This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Does anybody have a copy of this historic guidebook? If so could they scan the grading system page into the historical gallery. I am convinced it is a major bit of history in the grading debate.
In reply to Al Evans: Hi Al,I think I have a copy of this somewhere probably in the loft,we will be moving house in the new year so it might turn up if it does I`ll email you.
In reply to deepstar: Thanks, it would be good to see his grading system in the historical gallery though.
In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al,
I believe that some details were published in the CC bulletins of new routes at the time, but guess you may already know that. Cheers,
Iain.
Hi Al,
I believe that some details were published in the CC bulletins of new routes at the time, but guess you may already know that. Cheers,
Iain.
In reply to Al Evans:
Hi Al
I don't have the guidebook but if I dredge my memory I think I can outline the broad framework of the grading system, if that's any help( I'm sure you're already familiar with it, and are thinking of the general interest). First a few examples, taken from the CC's New Climbs 1968:-
The Writing on the Wall 5b 3/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The Last Gasp 5b 4/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
Krapp's Last Tape 5b 6/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The Bilk 6a 4/0/012 Extremely Severe
(a couple of errors here; the route described is actually The Blik rather than The Bilk, and something's clearly wrong with the numbers - probably either 4/0/0/1 or 4/0/0/2)
The Mal - main pitch 6a 7/0/0/2 Extremely Severe
- top pitch 5b 3/0/0/1
Direct Start Hell Gates 5b 3/0/1/1 Hard Very Severe
Last Slip 6a 7/0/0/2 Extreme
Little Red Rodney 5b 1/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
Spinor 6a 6/2/2/3 Extreme
Limbo 6a 4/0/0/2 Extreme
Clan Union 6a 4/0/1/1 Extremely Severe
S.O.S. 5b 1/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The adjectival grade and the initial technical grade will already be familiar. This was well before the introduction of E grades, so HVS and Extreme were the top two levels. As, in modern terms, the hardest routes were probably around the E3/4 level, the HVS grade, if used to mean "a bit easier than Extreme", could easily be modern E2! I've copied this more-or-less verbatim; the grades Extremely Severe and Extreme were exchangeable and meant the same thing in general use at the time, and I assume the same was the case with Drummond. The use of the 6a grade might appear a bit generous, but note that there are no 5cs. The 1964 edition of John Nixon's "Limestone Climbs in South West England" shows that technical grades were already in use; he uses IVa, IVb, Va and Vb. I think that 5c was a later addition, meaning that all the old 6as would have been given 5c a few years later (I seem to remember that a Welsh listing from Drummond at the time gave Vector 6a and The Strand, of course, 6b; again, if you add in 5c and shift everything down these don't seem quite as overblown as they might now appear).
Which brings us to the other bit. The first figure simply denotes the number of crux areas; in some cases this looks quite high, but makes more sense when you think of a typical Avon pitch involving a whole series of small overlaps, many of which could offer individual cruxes. This did, I suppose, give some indication of a route's sustainedness, though not necessarily in the strenuous manner of, for instance, the later Arms Race and its neighbours. The last three figures put a grade on three other factors, ranging from 0 at the "nice" end to, I think, 3 at the "nasty" one; these were - and I think I have the order correct - protection, rock quality (ie solid or otherwise), and a harder to define indication of the type of climbing, with particular reference to positiveness/precariousness. The first two are simple enough; we nowadays have, variously, P1-3, R/X, S1-6/R1-6 to describe a route's protection, and 0=solid, 3=rubbish is easy enough to understand. Drummond went to some length to define the different levels in the final category; 0 would have meant something like "obvious moves on positive holds", while 3, if memory serves, he defined as "persistently thin, limiting climbing, with resting only at protection"! Make of that what you will; "thin", while used less these days was, in the past, common when describing precarious climbing, so maybe we should simply regard that final number as a measure of a route's "falloffability". I've no idea how he would have applied this grade in other parts of the country; in The Peak, for instance, would a typical Stoney route like Our Father or Wee Doris - thuggish but with positive holds - have been accorded a lowly 0 or 1, while an easier but more precarious one like Great Slab a 2 or 3? Presumably so. The bit about "resting at protection" does not, I am sure, mean hanging on it, but simply refers to the familiar phenomenon whereby it magically becomes much easier to rest in a precarious position as soon as you get some gear in. Finally, some of the above examples that are nowadays considered to be quite bold routes seem to get a surprisingly low protection rating (ie meaning well-protected). This is probably due to more, and newer, pegs back then; the description for Krapp's includes five.
Although obviously somewhat unwieldy, I was always rather baffled by the accusations of incomprehensibility that were frequently levelled at Drummond's system; it's not rocket science, mostly! I suspect that such accusations were less a case of inability to understand, than unwillingness.
Hi Al
I don't have the guidebook but if I dredge my memory I think I can outline the broad framework of the grading system, if that's any help( I'm sure you're already familiar with it, and are thinking of the general interest). First a few examples, taken from the CC's New Climbs 1968:-
The Writing on the Wall 5b 3/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The Last Gasp 5b 4/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
Krapp's Last Tape 5b 6/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The Bilk 6a 4/0/012 Extremely Severe
(a couple of errors here; the route described is actually The Blik rather than The Bilk, and something's clearly wrong with the numbers - probably either 4/0/0/1 or 4/0/0/2)
The Mal - main pitch 6a 7/0/0/2 Extremely Severe
- top pitch 5b 3/0/0/1
Direct Start Hell Gates 5b 3/0/1/1 Hard Very Severe
Last Slip 6a 7/0/0/2 Extreme
Little Red Rodney 5b 1/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
Spinor 6a 6/2/2/3 Extreme
Limbo 6a 4/0/0/2 Extreme
Clan Union 6a 4/0/1/1 Extremely Severe
S.O.S. 5b 1/0/0/1 Hard Very Severe
The adjectival grade and the initial technical grade will already be familiar. This was well before the introduction of E grades, so HVS and Extreme were the top two levels. As, in modern terms, the hardest routes were probably around the E3/4 level, the HVS grade, if used to mean "a bit easier than Extreme", could easily be modern E2! I've copied this more-or-less verbatim; the grades Extremely Severe and Extreme were exchangeable and meant the same thing in general use at the time, and I assume the same was the case with Drummond. The use of the 6a grade might appear a bit generous, but note that there are no 5cs. The 1964 edition of John Nixon's "Limestone Climbs in South West England" shows that technical grades were already in use; he uses IVa, IVb, Va and Vb. I think that 5c was a later addition, meaning that all the old 6as would have been given 5c a few years later (I seem to remember that a Welsh listing from Drummond at the time gave Vector 6a and The Strand, of course, 6b; again, if you add in 5c and shift everything down these don't seem quite as overblown as they might now appear).
Which brings us to the other bit. The first figure simply denotes the number of crux areas; in some cases this looks quite high, but makes more sense when you think of a typical Avon pitch involving a whole series of small overlaps, many of which could offer individual cruxes. This did, I suppose, give some indication of a route's sustainedness, though not necessarily in the strenuous manner of, for instance, the later Arms Race and its neighbours. The last three figures put a grade on three other factors, ranging from 0 at the "nice" end to, I think, 3 at the "nasty" one; these were - and I think I have the order correct - protection, rock quality (ie solid or otherwise), and a harder to define indication of the type of climbing, with particular reference to positiveness/precariousness. The first two are simple enough; we nowadays have, variously, P1-3, R/X, S1-6/R1-6 to describe a route's protection, and 0=solid, 3=rubbish is easy enough to understand. Drummond went to some length to define the different levels in the final category; 0 would have meant something like "obvious moves on positive holds", while 3, if memory serves, he defined as "persistently thin, limiting climbing, with resting only at protection"! Make of that what you will; "thin", while used less these days was, in the past, common when describing precarious climbing, so maybe we should simply regard that final number as a measure of a route's "falloffability". I've no idea how he would have applied this grade in other parts of the country; in The Peak, for instance, would a typical Stoney route like Our Father or Wee Doris - thuggish but with positive holds - have been accorded a lowly 0 or 1, while an easier but more precarious one like Great Slab a 2 or 3? Presumably so. The bit about "resting at protection" does not, I am sure, mean hanging on it, but simply refers to the familiar phenomenon whereby it magically becomes much easier to rest in a precarious position as soon as you get some gear in. Finally, some of the above examples that are nowadays considered to be quite bold routes seem to get a surprisingly low protection rating (ie meaning well-protected). This is probably due to more, and newer, pegs back then; the description for Krapp's includes five.
Although obviously somewhat unwieldy, I was always rather baffled by the accusations of incomprehensibility that were frequently levelled at Drummond's system; it's not rocket science, mostly! I suspect that such accusations were less a case of inability to understand, than unwillingness.
Is EW-D still around? Why not ask him?
Actually, having just had a look at the article on Bob Wightman's website, linked to in the other thread, I realise I should have read it first; it says more or less what I said, but with rather more economy! It does mention the lack of 4c, 5c etc as being in contrast to the Crew/Wilson system being introduced in Wales at about the same time which always used these grades, presumably because it (Crew/Wilson) evolved from the existing SE Sandstone system rather than the SW Limestone one; both, I think, started life as continental imports, probably at different times.
In reply to Al Evans:
Wow - having seen the hard work Ian has put into this thread I got off my backside and scanned a couple of pages from said guidebook. I have uploaded them and they await being passed by the moderators. I will post a link - or anyone else is welcome to, if they get there before me.
Wow - having seen the hard work Ian has put into this thread I got off my backside and scanned a couple of pages from said guidebook. I have uploaded them and they await being passed by the moderators. I will post a link - or anyone else is welcome to, if they get there before me.
In reply to Al Evans:
Here's Ed Ward-Drummond's grading system http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160252
Here are some examples of it's application at Avon. I suspect the condition of the pegs may make modern day comparisons of seriousness rather difficult http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160255
Here's Ed Ward-Drummond's grading system http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160252
Here are some examples of it's application at Avon. I suspect the condition of the pegs may make modern day comparisons of seriousness rather difficult http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160255
In reply to Kafoozalem:
I was clearly missing something fairly fundamental: rather than being one of the embryonic forms of the current technical/pitch grade, Drummond's "technical" grades - 5b and 6a - were actually shorthand for HVS and XS; the adjectival grades given with the routes that I listed were presumably duplications, and it never occurred to me that there were no XS 5b or HVS 6a combinations. This would have made sense at the time, given the system's continental lineage, in that it was far more usual, and useful, to make a correlation between UIAA grades and VS, HVS, XS, etc, rather than with the emerging (largely in Wales) technical/pitch grades.That said, and had the system gained acceptance - though possibly via the ditching of one or two of the other bits - would it have predated, and precluded, E grades? It would, after all, have been a potentially open-ended alpha-numerical system that offered a convenient replacement for an increasingly top-heavy adjectival system; 5b=HVS, 6a=E1, 6b=E2, 7a=E3, etc. The only problem would have been that, had we wanted to introduce technical grades as well - as was happening in Wales - we would have had to come up with some rather different-appearing numbers! I realise that this somewhat contradicts my earlier assertion that, at the time, the XS grade probably extended up to modern E3/4; I think that elsewhere, probably in Wales and certainly in The Peak, it did. In Avon, however, it's hard to think of any top-end route at the time - The Mal, for instance - that warrants anything higher than E2 with recently placed pegs; Drummond suggested in New Climbs 1968 that Spinor - now E3 5c - was the most difficult and strenuous route in The Gorge at the time, and that was with two points of aid. I think that, with odd exception, the E3/4 grade arrived in Avon two or three years later with Willmott and his contemporaries.
Drummond's definitions of grades of protection tend to focus on pegs, and I imagine that at the time that would have been pretty much what you had; this was the mid-sixties, so not only was it ten or more years before the introduction of spring-loaded camming devices, but also before Rocks, RPs and Stoppers. At the time, I would guess, the smallest commercially-available nut of any use was probably around the size of a Rock 5, possibly bigger. But there's no reason to suppose that the system couldn't have included whatever forms of protection evolved in the future.
I was clearly missing something fairly fundamental: rather than being one of the embryonic forms of the current technical/pitch grade, Drummond's "technical" grades - 5b and 6a - were actually shorthand for HVS and XS; the adjectival grades given with the routes that I listed were presumably duplications, and it never occurred to me that there were no XS 5b or HVS 6a combinations. This would have made sense at the time, given the system's continental lineage, in that it was far more usual, and useful, to make a correlation between UIAA grades and VS, HVS, XS, etc, rather than with the emerging (largely in Wales) technical/pitch grades.That said, and had the system gained acceptance - though possibly via the ditching of one or two of the other bits - would it have predated, and precluded, E grades? It would, after all, have been a potentially open-ended alpha-numerical system that offered a convenient replacement for an increasingly top-heavy adjectival system; 5b=HVS, 6a=E1, 6b=E2, 7a=E3, etc. The only problem would have been that, had we wanted to introduce technical grades as well - as was happening in Wales - we would have had to come up with some rather different-appearing numbers! I realise that this somewhat contradicts my earlier assertion that, at the time, the XS grade probably extended up to modern E3/4; I think that elsewhere, probably in Wales and certainly in The Peak, it did. In Avon, however, it's hard to think of any top-end route at the time - The Mal, for instance - that warrants anything higher than E2 with recently placed pegs; Drummond suggested in New Climbs 1968 that Spinor - now E3 5c - was the most difficult and strenuous route in The Gorge at the time, and that was with two points of aid. I think that, with odd exception, the E3/4 grade arrived in Avon two or three years later with Willmott and his contemporaries.
Drummond's definitions of grades of protection tend to focus on pegs, and I imagine that at the time that would have been pretty much what you had; this was the mid-sixties, so not only was it ten or more years before the introduction of spring-loaded camming devices, but also before Rocks, RPs and Stoppers. At the time, I would guess, the smallest commercially-available nut of any use was probably around the size of a Rock 5, possibly bigger. But there's no reason to suppose that the system couldn't have included whatever forms of protection evolved in the future.
In reply to Ian Parsons: and Kafoozalem: Thank you both for your efforts, and thank you for putting it into the historical gallery, I really think it is a bit of UK climbing history.
Al
Al
In reply to Ian Parsons:
Hi Ian.
The fourth numeral appears to be an attempt to do what our modern UK technical grade does http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160252 and as you say the use of 5b or 6a simply equates to the modern seriousness grades of HVS and E1 - all very confusing. However the fourth numeral is limited to four categories of holds/moves and would have to be open ended with increasingly desperate descriptors to cope with modern climbs. In addition the descriptors for holds and protection are peculiarly unique to the Avon style and would not have travelled well.
As you say Ward-Drummond appeared to be operating at the top end of E2 at the time. He claims several of the Avon routes of the time were harder than Vector, Grasper, First Slip and Cemetary Gates. His top 5 in the Avon graded list were;
1 Spinor 6a. 6-2-2-3 Climbed with a rest point and after top rope practice. Now free E3 5c
2 White Elephant 6a.8-2-0-3 With 2pts aid and described as more technical than Spinor. Now E4 5c
3 Drang 6a. 10-0-0-2 With 1pt aid. Now E3 5b
4 The Preter 6a. 6-0-0-2 With 1 pt aid now E2 5b
5 Last Slip 6a. 7-0-0-2 Ward-Drummond describes the first pitch as being harder than Cemetary Gates. The description of the second pitch is hilarious to modern ears -"Bridge up and back up until it is possible to stand on the peg without using any aid". This pitch he compares to Brown's First Slip and concludes it is technically easier but more serious. He top roped it first. Now E3 5c.
He did apply his grading system to a few Welsh classics;
Vector 6a. 7-0-0-2
Grasper 6a. 6-0-0-2
First Slip 6a. 5-0-0-3
Cemetary Gates 5b 6-0-1-1
Hi Ian.
The fourth numeral appears to be an attempt to do what our modern UK technical grade does http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=160252 and as you say the use of 5b or 6a simply equates to the modern seriousness grades of HVS and E1 - all very confusing. However the fourth numeral is limited to four categories of holds/moves and would have to be open ended with increasingly desperate descriptors to cope with modern climbs. In addition the descriptors for holds and protection are peculiarly unique to the Avon style and would not have travelled well.
As you say Ward-Drummond appeared to be operating at the top end of E2 at the time. He claims several of the Avon routes of the time were harder than Vector, Grasper, First Slip and Cemetary Gates. His top 5 in the Avon graded list were;
1 Spinor 6a. 6-2-2-3 Climbed with a rest point and after top rope practice. Now free E3 5c
2 White Elephant 6a.8-2-0-3 With 2pts aid and described as more technical than Spinor. Now E4 5c
3 Drang 6a. 10-0-0-2 With 1pt aid. Now E3 5b
4 The Preter 6a. 6-0-0-2 With 1 pt aid now E2 5b
5 Last Slip 6a. 7-0-0-2 Ward-Drummond describes the first pitch as being harder than Cemetary Gates. The description of the second pitch is hilarious to modern ears -"Bridge up and back up until it is possible to stand on the peg without using any aid". This pitch he compares to Brown's First Slip and concludes it is technically easier but more serious. He top roped it first. Now E3 5c.
He did apply his grading system to a few Welsh classics;
Vector 6a. 7-0-0-2
Grasper 6a. 6-0-0-2
First Slip 6a. 5-0-0-3
Cemetary Gates 5b 6-0-1-1
In reply to Kafoozalem: Here are some more Welsh routes, from EWD's "Gorge Sixty Eight" supplement:
Mousetrap 5b 4/1/2/0
Winking Crack 6a 3/0/1/2
Central Park 5b 2/1/2/0
The Strand 6b 4/1/1/3
Fail Safe 5b 4/1/1/2
Rat Race 6a 3/1/1/2
Dinosaur 6a 4/1/1/2
Big Groove 6a 7/1/0/2
Hardd 5b 3/0/0/2
Tensor 5b 2/1/0/1
Bolder Direct (i.e. Boldest) 6b 4/3/1/2
Great Wall 6a 2/1/0/2
Shrike 5b 2/0/1/1
What isn't clear is the number of aid points in use at the time on each of these.
Mousetrap 5b 4/1/2/0
Winking Crack 6a 3/0/1/2
Central Park 5b 2/1/2/0
The Strand 6b 4/1/1/3
Fail Safe 5b 4/1/1/2
Rat Race 6a 3/1/1/2
Dinosaur 6a 4/1/1/2
Big Groove 6a 7/1/0/2
Hardd 5b 3/0/0/2
Tensor 5b 2/1/0/1
Bolder Direct (i.e. Boldest) 6b 4/3/1/2
Great Wall 6a 2/1/0/2
Shrike 5b 2/0/1/1
What isn't clear is the number of aid points in use at the time on each of these.
In reply to Andy2: Nice one Andy. He had a bad day on The Strand
In reply to Kafoozalem and Al:
Good call, Al; this is getting more interesting than I realised. Perhaps it is rocket science, and I'll have to eat my words!
The fourth numeral is definitely the difficult one. The way Drummond's definitions for the four grades read, it sounds very much like a closed-ended scale; all that needs to happen on harder routes is for the angle to increase and the holds to get smaller - the hold type can remain constant. Indeed, to return to my earlier example of Stoney Middleton, I would imagine that the holds on the majority of routes there, however high the modern grade, could fall into the categories covered by 1 and 2 - horizontal flat holds, sidepulls and pinchgrips; only the size and spacing would alter. However; a glance at some of the actual routes that earn a high fourth numeral - Spinor, for example - suggest that in practical use this idea of measuring "thinness" has given way, as you point out, to a simple assessment of physical difficulty; there's nothing, if I recall, paticularly thin, technical or precarious about Spinor - it's simply a fairly sustained pump on positive holds. So perhaps Drummond's intention was to grade technicality, but he actually ended up grading "technical" difficulty! By way of explanation, I believe these two to be fundamentally different, but frequently confused due to the similarity of the terminology; had we started by referring to individual pitch/sequence/move grades as defining physical difficulty rather than technical difficulty this might not happen. To me, a move can be technical without necessarily being difficult, and vice versa. Indeed, one might consider an identifying feature of a technical move to be that, when you get it just right, it's easy; whereas a non-technical but difficult move will probably always be difficult, until you get strong enough for it to seem easy. So, broadly speaking, a technical move will succumb more readily to the application of technique than of brawn.
To return to the 5b, 6a and 6b grades, and specifically The Strand. I always understood, as I think did most people, that the 6b figure that Drummond accorded to the route was a modern pitch/technical/physical grade such as was being introduced at the time in Wales by Pete Crew and Rodney Wilson; the last CC Gogarth guide mentions Drummond recording it as XS 6b, which rather supports this view. It didn't help that he suggested it wouldn't get a repeat for twenty years, which obviously stoked the accusations of over-hype. When it appeared that the 5c grade didn't seem to feature in the system, and one made adjustments accordingly, this partially moderated the excess, but still left a grade that was a couple of notches above the current figure. It seems, however, that all this might be wrong; bearing in mind that The Strand received its first ascent in October 1967 - the same year that the Avon guide was published - and that the 6b grade appears as part of an Avon-style grade among a whole list of similarly-graded Welsh routes, it seems likely that it was intended as an overall grade one notch up from Extremely Severe (6a); so, in the currency of the day, Exceptionally Severe, or about modern E3. Indeed, the given grade in New Climbs 1968 is simply Exceptionally Severe. (Bear in mind too that, as far as I'm aware, the idea of mild and hard Extremes had not yet seen the light of day, so with Extremely Severe covering anything from modern E1 upwards, it's quite possible that somebody employing the Exceptionally Severe grade might have intruduced it a little below the top end of our modern E2.) This immediately sounds less OTT - many routes start life a grade adrift from what they settle down to, and as a relatively new crag Gogarth would, I'm sure, have been a more adventurous place than it is now. I recall sometime in the mid-1970s belaying Jim Fotheringham on this route. Somewhere near the top he took to the air accompanied by a whole pile of rubble that up to that point had been wedged in the crack; he must have gone thirty or forty feet - quite exciting when you considered the rudimentary state of most of his gear, including the home-made chest harness! Probably a good thing that he got on it before Barber did.
One could, as Unclesamsauntibess suggested, simply ask Drummond; or at least you could, Al - I don't actually know him. But that would quite possibly bring a premature end to hours - days, even - of idle speculation, and we wouldn't want that!
Good call, Al; this is getting more interesting than I realised. Perhaps it is rocket science, and I'll have to eat my words!
The fourth numeral is definitely the difficult one. The way Drummond's definitions for the four grades read, it sounds very much like a closed-ended scale; all that needs to happen on harder routes is for the angle to increase and the holds to get smaller - the hold type can remain constant. Indeed, to return to my earlier example of Stoney Middleton, I would imagine that the holds on the majority of routes there, however high the modern grade, could fall into the categories covered by 1 and 2 - horizontal flat holds, sidepulls and pinchgrips; only the size and spacing would alter. However; a glance at some of the actual routes that earn a high fourth numeral - Spinor, for example - suggest that in practical use this idea of measuring "thinness" has given way, as you point out, to a simple assessment of physical difficulty; there's nothing, if I recall, paticularly thin, technical or precarious about Spinor - it's simply a fairly sustained pump on positive holds. So perhaps Drummond's intention was to grade technicality, but he actually ended up grading "technical" difficulty! By way of explanation, I believe these two to be fundamentally different, but frequently confused due to the similarity of the terminology; had we started by referring to individual pitch/sequence/move grades as defining physical difficulty rather than technical difficulty this might not happen. To me, a move can be technical without necessarily being difficult, and vice versa. Indeed, one might consider an identifying feature of a technical move to be that, when you get it just right, it's easy; whereas a non-technical but difficult move will probably always be difficult, until you get strong enough for it to seem easy. So, broadly speaking, a technical move will succumb more readily to the application of technique than of brawn.
To return to the 5b, 6a and 6b grades, and specifically The Strand. I always understood, as I think did most people, that the 6b figure that Drummond accorded to the route was a modern pitch/technical/physical grade such as was being introduced at the time in Wales by Pete Crew and Rodney Wilson; the last CC Gogarth guide mentions Drummond recording it as XS 6b, which rather supports this view. It didn't help that he suggested it wouldn't get a repeat for twenty years, which obviously stoked the accusations of over-hype. When it appeared that the 5c grade didn't seem to feature in the system, and one made adjustments accordingly, this partially moderated the excess, but still left a grade that was a couple of notches above the current figure. It seems, however, that all this might be wrong; bearing in mind that The Strand received its first ascent in October 1967 - the same year that the Avon guide was published - and that the 6b grade appears as part of an Avon-style grade among a whole list of similarly-graded Welsh routes, it seems likely that it was intended as an overall grade one notch up from Extremely Severe (6a); so, in the currency of the day, Exceptionally Severe, or about modern E3. Indeed, the given grade in New Climbs 1968 is simply Exceptionally Severe. (Bear in mind too that, as far as I'm aware, the idea of mild and hard Extremes had not yet seen the light of day, so with Extremely Severe covering anything from modern E1 upwards, it's quite possible that somebody employing the Exceptionally Severe grade might have intruduced it a little below the top end of our modern E2.) This immediately sounds less OTT - many routes start life a grade adrift from what they settle down to, and as a relatively new crag Gogarth would, I'm sure, have been a more adventurous place than it is now. I recall sometime in the mid-1970s belaying Jim Fotheringham on this route. Somewhere near the top he took to the air accompanied by a whole pile of rubble that up to that point had been wedged in the crack; he must have gone thirty or forty feet - quite exciting when you considered the rudimentary state of most of his gear, including the home-made chest harness! Probably a good thing that he got on it before Barber did.
One could, as Unclesamsauntibess suggested, simply ask Drummond; or at least you could, Al - I don't actually know him. But that would quite possibly bring a premature end to hours - days, even - of idle speculation, and we wouldn't want that!
In reply to Kafoozalem:
If our memory serves us correctly (we are in the Pyrenees unable to check) Drummond had a good day and did the first ascent and said it would be 10 years before it would be repeated.
T&S
> (In reply to Andy2) Nice one Andy. He had a bad day on The Strand
If our memory serves us correctly (we are in the Pyrenees unable to check) Drummond had a good day and did the first ascent and said it would be 10 years before it would be repeated.
T&S
In reply to Ian Parsons:
Ian
Just wanted to applaud your contributions to this thread. Fascinating - thank you.
J
Ian
Just wanted to applaud your contributions to this thread. Fascinating - thank you.
J
>
> One could, as Unclesamsauntibess suggested, simply ask Drummond; or at least you could, Al - I don't actually know him. But that would quite possibly bring a premature end to hours - days, even - of idle speculation, and we wouldn't want that!
> One could, as Unclesamsauntibess suggested, simply ask Drummond; or at least you could, Al - I don't actually know him. But that would quite possibly bring a premature end to hours - days, even - of idle speculation, and we wouldn't want that!
Here here! It is fascinating to go back to the mindset of an earlier era. I imagine The Strand would have been a far more daunting prospect in its virgin state and your analysis of the numbers does deflate them a bit. Mere mortals including myself (on second) were climbing it by the end of the 70's though.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...