UKH

Excuse the click bait thread title, but that's what Dave Macleod says he thinks in his latest video "How I grade the hardest trad routes" https://youtu.be/B-48S7gLP_I?si=k9JE7l88jZRcF_Yg

A friend shared the video the other day saying you can ignore the grade chat and just watch some of the best filming of some of the finest climbing done predominantly in the UK over the last two decades, and this is true. But I found Dave's views on grades really interesting even though I've only ever tickled the lowest E grades so have no real view or opinion on the top end grades. Dave, as normal, comes over as very sincere, rational, modest but still probably as the most qualified person in the country to make the argument he does. Anyway, for all the hard boys and girls, only a few months until the spring sun will be strong enough for you to get up to the Ben and start working on the first repeat of Echo Wall!

But anyway, it seemed a bit remiss that this wasn't being argued about on UKC. Enjoy!

In reply to TobyA:

Until Franco repeats it and comments, I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt.

In reply to TobyA:

Interesting. The video's already on my 'watch later' list but I haven't had chance to get to it yet. I'd always assumed that his refusal to grade Echo Wall was because he thought that if he fairly applied traditional 'mountain' grading to it then the grade claim would be too outrageous and he didn't want that drama.

In reply to TobyA:

Is this not just top notch egrader trolling?😉

Don't get me wrong I love British grades and I think the are great for >90% of trad climbing but they do seem feked up the upper end of the scale.  Mind you I think we see very similar debates in sport and boulder grading as well of people with a perhaps more traditional outlook, like Dave vs those with an anti compression more linear grading mindset.

In reply to TobyA:

Basicly Dave denies being a sandbagger then proceeds to sandbag everyone?

In reply to joem:

He does address that, and clearly is self aware enough to know he has that reputation. But listen to him discuss the Longhope Route, he clearly thinks Caf's downgrade to E9 from his original E10 makes sense as he says he can see why Mchaffie is just better than him at that sort of stuff.

In reply to ebdon:

Was definitely in response to what Randall said in their last video about trad grading.

Considering how wide the E grades are at the top of the scale, it makes perfect sense that something 'harder' than another E11 could also just be E11 rather than being another step up. The difference in difficulty at the lower grades can be vast so it must be massive at the upper end.  I do think he's somewhat trolling suggesting E10 for Echo Wall though.

When he said he might have climbed E11 only once or twice, I'd love to know which routes he was really talking about. As someone else said, he's probably the most qualified climber at these grades and I'd love to see Dave's opinion on a 'graded list' for the routes he's done >E9 (purely from the safety of my armchair, obviously).

He seems to have refrained from offering opinions on a lot of hard repeats since TWOL but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to hear his opinion on repeats of things like Robbie & Matts E10s and Lexicon. Maybe he's passed ruffling feathers and who can blame him but when you watch the video of Dave on Indian Face and then the one of him climbing Black Thistle with a mushed ankle, and then think about what he's implying in the video about not being that much if at all better as a climber, you do wonder if feathers do still need to be ruffled from time to time. 

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah in fairness he does address this but I think he's too humble for his own good and I think its interesting that he's down grading the sport grade of echo wall in hindsight which seems like an odd thing to do without getting back on the route. 

He also says he will always grade and the lower end of what he thinks a route could be which while maybe not outright sandbagging is going to lead to grade compression. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

I thought one of the most interesting points he made was about Face Mecca (Dixon has always been a dark horse hero for me, and I still think that's one of the best route names anywhere ever). I did feel a bit sorry for Iain Small and Julian Lines - that's some pressure being named by Macleod as the two people he knows of who could actually repeat Face Mecca (E9 6c)! - but there's real respect in him pointing to a nearly 40 year old route as still cutting edge. Likewise with him saying that he thinks Cubby was a stronger and better climber than him in the early 80s. 

In reply to TobyA:

I thought it was quite funny that the only two people Dave named were friends/acquaintances who operate primarily in Scotland! Obviously no-one who lives south of the border would stand a chance Just as an example, I don't believe that Pete Whittaker or James McHaffie couldn't do it if they wanted to.

Video was interesting in general. I've got a lot of time for Dave's opinions on grading and UK trad climbing in general as he's obviously someone who has been operating at the top end of it for a long time now. However, there seemed to be some inconsistencies in what he said e.g. Indian Face sport 7b, death fall is E9, but soloing Darwin Dixit 8b+, high likelihood of death or serious injury from the top (which admittedly is not the crux afaik, but surely still in the >= 7b region) is E8. I guess he'd be able to explain the reasoning further given the opportunity to do so.

It would be really interesting to get a few of the relevant people (maybe Dave Mac, Steve Mc, Neil Gresham, James McHaffie, James Pearson, Pete Whittaker, Franco, Tom Randall) in a room together with a good interviewer and get them to talk about specific routes and what grade they think they are and why. Are there any routes where they all agree on the grade? Everyone can tell Dave Mac he's a sandbagger, Steve Mc can say he's more of a sport climber really, but also was always a trad climber really, Caff can say onsighting is the best, everyone can tell Franco he can have an opinion once he climbs something that's not a slab, Randall and Gresh can try and sell training plans, Dave Mac can tell everyone they need to come to Scotland and Mind Riot is actually only E7 and so on.

In reply to Fellover:

I thought he explained it clearly; bold climbing of the same sport grade gets a higher E grade if it is insecure in nature.

In reply to TobyA:

Why is it such a good name? I must be missing something.

In reply to Fellover:

Get Birkett in there if you want it to be really interesting. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree with that. However, at 2:05 in the video there's text on screen describing Indian Face that says "only 7b climbing climbing and quite positive" i.e. not insecure. Admittedly that does seem at odds with other descriptions I've read, but it's Dave's opinion we're talking about here.

In reply to TobyA:

“Echo Wall is not a route for an inexperienced climber”

Classic line!

In reply to Fellover:

Caff's done it already (in a day, having worked it on abseil, but not actually having top-roped it first) - https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2016/06/face_mecca_e9_6c_for_james_mchaffie...

In reply to Removed UserRevenge of the Path:

Should have done my research better!

In reply to Hovercraft:

Or as it turns out most experienced climbers 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Bold sport climbing of the same grade, sure

Darwin Dixit is 7 sport grades harder than Indian Face

None of this is my bag and I don't really care but if Indian Face (sport 7b, death fall) is E9 6c and Echo Wall (sport 8c, death fall) is E10 then no wonder people find the grades confusing lol

In reply to Fellover:

Watched Franco's interview with Morus Sanderson earlier and he seemed to say that actually they are quite sharp holds, hence why he felt it was doable in the wet (and then did it!).

In reply to TomYoung:

Ah interesting, I'll have to track that down and have a listen. Amazing effort to do it in the wet! I remember reading the article on UKC at the time and thinking if I was him I'd have waited for another day!

In reply to Robert Durran:

because it's both descriptive: Cloggy as the place of pilgrimage and perfection for face climbing; and as the imperative - bow down in submission in face of it's awesomeness. Perhaps even in the sense of warning: you better be sure you have 'made things right with God' before you dare to pass this way. 

In reply to Fellover:

I missed that caption. But, like you, I had always understood that Indian Face was very insecure.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Or, to put it another way, two very bold routes can get the same E grade but have very different sport grades if one is a lot more insecure than the other.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The caption does make quite a big difference though.

Now we're comparing a <7b, relatively secure/positive, death fall)> (Indian Face) with an <8b+, secure/positive, possible death fall/definite serious injury fall> (Darwin Dixit solo) and saying the first one deserves a higher grade!

In reply to TobyA:

Ah, the imperative had never occurred to me in four decades. Makes more sense now. I'd always thought it uninspired. I never, ever get word play!

Now tell me what I'm missing in Indian Face......

In reply to Fellover:

Agreed. Need someone qualified to comment.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Is that just because shadows on that face are meant to look like the face of a American Indian warrior or some such? I've never thought it was an amazing name either. 

In reply to Fellover:

I've not seen it in person but the hard climbing on DD all looks quite close to the ground, across an almost horizontal roof? Can anyone who's been there or done it comment? The camera angles could well be throwing shade but if the crux is 5 or 6m off the deck then the 'death factor' is lower for sure. It sounds like you'd need a lot of luck on your side to survive a fall from the crux of IF. 

In reply to TobyA:

I think I was told it was because he did it during an "Indian summer". So maybe there's the double meaning cleverness. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/watch-jorge-diaz-rullo-free...

Gives some perspective. 

In reply to TobyA:

Thanks for sharing this video. Really interesting, and hats off to Dave for explaining his thoughts which come across as well reasoned and really make a lot of sense. Particularly his critique of the Egrader; better to just compare routes and also consider whether it 'felt' E2, E8, E10 etc, which an algorithm cannot do.

Good to see him finally put a grade to Echo Wall; if nothing else, it's one less dilemma for a guidebook author! 

In reply to PaulJepson:

That was definitely one of the reasons why he chose it (source? possibly his old blog from around that time).

In reply to Robert Durran:

Absolutely. This works at all grades; consider balancy and committing 5a/5b/5c moves vs those on positive holds just above a wee ledge so you can go up and down until ready to commit.

At the time of To Hell and Back (E10, 8a+), someone asked in his blog comments section how that could only be 1 E grade harder than Indian Face (E9, 7b+). He said the former was steep climbing, positive edges, and with rock totally beyond suspicion, the latter balancy and with some potentially snappy edges, and that an 8a+ version of Indian Face would surely be E11. 

In reply to TobyA:

What gets me is just how good most of his routes look

In reply to PaulJepson:

Yeah the crux of Darwin Dixit is low (judging from the videos), so it is unfair of me to compare <7b, death> to <8b+, death/serious injury>, I tried to be a bit more nuanced in my first post.

R.e. Darwin Dixit, I think the upper section is high enough that you would be at risk of death/serious injury on the upper section. The upper bit to me looks like it's not trivial (Jorge Diaz-Rullo certainly takes his time on the upper section in the video of him soloing/highballing it), but yeah I don't know how hard. The crux is at maybe 6m? So definitely not as bad as Indian Face, but you still wouldn't want to drop it.

If I was given the choice of doing a 6b solo with a slightly insecure crux at 40m or a 7b+ solo with the crux at 6m and an outro section of say 6b up to 15m I'd take the 6b and I wouldn't have to think hard about it.

if anyone knows how hard the upper bit of Darwin Dixit is it would be interesting to know.

In reply to TomYoung:

I seem to have missed something here, when did Franco do Indian Face?

In reply to Michael Hood:

Franco didn't, Morus Sanderson did.

In reply to Luke90: Which mountain graded routes have you been doing? I need a list😏

In reply to Fellover:

To be fair, I imagine the lowness of Darwin Dixit is of more psychological benefit (pretty important when soloing!). 

In reply to JLS:

Ah, that's why I missed it 😁, thank you 

I agree that maybe it's time MacLeod, Wideboyz, Pearson, McClure, Gresham, Cookson, Small, Bransby, McHaffie, Lines... and all the rest got together and settled/fixed the UK grading system in this decade .

From the comfort of my armchair: attaching the actual French grade would go a looooong way. 

Dave pointed out well how Darwin Dixit is 8b+ (E8) and Tolerance is 7b+ (E8). If I looked at a book and saw those two routes together I would quickly know one is bloody scary but easy (Tolerance), whilst the other is just really really hard (Darwin Dixit). Same as Indian Face 7b (E9) vs , say, Dalriada 7b/+ (E7)... Seeing those two, I would attempt Dalriada before Indian Face, as the E9 represents you cannot fall!.

Currently, some times I feel two equally graded E4 6a couldn't be more different: one could be safe F6c/+ whilst other at F6b could be sending you to A&E if you fall in the wrong spot. Having the french grade attached could definitely help a lot more on decision making when on-sighting.

In reply to TobyA:

For some context, Indian Face is more like 7c . I know people have mentioned 7b+ before but to then get knocked down again is doing it a disservice. In the scheme of harder french grade headpoints it’s not the highest but it’s pretty thin techy wall climbing and sustained. 
If it was 7b it would have been done more. 
Separately, I don’t think Dave meant that he thought only Iain and Julian Lines are the only people capable of repeating Face Mecca. Just that those two were examples of contenders he could think of off the top of his head. 

In reply to TobyA:

It looks like a chief when there's snow on it. I can't remember where he said this, could be his book, could be the rants on the DVD version of Stone Monkey.

In reply to Alkis:

In story of the Indian Face, an extra on the Stone Monkey DVD

In reply to Ed Booth:

I spent an afternoon on it last summer and managed to do it in two halves second go, which given that I've not really climbed harder than 7a+ makes me doubt its much harder than 7b. I have very little experience at any of those grades though, so have a very low quality of opinion!

In reply to Ed Booth:

So, at grades I can relate to*, I'm trying to decide whether soloing huge technical and precarious 6c pitch could feel as challenging as a really powerful short 7b+ which eases greatly after 6 metres if I were allowed to work both to death. I don't think it is beyond the bounds of possibility. 

If grades are an inverse measure of how many climbers could or would do a route, does it make sense? Well maybe with modern sport climbing strength and fitness, the short but hard and powerful route might be accessible to surprisingly many, while the numbers doing Indian Face speaks for itself.

*Though I'm not sure you can necessarily just subtract six grades and assume a corresponding comparison.

In reply to oliver_tippett:

It’s about 12 years since I tried it but that was a couple of times and think it seemed harder than 7b. It was always touted as 7c and then gradually started changing to 7b+ . 

In reply to Ed Booth:

Fair enough. I'd trust your opinion much more than my own but thought it's still worth offering.

In reply to TobyA:

It is interesting to hear the various opinions on the grade of Indian Face, would be fun to try it on a top rope some time.

However in the context of Dave's statements on grading from the video other peoples opinions on the grade of Indian Face aren't really relevant. Dave has said (or at least put text into the video which says) he thinks Indian Face is 7b and quite positive and E9. He's also said in the same video that soloing 8b+ (with a lowish crux) is E8. In the same video he says Rhapsody is E11*, Rhapsody is basically safe, if scary, certainly safer than soloing Darwin Dixit anyway and widely quoted at 8c/+. Comparing Rhapsody to soloing Darwin Dixit: a jump up of 1.5 French grades in difficulty and is safer - somehow that translates to a jump up of three E grades! How does that work atall?

I'm sure Dave could offer some insight/further explanation given the opportunity, but the video as it is doesn't make much sense to me!

*I think he actually thinks Rhapsody is E10, but hasn't psyched himself up enough to say it yet!

In reply to Fellover:

I really hope that punters having a play on a top rope on Indian Face "just out of interest" doesn't take off.

I'm guessing it is simply that the nature of the climbing on Darwin Dixit is such that for someone with strength in hand and with it fully wired, it is almost impossible to imagine falling off, and so is a safe thing to do. 

In reply to TobyA:

It seems a bit odd to me. Various inconsistencies outlined above. If things like Echo wall are E10, then we may as well just scrap the British system altogether because the brackets are so vast so as to be pointless...

In reply to Fellover:

Maybe just too much faff to change the name of the film. It did make me smile that the climber who has made a film with the title "E11" was saying that grades are not that important to him.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Even if they were as safe as each other, 8b+ -> 8c/+ does not account for 3 E grades!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Fortunately for you I think it's non-trivial to get to the top of Indian Face to set up a top rope/ab rope.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think I remember reading that the working title of the film was 'Rhapsody' and that the film-makers pushed for it to be called 'E11'. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

All but the concluding 5 mins was filmed last October. In the opening shots I'm laying out my rack for a new route in Glen Nevis I did in the autumn. Right afterwards I started work on a video course which finished last week. Hence got round to editing it.

In reply to Fellover:

Worth watching again because I lay out why your comparisons lead directly to confusion. If you're going to hang grades on numbers and details, and use that to question a grade, then you need to know them all (i.e. climb it). The headwall of Darwin Dixit is probably 7c+ and progressively eases off as you get higher. It's crux is a simple yard on a deep pocket. The crux of Rhapsody spat me off number of times even after I'd repeatedly linked it on a top rope. There are plenty more details of course, which I'll not go into here and labour the point. Maybe it will make more sense if I frame it this way - how likely do you think it is the I would solo an 8b+ like Cry Freedom at Malham? I can tell you the probability is zero - because it's a completely different prospect from Darwin Dixit. Many grades different. The sport grade doesn't tell you much.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Please, if you are going to publish statements about someone online, take two seconds to check what you are saying isn't completely false. I didn't make or name the film E11.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

This is the point that I took from the video and thought was pretty well communicated. Trad grades are not just a combination of technical grade and danger, but a summation of the experience of climbing the route in all elements. To try and pin E grades directly on 'objective' sport grading, which is in itself subjective, you lose the experiential subjectivity of climbing the route.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Apologies and point fully taken. No offence intended.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Thanks for the input Dave.

I think I understand your point that the E grade you give something is subjective, based on your experience of climbing other routes of a similar grade.

I think that's a sensible way of doing it, but I also think that comparison of the sport grade, danger/risk, positiveness/insecurity of the climbing, looseness/solidness, of different routes is a valuable tool for assessing whether grades seem to be consistent with each other.

Bringing it down to my level, I can imagine a scenario in which I climb two routes:
1. A 7b+ with a crux high enough to injure me if I fell off and a 6c+ headwall that's high enough to almost certainly cause serious injury on falling. (I can just about imagine doing this, it would be like soloing one of my harder redpoints, not something I'm very keen for!).
2. A 6b that I describe as quite positive, with a 99% certainty death fall at the crux. (I can imagine this quite easily, as I think I've done this onsight at a 6a/+ ish level, so it seems quite plausible to do headpoint).

There is just no way I could give number 1 a lower E grade than number 2. Maybe this 'bringing it down to my level' type comparison has a flaw.

Interesting to know that the sport grade doesn't tell you much. My max trad onsight/flash grade is E5 (lagging behind you quite a long way there!) and at the E4/5 level I find it useful to know the sport grade of routes I'm trying.

Apologies if this comes across as critical of you, I enjoyed the video and was interested to hear your opinions. I was just quite shocked by the idea that you thought a route 7 french grades harder than another could get a lower E grade. I can't think of any examples of that in the bit of the grade spectrum I operate in (no doubt people will soon be along with examples).

In reply to Robert Durran:

'it is almost impossible to imagine falling of"
If only that were true! ... I headpoint all the time these days and, for me at least, it's all too easy to imagine falling of just about any route thats anywhere close to my limit.

In reply to Fellover:

Yes. Useful for sure, just far from all you need to get a handle of difficulty. Recall that unquestionably the hardest solo that's ever been done is 7c+, many sport grades lower than my solo of 8b+ and many grades harder as a solo. The 7c+ in question is absolutely miles harder to solo.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thank you Robert.

In reply to Fellover:

Well as you point out, it makes no sense at all

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Indeed. The power of context. (And a massive dose of reality!)

Mick 

In reply to Fellover:

Really, it has had plenty enough repeats that a decent enough consensus should've formed by now. It's generally easier for repeaters to judge grades effectively, and no-one seems to have queried it, so for the time being at least, maybe it's starting to settle at low E11, like Lexicon.

No-one else has yet taken up the challenge of Echo Wall, so retrospective thoughts from the FA are currently the best available!

What I like about Dave's YT vids is that he's enjoying himself

In reply to kaiser:

Some accounts of his first ascents in video form come across like he's reading off a bit of paper / laptop. But I agree, discussion pieces like this he presents really well.

In reply to TobyA:

Have you seen the film? It wasn't that good and the route didn't look much good. But it wasn't very well filmed so that maybe accounts for something. 

In reply to aln:

Do you mean the Echo Wall film?

Main thing that occurred to me was that DM really chose the wrong year, having to shovel off all that snow from above when in other years it's hardly there.

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Not disagreeing with you but I think his point was insecure 7b with a death fall is nearly as dangerous as secure 8c climbing with a death fall. 

The key here is that you are operating at a level where the 8c isn't at the top of your grade and you can potentially just pull harder to stop a fall rather than on the 7b where a foot slip is unrecoverable.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes. It's filmed from one angle, doesn't really show the undoubted difficulty of the route, and wasn't very good. I wonder how many of my 21 dislikers have seen the film? 

In reply to aln:

Bear in mind it was probably only one person (Claire) doing the filming, at least on the final ascent. I enjoyed it; thought the best bit was the Tower Ridge run!

In reply to TobyA:

For me, the E grade system works really well, up to a point. 
And that point is when it changes from ‘on-sight’ to worked. 
Here I agree with the old school of thought (first offered by Neil Gresham a few years back I think??) that worked routes need a ‘H’ Headpoint grade. 

And what are these high end grades offering us? Is it an assumed on sight grade, or an assumed send in the same style as the first ascent? Redpoint/Headpoint?

Grades are subjective and have so many variables that they can only ever be an idea of what a few people think until a good solid consensus has been built based on repeated ascents.

Same on sport routes. I’ve had a a few good chats with some friends based in the EU on just what their grades are for, ie, on sight or redpoint. They do not seem to agree with grading for on sight ascents, however, my question to them has always been, just where exactly do you begin to grade for a redpoint ascent?? Who decides what Joe Bloggs can on sight and what he can’t. By that I mean, is a 6a grade given assuming the leader will work it first, or does the ego of the first ascensionist start to redpoint grade at 7a, or perhaps 8a? 

It all becomes a bit fuzzy for me from around the grades where the good climber can on sight routes, be it sport or trad. 

In reply to mike reed:

That question, and Joe Bloggs’ route reading abilities, are simply not considered. They don’t arise.  All that matters is how hard the best sequence up that line is, relative to other climbs.
 

No one is trying to second guess Joe’s or anyone else’s) route reading skills.  If he’s a technical wizard he’ll float up it and if he’s a dunce he’ll need to work it heavily. Either way, the grade of the best sequence stays the same.

. 

In reply to mike reed:

John Arran probably, later adopted by Franco for many of his lines.

I can never figure out how much more, say, H10 tells you than E10   Other than as a way to make clear the route wasn't / hasn't yet been onsighted. I guess this could be handy around the E7 mark, which could be either, or for slightly easier routes which the FA has pre-practiced (though this really should be acknowledged in the text description anyway, at least until they see repeats). 

In reply to Michael Gordon:
>”I can never figure out how much more, say, H10 tells you than E10”

I think H would tell you that you don’t need to know the sport grade, you don’t need to know the difficulty of the hardest move, you don’t need a number to tell you how scary it is. It would tell you that you need to go see for yourself…

In reply to mike reed:

Yes, I agree; in the interest of transparency and for the record it would make total sense to me. It is interesting to speculate why it has never caught on, but I won't do so here because I have already got in to enough trouble in this thread.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

H tells you it’s never been climbed ground up.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Exactly my point. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

No, no, Robert, get into more trouble! 

Sorry, just couldn't resist...

Mick

In reply to mrjonathanr: I forget the fine detail so wonder what grade the H grade kicks in from. Mike touches on this above. At the top end it may last a long time but further down the grades it  may lose it’s benefits pretty fast and be obsolete. I’m also confused by what the number grade  as it is surely benchmarked against other E graded routes just it has an H to tell you it was worked. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

E is for Everything. Most routes are relatively ovbious - WYSIWYG - in which case E = H.
Sure, it's easier to headpoint than to onsight, but the difference is similar to that of most routes (which typically might be 2 or 3 grades, i.e. for many people, onsighting an E4 might give a similar degree of challenge to headpointing a typical E6 or E7).

But some routes are far from obvious. How much harder would it be to climb if you don't know in advance that the obvious jug it looks like you need to dyno for is in fact a useless sloper and you need instead to dyno for a hidden pocket next to it? How much harder would it be if you didn't have the crucial slider nut or hand-placed sawn-off knifeblade on your rack? These are the questions that H seeks to avoid needing to answer, by grading the actual experience rather than the guessed-at onsight experience. Instead of E=H, in these cases the E would almost certainly be higher, but the E is not (yet) a reality so perhaps best not guess at what it might be. Once it starts to get attention as a potential onsight without the crucial beta, the actual E grade will become apparent.

In reply to john arran:

🤣🤣 I often don’t know whether it will be a jug, sloper or pocket or what gear will fit on very modestly graded routes. I must be doing different types of routes or lack the skillset.

I get all that you have said but what is the benchmark for the number grade and where do we start bringing this into play within the grade structure? One person’s  onsight grade is another’s head point, if something is H8 where does the 8 come from. Is it simply the guesstimated E grade or something different? You are saying it’s something different but I’m unclear what it is benchmarked against. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I'd say an H8 should be...

a grade harder to headpoint than headpointing an E7 or a H7

a grade easier than headpointing an E9 or a H9

and about the same grade as headpointing an E8

Given E8 is fairly well establish I have though the H grade would kick in at H9 as currently E9 on-sighting is all but unknown. Maybe in the future when things have moved on and perhaps E9 on-sight is a regular thing, it'll be time drop H9 and start at H10...

In reply to Mick Ward:

I'm very tempted, but so far I'm resisting....

In reply to JLS:

But what about the E3 punter who headpoints an E5. Isn't that an H5 tick? Or am I asking for trouble?

In reply to Robert Durran:

What about him? He's just a E3 punter who headpoints an E5.

In reply to JLS:

An H5 surely. Though perhaps it could be an H4 if it were a hard to read E5.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Your "E3 punter" can call it what he likes, no-one cares.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I suppose in the example the E5 has seen plenty of onsights so there is no real need for an H grade, the punter (cough hi cough) has just climbed it in a worse style, and as long as they sate this everyone understands.  My understanding when H grades might come in is for routes that have never seen an onsight, therefore the E grade is theoretically a guess what it should feel like for the onsight, which doesn't make much sense. Also making less sense as no one generally tries to onsight the E8> that it might apply to.  I guess theoretically as climbers get better it would mean E8s and E9s would start to get regular onsighted and you would need to shift when H grades come in. However, as this hasn't happened over the last 30 or so years of hard trad i think pretty unlikely.

In reply to JLS: Ah, with you now. It’s just a device to warn wads that it’s never been on-sighted as there are so many of them going out there and putting themselves on routes without realising that. Presumably we will also have M grades for when a route is done above a stack of mats? 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

No, it’s to break the link between E1 and E11 and the notion that they are on the still same spectrum. Once on-sighting stops it comes a completely different game; I think that should be acknowledged. Given the arguments about tech grade compression and the supplementary use of sport grades, the current extrapolation of the on-sight grade system into E10 & E11 territory doesn’t seem to be working too well.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I hear you!!
We all know, of course. 

So, all those holiday grades we run around onsighting during our 2 week climbathons are really all redpoint grades then. That explains why they have that ‘soft’ reputation!

I remember Dave himself back in the day working and then leading many of the classic harder routes down south. These days, working on hard sport routes has really opened my eyes to what can be done with a little (or a lot of) practice!

I remember in the 90’s and 00’s we just flaked out the ropes and tried all our routes on sight. We thought that was just ‘how it was done’. How naive. It wasn’t until I got to know some of the old hands that the stories around fabled first ascents became known, worked lines, pre placed gear, tied down sky hooks etc etc. 

Grading conversations are always such fun
An enjoyable thread!

In reply to JLS: I agree that on sighting is a different game but the issue lies across the grades as many first ascents are anything but onsight and the different levels of first ascentionists creates discrepancies across the system. To tweak the system for only the top seems flawed to me, though I don’t know what the best solution is. Another factor is surely just how much work/practice goes in to any headpoint ascent. It can reach a point where the ability to give any grade (E or H) is pretty arbitrary. Back in the day some guidebooks used a dagger symbol for unrepeated routes, worked to an extent but guidebooks can’t keep pace with repeats.

In reply to Robert Durran:

About the most you could say is that they've headpointed an E5. But really it's totally meaningless. I've done a couple which are very easy with practice, but maybe aren't when attempted onsight (I wouldn't know). Routes like that, in that style, are absolutely miles easier than onsighting an E4.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I'm warming to the idea that it would make the most sense all round if headpoints were to be given only a French grade and a R/X type rating. This would provide the headpointers with the info required for establishing the essential bragging rights amongst the other underlings and edge-lords.

Meanwhile the routes themselves would languish in their shameful state of deshabille until some true son or daughter of the British and Irish climbing tradition* rocked up and made them decent at last with an onsight ascent and the bestowal of the sacred vestments of the E-grade. And behold, beloved Rhapsody E11, formerly known as 8c/+ R, here too is an entirely superfluous technical grade of 7a for you to pin to your chest - a keep as a charming memento of the old days.

We could keep the French grade and the R/X rating as well, as a reminder of that hazy dreamtime before the route's apotheosis, and then everyone - literally everyone, except guidebook writers and probably Robert Durran in his playful cantankery - would be happy.

*most likely some American wads on their hols.

In reply to mike barnard:

So maybe they should only get H3 then. The beauty of an H grade for headpoints would be that you only get the points you deserve and no coveted E grade at all. It might discourage what, deep down, we all know is basically cheating and give people an incentive to climb properly to earn their E points. This could only be a good thing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I shall downgrade them in my guidebook

In reply to Robert Durran:

Would that make a headpointed severe HVDiff rather than HS, then? All very confusing. 

In reply to Wicamoi:

On the contrary I think it is the perfect solution, completely divorced from the E grade which should only be the just reward for proper onsighting (well, maybe a flash at a push).

But of course we all know the real reason this is never going to happen is that big E numbers sell. Any up and coming wad hoping to make his or her name and attract sponsorship needs big E numbers. Well, either that or probably the ability to climb about 9b these days, but who wants to put the training in to do that? 

In reply to Removed UserRevenge of the Path:

You get the appropriate negative H grade. Just as one currently gets penalised with negative E points for climbing routes below HVS.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Given that the guy who effectively invented the H grade explained its use 3 posts above yours, I have to ask if you've read the contributions to the thread?

On the other hand, the idea that ascents with pre-practice on a TR get an H rather than an E grade actually has merit.  I rather like it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I saw Dawes interviewed somewhere where he stated that the buttress looked like the head of an American Indian wearing feather headdress if the snow and light were right.

In reply to john arran:

This is an excellent reply.

In reply to simes303:

It doesn't explain why it might be useful though, other than as a tag to denote that something hasn't been done ground-up. As Neil says, it's pretty obvious that the hardest routes have been done headpoint style. As for those which theoretically could see onsight attempts, my thinking is it's surely better to try and help onsighters by estimating the grade, than just not to bother. So for Robert's hard to read E5, if that had just seen it's first ascent headpoint style, a rating of E5 seems a lot more helpful to future ascentionists than H4.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I thought it explained that really well.

And I don't think that's the point at all, though lots of people seem to have interpreted it that way, so maybe it wasn't as clear as I thought.

Having the H-grade wouldn't stop people from offering opinions on the E-grade. And would actually free them up to offer a graded opinion about what it would be like to onsight, with less implication that they're claiming achievement of that difficulty with the headpoint.

It's all moot anyway because if it hasn't taken off by now then it probably never will. Perhaps not least because nobody seems to understand it.

John Arran's solution to the on-sight/redpoint problem in higher trad grading has always made sense, but sadly this:

is the reality.

Even experienced climbers fail to explain our grading system properly as it is, so adding further complication is doomed.