Adjective grades for individual pitches

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jon Read 19 Apr 2021

Guidebooks will generally apply technical grades to individual pitches on a multipitch route, but why not adjective grades?

Without a useful pitch description, you're not going to know if the third pitch of that E2 5b, 5c, 5a is total death or a well protected VS path. Fine, but often that additional info is missing.

Why shouldn't we have adjective grades for all pitches, and an overall one?

9
 salad fingers 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I've wondered this for years. Makes no sense. Think it was discussed on here recently.

3
 GrahamD 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I ve generally found that the description fills the gaps pretty well.

3
 john arran 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I've argued for this for years, and also given Adj grades to individual pitches on multi-pitch new routes I've done. Makes complete sense.

A corollary is that giving individual pitch grades makes it clearer what the route grade represents and where the actual crux is.

Curiously, this route grade won't necessarily be simply the highest of the individual pitch grades. An example would be a route with 4 contrasting E4 pitches. To onsight all of them would obviously be achievable by notably fewer people than could onsight any one, which means the whole route would be a candidate for E5.

A good example, I always thought, was The Naked Edge, in Eldorado Canyon. No single pitch may merit more than E3 in isolation, but onsighting the whole route would be surprising for anyone whose top grade so far has only been E3.

A UK example would be The Scoop (E7 6b), which I'm pleased to see now gets E7, even though none of its pitches is individually harder than E6.

2
 Jamie Wakeham 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

Yep.  Would be particularly useful for swinging leads between unevenly matched partners.

1
 salad fingers 19 Apr 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Agree, this is often the case, but not always by any stretch. Perhaps pitch grades would help to reduce all the tedious waffle that fills British guidebooks.

12
 Michael Gordon 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I think it would clutter up guidebooks further. You've only really got to note which is the crux pitch, or whether it's sustained overall. For your 5a death pitch, "serious" or "unprotected" would suffice, no?

3
 GrahamD 19 Apr 2021
In reply to salad fingers:

I'm sure I'm not alone in liking guidebook waffle.  I'm also sure I'm not alone in appreciating just a little bit of ambiguity in guidebook descriptions.  I'd hate it if we ever got to move by move descriptions.

1
 alan moore 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> Why shouldn't we have adjective grades for all pitches, and an overall one?

There is something in this.

For all the years we climbed together, my Dad climbed the 4b/4c pitches and I climbed all the 5a/5b pitches. He got all the dirt, the danger, the loose, the offwidths and the awkward, while I got all the glory. 

It worked perfectly. 

 Luke90 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> You've only really got to note which is the crux pitch, or whether it's sustained overall.

But wouldn't that logic apply to single pitches as well? Why are adjectival grades a thing at all if they apparently add so little when applied to individual pitches of a long route?

2
 john arran 19 Apr 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> I'm sure I'm not alone in liking guidebook waffle.  I'm also sure I'm not alone in appreciating just a little bit of ambiguity in guidebook descriptions.  I'd hate it if we ever got to move by move descriptions.

Then you'll have loved the old guidebooks that contained little other than waffle. I concede that on occasion they could produce memorable descriptions, but most of the time they left you with little more, and often considerably less, than could be communicated with a good line on a photo and a few choice icons.

And don't get me started on how useful they were to people for whom English wasn't their first language. Brits would be aghast at European guides describing anything in any other language, but somehow it would be completely fine to rely on verbosity as long as you were in the UK.

3
OP Jon Read 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I think it would clutter up guidebooks further. You've only really got to note which is the crux pitch, or whether it's sustained overall. For your 5a death pitch, "serious" or "unprotected" would suffice, no?

I think you'll find "E2 5a" is a lot fewer characters than "a serious pitch". I supposed it could be a very sustained one, in which case a careful choice of symbol would be even terser. 

2
 JRJG 19 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

Adventure. 
 

JRJG 

3
 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Luke90:

> Why are adjectival grades a thing at all if they apparently add so little when applied to individual pitches of a long route?

Well, you know the max overall grade for any one pitch, and can often take a reasonable specific guess at many of them.

3
 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> I think you'll find "E2 5a" is a lot fewer characters than "a serious pitch". 

Yes, but it's more grades to clutter up and potentially confuse. "Serious" is fairly clear.

 Alkis 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

But E2 5a is even clearer.

6
 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Alkis:

I'm not sure about that. Also, in the event of an E2 5b,5c,5a route where the 5a pitch was the crux, I suspect guidebook authors would feel the need to spell that out in the introductory description anyway. So in reality, doing so in the pitch grades also would be duplication.

 john arran 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I'm not sure about that. Also, in the event of an E2 5b,5c,5a route where the 5a pitch was the crux, I suspect guidebook authors would feel the need to spell that out in the introductory description anyway. So in reality, doing so in the pitch grades also would be duplication.

What would they "need" to say, that E1 5b, HVS 5c, E2 5a would not already have communicated?

1
 C Witter 20 Apr 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> I ve generally found that the description fills the gaps pretty well.


I've generally found that the description doesn't fill the gaps. In fact, I frequently read the logbooks before climbs toward the top of my grade range, as people's logbook comments are not only often more accurate than the guides but frequently at odds with them. Nonetheless, my doctor has recommended a low-sodium diet due to all the pinches of salt I consume in the course of trying to find out info about a route.

5
 Sean Kelly 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

Conversely why not only have a photo-diagramatic line and brief description, possibly one sentence and NO grade. A return to true adventure. Today we almost have a blow by blow account of every climb and lots more info available on Internet posts and ukc logbooks. Information overload for sure. Whymper had no guidebook description to help with his ascent of the Matterhorn!

10
 Jamie Wakeham 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Sean Kelly:

>  Whymper had no guidebook description to help with his ascent of the Matterhorn!

I know - and only four of the party were killed...

 DaveHK 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

There can be no adventure without uncertainty.

 C Witter 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I guess the argument for the current system is that, if you're an E2 leader, you should be able to deal with E2 6a, E2 5c, E2 5b and E2 5a - because the overall balance of difficulty and risk is roughly the same. So, if a route gets E2 5c but has a very poorly protected 5a pitch on it, you should be able to cope. This works less well if swinging leads as an unequal team, but the upshot is that you tend to presume that the 5a pitch could be E2.

But, I see no advantage to not giving more information in the form of adj grades for each pitch. Those who say it kills the adventure are talking nonsense - because they can always choose not to read the guidebook info or to climb harder routes where they are thankful for the extra info or to climb obscure routes that still have 1980s grades or, better still, to undertake FAs. There's no more or less "adventure" in climbing a well-travelled and clean three star E2 with or without a little extra info in the guidebook. If they want to mouth off about "real adventure", they should go remove landmines from the DRC rather than faffing around with expensive gear on some insignificant lump of rock on a Sunday.

The major disadvantage to adj grades for each pitch is that it presumes guidebook writers are up to the task of producing accurate grades...

2
OP Jon Read 20 Apr 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

I hear the calls for adventure, am sympathetic to them, and suspect that additional information (as I'm proposing) is seen as eroding that. However, this argument surely (logically) leads to abandoning individual pitch technical grades, possibly grades and guidebooks altogether?

I'm genuinely interested in what makes you think adding individual pitch adjective grades erodes adventure, but maintaining what we currently have doesn't? Isn't it that it's just what you are used to, a historical legacy?

1
 Dave Garnett 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> Why shouldn't we have adjective grades for all pitches, and an overall one?

Because the adjectival grade is cumulative for the route overall? 

Otherwise, why not grade differing sections of a single pitch for the E2 6a bouldery start, VS 5a jamming crack and the horrible E1 4c topout? 

Sport climbing is making you soft!

4
 Alkis 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I disagree. If I take a route I put up for instance, the pitches are E1 5b, HVS 4c, E3 5c, HVS 5b. Obviously it would take someone that has experience with routes in those grades to have a feel of what this means, but it would take a lot of text to condense that down to one single grade of E3 5b, 4c, 5c, 5b which I feel is far less informative.

OP Jon Read 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Why have individual pitch tech grades then, Dave?

1
 Michael Hood 20 Apr 2021
In reply to john arran:

> What would they "need" to say, that E1 5b, HVS 5c, E2 5a would not already have communicated?

Err is that E2 5a because the protection is crap or because every move is 5a and there are no rests - still needs a word, either "serious" or "strenuous". But you could see that from just looking at it, you might say - exactly, in which case doesn't need the pitch adjectival grades then.

Having said that, I'm pretty ambivalent about this idea - probably because the number of occasions where it would have helped me are so minimal. I think the major problem would be the amount of extra "down the pub" dispute and the difficulty for guidebook writers, especially with the pitch v whole climb grade debates.

1
In reply to Jon Read:

Where are all these E2 5a pitches? Can I have a named example please?  I guess Mousetrap (E2 5a) but I’d say Hard VS is a more appropriate grade! And that first pitch is 5b all day long...

I sort of quite like the idea, but probably in the same way I like decimal E grades!

Anyway, here’s a classic 

East Face Route (Original Route) (E1 5b)

Pitch 1: HS 4b

Pitch 2: HVS 5b

Pitch 3: HVS 4b

Pitch 4: HVS 4b

Pitch 5: VS 4c

Post edited at 10:07
3
 Dave Garnett 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> Why have individual pitch tech grades then, Dave?

I suppose you can separate the technical difficulty of individual pitches, but the seriousness of the 2nd and subsequent pitches partly depends on their position and cumulative effect of reaching them.  You might say that each pitch that gets you into an increasingly exposed and inescapable position should get an extra adjectival grade to reflect that, irrespective of how well-protected or sustained it was.

Also, and probably more important, giving each pitch both technical and adjectival grades would encourage more people to cherry-pick first pitches for the tick without any intention of entering into the spirit of a multipitch epic required!

 PaulJepson 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

If those HVS 4b pitches are an accurate representation of the climbing then I expect publishing them would take it off a lot of people's wish-lists....

 john arran 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

There's a natural tendency to argue for the status quo, whatever it happens to be, rather than thinking things through afresh. As such, many changes are widely opposed, until they're made and people get used to them, whereupon few people want to revert. E grades and tech grades themselves were both good examples in their day.

In the current example of bringing pitch grades into line with single-pitch route grades, pretty much all of the arguments for having both Adj and Tech grades apply in both cases, and I feel people are looking for ways to justify not changing, rather than recognising the benefit of broadening the already accepted advantages of two grades to also benefit individual pitches.

In reply to Jon Read:

Here’s another one: 

Vector (E2 5c)

Pitch 1: HVS 5a

Pitch 2: E2 5c

Pitch 3: E1 5c

OP Jon Read 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Also, and probably more important, giving each pitch both technical and adjectival grades would encourage more people to cherry-pick first pitches for the tick without any intention of entering into the spirit of a multipitch epic required!

Very astute. You don't think this happens already?

In reply to PaulJepson:

The climbing is easy but the ledges are dirty/slippery, and if you let go you’re gonna hurt yourself. Plus the route finding isn’t that obvious. 

Put it this way: whilst I’m impressed that Jesse lead the crux pitch blind, I’m totally in awe of him for leading pitches 3 and 4.

 john arran 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Also, and probably more important, giving each pitch both technical and adjectival grades would encourage more people to cherry-pick first pitches for the tick without any intention of entering into the spirit of a multipitch epic required!

If that's what people want to do, why would you want to prevent them? Should they have to share the same priorities as you?

Here’s another: The Grooves (E1 5b)

Pitch 1: Hard VS 5b

Pitch 2: E1 5b

Pitch 3: Hard VS 5b

3
 DaveHK 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

People argue enough about one grade per route and you want to give them one grade per pitch to argue about?!  

 Toerag 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Well, you know the max overall grade for any one pitch, and can often take a reasonable specific guess at many of them.


..when you're stood at the bottom of the route (maybe, if you can see the whole thing), but not from the comfort of your armchair when you're planning a trip.

 The Pylon King 20 Apr 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> If those HVS 4b pitches are an accurate representation of the climbing then I expect publishing them would take it off a lot of people's wish-lists....


And maybe save some lives!

2
 Toerag 20 Apr 2021
In reply to john arran:

> In the current example of bringing pitch grades into line with single-pitch route grades, pretty much all of the arguments for having both Adj and Tech grades apply in both cases, and I feel people are looking for ways to justify not changing, rather than recognising the benefit of broadening the already accepted advantages of two grades to also benefit individual pitches.

It would also be beneficial to split out the adjectival grade to create a seriousness grade akin to the US X/R/PG scale. At present we don't know if E2 5a means 'sustained pumpy 5a clip-up' or 'death on a stick 5a chossfest'.  Yes, we can look at guidebook icons, but those aren't universal. Yes, we can look at the crag but only once we're in front of it.  There is no reason not to do it.

6
 The Pylon King 20 Apr 2021
In reply to john arran:

> There's a natural tendency to argue for the status quo, whatever it happens to be, rather than thinking things through afresh. As such, many changes are widely opposed, until they're made and people get used to them, whereupon few people want to revert. E grades and tech grades themselves were both good examples in their day.

> In the current example of bringing pitch grades into line with single-pitch route grades, pretty much all of the arguments for having both Adj and Tech grades apply in both cases, and I feel people are looking for ways to justify not changing, rather than recognising the benefit of broadening the already accepted advantages of two grades to also benefit individual pitches.


You totally articulated what i have been thinking for years.

The guidebooks I have been producing have adjecteval grades for individual pitches simply because I can do what I like in them.

 Wil Treasure 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I always find resistance to this idea a little odd, for all the reasons that others have given.

What always struck me as strange was that a tech grade gives so little information. If you were going to pick a single grade to describe the pitch the adjective grade is much more useful, because it actually describes the whole pitch.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

> Conversely why not only have a photo-diagramatic line and brief description, possibly one sentence and NO grade. A return to true adventure. Today we almost have a blow by blow account of every climb and lots more info available on Internet posts and ukc logbooks. Information overload for sure. Whymper had no guidebook description to help with his ascent of the Matterhorn!

Anyone can have this whenever they want by not using a guide but they pay for extra information.

In reply to Jon Read:

> Guidebooks will generally apply technical grades to individual pitches on a multipitch route, but why not adjective grades?

> Without a useful pitch description, you're not going to know if the third pitch of that E2 5b, 5c, 5a is total death or a well protected VS path. Fine, but often that additional info is missing.

> Why shouldn't we have adjective grades for all pitches, and an overall one?

The idea is that the leader should be capable of the grade. The easier pitches are either a bonus or a disappointment (depending on how you view these things). I would say the majority of traversing pitches are as hard/bold or worse for the 2nd than the leader. Would you want a grade for seconing too?

Ultimately it's about applying judgement.

 mrjonathanr 20 Apr 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya

Looking at say, E4, 5c, 5b, 6a, the first thing I'd want to know is which is the E4 pitch? if it's the last one, it might be a nice route. If it's the middle one, that's a lot less appealing. Since either is possible I'd try to find out.

If you get this informally I see no reason not to include it in print.

 PaulJepson 20 Apr 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

A guidebook is supposed to guide your judgement though. I'm capable of climbing a lot of HVS routes but I wouldn't want to lead HVS 4b. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

> A guidebook is supposed to guide your judgement though. I'm capable of climbing a lot of HVS routes but I wouldn't want to lead HVS 4b. 

If the pitch was on an E2 I would be surprised if the guide didn't mention something but if the pitch was a horror show, however if it didn't the grade gives fair warning.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

> In reply to DubyaJamesDubya

> Looking at say, E4, 5c, 5b, 6a, the first thing I'd want to know is which is the E4 pitch? if it's the last one, it might be a nice route. If it's the middle one, that's a lot less appealing. Since either is possible I'd try to find out.

> If you get this informally I see no reason not to include it in print.

On a high quality route all could be at that level or close enough. The guide will usually say which is the hardest pitch.

 GrahamD 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Wil Treasure:

> I always find resistance to this idea a little odd, for all the reasons that others have given.

> What always struck me as strange was that a tech grade gives so little information. If you were going to pick a single grade to describe the pitch the adjective grade is much more useful, because it actually describes the whole pitch.

Speak for yourself on this one ! For me, a pitch grade of 5c tells me everything I need to know.  Its not my lead, and no slack please !

In reply to PaulJepson:

I think anyone who led the crux pitch of the Old Man of Hoy would be extremely unlikely to fall off the 3rd or 4th pitch, but the consequences of doing so are pretty severe. 

 Sean Kelly 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Poor roping technique caused the accident, not a lack of a guidebook.

Anyway it smacks of the nanny state to me. How much more information does everybody want. A description of every hold and move? There should be an element of discovery. Its bad enough that many only want bolt protected climbs. Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Post edited at 16:58
9
 john arran 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Sean Kelly:

I think you've ended up with a very strange idea of what a "Nanny State" means. It broadly means that, rather than leave some decisions up to individuals, the 'authorities' limit the choice of behaviours to ones deemed best for society as a whole.

What you appear to be arguing for is that the 'authorities' (in this case guidebook publishers) purposefully limit the information available to individuals in an attempt to retain elements of climbing that you believe are best for climbing as a whole.

If there's any nannying being proposed, it's by those trying to fashion climbing to their own preference, rather than giving people the information to make their own best choices.

1
 Martin Hore 20 Apr 2021
In reply to C Witter:

>  This works less well if swinging leads as an unequal team, but the upshot is that you tend to presume that the 5a pitch could be E2.

Which is really sad if leading that pitch at HVS 5a would have turned the day from an average one into a great day out for the less able partner, but he/she doesn't get the opportunity to do so because it "might be E2 5a". 

> The major disadvantage to adj grades for each pitch is that it presumes guidebook writers are up to the task of producing accurate grades...

Yes, and even if they are, they can only reliably grade each pitch by actually climbing all the routes before grading them...... 

Martin

OP Jon Read 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Sean Kelly:

> Anyway it smacks of the nanny state to me. How much more information does everybody want. A description of every hold and move? There should be an element of discovery. Its bad enough that many only want bolt protected climbs. Pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I think the general answer to your first question is: lots! Whether that is a good or a bad thing is part of the discussion here, and one that generally I think we need.

Sounds like you would be prepared for future guide books to do away with individual pitch tech grades, and if not, why not?

In reply to Jon Read:

In principle it seems like a reasonable idea but in practice all it will do is add complexity and open the flood gates of what is already a very subjective matter for even more subjective suggestions and arguments. I can't make a really good argument for adopting it but as it is changing the established status quo I think that is exactly what we need, a damned good reason to change.

Al

 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Which is really sad if leading that pitch at HVS 5a would have turned the day from an average one into a great day out for the less able partner, but he/she doesn't get the opportunity to do so because it "might be E2 5a". >

Has anyone actually come up with a credible example of an E2 multipitch route where the 5a pitch is the crux? If I saw 5a as an individual pitch grade without any further info, I would nearly always think "probably HVS, possiby E1".

 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to Toerag:

> ..when you're stood at the bottom of the route (maybe, if you can see the whole thing), but not from the comfort of your armchair when you're planning a trip.

Not at all. I find I can make a decent stab at how hard an individual pitch is likely to be on a bigger route from the guidebook alone.

 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to mrjonathanr:

> Looking at say, E4, 5c, 5b, 6a, the first thing I'd want to know is which is the E4 pitch? if it's the last one, it might be a nice route. If it's the middle one, that's a lot less appealing. Since either is possible I'd try to find out.> 

Realistically it is almost guaranteed to be either the first or last pitches. Unless you had an example in mind?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Has anyone actually come up with a credible example of an E2 multipitch route where the 5a pitch is the crux? If I saw 5a as an individual pitch grade without any further info, I would nearly always think "probably HVS, possiby E1".

Jericho Wall on the Cromlech. When I did it in July 1970 (as a gruesomely undergraded 'HVS') the second pitch was dangerously badly protected and on poor, dodgy rock ... it might even have been given 4c. I'm not sure it would merit E2 now. 

 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> If those HVS 4b pitches are an accurate representation of the climbing 

They aren't.

 Michael Gordon 20 Apr 2021
In reply to john arran:

> What would they "need" to say, that E1 5b, HVS 5c, E2 5a would not already have communicated?

Personally I would have put something in the route intro like "The third pitch is very bold on suspect rock and gives the overall crux of the route". To me it spells it out much better than just three grades which one could miss. 

1
In reply to mrjonathanr:

> In reply to DubyaJamesDubya

> Looking at say, E4, 5c, 5b, 6a, the first thing I'd want to know is which is the E4 pitch? if it's the last one, it might be a nice route. If it's the middle one, that's a lot less appealing.

Someone had an epic on America?!

jcm

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> I think anyone who led the crux pitch of the Old Man of Hoy would be extremely unlikely to fall off the 3rd or 4th pitch

I wouldn't agree with that at all. I led all the pitches, admittedly in drizzle, a couple of years ago and I felt a lot more likely to fall off pitch three in particular than pitch two.

The OP's proposal is a bit like Ed Drummond's guide Avon guide all those years ago; sure you could do it, but guidebooks are a balance between all the information and none of it; personally I think the balance is presently struck fine.

jcm

In reply to Michael Gordon:

> They aren't.

What do you mean?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Not quite at the grades you want, but I give you Loose Woman at Blackchurch - E1 4c 5b 4a. I'd be very surprised if anyone who'd done this didn't agree that pitch 3 is the crux.

jcm

1
 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It may feel like the crux to those who can cruise 5b, but can an E1 4a pitch really exist?! I've certainly never seen a single pitch route with this grade.

 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

> What do you mean?

I don't think those pitches would merit HVS 4b - that to me would usually mean very bold indeed. They are average VS pitches, and an absolute mile of difficulty below the crux pitch which is certainly not HVS - felt nearer to E2 to me.

2
In reply to Michael Gordon:

E2?! What grade do you think all the Brown/Whillans Hard VS Cracks are? Some of those are miles harder.

 Toerag 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> It may feel like the crux to those who can cruise 5b, but can an E1 4a pitch really exist?! I've certainly never seen a single pitch route with this grade.


Given that it's called 'Loose woman' and is at Blackchurch where (according to recent articles on the Culm coast) routes constantly fall down, I suspect that pitch is verging on an XS grade - disposable holds and no gear. I gave a 23m climb HVS 4b once - it would have been about S/HS if it was solid & had gear, but it wasn't & didn't until the last 10 feet.  An HS/S leader would be completely out of their depth on it mentally.

 PaulJepson 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Toerag:

Does XS grading take into account the overall grade of the route? E.g. if that 4a pitch was the entire climb, would it get XS 4a but because it's part of a route of a much harder overall grade than the benchmark technical grade, it doesn't get XS?

I guess that's a further example of where the pitch grade would definitely be useful knowledge. 

 alan moore 21 Apr 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>  Loose Woman at Blackchurch - E1 4c 5b 4a. I'd be very surprised if anyone who'd done this didn't agree that pitch 3 is the crux.

I wouldn't agree, but I get your point. 5b is hard for me and 4a isnt; doesn't matter whether it is poorly protected or loose.

Similarly The Verger:

I would say VS 4c, VS 4b, E15a. However, a lot of logbook entrys suggest that people thought the loose 4b pitch was the hardest.

The more grades there are the more we can argue about them. Which is a good thing!

In reply to alan moore:

Wow - that does surprise me. I can't even remember the second pitch of The Verger. Whereas if I look carefully at my right calf I can still see the scar made by one of the blackthorn bushes on pitch 3 of LW. 

jcm

 Martin Haworth 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Read: It would certainly make life easier if there were adjective grades for individual pitches but it’s generally not necessary. On routes where it would help it would be nice to think the description would mention it, or it would be visually obvious. The same argument can apply to single pitch routes so where do we stop? There are plenty of single pitch routes of say E1, 5b where it’s the 5a runout that is the E1 bit. 
 

 Martin Haworth 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth: A single pitch example of how a grade can mislead, or certainly was the case for me is Aardvark (E2 6a), which at E2, 6a I assumed was all about the well protected 6a bit. I found the first half of the route worth E2 5a/b as a fall would have been really serious. The 6a bit was well protected (and soft for 6a)

 alan moore 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> There are plenty of single pitch routes of say E1, 5b where it’s the 5a runout that is the E1 bit. 

But the people who cruise the 5a runout and struggle with the technicalities of the 5b bit would disagree over which was the E1 bit...

Post edited at 19:17
 Ian Parsons 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Your two one-pitch examples differ from a multipitch route in that on the former you won't be dividing the leading between two climbers of possibly unequal ability - and thus trying to decide who gets to lead which bit - in the way that you very well might be on a multipitch route. If the single-pitch climb is correctly graded it shouldn't matter which bit is actually the crux; if you're competent at the grade you'll be able to deal with whatever comes up - even if it's not quite what you were expecting. So if you'd been completely shut down by the 5a/b section on Aardvark it would have suggested that either the route merited a higher grade, or that you weren't really a competent E2 leader!

 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I said "nearer to E2". Meaning nearer to E2 than HVS. In my opinion of course. 

1
 Michael Gordon 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Toerag:

HVS 4b is well established as a grade, albeit an unfriendly one. E1 4a though?!

 Martin Haworth 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Ian Parsons: I suppose there is a case for pitch adjective grades on multi pitch if you consider a team will switch leads and escape can be more problematic. The counter argument might be that multi pitch could be considered a step up from single pitch and require more pre-route consideration.

 Martin Haworth 21 Apr 2021
In reply to alan moore:

> But the people who cruise the 5a runout and struggle with the technicalities of the 5b bit would disagree over which was the E1 bit...

Very true.

 CantClimbTom 21 Apr 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

When things start getting sketchy enough to have adjectival grades that seem to totally mismatch the technical grade, it might be time to break out MXS, XS, HXS etc adjectival grading, if it's getting into full blown: pants filled with brown adrenaline territory

 Michael Gordon 22 Apr 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

Possibly, when that comprises the meat of the route. For John's example, the theory would probably be that an E1 climber should be well able to handle nasty 4a.

I do take your point though, and it's probably one of the more pertinent scenarios in relation to the usefulness of individual pitch grades. Putting MXS next to a loose top pitch on an otherwise more normal climbing route would help warn potential suitors.  

Post edited at 08:10

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