21

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Yesterday at 10:10:37 am »

What Duncan said.

(Except that above 6b (I'd argue 6a) that the grade widths are so wide to be pointless. Adam seems to be arguing against this, but I can't see the logic.

The main part of the problem are the 7a deniers like Nemo, not me. Thankfully not very many of them! Nemo's objection, if I recall correctly, is something akin to Xeno's paradox where any move can be subdivided into components no harder than 6c. Ignoring the reductio ad absurdum aspect, I suppose you could argue that on something like WSS which is both intricate and bottom end 7a, but I don't see see how you can really argue in 2024 that 9c or 9A are just a lot of 6c moves.

uk 6b - runs from font 6B to 7A,
UK 6c: 6C to 7C+

I've always had uk 7a starting around 7B up to 7C+ ish, with 7b covering 8A and up. Of course this is for cruxy boulders not stamina traverses. So Deliverance (giants excepted) represents bottom end 7a, WSS more solid at the grade, Storm, Brad Pit etc mid-grade. 7b would cover moves like the start of Careless start, The Joker, or Help The Young sit. I don't have a lot of experience of harder boulders, and there don't seem to be many on routes, but I'd assume short 8B+ must be getting in to uk 7c and 9A therefore 8a. Aidan does seem to be doing harder moves than existed in the eighties!

Let's transport that to a 20m cliff, give it some  E1 climbing to get to 8m up, place 3 bomber cams (as a safe as it can be), then bust out your font7B+ crux, and then run it out to the top of the crag.

E4 7a yes?

Clearly not! Why would you think that? Putting that section anywhere but off the floor is going to be E5+, you've then added a 12m runout with deck potential from 15-20m. 

22

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by spidermonkey09 on Yesterday at 10:09:55 am »

For WSS and similar, a bouldering grade is obviously most appropriate, since 99% will boulder it out above pads. If I was writing a guide I’d add a couple of sentences similar to the following: “7B+ to the break. Those continuing upward should note the top would be E4 in isolation and will probably feel harder if you’ve just done the start.”

Largely agree with this post but no guide should be countenancing the idea that doing WSS to the break is doing the problem! Better to write; 'the major difficulties are complete when the break is reached but the top section is still insecure and tricky; its certainly not over.'

23

bouldering / Re: GRIT BLOCS

« Last post by Duma on Yesterday at 10:05:49 am »

Those look great, nice one Fiend.

24

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by duncan on Yesterday at 10:02:44 am »

Statement of the bleedin’ obvious probably but the adjectival (E) grade works very well for what it was designed for: estimating the difficulty of onsighting a trad. route - a composite of physical and psychological factors - for an average* climber.

E-grades are less suited to climbing when you can have lots of goes at a route, either above pads or on a top-rope, as this thread demonstrates! Rather awkwardly this happens to be by far the most common approach to harder climbing.

One of the problems from an outsider is the focus put on the E part. Rhapsody E11! But I wouldn't have a clue what the tech grade actually is on it, event though I've read quite some things about it, you never see it mentioned in any headlines.

Re E-grades more generally, to me the only really interesting question is whether the climbing world beyond UK / Ireland will adopt them in any meaningful way?". The rational expectation is surely "no".

In my view, some of the confusion in the harder grades would be reduced if we just binned the UK tech. grade substituting French or Font. grades as applicable. There is no requirement an E grade has to be followed by UK6c or something equally ambiguous. It would be interesting to know what "outsiders" think of this.


For WSS and similar, a bouldering grade is obviously most appropriate, since 99% will boulder it out above pads. If I was writing a guide I’d add a couple of sentences similar to the following: “7B+ to the break. Those continuing upward should note the top would be E4 in isolation and will probably feel harder if you’ve just done the start.”

*Historically a 5’ 10” bloke who could jam. This may need reviewing in 2024.

25

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by Fultonius on Yesterday at 09:48:36 am »

yeah the logic that a short boulder close to the ground = a lower E grade still doesn't make sense to me.

This is baffling. For a given tech grade, things that earn a bigger grade are sustained, length, danger etc. Things that earn a lower E grade are shorter, safer, not sustained etc. What doesn't make sense?

So we can agree that having boulder mats and it being close to the ground makes it "as safe it can be"...? Yes?

So let's say we have WSS with 7B+ crux at 2m, protectable by mats, with an easier but still bold top out that will give people the willies...

Let's transport that to a 20m cliff, give it some  E1 climbing to get to 8m up, place 3 bomber cams (as a safe as it can be), then bust out your font7B+ crux, and then run it out to the top of the crag.

E4 7a yes?

 

26

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by Fultonius on Yesterday at 09:45:12 am »

I’d pay good money to see the reactions of the locals in Czech when some British guy rocks up and tells them that route x couldn’t possibly be E1/5.10/6a as he always can climb that grade anywhere…..

Also as I keep saying it’s the same with any system…. Tell Americans their grades are fucked cos offwidths fuck it up. The majority of sport climbers can’t climb 5.11 ow does that mean that crack wads who only climb in the desert should expect to climb 5.13 in the RRG because all the 5.13 crimpers cant move on cracks….

Aaaargh!  I never said, and I don't think I've seen anyone say that "all grades must be trasnferrable to all other grading systems in all styles". And I never said "I expect to be able to travel around the UK and onsight E4 everywhere"

All I was saying, is, that, in my experience (and that of many mates) The standard use of a trad grade to get a good understanding of how hard it might be and how much chance I have of onsighting it seems to work pretty well. Is it any surprise that I got shut down on Fear of Infection...no, but then it's a wide crack/offwidth. Did I have a good understanding of how hard it was going to be when I looked at the guide, looked up at the rock and got cracking - hell yeah!

I'm happy to accept that I am totally inexperienced with hybrid highball/trad graded hard boulders. I think I did one HVS or E1 6a at Bowden 20 years ago and that's about it.  So I guess if you guys say "it works and we all understand it" then I can;t massibely argue - it's just not how the UK Trad grades work on normal trad routes aroudn the rest of the country in my experience

The point Adam/jb and I are trying to make is E grades work as well if not better than any other grade system.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue anything different here?  (Except that above 6b (I'd argue 6a) that the grade widths are so wide to be pointless. Adam seems to be arguing against this, but I can't see the logic.

uk 6b - runs from font 6B to 7A,
UK 6c: 6C to 7C+   

However, at the mortal grades, if I go up to a steep, pumpy looking E4 5c crack I might think "no move harder than 5c, lots and lots of them, no rest but actually ok protection, pumpy to place. Probably up toward Fr6c sport grade.

Similar E4 6a: maybe a harder crux.

E4 5c, could also be 5c moves in a spicy / dangerous position, and only be Fr6b climbing.

Or you could get a route with a few bouldery sections, but well protected. Harder to onsight, due to technical sequences. E4 6b. For that you know you're going to be safe, but need to really crank out some moves. French grade could range a lot in this...  We all know hard one-move wonders that feel lower grade on the redpoint, but tricky to onsight.

This is where I think the beauty in the UK trad grade lies, it's not easily and directly transferrable to other systems, but when you ask "average" climbers to rank a load of routes at a crag in ascending order of onsighting difficulty, there's usually a fair bit of a agreement. ( Also why the E-Grader idea is a bit shit).

I still can't get my head around E4 for WSS can make any sense in this context....  If you did a graded list of that crag, would the onsightableness of it come below.............        Just checked the crag page and see they are ALL boulder grades.... 

Fuck it, I'm out, If E4 makes sense in highball routes in the peak then so be it, but I'm glad that lunacy doesn't spread out to the rest of these islands....

27

news / Re: The inevitable E grade thread

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Yesterday at 09:40:21 am »

yeah the logic that a short boulder close to the ground = a lower E grade still doesn't make sense to me.

This is baffling. For a given tech grade, things that earn a bigger grade are sustained, length, danger etc. Things that earn a lower E grade are shorter, safer, not sustained etc. What doesn't make sense?

28

bouldering / Re: GRIT BLOCS

« Last post by Fiend on Yesterday at 09:27:14 am »

Bonus points for the first people to post about ticking something new to them that they only discovered in this book...

Sure it's a bit warm now (although DPiddy does highlight a lot of shady and/or moorland grit options), but back in winter I had some good times exploring some new-to-me problems in Grit Bloques....Part 1 in Yorkshire....

29

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by Offwidth on Yesterday at 09:24:06 am »

Of course it's ridiculous. Six of us, including both FAC members, wrote a letter to Council and Board last March (23) about serious concerns around overall finances, areas that seemed to demonstrate lack of financial control, serious stakeholder communications in GB Climbing, overoptimistic looking forecasts of membership growth and breaches of our governance requirements (wrt informing Council) and a number of other issues. Subsequently Council formally challenged the Board in April (23) under our governance rules.

Mismanagement and substandard Board oversight had led to these problems. Since that time Council have been doing our best under our governance remit but we only advise on general strategic and financial direction: Senior  Management run the organisation day to day,  under the guidance of the Board.

Further management problems in 2023 occured until our CEO left. Then until the end of 2023 we were in a holding position due to remaining management and Board having to cover the CEO work alongside managing a restructure in some areas to cut costs and sorting out several other problems (including reassuring funders and funding partners). The situation in 2023 was further complicated by a shift to a new finance system (good in itself but it made 2022 information harder to retrieve). Things finally started improving quickly in 2024 with the appointment of our new CEO.

We can't change the past but we can learn from it. Financial planning is more realistic. Improved financial openness is agreed across the BMC. Financial control in GB Climbing will be strictly maintained. Stakeholder engagement in GB Climbing must be seen to improve:  we hope current plans will acheive that but if they don't (and sadly there are still clear issues visible for now, around athlete quotas) everyone is watching, so the plans will have to change again. Plus lots of other initiatives too.

30

news / Re: Significant First Ascents

« Last post by joe-m on Yesterday at 09:12:55 am »

Aubin Salmon has done Nirvana, an old highball project in Puiselet that has been tried by a few enthusiasts over the years. Guillaume Joubert has already top-roped the prow a while ago at a suggested grade of 8A+ with a precarious 7B mantelshelf sequence to top out.


Source: Grimper Magazine (photo Declerck/Bévillard

HVS 7b?

looks class, fair play that looks high!