In reply to andrewmcleod:
> I guess some of it isn't necessarily under/over grading themselves, just different statements and different takes on the same statement.
> 'I've climbed E2' - this is actually the least ambiguous statement. It carries the least information though - an easy E2, a hard E2, one E2 or a hundred?
> 'I climb E2' - much more ambiguous.
> Reasonable interpretations:
> Climbs a fair fraction (maybe 20%) of E2 climbs onsight or after practice.
> Climbs about half of E2s onsight or after practice.
> Reliably climbs E2 and climbs 80%+ onsight or after practice.
> Total solid at E2 and climbs 99%+ onsight or after practice.
> 'E2 leader' - I would argue the last three of the above could reasonably be applied to that.
> All of the above can then be interpreted in terms of local climbing - is that 'climb E2 on the grit/limestone/etc' or 'climb E2 anywhere'?
> My personal statement is that I am a VS leader (possibly an HVS leader if I tried) because I get up, onsight, pretty much every VS I try - although some are damn hard! But I don't think it would be wrong for me to say I was an HVS leader because I would probably get up most HVSs, although E1 would probably be a push as while I have never failed to onsight an E1 that is mostly through careful selection rather than skill :P
> Checking a UKC logbook will usually be more informative than just the ambiguous statement 'VS leader'...
Good post.
My rule of thumb in judging the credentials of a climbing partners ability is somewhat simpler.
The true grade that they climbs at, is the grade they onsight on a regular basis, on a wide variety of routes, across a wide variety of regions, on a wide variety of rock.
Anything outside of this criteria usually represents exceptions or anomalies.