UKBouldering.com

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Fultonius on Today at 03:33:05 pm »
7B+/E4 5c (or whatever the fucking top half of fucking WSS is as I have no fucking idea...) would convey things much better for the soloist.

However, I'd maybe argue by the sounds of things, that the top alone is maybe only E3? So F7B+/E35c?

Can someone now please go out and find a new boulder/micro route and call it:

Weathering the Bell Curve? And grade it E4 Jellyfish?  :lol:

2
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Johnny Brown on Today at 03:25:59 pm »
Quote
A tech grade of 7a is entirely and completely meaningless, so I have the same problem with something being graded E4 7a as I do with  something being graded E4 Jellyfish.

  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol::clap2: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :tease: :tease:

This has made my day.

Otherwise, the thing to remember with trad grades for micro-routes/ highballs, is that BOULDER PROBLEMS DON’T GET E GRADES. So if the main difficulty on a micro route is a boulder problem, it has very little bearing on the overall grade. Reasons to put WSS up to E5 would not so much bear on the boulder problem, it would be if there was no jugs, no rest, no easy opportunity to traverse off, or more likely a worse landing. Look at The Art of White Hat Wearing for example, which is shorter than WSS and slightly easier, but forgot E5 because the landing is worse. And if you think I’m mental, remember when the landing was improved, some people lamented the loss of a once proud E5!
3
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Fultonius on Today at 03:21:21 pm »
Font6B into existing top of WSS: E3 6a
Font6C into existing top of WSS: E3 6b
Font7A into existing top of WSS: E3 6b/c
Font7B into existing top of WSS: E4 6c


It really is that simple.

Case dismissed, your honour....
4
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by cheque on Today at 03:13:12 pm »
Worth keeping in mind that the last guidebook to list WSS with only a trad grade was published in 1991. There’s only ever been one guide that mentions E4 in its description of it since the adoption of bouldering grades and that came out 19 years ago.
5
news / Re: significant repeats
« Last post by Nemo on Today at 03:03:57 pm »
With sport routes and boulders, typically significant downgrades only happen when people find better beta.
The vast majority of people (at least those who travel to at least some extent) climbing at that level tend to roughly agree about grades when they've used the same beta (with obvious exceptions for height dependent stuff etc).

With UK trad routes people can climb exactly the same sequence and yet come up with a completely different grade as they are using a completely different grading system.  That's not sensible.  Sure sponsors, public opinion, beta and all the rest of it are always going to play a part, but sorting out what the numbers are actually meant to represent is a pre requisite to even bothering trying to assign something a number.
6
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by andy moles on Today at 03:03:40 pm »
something being graded E4 Jellyfish.

Sounds about right for some routes on the Orme.
7
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Somebody's Fool on Today at 02:58:31 pm »
Isn’t there an element to this of preserving something local and interesting by applying a British grade to a grit highball?

I mean you could argue the average Frenchman’s car is much better now it’s a VW or an Audi. But wasn’t France much more interesting when everyone was going round in their Renault 4s?

I don’t think making everything the same the world over necessarily enhances our experience of it.

8
news / Re: significant repeats
« Last post by northern yob on Today at 02:57:11 pm »
The reason why Egrades don’t work at the top end is because they are rarely applied objectively/properly, those at the top end have to contend with their ego’s, public opinion, sponsors etc etc  this is the case with all grades not just E grades! Sport climbs and boulders aren’t immune to downgrades/upgrades and people certainly don’t agree on them all. E grades give lots of info…. Sometimes I agree sometimes I don’t! Sport grades give less info… sometimes I agree sometimes I don’t. It’s all the same whatever the system.
9
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Will Hunt on Today at 02:49:41 pm »
This discussion belong on UKC.

LOCK N' LOG. And let us never speak of this again.
10
chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?
« Last post by Nemo on Today at 02:44:49 pm »
A tech grade of 7a is entirely and completely meaningless, so I have the same problem with something being graded E4 7a as I do with  something being graded E4 Jellyfish.

But I can't be bothered engaging much with the UK tech grade argument, because it's a debate that for the vast majority of people, was over 2 decades ago.
The reality is, whether some people like it or not, that UK tech grades over 6b are of zero use.

Why?
Because almost everyone climbing at that level (including hard trad specialists) climbs vastly more volume of boulders and sport routes of those physical difficulties than they do trad routes.  ie: even for the very top trad climbers, they climb more volume of Fr8b's and Font 8A's on boulders and sport routes than they climb Fr8b's and Font 8A's on trad routes.

And so even hard trad specialists compare physical difficulty with font or french grades.  People can complain about that all they like, and talk with some kind of confused romantic nostalgia about UK tech grades as seems to have happened on here recently.

The reality isn't going to change.  UK tech grades for hard routes died a long time ago and they aren't coming back.

The only remaining debate is where to switch over.  Personally if writing a guide I'd switch at E6, although perhaps at E5 for somewhere like Pembroke. I think Duncan on here recently suggested switching at lower grades.  Personally I wouldn't bother as I don't think Fr grades are as useful at lower grades, but ultimately the where is down to individual guidebook writers.

As for the E side of it:

"Font6B into existing top of WSS
Font6C into existing top of WSS
Font7A into existing top of WSS
Font7B into existing top of WSS"

And to continue:
Font8B into existing top of WSS
Font8B+ into existing top of WSS
Font8C into existing top of WSS
Fr9b into existing top of WSS
Fr9b+ into existing top of WSS
Fr9c into existing top of WSS

All of which (since he clearly isn't paying much mind to the physical difficulty of the start in the E grade) in JB's wonderful world would presumably get something between E3 and E5.   

OK, obviously I'm somewhat taking the piss.
But truth is, the only way what JB is saying actually hangs together is if you take the two halfs of WSS completely separately and pretend there was a ledge in the middle.  So you have a Font 7B+ pitch and then an E4 pitch.
I assume that conceptually at least, that's what he's talking about.

Which I suppose you could just about persuade yourself of in the specific case of WSS, but that kind of split doesn't apply to the vast majority of highballs at all, so it's a grading system that applies to one route.  Not terribly helpful.





Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal