UKH

The adjectival and technical aspects of the British grading system are theoretically independent - having an E1 doesn't necessarily mean the technical grade has fall in a certain bracket, its just 5b climbing quite often results in climbing at about E1.

Sometimes though, I think guidebook writers hold back too much - scared to give routes grades which might seem silly, but are actually more representative. One of the most useful aspects of the system is, in my opinion, underused.

So, we all know about stuff like Verandah Buttress (HVD 5b) etc, but name me some less known routes with big differences.

And what routes do you think deserve this more approach to grading and what grades would you give them?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Last sentence should read "..this more adventurous approach..."

In reply to jonny2vests:

Deathtrap E6 5c at Gogarth springs to mind!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Yeah, good one. I've actually looked at that one from the stance on Mousetrap. It looks surprisingly amenable - lots of chicken heads for slings and stuff. Almost tempted...

In reply to jonny2vests:

From my observations, differences in adj and tech grades from the "benchmark" tend to be more often applied at the high end of the grading spectrum.

BTW, the grading of Verandah Buttress is ridiculous - "severe" climbing after a 5b start (according to the guide). How does that end up as HVD? Should be severe at least.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Blind Date at Burbage North E4 7a

Wasn't E2 7b once suggested (in jest) for The Elder Statesman on Curbar

In reply to jonny2vests:
Nick Dixon's E2 7b in Northumberland that I can't remember the name of.

In reply to jonny2vests: Except that Verandah Buttress is probably S 4c for those who know how!

In reply to jonny2vests:
How about TPS HS 5a

In reply to jonny2vests:

The adjectival grade takes in a lot of parameters, including the difficulty of the climbing (how technical, how sustained), where the gear is in relation to the harder moves, and various other issues. The two components of the trad system aren't fully separate - the adjectival component already encapsulates some of the information being given by the technical grade. In other words the adjectival grade is already defining a relatively narrow band of technical difficulty; the tech grade simply adds to this information by giving the technicality of the hardest move.

Occasionally you come across climbs which genuinely justify grades like HVS 4b, E1 6a, but they'll necessarily always be a small minority. I can't see how guidebook writers could "hold back less" without fundamentally changing the meaning of the adjectival grade.

In reply to DaveHall246:

When did it get upgraded from S?

In reply to wayno265:

There is such a large gap between HVD and Severe!

In reply to jonny2vests: californian arete E1 4c, it must not be technical but without gear

In reply to DaveHall246:

I don´t think you understand the grading system!

In reply to Bulls Crack:
There is such a large gap between HVD and Severe!

There probably is if your technical limit is HVDiff, although I've never done an Hard Vdiff I've only ever done ones where the H presumably stood for Horrible

In reply to Al Evans:
I totally agree Al, TPS is never worth HS. I mean the wheelchair ramp outside my local shops is harder than TPS

In reply to bpmclimb:

Thanks for the lesson, but I'm afraid the two elements are NOT directly linked. Yes, moves of a certain difficulty usually go with a certain territory - I said that in the OP.


Correct again - thats what I'm after!


Why? There are already examples of it, you said so yourself. I'm just perplexed why there aren't more. Have you never been on a route that has a really hard start which has been technically undergraded purely to avoid something like VS 6a. I just don't see anything wrong with VS 6a.

In reply to jonny2vests:
I just don't see anything wrong with VS 6a.

There is one in Kyloe in the Woods.

In reply to MG:

Yeah, there's a few scattered around. Thought I'd done one at Bowden, but cant find it.

In reply to jonny2vests:

What annoys me is multipitch grades.

E3 5a, 5c, 6b

Could read for instance:

E2 5a, E3 5c, E2 6b

eg first pitch extremely bold 5a climbing, second pitch sustained 5c. third pitch hard one move wonder off stance with gear above head.

In reply to jonny2vests:
Have you never been on a route that has a really hard start which has been technically undergraded purely to avoid something like VS 6a.

Have you ever done long tall sally(E1 5b) at Burbage? the start is harder than the supposed crux

In reply to Pylon King:

No system is perfect, some are just better than others. On multipitch routes I think it is reasonable to give the adjectival as an overall grade of the route.

In reply to Al Evans:

Surely doing that is the same as giving three routes next to each other that you are climbing on Stanage one adjectival grade?
It is not exactly hard to fully grade each pitch on a multi pitch. Sometimes tradition is just laziness.

In reply to sean0409:

Yeah, can't say I thought it was mega unbalanced though Sean. Thought 5b was about right, the crux for me was getting the pocket which is a bit height dependent.

In reply to Pylon King:

Interesting. Seems like an obvious thing to try for your next opus Mark.

In reply to jonny2vests:

There's no need for that. I was simply disagreeing with you, and only to a small extent at that. I think the two components of trad grades are more linked than you're suggesting, and I was trying to say why I think that.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Sorry, it just came across a bit like a lecture.

In reply to Reach>Talent:
Nick Dixon's E2 7b in Northumberland that I can't remember the name of.

Found it!

http://beastmakerblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/ivan-dobsky-lupino-lane-pics.htm...

VS 6a: Marxist Undertones, 2nd Cloud, The Roaches.

In reply to jonny2vests:

The Final Finale at Almscliff at HVD 5a. Though in response to a previous post this could accurately be graded with the "H" for "Horrible".

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I raise you HVS 6c : http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=7157

some killjoy will be along with a mat to give it a highball grade probably!

In reply to jonny2vests:

Monty Python's Flying Circus at Kyloe In is either VS 6a or 6b and there's some HVS 6a and 6b's in the YMC guide at Slipstones. Lovely.

Verandah Buttress isn't 5b in a month of Sundays.

In reply to jonny2vests:

So you think a 6a move straight off the ground is no harder than doing a VS? Or alternatively that a VS climber will be able to do 6a moves? When grading something you really have to be realistic.

In reply to Pylon King:

That's why you read the description as well! In this case it would be safe to assume that the 2nd and 3rd pitches could easily both be E3 pitches. To be fair if you can climb 6b you should be happy with E3 5c. If the 1st was anything other than a warm-up pitch I'd have thought there would be a 'serious' or suchlike somewhere in the description?

In reply to jonny2vests: I have to admit that I've never really understood those sorts of grades. The bold, loose, sketchy end of the scale (e.g. Death Trap Direct) is fair enough, but I fail to see how, to take your example, a route with a 5b move can be HVD.

My logic is this: the whole point of a grade is to say that one route is harder than another, and since there's no objective way of measuring hardness, that means that the route with the harder grade should be the one that fewer people can climb. So, there should be fewer people capable of climbing a route graded S than graded HVD. In cases like this, I cannot believe that that's the case: there must be a fair number of people who can happily pootle up severes (and HSs, and VSs...) who can't do a 5b move regardless of the fact that it's only one move or that the gear is good, and therefore couldn't so an HVD 5b. So why does it get the grade?

Hopefully someone can educate me!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yep, I agree, so see *everything* wrong with VS 6a!

In reply to Neil Adams:

Good argument - well put. It wasn't my exampe really, but lets take Verandah Buttress anyway - ignoring the grade debate and accepting it as 5b for now, what would you give it? Its a proper romp after that start. HVS 5b? Nope. VS 5b? Still over doing it. HS 5b? Hmmm, maybe, but HS 5b is already an anomaly...

In reply to Neil Adams:

Exactly. There really has to be a limit to how low the overall grade can go in relation to the technical grade, e.g.

VS 5b
HVS 5c
E1 6a

Otherwise it's just silly!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yeah, but there's no such thing as a 'VS climber' really is there. Thats just a language construction we have for easy communication. There are VSs that E1 climbers will struggle on.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Which taken to its logical conclusion means that you would upgrade a LOT of routes.

In reply to jonny2vests:

If they are indeed that difficult technically, then yes I would.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Fair play sticking to those guns, but you know you'd get a lot of shit for it.

In reply to jonny2vests:
There's a ladder (well was a few years ago) down the Toix sea cliff that was given E8 2b IIRC..

In reply to jonny2vests:
Where green ants dream at Reiff has a bouldery start. The route is given E1 6a but after the first few feet the rest of the route is no harder than V Diff. So it's more like a Severe 6a. A bouldering mat would reduce it to V Diff 6a!

In reply to jonny2vests:

Little Things at Stanage is VS 6a.

In reply to Paddy Duncan:

Yeah, been down that ladder. Moraira?

In reply to Paddy Duncan:

Yeah, been down that ladder, my first E8! Moraira?

In reply to Bulls Crack:
I thought Deathtrap Direct was 'only' E5 5c?

Helmet Boiler in Mousetrap Zawn is also E5 5c. I went to a talk by Nick Bullock where he described doing this route. He found it pretty 'pokey', which is saying something.

Rapture of the Deep on RH Red Wall is E4 5b. Looking across from Red Wall, it looked doable. It also looked like the last route I might ever do...

A few E6 6as around - The Cad and Lord of the Flies spring to mind.

Seem to recall that Nick Bullock and James MacHaffie did an E7 6a in Wen Zawn - featured in Welsh Connections but can't recall the name.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Apparently theres a route on Stanage called Little Things that used to be VS and is now HVS 6a. Some sort of roof crack thing...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=82485

Check out Goi's comments, and he's well ard!!

In reply to jonny2vests:

I take issue with this. Certainly in days gone by there was such a thing as a VS leader. They would happily get up the majority of climbs at that grade but would not have the strength, technique or mental fortitude for a 5b move. The lines are a bit more blurred these days because most climbers are fitter than they need to be for the trad grades they climb.

Personally I dislike unusual grades like E1 6a because I have rarely seen an E1 leader (ie. someone who gets up the majority of E1's and is proficient at 5b/c) who is able to onsight them.

In reply to Pylon King:

Is Mavis dead? Long live the king!

In reply to Kafoozalem:

Well, yeah, I don't much like them either. But I'm not talking about whether we 'like' them or not, just whether a grade might be more representative of the route because that route is in some way unbalanced.

As you point out yourself, there's always a few routes at a grade that will escape someone who is 'solid' at that grade.

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

Yeah, had a play on it. I'm with him, wouldn't agree with either part of the grade offered. Biggest sandbag at Stanage.

In reply to jonny2vests:
Biggest sandbag, isn't it only about 4m high?

In reply to jonny2vests:

I put that up - or at least recorded the FA and named it. I could place a couple of good cam in the roof crack and did it first go (6' 3"). With hands on the top, the cams were still by my waist. The VS 6a was comparing it to stuff like Suzanne which I used to struggle with. Martin Veale belayed me and failed to follow it (he simply couldn't reach the crack) despite leading and soloing E4/5 on a regular basis at the time. So the grade is somewhere between VS 6a and E6 7a.


Chris

PS He couldn't follow me up Look before You Leap either - same problem!

I wonder also if, given many people seem to start with indoor/sport before going to trad, whether you will have more people who can do quite tricky moves on a wall, but don't have the experience to lead the tougher grades outside? In that sort of situation, a tough but well-protected move on what it otherwise a cakewalk would lead to some of the grades complained about in this thread (and that sort of climber would probably enjoy the route .

In reply to Misha:


Rubble

In reply to Misha:


Its given this in Ground Up North Wales guide but I'd have thought as described (with the direct start) E6 might be closer to the mark.

In reply to jonny2vests: Are you aware of the concept of standard grades? The adjectival grading indicates the overall difficulty/seriosness of the route and technical grade indicates the hardest moves on the climb. As this system is for self placed protection/trad climbing it also assumes the leader is competent and has the ability to place gear at that grade?! So for instance the following grades could be considered safe/standard grades: VS 4c, HVS 5a, E1 5b, E2 5c, E3 6a and so on. It can be deemed true that the level of technical difficulty + the availability of protection will dtermine the adjectival grade of the route. If the technical grade differs up or down fron the standard it is possible to deduce the nature of the route and it's seriousness. Using E1 5b as an example, E1 5a indicates the route is possibly runout i.e a slab with little protection or very sustained, such as a steep pumpy crack with sufficient gear. E1 5c would indicate a 5c move but close to protection. It is feasible to have E1 4c or E1 6a and so on however, it is reasonable to assume that as the technical difficulty decreses the committment increases. The same applies to HVS 4c or HVS 5b and VS 4b and VS 5a etc. As with all things there will always be anomolies.....that's life. Let's not even get into rock quality!

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No you don't! Have fun with the system, it's not like it matters
jk

In reply to Michael Gordon:
>

The whole point of the VS 6a is that the grade is telling you something a little extra, that the initial moves are desperate and the rest is easy. A VS climber could mess about on it all day and come to no harm. If you insist that a route with a 6a move on it has to be (say at least) E1, how do you differentiate routes that are currently VS (and there aren't many) from those that are already E1 6a? You could even argue that E1 6a is a cobblers grade as most 'E1 climbers' can't do 6a moves.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:


None of that stuff even matters anymore Chris, because the vast majority of grit climbers would have a mat under there and therefore the adjective grade would have already become completely irrelevant and pointless anyway!

In reply to Scuffer:

Lol.

-57/10. That's clearly been cut and pasted from somewhere.

Who is it? Dave?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not silly - it just adds the ability to describe the occasional odd route whilst the rest of the time things fall within the 'norm'. VS 6a tells you it's a boulder problem style route and most VS climbers who can't manage 6a will know that by the tech grade thus everyones happy!

In reply to jonny2vests:

It's a very interesting point you raise. I think guidebook writers ARE affraid to give things stupid grade, but with a french grade the apparent oddness could be explained.

For Example:

non-pumpy death route with one move of 5c = E5 (Edge Lane)
Pumpy well protected route at 6a = E5 (London Wall)
OK protected, not very pumpy loose route at 5c = E5 (sort of deathtrap, other routes)

Hense a very pumpy, very dangerous, loose, smeary and pehaps sandy route could easily be E5 5b or even E5 5a if very sustained. In less extreme circumstances this means a fairly pumpy, pretty bold, smeary route with suspect holds could be E5 5c, even if it's not a total horrorfest, people are just a bit affraid of grading things so.

In reply to Franco C:

Well I've assessed the grades of a fair number of routes for guidebooks, and I'm not afraid of giving any grade that I think is appropriate; I just try to get it right. I'm pretty confident that the other guidebook writers I've worked with are the same. Sorry to disappoint

I've dealt with a few dangerously unstable routes, but haven't yet felt the need to use heavily unbalanced trad grades. If something's too dangerous to be adequately described by, say, HVS 4b or E1 4c then is distorting the balance of the trad grade even further telling us anything useful? You might as well use XS, to mean "the climbing may be technically straightforward, but there's no guarantee that the whole lot won't come down, so you're on you're own".

In reply to Chris Craggs:

The move is 6a, the route is safe but too high to be bouldered and even knowing the beta I suspect it would still stop most E1 leaders: hence it should be E1 6a at least. Adjectival grades should include onsightability when you are placing gear and falling onto it.

"most 'E1 climbers' can't do 6a moves." Really ?????? I can only think of a few bold outliers for climbers in that category.

Verandah Buttress is oft quoted as a route that deserves its odd grade but that's a doddle when you know how to do it (4c?), the hard moves are off the ground and quite a few 'HVD leaders' can climb it with beta.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

On the other hand, there is something in it. If you had an established route graded Diff, and then one day the bottom fell away to leave a jump-offable short 6c sequence, would the resulting route be D 6c?

I would prefer to give it a bouldering grade and say scramble to finish. But if forced to use trad grades, I would feel I had to push the letter grade up a bit, because part of that letter grade is about the difficulty of the climbing. Exactly how far to push it up is a difficult call.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd agree with that, if we're talking about climbers who do a significant amount of trad, and for whom E1 is their current limit.

Obviously it doesn't apply to climbers who've got very good indoors/sport, and only dabbled in trad.

In reply to Offwidth:

The nub here is whether the E1 grade neccessarily means that an E1 climber can attempt it and have a decent chance of completing it or that they can attempt it and know how big a risk they're taking.

I'm speaking as someone who doesn't climb E1 or 6a, but I'd probably find the latter more useful in the extreme cases where a route is abnormally dangerous despite having easy moves or where I'm never in any danger but can't do the technical crux move.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Yes but it's not just about how safe it is - if that was the case you could have V-diff 7b! The whole point in adjectival grading is to give an indication of how difficult overall a route is. No matter how safe it is, a 'VS' with a 6a start will be a considerably harder challenge than any normal VS.

In reply to estivator:

Green Ants is a good example of sensibly graded route (E1 6a). Hardly any E1 climbers will be able to do the move but to get E2 the hard move would have to be higher up (though still very well protected).

In reply to bpmclimb:
If something's too dangerous to be adequately described by, say, HVS 4b or E1 4c then is distorting the balance of the trad grade even further telling us anything useful?

That's my thinking also, and could be applied to the other extreme. You generally know what you're getting with E1 6a / E1 4c - calling it HS 6a / E3 4c doesn't really give much extra info - it's already extremely safe / extremely dangerous.

In reply to Offwidth:

Of course!

In reply to bpmclimb:

Agree with who? Offwidth or Chris?

Have to say I'd agree with Chris, most 'E1 leaders' wont be able to do 6a moves. Otherwise they'd be E3/4 leaders at least.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

So you'd give it E1/2 6a? Easy points! And you know it's a harder VS challenge than usual by it being given the technical grade of 6a. VS 6a has described your route and yes you could theoretically have V diff 7a but I can't think of any 7a boulder problem starts leading to V diff territory!

In reply to jonny2vests:

Yes, I meant agree with Chris

In reply to Quarryboy:
That's the second belay on Red Wall, which is a fairly amenable E2 5b (though I wouldn't want to fall off on it) that has the weirdest rock features I've ever come across. Only one of the pegs is still in a semi-serviceable state, so my advice would be to link P2 and P3 to avoid that belay! You can reinforce it with some slings around gargoyles a bit higher up but I've no idea how much stress those gargoyles would take. Thje E4 5b is a bit further left and it looked like there would be no gear or reliable holds for large stretches. Would be interested to hear from anyone who has done it.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I think you could also be responsible for a few heart attacks - or at least a fair bit of spilt tea - among 'VDiff leaders' flicking through the guide looking for suitable routes!

The real question is whether abusing the grading system is more useful than logically following it. Offwidth's point about assessing the onsightability is the 'correct' way to go, which would mean a protectable HVS couldn't realistically be harder than 5c (unless falls wouldn't weight the gear), but on the other hand HVS 6a tells a HVS leader very clearly that the crux will be too hard for him, he probably won't onsight it but he'll have gear above his head.

For bouldery starts the solution of having a prefix bouldering grade has been suggested many times but I've yet to see it used in anger. At a guess Verandah Buttress could get V1 HVD, Green Death would be V5 E5 5c, etc.

In reply to jonny2vests:

That's ridiculous, there are loads of boulderers that climb 6a on a regular basis but have never led anything harder than VS.

In reply to jonny2vests: In reply to jonny2vests: Disappointed by such a dismissive and narrow minded reply. My response was most certainly not cut and pasted, Just felt it necessary to try clarify what is a great but often misunderstood grading system. I am most certainly not Dave, whoever he might be.

In reply to john arran:

Except Verandah Buttress can be done (no tricks or jumps) at 4c! (really!).

As part of the Stanage revamp Little Things went in as HVS 6a partly as it was a 'known unknown': it was safe but clearly wasn't VS. When people I trust like Goi are saying its more like E2 6b I'm pretty convinced it should be at least E1 next time.

In reply to Johny2vests

Being able to do a 6a move and being able to onsight it on lead wearing a rack are very very different things. I can do quite a few moves given 6a and I'd be flattered to be regarded as a solid HVS leader. I used to have a maxim that steady climbers regularly climbed technical grades on routes that were two easier than their 50% flash rate as a boulder problem, really good climbers cut that to one, and anyone better than that had phenomenal move confidence or was asking to get hurt. That would place most E1 leaders in the latter two categories.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Not really. I'd be pretty pleased with a 6a in the bag while I wouldn't expect too much trouble from your average E1.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

But you would have gained some 'easy' points because the adj grade was matched too slavishly with the tech grade

In reply to Offwidth:
>

That really is rather intriguing, what grade does the Stanage guide give it and are there any 'tips' in there for technical dunces like me?


Chris

In reply to Scuffer:

Haha. You are an imposter sir, you HAVE to be, name yourself. Otherwise why would you post about the basics of the Brit grading system in a thread where that is clearly a given?

In reply to Al Evans:

Yeah, ok, but the context of the thread isn't about bouldering. Even if the 6a move is off the deck, you're still not 'bouldering', there's no pads, and you have a load of metal and ropes clinging off you. Thats got to make a difference. Like the start of Bionic Wall, fine above pads, but a bugger with a rack on.

In reply to jonny2vests:

In reply to jonny2vests:


Or Wall of Horrors...

Btw Jon. You spend a lot of time having started a thread, lecturing people on not replying in the manner you intended.
Surely you know by now that this a rather futile activity on Ukc?
You'll wear yourself out dude!

In reply to Neil Adams:
You are correct. This is the definition behind most climing grading systems around the world: if one climb is given a higher grade than another fewer climbers must be able/willing to climb it. It really is that simple, yet people seem to get very confused about it. Hence you can't have VS 6c.

Exceptions are systems like that used for aid climbing where the grades A1..A6 have real and stated meaning in terms of distance between solid placements and things to hit on the way down.

I agree that we don’t show enough imagination in the use of the UK grading system, in that I think there should be more use of E1 5a, HVS 4b, VS 4a etc. This might be because I get more freaked climbing a route with poor gear, or poor rock than others.

In reply to David Coley:

Yeah, thats the aspirational goal, but it seems quite hard to achieve in reality. I think the US system shows how bad it can get.

In reply to jonny2vests:

"I think the US system shows how bad it can get." Yawn... mind you I do enjoy finding 5.8s easier than 5.1s in just the same way that Straight Ahead was harder than most VS climbs.

In reply to jonny2vests:
Has anyone mentioned Sunset Slab at Froggart? HVS 4b = 'If you're an HVS leader, this may scare you.' It did. But no surprise, and a helpful grading imho.

In reply to old bones:


It doesn't necessarily equal that at all!

HVS 4b = 'If you are actually a consolidated HVS leader you'll find it a piece of piss'
or 'If you in actual fact only 'think' you are an HVS leader, this may scare you
or 'If you're a HS/VS leader who is trying to 'bag' an HVS, this will scare you

In reply to Cragrat Rich:
Nicely put

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

Different people have different strengths: you can certainly be a consolidated leader at a grade and prefer safer more technical routes. Sunset slab is only certainly easy onsight in its technicallity, hence the overall grade.

In reply to Offwidth:

I was walking along the bottom of Froggatt recently and saw someone do it with no less than 7 runners! (5 admittedly low down) The top 'dodgy' nut no longer looks dodgy at all. So the HVS grade for this route is surely no longer appropriate. ?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Not unless someone has recently chipped a nut placement. When the guide was published that top placement in the groove was still little more than decoration (poor micros?). I also drop tested the dodgy cam placement in the pocket just left, years ago when I was looking at What's Up Doc (standard rucksack dropped from top of crag... cam popped): taking up a key foothold with a shit cam isn't wise!

In reply to MG:

And Cold Start VS 6a at Callerhues, home of accurate consensus grading

In reply to jonny2vests:
They are not independant. The adjectival grade takes into account overall difficulty & the highest technical move on the climb will affect its overall difficulty.

As an extreme imagine mod 8a. A climb with a move so hard even our elite climbers cannot manage it yet the adjectival grade says it is the easiest climb imaginable.

My view is the two grades are abused by guidebook writters. HVS 6c??? Most HVS climbers spend their life in the pub nipping down the cragg on a Saturday, they cannot pull 6c moves so how the hell can a climb be only HVS hard when it requires a climber who is quite dedicated to training to get up it?

In reply to Bret (rock god):


That's a bit unfair!

In reply to jonny2vests:

There is a climb near me that's a strong 6a move off the first piece of gear. Some guide books give it an HVS. Because you could very easy solo above a mat as it's a scramble(ish) after the hard move. However, i've seen a another guide book give it an E2/3 simply because and HVS leader could never climb it. If a grade functions to give you an impression of the overall difficulty. The E2 is probably more accurate.

In reply to Kemics:

The 6a tells you how hard the move is, the HVS tells you the rest is a doddle. An E2 6a would be more of an undertaking.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I think that's right - as well as telling you the rest is a doddle you know that the 6a move should be very protectable (or very near the ground!).

In reply to Kemics:

No, its actually misleading - and people can often manage harder stuff near the ground/runner anyway.