[shark]

Style is everything. Style is an expression of individualism mixed with charisma. Fashion is something that comes after style. So there.
[/quote]


Style is the manner in which something is done. Style, as far as climbing goes, is an expression of ethics. 

[Pantontino]

But is it not implicit in the proposed system that the top credit for a FA will go to the one that climbs it ground up. That for Gravediggers, the FA will say Neil Dickson, 2008. Headpointed by Neil Gresham, 1997, just like Cave Route Left hand will say Ron fawcett, 1980. done with 8pts aid by Bob Dearman, 1968? Isn't this how the top on sighters will get the credit they deserve in this system?

That's not how I anticipated it working, you've got it the wrong way round. It is a style improvement, a bit like your pts of aid example.

e.g. Dinosaur E5 6a [P Crew, J Brown (10 pts) 19.06.66, FFA: R Fawcett 1980]

or

Gravediggers E7 6c [N Gresham (Headpoint), 1997, FGU: N Dickson 2008)

(Incidentally a note for Stu, this is a route where the current GU consensus is E7, whereas the route was given E8 for a headpoint ascent.)

[Pantontino]

The last part of your post ignores the reality of the situation at the crag. Aside from the F7b+ X grade, a would be ground up ascencionist will have a guidebook or wiki description and their own eyes and experience (not to mention the reputation that a prominent headpoint will have) to go on. They won't be operating in the information vacuum that you suggest.

You've ably demonstrated that whilst the "nu-media" for climbing is capable of keeping the information up-to-date its not always available to those who would use it (as guidebooks take longer to make it out, and aren't bought by everyone)...

And anyway Caff wouldn't know what a computer was if it landed on his head!

 

I'm not sure I understand your first point.  We are talking about a very small number of hardcore routes - surely somebody looking to do a ground up ascent of a previously headpointed route will seek out information from wherever they can get it? This isn't a casual, 'Ooh, what shall we do today situation?' - onsighting these type of routes is a big deal.

The 'caff/computer' comment is just a humurous way of showing how some folk are not interested in the virtual internet world.

[shark]

Gravediggers E7 6c [N Gresham (Headpoint), 1997, FGU: N Dickson 2008)

(Incidentally a note for Stu, this is a route where the current GU consensus is E7, whereas the route was given E8 for a headpoint ascent.)
[/quote]

Wasn't it the case that it was an extra runner that nudged it down a grade ?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1021  "..The Llanberis grapevine had informed us that Gravediggers was a bit of an eliminate and would actually be a great E7 with a side runner in the neighbouring crack line of Pretty Girls. It was 'definitely possible' to place this bomber runner from Gravediggers"

[Pantontino]

Like what your saying Duncan.

It's one thing to attack headpointing and pre-inspection, but the fact is that E9 and above exsists because of such tactics (this isn't the 1950's). Whether you consider such routes as 'lost' for later generations to establish on-sight is another question.


Style and grade are different things. Get off your on-sight high horses.

Despite what you might think I'm not really anti headpointing. I see it as just another style of climbing, and one that suits certain routes/crags. It is open to improvement, just as the previously aided ascent is.

That said, there are certain crags where there is a strong anti headpoint tradition, such as Gogarth. I think that should be respected and I still think one of the most impressive things that Johnny ever did was his 7 day ground up seige of Hardback - amazing commitment! There are still unclimbed lines in places like Wen Zawn which I believe should be left as ground up challenges for future generations (or this one if the top boys pull their finger out).

On the other side of the coin, in places like the Pass it seems almost normal for new hard routes to be headpointed and then left in a cleanned up state ready for an eventual ground up ascent.

I know some people would prefer a neat black and white situation (i.e. no headpointing), but I take a more pragmatic view. Let the style suit the route and the standards of the era. I know the top boys in N Wales have no particular quarms about switching to a headpoint style when the standard reaches a point where they think a GU ascent is unlikely (i.e E8+).

[Johnny Brown]

Wasn't it the case that it was an extra runner that nudged it down a grade ?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1021  "..The Llanberis grapevine had informed us that Gravediggers was a bit of an eliminate and would actually be a great E7 with a side runner in the neighbouring crack line of Pretty Girls. It was 'definitely possible' to place this bomber runner from Gravediggers"

No, I don't think side runners were used. It may have been because Gresham was heavily building his profile at the time and hence erring on the side of bigger numbers. Now we've got ground-up ascents where there is kudos to be gained from a downgrade. That's a cynical view, but it these factors have as much to do with where the line is drawn as the difficulty. Worth noting even Caff didn't do it first go, unlike most E7's he does.

[SA Chris]

I think someone should produce a DVD about Hard Onsighting in order to raise the profile.

[slackline]

I'm not sure I understand your first point.   We are talking about a very small number of hardcore routes - surely somebody looking to do a ground up ascent of a previously headpointed route will seek out information from wherever they can get it? This isn't a casual, 'Ooh, what shall we do today situation?' - onsighting these type of routes is a big deal.

The 'caff/computer' comment is just a humurous way of showing how some folk are not interested in the virtual internet world.

It was a minor, inconsequential, point that whilst the information is out there and up-to-date on wiki's, as you say not eveyrone will use those sources.

I've little to add to this debate as its about grades that I'll never be climbing, so I'll never experience how a grade of > E9 correlates to the experience and whether an alternative grading system is more appropriate, but I'd imagine those looking to on-sight or ground-up such routes understand the grades and gain some information about what the route involves from the current grading system that is applied to them.

Personally though I don't think a new grading system for these climbs would change anything.  Even if the media stopped putting a big E number to things, armchair critics will still try and equate whatever the new system is back to the E-grade (for a generation or so at least).

On-sight, ground-up ascents are just as news-worthy as head-points* and deserve the same column space (if those doing such ascents are comfortable with the exposure, which may not always be the case).

Oh, and everyone should go and watch On Sight  

Is E8+ the trad equivalent of V8+ 

* As a minor aside weren't some of the harder routes that Joe Brown et al put up TR'd first (see comments on Sentinal Crack)?  Not for an instance trying to detract from the great mans achievements (that would be impossible!), but remember reading somewhere that some routes were, although it wasn't necessarily widely acknowledged in the write-ups.

[T_B]

No, I don't think side runners were used. It may have been because Gresham was heavily building his profile at the time and hence erring on the side of bigger numbers. Now we've got ground-up ascents where there is kudos to be gained from a downgrade.

So young and yet so cynical

What about old Strawbs then? Does Glowacz get to grade it as the only on-sighter? Even though he's clearly not very familiar with British grades!

This is an interesting one as all the wads seem to fall off it yet are adamant that it's only E6. Madness.

[Johnny Brown]

It's like the line in the seminal hard grit article - Dangerous Crocodile Snogging - 'once master's edge gets onsighted it should be downgraded, on principle, to E6'. What piffle, marred an otherwise brilliant piece.

[Pantontino]

What about old Strawbs then? Does Glowacz get to grade it as the only on-sighter? Even though he's clearly not very familiar with British grades!

This is an interesting one as all the wads seem to fall off it yet are adamant that it's only E6. Madness.

Ground Up ascents count too. Pete did it in this style recently - he said E7.

[stevie haston]

It is very inresting to hear what people think and am glad that A. Waingright aired those views in the mag artical.I,ll just try and add something, many people who have headpointed E9 and E10 are only E5/6 onsighters.Thats a big difference but understandable, some people are very good climbers but have no kneck or composure, we all know this, and this gap seems to have widened over the years. A few years ago a I could work a sport route  3 grades harder than I could onsight and many of my friends in France and Britain were the same. Nowadays I cant or dont want to. Its the same for me on run out routes or routes with danger, I have basically less balls, the good onsighters in Britain seem fewer than they used to be. A route like Rhapsody could easily be tried on sight and find it odd that a a preliminary try was not attempted by anyone with huge ability and bigger balls, at the worst they would take some falls, at best they might have got an onsight of Requiem. Some one with 9a+ ability could or perhaps would have been able to onsight 8c, even on gear routes, if you think this is too much, well maybe it is, but its always worth having a go if its not fatal. A few years ago I lost faith with E grades, even with the terms groundup, after all groundup doesnt mean so much if you keep trying, and trying and make bits of progress due to prolonged efforts and basically more knowledge, if you are a local you can afford more time than the tourist. I refer to know the french grade and the fall facters on routes that might tax me or injure me. There have been some pretty appaling climbers who have done E9 in Britain and there are some utterly astounding ones who have operated at E6/7. While Mags need selling and some climbers need the Kudos you will see big numbers. Please dont think I am having a go,Worked routes are fine with me, headpointed routes are fine too, big numbers are fine, but please come on, the actual idea of trying a very hard route with super dodgy gear is a joke. Strawberries was not done properly for years and years after its tainted first ascent, it was the tactics used that rendered the ascent possible, and we have the same today, and will have the same tomorrow. E grades still work up to E7, above that you need some very specific info to help you out and that slack is best taken up by lots of verbales.  Stevie 

[T_B]

Ground Up ascents count too. Pete did it in this style recently - he said E7.

I can think of loads of routes with tricky cruxes (Strawberries is a good example in fact) where once you've found that key hold or whatever, they are very doable. The E should try and reflect the anticipated difficulty to get it first time, on the on-sight.

So to argue that as long as someone has climbed a route ground up (however many falls they take), they have the 'right' or are 'better placed' to give them an E grade is pretty weak.

[shark]

I can think of loads of routes with tricky cruxes (Strawberries is a good example in fact) where once you've found that key hold or whatever, they are very doable. The E should try and reflect the anticipated difficulty to get it first time, on the on-sight.
[/quote]


For a time I bought into that 'truism'. Steve Mac recently pointed out that it was rubbish. The route has to be graded as objectively as possible for the easiest way to do it. There is nothing new about that - it was the way it was explained to me when I first started climbing.

[T_B]

For a time I bought into that 'truism'. Steve Mac recently pointed out that it was rubbish. The route has to be graded as objectively as possible for the easiest way to do it. There is nothing new about that - it was the way it was explained to me when I first started climbing.

OK then, based on that argument the best placed person to grade a route would be the one on the top rope who had worked out the easiest sequence. Not the ground upper and certainly not the on-sighter.

[Fiend]

And the E-grade reflects the difficulty of hanging on and working it out....

Stevie I still think you like Adam are confusing two things: relative profiles of onsighting in the media, and information provided by proposed grades. I don't think tinkering with the latter is the most obvious way to help with the former.

[shark]

OK then, based on that argument the best placed person to grade a route would be the one on the top rope who had worked out the easiest sequence. Not the ground upper and certainly not the on-sighter.

 


(For the physical/technical difficulty)

[Fiend]

Pantonion's going to love that....

[Hoseyb]

E grades still work up to E7, above that you need some very specific info to help you out and that slack is best taken up by lots of verbales.  Stevie 

 

I was reading through the thread, gaining increasing momentum to actually be bothered to reply, and stevie beat me to it.

As an, abet punterish, north wales climber I was pleased to see Adams article, and find myself generally agreeing with most sentiments. I though the preposed grading system was a good example of the time honoured gog device; the wooded spoon. and it certainly stirred things up well.

I understand the E grade system, I like it (and the XS system for that matter) However, probably due to my afore mentioned punter status, I don't really understand why some thing gets a grade harder than E9. Obviously its harder, but more dangerous? - Surely death is death!

I agree that more information is required but maybe that should be along side the familiarity of the friendly E?

Hose

[Fiend]

I though the preposed grading system was a good example of the time honoured gog device; the wooded spoon. and it certainly stirred things up well.

True!! Although I reckon On-Sight will stir things up more positively and more true to the spirit of Adam's issue than the proposed grade will.

I don't really understand why some thing gets a grade harder than E9. Obviously its harder, but more dangerous? - Surely death is death!

Errr will the adj grade tends to go up along with the tech grade. I think Walk Of Life at eng 7a is probably a lot harder than Indian Face at eng 6b/c...

I agree that more information is required but maybe that should be along side the familiarity of the friendly E?

Better than replacing it entirely, for sure.

[Hoseyb]

I don't really understand why some thing gets a grade harder than E9. Obviously its harder, but more dangerous? - Surely death is death!

Errr will the adj grade tends to go up along with the tech grade. I think Walk Of Life at eng 7a is probably a lot harder than Indian Face at eng 6b/c...

Yes that was the niggling thought in my head as I wrote it, but I think its more that I struggle to comprehend the points and subtlties at this end of the scale.

Is it my imagination or is there more room for manuver in terms of difficulty within E5, lets say, rather than E9? or is it that they used to undergrade more in the old days...

[GCW]

It's either an open grading system, or it isn't.
It sounds like you're suggesting E10=Death.  To me that doesn't work at all.  If E10 7a= Death, surely a route with a 7c crux and death fall should be E13 or whatever?  You can't just cap the grading at 10, that's never going to work.

[Fiend]

Is it my imagination or is there more room for manuver in terms of difficulty within E5, lets say, rather than E9? or is it that they used to undergrade more in the old days...

I think the problem is more likely that there is more room for manouver in terms of difficult within English tech grades at the higher levels, due to the historic "nowt harder than 6c" attitude in the 80s...

[Danny]

Right, a bit late entry on this topic but here's my 2pence nevertheless.

The facts as I see them:

1. a combination of font/V and French grades is, by far and away, the most useful way to describe the physical difficulty of a climb from about E1 upwards, we all do it ( eg "its about 6c+ to a good rest, then V5...etc")

2. The British system fails on this front because tech grades incorporate two or three font/V grade boundaries and because the adjective component tries to combine difficulty and danger in a fuzzy way eg E4 5c for sustained-ness or boldness? And no, it's not that easy to tell "just by looking" unless you're on 20 ft of grit.
3. By clearly separating the physical and danger aspects of the grade in the American / DWS / Yorkshire (P1-3) way there can be little confusion IMO.

4. One of the reasons we've ended up in this daft situation with high E grades is because of the stupid caveat "graded for the onsight" - ok, if this is the case then it's totally irrelevant to loads of E7s, and pretty much 100% of things above. Which begs the question: what’s the fucking point in giving a grade of E12 7a? It's probably never going to be onsighted and you're still going to break it down into sport/font grades anyway.

To conclude, I don't really care what becomes of the E grade, it works, but is still a second best to the sport / danger option. So when I'm doing new routes, working routes, onsighting and generally climbing my choice information includes nothing British. 

Fuck the E grade, even for onsighting.

[Houdini]

People should not be allowed to discuss top-end grading till they've graded a top-end climb.