UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Tommy on June 22, 2016, 10:18:57 am
-
China Doll (5.14a R trad ~= E10): Heather Weidner Interview (http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web16b/newswire-china-doll-5.14-heather-weidner-interview)
:clap2: :bow:
I'm pretty certain you'll find that that doesn't equal E10 :)
The editor's bit a the bottom about British trad route grades did amuse me. Rare Lichen and Once Upon A Time at 8b/+. Hmmm! And that's why Team America thought our routes were piss. They'd not have said that if they'd gone on Mawson's Pembroke line.
-
I'm pretty certain you'll find that that doesn't equal E10 :)
I don't operate at anywhere near those grades so lazily looked up the conversion/equivalence on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28climbing%29#Free_climbing_2).
You should update and improve the grade comparison table if its off, that way everyone benefits from your shared knowledge. :)
-
China Doll (5.14a R trad ~= E10): Heather Weidner Interview (http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web16b/newswire-china-doll-5.14-heather-weidner-interview)
:clap2: :bow:
I'm pretty certain you'll find that that doesn't equal E10 :)
The editor's bit a the bottom about British trad route grades did amuse me. Rare Lichen and Once Upon A Time at 8b/+. Hmmm! And that's why Team America thought our routes were piss. They'd not have said that if they'd gone on Mawson's Pembroke line.
Can you explain further Tommy? Looking at the conversion tables on rockfax gives me the impression that a 5.14a on gear would be E10 too. Without knowing what the climb is like I have no idea why it wouldn't be, so it would be good to hear your thoughts?
-
Reading Jens articles on 8a about UK trad make me laugh. He doesn't understand that E8 can be 7a+ or 8a. I guess it is a bit bizarre (from the outside at least).
-
I'm pretty certain you'll find that that doesn't equal E10 :)
I don't operate at anywhere near those grades so lazily looked up the conversion/equivalence on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28climbing%29#Free_climbing_2).
You should update and improve the grade comparison table if its off, that way everyone benefits from your shared knowledge. :)
Basically that grade conversion table is absolutely cocked at the top end. It's rubbish. I'm amazed someone who likes grades hasn't done anything about it. We don't make life easy though as our system is pretty hard to use IMHO.
As for why CD isn't E10? Well, it's 8b+ and it's not dangerous enough. People read too much into a relatively inexperienced trad climber ripping a couple of pieces of gear... It's a crack and cracks are always mean for their grade on E-grades ;D. For example I did Dina Crac at 8b+ on trad gear in S Wales and it had a bit of risk element to it but in the end, if you're ripping gear and then absolutely fine then no big deal... for sure I was a wimp at the start, but then I realised even when the gear did rip it wasn't that bad, hence it's E9 max.
Anyway, sorry for disrupting the significant repeats thread. I'll stop ranting now ;D
-
Basically that grade conversion table is absolutely cocked at the top end. It's rubbish. I'm amazed someone who likes grades hasn't done anything about it.
Sounds as though you like grades, I'm amazed you haven't done anything about it. ;)
Community sourced projects such as Wikipedia only improve when people who care take the time to improve them (which sometimes entails discussion under the 'Talk' page to reach consensus between contributors).
-
*
Lots of people in the UK care about trad grades. They just all care differently!
For e.g. Tommy thinks a 'safe but scary' 8b+ should be E9 - which makes a total mockery of routes such as Rare Lichen at 'dangerous' 7c being graded E9
Another person might think 'S.b.S.' 8b+ is E10 .... which still seems to make a mockery of 'dangerous' 7c equaling E9 because what then should 'dangerous' 7c+, 8a, 8a+ and 8b be graded, if 7c is E9?
It seems a ridiculously vague system at the upper end. There's no consensus on the seriousness bit - one person's 'safe but scary' might be another's 'dangerously run out'.
*File in 'yearly UK E-grade rant'.
-
*
Lots of people in the UK care about trad grades. They just all care differently!
For e.g. Tommy thinks a 'safe but scary' 8b+ should be E9 - which makes a total mockery of routes such as Rare Lichen at 'dangerous' 7c being graded E9
Another person might think 'S.b.S.' 8b+ is E10 .... which still seems to make a mockery of 'dangerous' 7c equaling E9 because what then should 'dangerous' 7c+, 8a, 8a+ and 8b be graded, if 7c is E9?
You are presuming 1 x E-grade = 1 x French grade. Which it is safe to say (with both experience of trad climbing and looking at any grading table) is not the case. Dangerous 7c+ is probably going to be a harder lead than Rare Lichen (which is apparently a massive soft-touch at E9) but still E9. Maybe dangerous 8a would be E9 too.
EDIT: I get your point re Tom thinking a safe but scary 8b+ being E9 is harsh but you have to remember he is referring to a crack climb where you can place a lot of gear (in clusters or evenly spread) and it is scary because the odd piece rips. If it was an 8b+ in the style of rare lichen but that was a bit safer it would almost certainly be E10 (choronzon is a good example of this 8b+ climbing that is probably more dangerous than the S. b. S catagory but not outright dangerous)
Plus you have to add in how easy the gear is to place/how straightforward for the given grade the climbing is/etc.
It's like with E5s - you can get safe 6c/+ (warpath for example) that are soft touch E5s and then get a spicy verging on dangerous 7a that is hard at the grade (haven't personally done one to give as an example but Kicker Conspiracy or Tufty Club on Scimitar potentially fit the bill?).
It seems a ridiculously vague system at the upper end. There's no consensus on the seriousness bit - one person's 'safe but scary' might be another's 'dangerously run out'.
You could argue this at any level within any grading system that deals with danger/perceived danger. You could argue that for grading difficulty. Grades will never be definitive - surely that's half the fun??
-
*
Lots of people in the UK care about trad grades. They just all care differently!
For e.g. Tommy thinks a 'safe but scary' 8b+ should be E9 - which makes a total mockery of routes such as Rare Lichen at 'dangerous' 7c being graded E9
Another person might think 'S.b.S.' 8b+ is E10 .... which still seems to make a mockery of 'dangerous' 7c equaling E9 because what then should 'dangerous' 7c+, 8a, 8a+ and 8b be graded, if 7c is E9?
You are presuming 1 x E-grade = 1 x French grade. Which it is safe to say (with both experience of trad climbing and looking at any grading table) is not the case. Dangerous 7c+ is probably going to be a harder lead than Rare Lichen (which is apparently a massive soft-touch at E9) but still E9. Maybe dangerous 8a would be E9 too.
Plus you have to add in how easy the gear is to place/how straightforward for the given grade the climbing is/etc.
It's like with E5s - you can get safe 6c/+ (warpath for example) that are soft touch E5s and then get a spicy verging on dangerous 7a that is hard at the grade (haven't personally done one to give as an example but Kicker Conspiracy or Tufty Club on Scimitar potentially fit the bill?).
It seems a ridiculously vague system at the upper end. There's no consensus on the seriousness bit - one person's 'safe but scary' might be another's 'dangerously run out'.
You could argue this at any level within any grading system that deals with danger/perceived danger. You could argue that for grading difficulty. Grades will never be definitive - surely that's half the fun??
I'm not presuming anything, I know as I think everyone does ('cept Jens?) that an E grade doesn't equal a sport grade. I'm pointing out the obvious which is that one E grade can equal 6 sport grades. Which is an enormous spectrum of physical difficulty. Having such a huge range of difficulty represented by the number '9' or '10' or '8' etc. to me dilutes its meaningfulness.
You could argue this at any level within any grading system that deals with danger/perceived danger. You could argue that for grading difficulty. Grades will never be definitive - surely that's half the fun??
No, you couldn't argue that a system that uses physical difficulty as the primary grade, with danger 'tacked on' is anywhere near as vague as the system we use that uses some vague measure of 'overall difficulty' as the primary grade.
We need an EN standard, where's JB? :P
-
I don't really care for a debate about UK trad grades, what I'm trying to convey is that if Tommy thinks the Wikipedia article can be improved upon he should do so. If there is no inclination to do so then thats fine but it makes no sense to me to say that something on Wikipedia is inaccurate and then do nothing to improve it.
-
The same goes for E5s though and I think it works pretty well? you can get 6b+ (id be willing to wager lower) solos and 7b+ clip-ups. Still seems to work pretty well to me?
Anyway assigning E-grades to these top-end routes is pointless anyway since they haven't been onsighted and we all know the E-grade is for the onsight :P
Which actually leads me onto another valid point it's not actually as important to be pinpoint accurate because at the minute no-body is going to try and onsight these routes so any prospective climber will find out exactly where it sits within the grade after they've minced around on a rope on it, no? :worms:
-
I don't really care for a debate about UK trad grades, what I'm trying to convey is that if Tommy thinks the Wikipedia article can be improved upon he should do so. If there is no inclination to do so then thats fine but it makes no sense to me to say that something on Wikipedia is inaccurate and then do nothing to improve it.
How could he - no-one can agree on what sport grades E8, 9 10 and 11 should cover! I suppose he could just go on Wikipedia and change E9 to mean death 8b and watch half of the UK's wads cry into their keto breakfasts.
-
How could he - no-one can agree on what sport grades E8, 9 10 and 11 should cover! I suppose he could just go on Wikipedia and change E9 to mean death 8b and watch half of the UK's wads cry into their keto breakfasts.
I already answered that....
(which sometimes entails discussion under the 'Talk' page to reach consensus between contributors).
...the page is at...
Wikipedia - Talk @ Grade (climbing) : Grade Comparison Chart Adjustments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grade_%28climbing%29#Grade_comparison_chart_adjustments)
You won't ever reach a consensus unless you at least attempt to talk issues through, ideally by those who have experience of the grade range(s) being discussed.
-
The same goes for E5s though and I think it works pretty well? you can get 6b+ (id be willing to wager lower) solos and 7b+ clip-ups. Still seems to work pretty well to me?
..
I wonder about this - not for very long I should add. How useful is it really? Seems to me more like a throwback to a fudged system that got so messed up it seems like to much of a headache to fix. In my OCD mind I can't understand why just having 4 physical difficulty grades per E grade at E5 and above isn't perfectly OK. So a route can only be E5 if it's, say, 6c to 7a+. Within that you have all the possible permutations of 'DANGER! DANGER!' you need. It takes the emotion out of what's meant to be an emotionless label.
Same for E6 etc.
E6 - 7a to 7b+
E7 - 7b to 7c+
E8 - 7c to 8a+
E9 - 8a to 8b+
E10 - 8b to 8c+
E11 - 8c to 9a+
What's wrong with a system where, for e.g. 'if it's not 7c it can't be E8'? (make up your own sport grades per grade obviously, I'm not saying it should be exactly that).
Simple, job done.
-
Makes Indian face E7, ukc would explode!
-
I guess that would work for the vast majority of routes, but what about the horror shows?
I.e. Bold, steady E5 is say Fr6c. So what about difficult to read, snappy rock, death-on a stick Fr6b+....does this really just become E4? Or do we add another layer, like the US system? E4 5c X ??
-
Also am I right in thinking this route has bolts in? Surely having the option of clipping them if you bottled it would reduce the (trad) grade.
-
The Alpinist article doesn't mention E10.
I don't operate at anywhere near those grades so lazily looked up the conversion/equivalence on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28climbing%29#Free_climbing_2).
-
I am a little confused as to the point of this thread?
I split it from the off topic discussion on "the significant repeats thread"
Have me done a bad thing again?
-
I guess that would work for the vast majority of routes, but what about the horror shows?
I.e. Bold, steady E5 is say Fr6c. So what about difficult to read, snappy rock, death-on a stick Fr6b+....does this really just become E4? Or do we add another layer, like the US system? E4 5c X ??
XS 5c? ;)
-
I am a little confused as to the point of this thread? The Alpinist article doesn't mention E10. In the last paragraph it inaccurately infers the YDS grade of a couple of Brit E9's climbed by woman but it is hardly the main focus of the article. Nowhere does it claim Heather Weidner has climbed E10 (and frankly 99% of Alpinist readers would have no interest in that anyway.) All it seems to be implying is that Heather's ascent was badass - which seems a reasonable claim.
It was only me commenting on Slacker's E10 approximation. In all fairness it was an approximation, so I'm not getting that stressed :-). In reply to why don't I do something about it if I feel it's wrong? Well.... that's probably like asking why don't I get off my arse and do something about the politics in this country that I don't agree with. I'd rather just moan!
The more interesting from my point of view is that Pete W has an amazing grading table which basically sorts all of this shit out. It's really well done, but he's always refused over the years for me to let people see it. Occasionally I try and secretly photograph the page in his note book but he's a sharp one.. ;D
Like all the other "pros" he's a total wimp about being controversial. It's incredible he's prepared to look such a duffer in a banana suit :)
-
I guess that would work for the vast majority of routes, but what about the horror shows?
I.e. Bold, steady E5 is say Fr6c. So what about difficult to read, snappy rock, death-on a stick Fr6b+....does this really just become E4? Or do we add another layer, like the US system? E4 5c X ??
XS 5c? ;)
Touché!
-
In reply to why don't I do something about it if I feel it's wrong? Well.... that's probably like asking why don't I get off my arse and do something about the politics in this country that I don't agree with. I'd rather just moan!
You've more chance of reaching a consensus and making change to grade comparisons than you have to the politics of the country.
-
I guess that would work for the vast majority of routes, but what about the horror shows?
I.e. Bold, steady E5 is say Fr6c. So what about difficult to read, snappy rock, death-on a stick Fr6b+....does this really just become E4? Or do we add another layer, like the US system? E4 5c X ??
XS 5c? ;)
Touché!
What's wrong with E5 5c? There are a couple of E5 5bs on Cilan.
-
Nothing at all! I was just pointing out that if we arbitrarily limited the width of an E grade to 4 Sport grades (half letters) as was suggested, then we'd be in trouble with those E5 5cs and similar routes.
It's funny though, how the allure of a route would probably change. For example (here's my "mandala moment") in fairhead I (after a couple of top ropes) did my first E6. Now, E6 is clearly for the onsight, but it still feels kind of significant as my first one.
If the guidebook said Fr6b+ X it would probably not be that enticing...there's something abut the E-grade that adds some allure. Clearly lost on Honnold as he nonchalantly soloed a Fr7a+ X, with none of the weight of history and experience telling him that soloing an E8 after very little practice should be bonkers crazy!
-
I am a little confused as to the point of this thread? The Alpinist article doesn't mention E10. In the last paragraph it inaccurately infers the YDS grade of a couple of Brit E9's climbed by woman but it is hardly the main focus of the article. Nowhere does it claim Heather Weidner has climbed E10 (and frankly 99% of Alpinist readers would have no interest in that anyway.) All it seems to be implying is that Heather's ascent was badass - which seems a reasonable claim.
It was only me commenting on Slacker's E10 approximation. In all fairness it was an approximation, so I'm not getting that stressed :-). In reply to why don't I do something about it if I feel it's wrong? Well.... that's probably like asking why don't I get off my arse and do something about the politics in this country that I don't agree with. I'd rather just moan!
The more interesting from my point of view is that Pete W has an amazing grading table which basically sorts all of this shit out. It's really well done, but he's always refused over the years for me to let people see it. Occasionally I try and secretly photograph the page in his note book but he's a sharp one.. ;D
Like all the other "pros" he's a total wimp about being controversial. It's incredible he's prepared to look such a duffer in a banana suit :)
And as if by magic Tommy turns up on Alpinist's facebook feed doing some gnarly hard trad to show'em how it's done.
-
The more interesting from my point of view is that Pete W has an amazing grading table which basically sorts all of this shit out. It's really well done, but he's always refused over the years for me to let people see it. Occasionally I try and secretly photograph the page in his note book but he's a sharp one.. ;D
Like all the other "pros" he's a total wimp about being controversial. It's incredible he's prepared to look such a duffer in a banana suit :)
That's absolutely shocking,Tom. He's got the minerals to climb some hard and spicy E9 or E10 or whatever but he can't put a potentially valuable piece of information out there for fear of offending some armchair punter on UKC? Get the lad to chuck it online. He needn't do it in a provocative way. How are we supposed to progress otherwise?!
What Would Wilson Do?
-
It doesn't sound controversial at all. It will no doubt spawn an enormous ukc thread and make his sponsors happy.
-
Ha! That's funny that just turned up.
For the Final Round I wanted to give it E8, but it would cock the grading scale so I went for HXS.
As for making my sponsors happy? No chance. I'm not blonde or fit. Or single. Game over.
-
Ha! That's funny that just turned up.
For the Final Round I wanted to give it E8, but it would cock the grading scale so I went for HXS.
As for making my sponsors happy? No chance. I'm not blonde or fit. Or single. Game over.
You should be fit given all the energy system nous you have.
It's essential if stuff like E-grades at the higher end are to be meaningful that people at the higher end say what they really think. A sound argument stands on its own merit and Pete W. or whoever shouldn't feel intimidated by saying something a bit controversial. Like it it loath it grades are the currency in which profile-hungry climbers trade. If you believe the currency is devalued then you're in a unique position to do something about it.
It bugs me when certain folk avoid the issue. Most people know the score when it happens - 'E9 for so and so'. In my mind people who let it happen (not P.W., clearly) are happy to take but not to give - happy to take kudos and, perhaps, use grades to raise their profile; but not happy to give back something useful in return, such as an honest opinion to go into the mix.
-
As for making my sponsors happy? No chance. I'm not blonde or fit. Or single. Game over.
I'm not sure he was talking about you? There's normally only one looker in a partnership.......
-
God, if we brexit we will have to use trad grades for sport as well. That would be a nightmare.