1

news / Re: calling of the lime

« Last post by Fiend on Today at 10:23:08 am »

 

2

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Fiend on Today at 10:22:48 am »

Maybe in the obscure microcosm of parochial grit weirdness E4 7a makes sense? But in any place where you have to put more than 3 bits of pro in before topping out, it's bonkers and breaks the system.

Surely given you're in your 9th decade, have been climbing trad all over the world for 87 years and something to do with this number of E-blah and that number of E-whatever, you'd realise that in an otherwise very functional system there will be the occasional outlier that won't quite fit into how that system usually describes and overall challenge, but will still convey some comparable information. As an E4 climber you won't get up the extreme outlier of West Side Story, as a 6a climber you won't get up the extreme outlier of Rubble....

This fixation on the most extreme outliers - particularly ones that were graded in a different era for a different style of ascent and are now accurately described as highball boulder problems - is really not the most useful way to see if His Royal Majesty's Great Brexitish Traditional Grading System still works well...

3

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by andy moles on Today at 10:21:07 am »

I kind of agree with both sides of this argument.

E4 7a does kind of tell you what you need to know - if the common sense extrapolation that the bit after the really hard moves is roughly equivalent in difficulty to soloing 5c or maybe one 6a move at a worrying-but-not-going-to-kill-you height turns out to be correct.

However it's clearly not consistent with how the grading system normally works - i.e. the E grade describing the overall difficulty (for an on-sight attempt...though of course for harder routes it's not really for an on-sight attempt... ). WSS is clearly harder than anything within the normal bounds of 'E4 level' overall difficulty, so it doesn't seem like the best grading system to be using.

If it's about imparting useful information, I'd rather know an independent boulder grade for the top section, personally (what is it? I never got that far)

JB - does E4 4c actually exist? I've seen 5b...

4

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Today at 10:05:08 am »

I think most are fine with the principle of same E grade with low tech grade for bold/sustained or high tech grade for safe/short-lived, but for the latter isn't that what E4 6b is? Or perhaps 6c at a stretch?

So do we agree 'standard' E4 is around 5c/6a? So we are fine with going down to the 4c/5a grade in extreme cases - bold, sustained, loose, poor protection. But if we go up the same amount - to 6c/7a - it's somehow unacceptable? Why? Admittedly West Side is an edge case because the crux is off the floor. If you had to do that move off a rope, yes, it would be E-harder.

The only issue I can see here is people who think of themselves as 'E4 climbers' might get their ego pricked. But a lot of solid E4 climbers will boulder that hard, even more so nowadays. A lot less than would get on an E4 4c I'd wager.

What I don't get is that all these weird grades are in the guidebooks, and have been since I started reading them in the eighties, and they all made perfect sense to me. I think the problem probably started with those grade conversion tables - they only could have worked had the tech grades followed a sort of normal distribution curvigram instead of blocks.

5

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Wellsy on Today at 10:04:31 am »

I always think the hypothetical "balanced trad climber" should have an equal chance of onighting all E4s.

Fultonius the hypothetical is real! I can proudly say I have an equal chance of onsighting all E4s (0%)

6

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by northern yob on Today at 10:00:56 am »

@Northern Yob - Generational thing? You being funny? I'm in my 5th decade and have been trad climbing for 20 years. I've climbed trad in Cornwall, Wales, northern Ireland and all across Scotland. E3 and E4 would be the zone where I probably have the best "feel" for grades, and, looking at my logbook I've done 83 E3s and 63 E4s. When I rock up to a new crag in a new area, I usually drop to the more comfortable grades and then build up. I'll look at the trad grade, description, maybe notes on UKC..., eyeball the route then think "aye, that looks a goer". So far I've found grades to be pretty consistent within +/- half an E grade and I've had similar success onsighting wherever I go.

Some places I've had more success, North Wales and Fairhead, for example - maybe I just had a good week, climbing well and good conditions, or maybe they were a bit easier? Who knows.

But fucking hell, if I rocked up to a crag and there was an E4 7a all I'd think is:

Are they on crack? 

Please put aside your straw man arguments about trying to relate back to sport grades... no one mentioned that, no one (in this thread) is arguing that. I'm not "back calculating", I'm using the UK trad grade exactly how most of the people I climb with use it - a scale that gives you an idea of the relative difficulty of onsighting a route.

Maybe in the obscure microcosm of parochial grit weirdness E4 7a makes sense? But in any place where you have to put more than 3 bits of pro in before topping out, it's bonkers and breaks the system.

Evidently not…. We are basically the same generation.

Isn’t this the same with all grades, there are always things which fuck it up…. A lot of 5.13 onsighters probably can’t get their heads  around a 5.11 offwidth, how can it be the same grade as their regular warm up….

Have you been to font?? I like to think I can climb v6/7 pretty much anywhere (I can most places) there are things which equate to v4 in font, I can’t even get off the ground on. Does that mean they aren’t that grade? Adam ondra doesn’t fall off many v10’s I wouldn’t imagine? Yet he dropped Marie Rose. What E4 7a does is tell you it’s one of those rare problems before you even pull off the ground therefore doing it’s job perfectly… conveying information.

7

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by lukeyboy on Today at 09:44:07 am »

The wonderful thing about Uk grades is they have two halves. E4 5a tells you it’s death on a stick. E4 7a tells you it’s desperate, but short-lived AND not dangerous. Just because you don’t fancy either despite normally liking E4s doesn’t make them wrong.

Sure, I think most are fine with the principle of same E grade with low tech grade for bold/sustained or high tech grade for safe/short-lived, but for the latter isn't that what E4 6b is? Or perhaps 6c at a stretch?

Font 7B+ just seems outside the realms of E4 however short or safe.

8

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by webbo on Today at 09:40:37 am »

Adam is JB.

9

new problems / Re: [Peak][Opencast Arch][>30 Problems]

« Last post by Bonjoy on Today at 09:27:57 am »

This has reminded me. The crag is now added to the RAD - https://thebmc.co.uk/modules/rad/View.aspx?id=7836

10

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Fultonius on Today at 09:21:30 am »

100% what Adam said… it makes perfect sense, to me at least. Is this a generational thing??

As Adam points out much better than I could, E grades aren’t sport grades… the whole point of them is to convey information, which they do in a not that complicated way, I really can’t get my head round why lots of people have such a problem with it or are against them. There’s got to be some serious miles in this…. Thread split surely.

Adam? Who's Adam?

JB, you seem to have a very strong view on this. I don't - as I've said I have next to no experience of this highball/E-Grade issue. The closest I can think of is  Looney Tunes at Cambusbarron which is (from very distant memory) around Font 6B at a *likely* ankle breaking height. I actually fell off soloing it once and managed to spin round and somehow miss all the boulders but I got very lucky!

@Northern Yob - Generational thing? You being funny? I'm in my 5th decade and have been trad climbing for 20 years. I've climbed trad in Cornwall, Wales, northern Ireland and all across Scotland. E3 and E4 would be the zone where I probably have the best "feel" for grades, and, looking at my logbook I've done 83 E3s and 63 E4s. When I rock up to a new crag in a new area, I usually drop to the more comfortable grades and then build up. I'll look at the trad grade, description, maybe notes on UKC..., eyeball the route then think "aye, that looks a goer". So far I've found grades to be pretty consistent within +/- half an E grade and I've had similar success onsighting wherever I go.

Some places I've had more success, North Wales and Fairhead, for example - maybe I just had a good week, climbing well and good conditions, or maybe they were a bit easier? Who knows.

But fucking hell, if I rocked up to a crag and there was an E4 7a all I'd think is:

Are they on crack? 

Please put aside your straw man arguments about trying to relate back to sport grades... no one mentioned that, no one (in this thread) is arguing that. I'm not "back calculating", I'm using the UK trad grade exactly how most of the people I climb with use it - a scale that gives you an idea of the relative difficulty of onsighting a route.

Maybe in the obscure microcosm of parochial grit weirdness E4 7a makes sense? But in any place where you have to put more than 3 bits of pro in before topping out, it's bonkers and breaks the system.