UK tech grades 1-3

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jamie Wakeham 12 May 2020

A quick historical question, for a project I'm working on.  What happened to UK tech grades 1, 2 and 3?

Were they simply never brought in alongside what were then Font grades in the mid 1970s out of a sort of grade snobbishness - that the easy routes didn't need them?  Or did they get used and then dropped?  And is that right, that the tech grade first appeared in the mid '70s?

Also: years ago I heard someone explain that 1, 2 and 3 are scrambling grades, and that climbing 'starts' at grade 4a.  I think that has to be absolutely wrong, and the fact that the numbers almost look continuous is a red herring, because that would imply that there was no gap between a grade 3 scramble and Sev 4a.  So is it just a coincidence that scrambling goes up to 3 and UK tech starts at 4a?

I've no wish to re-start the debate over introducing UK tech grades 1-3 for Mods, Diffs and VDiffs; I've read the (lengthy!) threads on adjectival vs tech vs French vs Font grades and I'm convinced that it wouldn't be much use (and I agree with the idea that what would be more useful at that end of the spectrum is a protection grade).  Just want to get the historical record right.

 Suncream 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

I have a copy of Rock Climbing in the Peak District by Paul Nunn here (1987 edition), it has tech grades as low as 1c for Mods, Most VDiffs get 3a or 3b.

Most recently I'm sure I've seen 3c in Rockfax guides

Post edited at 10:28
 Red Rover 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

I think scrambling grades replaced the lower UK grades, hence why the trad grading system starts at moderate rather than easy.

OP Jamie Wakeham 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Thanks, all.

Jezz0r - that's really useful, thanks.  So there definitely was a time when Tech 1-3 was used, and it fell out of use presumably in the late '80s or early '90s.  Certainly the oldest guides I have (BMC Stanage, 1989, and On Peak Rock, 1993, don't use them.  In fact the Stanage guide seems to follow a rule of no tech grades given for anything below VS.  My 1993 CC Ogwen & Carneddau only gives tech grades to HS and above, with the very odd Sev noted to be 4a.

Red Rover - yes, I think it's also true that Easy has gone completely and climbs either downgraded to scramble or upgraded to Mod.  That's certainly the case for all of the Easy routes in OG Jones' original list.

Skip - good point - you do sometimes get 3c used for Severe, to indicate either quite strenuous or poorly protected but easy cimbing.  I think that Learner Route is a bit of an oddity, though?  Is it being used to indicate a hard (well, 3b) ground move and then diff climbing above?

Post edited at 11:11
 Skip 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> Thanks, all.

 

>  I think that Learner Route is a bit of an oddity, though?  Is it being used to indicate a hard (well, 3b) ground move and then diff climbing above?

To the best of my memory - yes

 Andy Hardy 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Southern sandstone used to use grades from 1a up, probably because of the top roping ethic - no other grade could be given

 Darron 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

No the lower technical grades have never been used extensively in this country. The Paul Nunn guide being the obvious exception.  UK technical grades started to appear early to mid ‘70’s as far as I remember. Was the Cloggy guide first? Certainly the 1974 pass guide had them in (I think in an addendum in the back)

scrambling grades are not related to technical climbing grades. They stand independently.

Incidentally selected guides have often had left field anomalies re grading. I’m thinking of the ‘infamous’ Ron James of the ‘70’s and believe it or not Hamish McInnes guides that gave adjectives for winter routes and numerical for summer!

 C Witter 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

The scrambling grades have absolutely nothing to do with UK tech grades. If I understand correctly, they were first introduced in Steve Ashton's Scrambles in Snowdonia (1980), and were subsequently adopted with slight variations in other guides (e.g. some other schemas include a Grade 4 and/or a Grade 3S).

There are plenty of VDiff 3c, MS 3c and S 3c grades out there, if you go looking. My understanding is that, below this, the negligible technicality of moves makes grading feel ridiculously subjective - which is one reason why they aren't often used, e.g. by Rockfax, the FRCC or the CC in their guides.

The other reason is historical: early grading systems were simply descriptive. One of the first was Owen Glynne Jones's grading system in Rock-climbing in the English Lake District (1897), which had four grades: “Easy”, “Moderate”,“Difficult” and “Exceptionally Severe”. Numerical systems were used from at least the 1930s, but were not rolled out widely or systematically until the 1960s; even then, different guidebooks used different variations. The reason for starting at 4a is presumably an attempt to merge different systems used in different regions (e.g. Southern Sandstone technical grades and descriptive grades used in mountainous areas).

I'm not quite sure when the grading system became more standardised, but I think probably in the late 1970s/80s, as standards rose and international competition became increasingly focused on the technicality of rock climbs, with climbers travelling more frequently around Europe to test their abilities.

This article is very helpful - although there are still parts of the puzzle missing: http://bobwightman.co.uk/climb/article.php?p=uk-grades

 Ian Parsons 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

A couple of earlier examples:

- Paul Nunn's piece 'Perspective on Peak District Limestone' - December 1968 edition of Rocksport - contains a list of 72 Peak Limestone routes together with their tech grades.

- The 1967 Banner/Crew CC Cloggy guide has an addendum essay - 'Extending the Grading System' by Rod Wilson and Pete Crew - which includes a list of 61 routes plus individual pitch tech grades.

Both lists go down as far as 3a.

 Rick51 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Southern sandstone

"A new rock climbing guide to Harrison's Rocks" by Trevor Panther - No date in it but I bought it in 66 or 67.

"For this new guide the following grades have been chosen.

2A Moderate

2B Difficult

3A Very Difficult

3B Hard Very Difficult"

Then very similar numerical compared to adjectival grades to today up to 6B Exceptionally Severe.

When I moved to Manchester in 68 there were no numerical grades in any guide I had except the Lancashire guide that had numbers for Brownstones - I first went there in 1970 and the grades varied from 2A to 6A.

Paul Nunn 75 guide to the Peak definitely has 1C - Deep Cleft, Bamford M 1C. The 76 Cloggy guide went down to 3A. The 78 Pass guide only goes down to 4A - pitches just get a hyphen if they are easier, but only VS and above got into the numerical addendum.

So 1 to 3 were definitely used but do seem to have gone out of favour.

 Offwidth 12 May 2020
In reply to Ian Parsons:

Lynn and I (with help from loads of pals) have tech graded most of lower grade Peak grit (and a good few other places besides). Most of what we did on Peak grit is public here (a Flash player needed like the Puffin browser); alongside our route comments, and comparing grades from current guides and all the old historic grade information in definitives.

http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/guides.html

We started by working backwards on our experience of what most climbers regarded as adjectival grade standards: so the central tech grades for adjectival grades we used are M 2b, D 2c, HD 3a, VD 3b, HVD 3c. So a HVD 3a would be very bold, a D 3b safe but cruxy or a bouldering start... etc.

We also invented U (for 'Under') bouldering grades to sit below our Peak BMC guidebook work on V grades, based on our experience of adjectival tech standards and equalising with our YMC guidebook work (font grades) and BMC lowest grade work (UK tech) on easier grit boulder grading.

U1 2b ~f1, U2 2c , U3 3a, U4 3b~f2, U5 3c, U6 4a ~f3, U7 4b ~ f3+, U8 4c ~f4 , U9 5a~ f4+

1
OP Jamie Wakeham 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Thanks for the help, all.  I'm going to have to boil this down to about three sentences, but it's great to have the depth behind it.  Offwidth, I was hoping you'd show up.  Spent a bit of time on your site today!

 Offwidth 12 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

As a matter of historical interest I think Font grades in Font became inaccurate due to the differential effects of polish and wear and a local reluctance to upgrade to allow for that. There has been much elitist bullshit from the local grading guardians who are wrong when they say we are just missing the correct technique (except the difference isn't as bad as it seems if the highly polished slabs are graded for pof use). To a lesser extent this wear and tear also affected Southern low Font graded sandstone clefts.

Since UK tech grades morphed from Font grades (via Southern Sandstone) there has probably been close to a whole number part of the Font grade of combined wear and tear and grade creep... on average UK tech grades of 4c would be f3c at a popular venue in font, and similar below that.

 Fishmate 12 May 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> There has been much elitist bullshit from the local grading guardians who are wrong when they say we are just missing the correct technique (except the difference isn't as bad as it seems if the highly polished slabs are graded for pof use).

I'll disagree with that offering. It seems to be only heard in the UK. The main reason for grade discrepancy in Font is due to the era in which circuits were created. If you go to a sector which has a newly developed red circuit, you may find the grades easier than Dame Jouanne, for example, where most of the circuit is graded F5/+/-. That circuit was created in the 60's or 70's when 7th grade problems were rare by today's standards. Hence that F5- may be harder than the F6B+ you did at Isatis or Canche the day before! As long as this is acknowledged, there are no problems.

Having climbed in over 50 sectors there and many of the circuits (3-4 two week trips per year), I've seen very little polish or pof, although I agree it exists.

As for not having the technical knowledge or proficiency, well, the French are correct and not elitist in the slightest. You can either find the best/right method, which many have done before you (and still do), or you can't regardless of grade. Another difference between the UK and Europe is that climbers in Europe tend to see routes or problems as learning objectives, whereas the English "often" view them as challenges or boxes to tick, hence grades carry an inflated value.

For interest to the OP, a quick look at Bowles and Eridge Green reveals there are still many easy sub tech 4a problems on Southern Sandstone included in Daimon Beail's latest guidebook which saw Font grades used for bouldering and Sport/tech for routes. Obviously, that still assumes a top rope.

1
 David Coley 13 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

One reason might be the question of mapping between the tech and adj parts.

At the grades that most people climb at there is a 1 to 1 mapping between the typical/ median tech and adj grade:

S = 4a; HS = 4b; VS = 4c; HVS = 5a; E1 = 5b; E2 = 5c

Below S we only really have E, M, D, VD, being HVD has dropped out of fashion, and two of those (E and M) we often don't even bother counting as climbs or grade (think about descent routes, many are E, but we just say "scramble down the gully on the left",  but 1a, 1b....3c, is 9 tech grades.

A similar-ish problem also occurs with YDS and French, and is solved by not bothering with 5.4d, or sport 3c-. So, maybe we should go 1,2,3,4a,4b....

However, it is also worth reflecting on how climbs in theory are graded, and what the grade means.

If one climb is 4c and one 5a, then the fraction of climbers who can cleanly top rope the 5a crux section is meant to be smaller than for the 4c crux section. Below 3c, and particularly below 3a, I would suggest this no longer applies, as all climbers can probably top rope them. However, due to exposure, gear, loose rock etc. it still makes sense to distinguish between Mod, D and VD as some climbers are happy to lead D but not VD. Or go unroped on M but not D.

OP Jamie Wakeham 13 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Again, thanks, all.

I've never been to Southern Sandstone - with London in the way, it's always just been easier to go to the Peak!   Is the current situation that it's in the process of shifting from UK tech to a combination of sport and Font grades, then?

I completely agree (as an aficionado of the low grade route) that there just isn't space for nine tech grades below 4a.  1, 2, 3, 4a... might be a bit too coarse; perhaps 1, 1+, 2, 2+, 3, 3+, 4a... might work (and in fact, with different names, that's pretty much what Offwidth has done - it's just he's calling it 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a...). 

But I also think a better solution would be to retain Mod, Diff, VDiff, and just mark some as either safe or bold.  VDiff, especially, as a one dimensional grade, can easily be either a fairly technical route that you can utterly lace up, or an easy solo above pointy rocks... anyway, this debate wasn't my point in this thread!

As an aside - are there any Easy routes left?  I thought that grade was effectively gone - they're all now either downgraded to scrambles or upgraded to Mod?

Post edited at 12:38
 Madajo 13 May 2020
In reply to Fishmate:

> Another difference between the UK and Europe is that climbers in Europe tend to see routes or problems as learning objectives, whereas the English "often" view them as challenges or boxes to tick, hence grades carry an inflated value.

What do you mean by learning objectives? I've never seen any mention of this difference in approach and I'm quite curious. It certainly seems healthier than the grade fixation that can develop.

 Offwidth 13 May 2020
In reply to Fishmate:

I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about lower grades.  We have climbed pretty much every yellow circuit at Font (most several times) and most of the orange circuits, so we know lack of polish or wear is very much in the minority on popular circuits (which is most of them). In terms of wear and polish, even we have seen quite a bit of change for the worse in the mere two decades we have been visiting and appreciate easier circuits being re-routed to avoid especially nasty lines.

We have regraded many whole circuits and stand by the fact on average UK tech 4c ~ f3C in the popular circuits at Font (and that whole number difference is consistent on average below that grade). Grades are noticably easier on the really quiet and unpopular unpolished circuits. The variation for the difficulty of a particular low font grade is significant even on popular circuits: as an example some orange Elephant problems feel a good bit easier technically than typical for the grade and the hardest for the grade are on pof polished rock (some of the glassy orange slab 3s are harder than typical slab f6As in the Peak, unless you use pof). Grading wise below f6A, 5s compared to UK standards vary from bloody hard to old school Scottish VS desperate, and below that you can use our average equality and add a significant random variation. In great contrast things are generally OK in Font above f6A (from better boulderers we take trips with: we are not good enough across the range of skills to know).

Grades help find the problems that suit needs the best, be it an easy day of exploration or a technical learning challenge. If the locals really were not elitist they would re-grade, so the accuracy on the lower grade circuits is a bit closer to that on the harder problems. No one expects perfection in something that is fairly subjective but the current situation is grades sub f6A have very little consistent meaning and this situation IS easily resolved.

 Offwidth 13 May 2020
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

We use Mod at UK tech 2b to provide some 'room' below. Its not much different to f2B in the rare obscure high friction problems at Font. A typical M 2b route on grit would be Martello Cracks at Stanage. This is can be a significant climb to some: a pal shook their way up it as their one and only onsight lead. We have quite a few big mountain mods in the UK with technically easy pitches with very sparce gear that on our scale would be Mod 1c to indicate their low technicality and boldness.  Below that, 1a and 1b are very easy climbing moves that would count as scrambling moves on a non technical grade 1 scramble. We have thought all this through.

A good example of an Easy rock climb is High Neb Gully.  They are not so rare really: lots of lines like this across UK crags are just normally called scrambles or descents. We've occasionally used linked Stanage descents on quiet days for pals who fancied some scrambling movement in the Peak but didn't want to 'climb'.

 Offwidth 13 May 2020
In reply to Madajo:

What I'm complaining about at lower grades can be a good bit beyond any concerns about grade fixation. Take the mauve circuit at Dame Jouanne: there is an amazing problem (3C or 4A) that climbs a 5m block and from standing on the top you can grasp holds on a lip of an overhang above, swing up to heel hooks, and yard up the hanging wall. In UK font grading terms the moves off the top of the block onto the undercut upper wall would be about f4+ but super highball with a terrible landing. You need to be a pretty confident boulderer at 4+ to flash that.

Jingo Wobbly guides have had a decent go at regrading for consistency and label what they call 'death-balls'. It can be done.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...