The inevitable E grade thread
- Thread starter abarro81
- Start date
Help Support UKBouldering.com:
ToxicBilberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2024
- Messages
- 91
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Get Gresh, Pearson and Randall to make sense out of it with their wanky e-grader
Get Gresh, Pearson and Randall to make sense out of it with their wanky e-grader
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Presumably going for the Dave Mac school of thought where sport 8b+ solo and sport 7b solo can both be E8 (I know which I'd have a chance on and which I definitely wouldn't).
abarro81 said:
Presumably going for the Dave Mac school of thought where sport 8b+ solo and sport 7b solo can both be E8 (I know which I'd have a chance on and which I definitely wouldn't).
andy moles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 713
Re: The inevitable grade thread
I think the direct start is Leap of Faith, described as a direct entry to Lost Cause, which IIRC shares that first hold above the break on this.
E8 does seem a bit silly at 8A+ when Transcendence next door seems to be considered too hard for E8 at 7C+.
Source: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2019/03/third_ascent_of_transcendence_e8_6c_by_dan_varian-71896
Then again, isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+? It's almost as if trad grades are not very good for really bouldery routes.
SA Chris said:
I think the direct start is Leap of Faith, described as a direct entry to Lost Cause, which IIRC shares that first hold above the break on this.
E8 does seem a bit silly at 8A+ when Transcendence next door seems to be considered too hard for E8 at 7C+.
Source: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2019/03/third_ascent_of_transcendence_e8_6c_by_dan_varian-71896
Then again, isn't West Side Story traditionally E4 at 7B+? It's almost as if trad grades are not very good for really bouldery routes.
Johnny Brown
Well-Known Member
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Having done all three, the only one which feels worthy of an E-grade is West Side, for which E4 would seem (fair without a pad). The other two are pretty standard boulders. Be interesting to know if Gawthorpe topped out though, no one does now.
Having done all three, the only one which feels worthy of an E-grade is West Side, for which E4 would seem (fair without a pad). The other two are pretty standard boulders. Be interesting to know if Gawthorpe topped out though, no one does now.
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Because WSS is, in the overall way an E grade should work, 1 grade easier than than Bat out of Hell and comparable to the Knock (just to pick a couple of examples in the same valley) :lol:Johnny Brown said:
Re: The inevitable grade thread
The idea that WSS as an E4 makes any kind of sense whatsoever is ridiculous.
The problem with giving highballs E grades is that lots of people for way too long have conflated doing highballs after lots of work with onsighting trad routes. How many people have actually onsighted WSS?
If you compare doing it after work to headpointing trad routes, which is the only thing that actually makes sense - then WSS would be at least E6.
And Layby would be E5, Careless would be E8 etc.
ie: headpointing Careless is probably a bigger deal than headpointing E7/8's like EOTA or Gaia, probably not as big a deal as headpointing E8/9s like Meshuga.
flashing Careless is pretty much world class - bigger deal than flashing EOTA or Gaia, but probably not as big a deal as flashing Meshuga.
That's the only way it's actually consistent. The downside (at least to people trying to make a living out of hard headpointing) is that means that lots of "E4 climbers" suddenly find they can and have climbed E7's - which makes hard E grades suddenly look a lot less remote.
Easiest way to deal with all that is just not to give highballs E grades. And certainly not to give them completely pointless, inconsistent and confusing E grades.
The idea that WSS as an E4 makes any kind of sense whatsoever is ridiculous.
The problem with giving highballs E grades is that lots of people for way too long have conflated doing highballs after lots of work with onsighting trad routes. How many people have actually onsighted WSS?
If you compare doing it after work to headpointing trad routes, which is the only thing that actually makes sense - then WSS would be at least E6.
And Layby would be E5, Careless would be E8 etc.
ie: headpointing Careless is probably a bigger deal than headpointing E7/8's like EOTA or Gaia, probably not as big a deal as headpointing E8/9s like Meshuga.
flashing Careless is pretty much world class - bigger deal than flashing EOTA or Gaia, but probably not as big a deal as flashing Meshuga.
That's the only way it's actually consistent. The downside (at least to people trying to make a living out of hard headpointing) is that means that lots of "E4 climbers" suddenly find they can and have climbed E7's - which makes hard E grades suddenly look a lot less remote.
Easiest way to deal with all that is just not to give highballs E grades. And certainly not to give them completely pointless, inconsistent and confusing E grades.
andy moles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2010
- Messages
- 713
Re: The inevitable grade thread
What about routes like Purgatory, which is definitely not a highball, but where the difficulties and risk factor are roughly equivalent to a highball? :worms:
Nemo said:
What about routes like Purgatory, which is definitely not a highball, but where the difficulties and risk factor are roughly equivalent to a highball? :worms:
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Then, as should always be the case, you give it an E grade, consistent with how hard it would be to do other trad routes in an equivalent style. ie: As long as you compare how hard it would be to flash relative to flashing other routes. Or compare how hard it would be to headpoint relative to headpointing other routes. etc. Then there's rarely much problem.
Then, as should always be the case, you give it an E grade, consistent with how hard it would be to do other trad routes in an equivalent style. ie: As long as you compare how hard it would be to flash relative to flashing other routes. Or compare how hard it would be to headpoint relative to headpointing other routes. etc. Then there's rarely much problem.
Johnny Brown
Well-Known Member
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Shauna's ascent is amazing. Gav is obviously trolling.
Reluctant as I am to continue this sorry 'debate'.
That's not what anyone has ever done though, because it's not useful info. Generally people want to know two things - how hard is the boulder problem, and how hard is the scary bit. E4 7a for West Side gives you this. Upgrading it because 7a is dead hard is pointless, we already have that information. If you do the 7a bit, you then have to do an E4 bit to get the tick - it's 6a move at 4m, which is why it's the same grade as The Knock, which is a slightly easier move slightly higher, although in that case it's only 6a to get there. The same logic applies to the other examples, and is the reason why Verandah buttress is still HVD despite a greater tech/trad discrepancy than West side.
(At Slipstones they did get a bit carried away or confused admittedly, and as you go right along the crag the trad grades become superfluous. But it's an old guide now, and an isolated example.
Honestly beggars belief why people philosophise about how they think grades should work, and then go back to complain about how they are wrong, rather than just looking at the given grade and applying some common sense to why it might have been given.
Shauna's ascent is amazing. Gav is obviously trolling.
Reluctant as I am to continue this sorry 'debate'.
That's not what anyone has ever done though, because it's not useful info. Generally people want to know two things - how hard is the boulder problem, and how hard is the scary bit. E4 7a for West Side gives you this. Upgrading it because 7a is dead hard is pointless, we already have that information. If you do the 7a bit, you then have to do an E4 bit to get the tick - it's 6a move at 4m, which is why it's the same grade as The Knock, which is a slightly easier move slightly higher, although in that case it's only 6a to get there. The same logic applies to the other examples, and is the reason why Verandah buttress is still HVD despite a greater tech/trad discrepancy than West side.
(At Slipstones they did get a bit carried away or confused admittedly, and as you go right along the crag the trad grades become superfluous. But it's an old guide now, and an isolated example.
Honestly beggars belief why people philosophise about how they think grades should work, and then go back to complain about how they are wrong, rather than just looking at the given grade and applying some common sense to why it might have been given.
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Shauna's ascent is amazing.
This is the wrong thread for this. But...
And therein lies the fundamental problem. What you say is how many people use E grades (particularly those like yourself who don't spend much time climbing safe long cracks etc).
Many others say how hard is it overall, which is the only thing that actually hangs together.
Whilst ever that is the case, then people will continue to "philosophise" about it, as you put it, because currently it's a complete frickin shambles where someone gives E11 to something that someone else says is E8. At which point lots of people take Shark's view and say E grades should be ditched altogether.
My point in this and other posts is just that it doesn't need to be a shambles. It could and should be completely straightforward, if people just accepted that "How hard is the scary bit" isn't a grading system. And it could be done without regrading large numbers of routes (as said above, for highballs, the way to avoid regrades is just to not use E grades at all).
But I know continuing this with you isn't going to go anywhere useful. Thankfully a lot of guidebook writers these days are moving away from the silliness of the past and starting to do more sensible things.
Shauna's ascent is amazing.
This is the wrong thread for this. But...
.
And therein lies the fundamental problem. What you say is how many people use E grades (particularly those like yourself who don't spend much time climbing safe long cracks etc).
Many others say how hard is it overall, which is the only thing that actually hangs together.
Whilst ever that is the case, then people will continue to "philosophise" about it, as you put it, because currently it's a complete frickin shambles where someone gives E11 to something that someone else says is E8. At which point lots of people take Shark's view and say E grades should be ditched altogether.
My point in this and other posts is just that it doesn't need to be a shambles. It could and should be completely straightforward, if people just accepted that "How hard is the scary bit" isn't a grading system. And it could be done without regrading large numbers of routes (as said above, for highballs, the way to avoid regrades is just to not use E grades at all).
But I know continuing this with you isn't going to go anywhere useful. Thankfully a lot of guidebook writers these days are moving away from the silliness of the past and starting to do more sensible things.
Re: The inevitable grade thread
If you have 2 routes that have are both safe and would get the same French grade they should get the same E grade regardless if one has a short very hard crux and the other is a pump fest. It's the technical grade that should change not the E grade.
I'd agree, nothing that would get 8a as a bolted route makes any sense at E4.
If you have 2 routes that have are both safe and would get the same French grade they should get the same E grade regardless if one has a short very hard crux and the other is a pump fest. It's the technical grade that should change not the E grade.
Re: The inevitable grade thread
What JB has described is UK 7a then E4, i.e. a boulder problem with a micro-route after. IMO this is not the same as E4 7a and does not convey the same information.
Thread split? It's a shame for this to be hijacking what is a phenomenal achievement by Shauna. So inspired and impressed to see what she's achieving whilst being a new mother.
What JB has described is UK 7a then E4, i.e. a boulder problem with a micro-route after. IMO this is not the same as E4 7a and does not convey the same information.
Thread split? It's a shame for this to be hijacking what is a phenomenal achievement by Shauna. So inspired and impressed to see what she's achieving whilst being a new mother.
Johnny Brown
Well-Known Member
Re: The inevitable grade thread
Many use them both ways. Grades only make sense in the context of the rock they are applied to. That context is always obvious from the guide or the crag, and within that context the grade is just shorthand for various properties of the route, the properties varying with the route. That’s it.
But people sometimes ignore that context. Why would they do that, when the two things are inseparable? Usually because they are hoping to reduce the comparison of apples and oranges to two numbers. This usually falls down, because there are lots of styles of climbing, and lots of types of climbers, and while (I have just discovered) some climbs are harder than others, not in a way that you can predict without knowing the climber and the climb, and even then not reliably. You’re back to context again: the map is not the territory and the grade is not the climb. (Which is what Shark used to think, so let’s not take his views too seriously.)
And I’ve done plenty of long safe cracks thank you very much, although a lot of them were graded YDS. On some E plus tech would have given me more information up front, but on long routes the usual NA approach of grading sub-sections on the topo is better anyway.
Many use them both ways. Grades only make sense in the context of the rock they are applied to. That context is always obvious from the guide or the crag, and within that context the grade is just shorthand for various properties of the route, the properties varying with the route. That’s it.
But people sometimes ignore that context. Why would they do that, when the two things are inseparable? Usually because they are hoping to reduce the comparison of apples and oranges to two numbers. This usually falls down, because there are lots of styles of climbing, and lots of types of climbers, and while (I have just discovered) some climbs are harder than others, not in a way that you can predict without knowing the climber and the climb, and even then not reliably. You’re back to context again: the map is not the territory and the grade is not the climb. (Which is what Shark used to think, so let’s not take his views too seriously.)
And I’ve done plenty of long safe cracks thank you very much, although a lot of them were graded YDS. On some E plus tech would have given me more information up front, but on long routes the usual NA approach of grading sub-sections on the topo is better anyway.
Re: The inevitable grade thread
While I see what JB is getting at, in 20 years climbing and 10,000 hours on forums I've never encountered the proposal that an Ex y is a y grade boulder followed by an Ex... Does that make Pilgrimage with the chossy top groove VS 7a?
I don't think this is willfully ignoring context, it's just an idea I've never encountered, and probably makes no sense in various examples (e.g., if a route is a trivial approach to a 7B+ boulder with baby bouncer protection to a scary E4, is that also E4 7a or is it now E8 7a??!)
While I see what JB is getting at, in 20 years climbing and 10,000 hours on forums I've never encountered the proposal that an Ex y is a y grade boulder followed by an Ex... Does that make Pilgrimage with the chossy top groove VS 7a?
I don't think this is willfully ignoring context, it's just an idea I've never encountered, and probably makes no sense in various examples (e.g., if a route is a trivial approach to a 7B+ boulder with baby bouncer protection to a scary E4, is that also E4 7a or is it now E8 7a??!)
