy use panoramic heads that allow the camera to be moved along one plane only between shots.