Grade creep

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Slackboot 20 Oct 2021

Many of the HVS's and E1's I did in the 70's have gone up a grade. HVS becomes E1...E1 becomes E2. Some of the 5b's are now 5c. I just don't understand this grade creep. Most of the  routes had been done hundreds of times by the time I did them so there was a general consensus about the correct grade. I was climbing a lot and had a good idea of what these grades meant all over the country. Non of them seemed under graded. And with all the developments in gear since then you would think that these routes would be easier...not harder!

  Can someone explain please?

36
 Boomer Doomer 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

All the route I did when I was younger seem much harder now.  

 Martin Haworth 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

youtube.com/watch?v=DT1mGoLDRbc&

Post edited at 22:47
OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Link not working I'm afraid. Ah! Working now. Thanks.

Post edited at 22:51
1
OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Haven't seen that for years. That explains it then. Ta!

OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Boomer Doomer:

> All the route I did when I was younger seem much harder now.  

I know the feeling!

 C Witter 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Once upon a time there was machismo, and it felt it was good. Then there were people who started climbing who weren't part of this subculture and didn't get the humour of sandbagging people into things that could maim or even kill them. And they said unto the previous generation: "what shonky BS is this, that this grade system you've concocted is utter wank? It's almost as if the guidebook writers have never climbed these routes and as if the FAs are trying to prove their virility by undergrading?" And the previous generation replied, "aye, exactly. What's the problem you big Jessie?"

Does that help?

Post edited at 22:55
6
 Boomer Doomer 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

HVS and E1 are peculiar grades. Before the addition of the "extreme" grade many climbs harder than HVS had been climbed. Again, many E2 grade climbs were climbed before the open ended system was introduced.

In my area (South West) I have only noticed one crag which you could consider to have been subjected to this "grade creep" and that is at  Wynd Cliff... and TBF, it always did feel like it was graded a lot tougher than other Wye Valley crags.

OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

Errr.... Makes it as crystal as mud!

26
 Dave Garnett 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

>   Can someone explain please?

Have you actually tried repeating some of these soft touches recently?

OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

No...cos I'm old and my body doesn't work like I want it to. 

 I didn't say they were soft touches either. 

1
 mark s 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

the grading system is a lot older now,its had time to evolve. some routes feel easier, some harder than the grade given. no need for macho grades anymore.

OP Slackboot 20 Oct 2021
In reply to mark s:

I never thought of it like that. The macho grades were the one's I could never do. 

In reply to Slackboot:

You can train as hard as you like but the biggest improvements in climbing performance come with the publication of a new guidebook. 

 HeMa 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> You can train as hard as you like but the biggest improvements in climbing performance come with the publication of a new guidebook. 

That might be true for trad routes, but certainly not for boulders.

With the use of online and voting based guides, the grades continuously fluctuate... Climb a 7A and a few month later it's only 6C...

 kwoods 21 Oct 2021
In reply to HeMa:

Very true, that. Seems a lot of downgrading in bouldering at all levels.

 Andy Hardy 21 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

I don't think all the undergraded sand bags were as a result of machismo. There was a lot of parochialism too. 

Seriously though the low E grades (and tech grades 5b - 6a) cover too broad a range of difficulty.

1
In reply to Slackboot:

The lower footholds have been dogged to a mirror finish and the pebble fell off. 

 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

Once upon a time I did an E1 5c in the Lake District, then (and now?) generally known for having somewhat stiffer grades than Wales where I spent most of my climbing time. It had a single 5c move with two bomber wires at chest height - what could be more definitive or fairer E1 5c than that?

Yet it's now apparently E2. How can that upgrade be anything other than utter wank carried out by big Jessies?

3
 LakesWinter 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

A bi like rockfax saying 'B' Route (VS 5a) is VS. What a complete joke. And amen corner is no 5a either.

Ditto Bowfell Buttress (HS 4b) at HS. 

Central Trinity (VS 4c) at VS and so on

 LakesWinter 21 Oct 2021
In reply to LakesWinter:

The problem with silly upgrades like B route is that it distorts the whole system. E.g Rake End Wall (VS 4c) is a solid 2 grades harder than B route. So is rake end wall E1?? Obviously not but just looking at the guide would suggest B route was harder

 Michael Gordon 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> Can someone explain please?

Basically, climbers' notions of what is expected at certain grades has been recalibrated over time. Changing grades of some routes naturally goes with that.

 Steve Claw 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

To be fair, in the South West, some of the gardes have been increased due to loss of vital fixed gear. Eg. Pegs on sea cliffs.

Also in some cases loss of vital holds, or rock that is now less stable than it was.

 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

People also tend to forget that - even on a hypothetical perfect grading scale - the hardest E1 should be a full grade harder than the easiest E1, and only infinitesimally easier than the easiest E2. 

Instead they seem to think everything should feel the same as the easiest routes they've ever done at a grade, and complain about things that are (correctly) in the upper half of that grade.

2
 Duncan Bourne 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Boomer Doomer:

Word!

 Shani 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Boomer Doomer:

> HVS and E1 are peculiar grades.

If only there existed a climbing grade between these two. 🤫

 jon 21 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

Oh yes, that's the best reply I've read, for a long time, well done!

1
 GCO 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I fear that grade creep is probably the only way that I stand a chance of maintaining the same ‘standard’.

 Mick Ward 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> Many of the HVS's and E1's I did in the 70's have gone up a grade.

Which routes are you thinking of?

Mick

 HeMa 21 Oct 2021
In reply to LakesWinter:

> Central Trinity (VS 4c) at VS and so on

I don't know, it was bog standard N5 when I climbed it. And I recall that was my first day on Gritstone like ever (mostly climb on granite). And it was well protected, not too cruxy or anything like that. So as a safe route, I think VS 4c is pretty spot on (as per safe route and Rockfax grade table).

 TomD89 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

> People also tend to forget that - even on a hypothetical perfect grading scale - the hardest E1 should be a full grade harder than the easiest E1, and only infinitesimally easier than the easiest E2. 

> Instead they seem to think everything should feel the same as the easiest routes they've ever done at a grade, and complain about things that are (correctly) in the upper half of that grade.

If a high E1 is far far closer to an E2 than it is to an entry level E1, then isn't it more E2 than E1?

Time for E1+?

31
 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to LakesWinter:

> A bi like rockfax saying 'B' Route (VS 5a) is VS. What a complete joke. And amen corner is no 5a either.

It's an obvious contender for HS, crux harder than the rest of the route, protectable, avoidable, stand on 2nds shoulders doable, etc.

It may have got more slippery since I did it many moons ago but I'd be surprised if it had changed enough to get to 5a.

Offwidth did a comprehensive analysis of grade changes at Stanage, I think through several iterations of the guide.

IIRC Central Trinity (VS 4c) was VS(-) in the green 70s guide. MVS 4b would probably be about right, it's certainly a soft touch for VS.

OP Slackboot 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Which routes are you thinking of?

> Mick

Am at work now but will come up with a list when I get time. 

2
 neilh 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

It’s great! Brings out a big smile in me every upgrade I see on routes done in the past. 
 

Never mind the better info , better gear etc. it’s great for your competitive ego .

 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Brilliant! So now you have E1 and E1-plus. Then somebody moans about everything in the top half of E1 feeling more like E1-plus, at which point you then introduce E1-plus-minus.

Repeat indefinitely

1
 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> If a high E1 is far far closer to an E2 than it is to an entry level E1, then isn't it more E2 than E1?

> Time for E1+?

Nope, your statement is incorrect, it should say "If a high E1 is far far closer to a high E2 than it is to an entry level E1, then isn't it more E2 than E1?"

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

> Brilliant! So now you have E1 and E1-plus. Then somebody moans about everything in the top half of E1 feeling more like E1-plus, at which point you then introduce E1-plus-minus.

> Repeat indefinitely

And the end point of this would be where each grade band only contains 1 route; i.e. a graded list. Hold on a minute... 😁

 PaulJepson 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I think as long as it's consistent across the crag/area then it doesn't matter too much. Some areas will be known as soft and some hard.

The annoying thing is when the grades are inconsistent between routes that are about 20m apart from each other. Herford's Crack (HVS 5a) (given HVS 5a, bog-standard VS) and Zig-Zag (HS 4b) (given HS, at least VS 4c/5a). It's known as a tough crag and Herford's used to get VS, so it would make sense if it stayed as one. 

1
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Firstly you need a memory check. Numbered E grades were only invented in 1976 and took a few years to become universal in all UK guides.

http://bobwightman.co.uk/climb/article.php?p=uk-grades

You can track grades through guidebooks. We included this on our website for Peak grit. If you look at the sub extreme classics the average shift since the 1980s is pretty small, less than a grade for sure. XS was bound to expand, as it was open ended like scottish VS once was. 

https://offwidth.uptosummit.com/popular_end_right.html

I have the earliest Peak and Yorkshire guides and a few others from elsewhere and given what I know of the skills and equipment at the time the early application of the grading system seemed pretty reliable. Then something went wrong, mainly in the 70s, as protection improved but grades of routes that suddenly became a lot safer, like cracks, didn't drop. The biggest grade creep ever happened then because of that and it was huge well over a grade on average and it wasn't very uniform. Some of the newly safer routes actually increased in grade, like Hargreaves Original (hence the page I linked above from our site). Around the same time too many machismo idiots thought it was funny to sandbag grade their easier new routes and subsequent editors foolishly tolerated it or didn't check well enough to spot it.

As a modern climber I look back at the history and wonder why the influential climbers back then didn't come up with a better solution. They took the good grading of the oldest guidebooks and rather scrambled things and were too tolerant of plain bad grading, all this just as climbing became a good bit safer.

There is foolish grade creep at times ( goodness knows what happened with Bowfell Buttress in the latest guides) but its simply not as common as you imply and and nothing like as big as the grade creep going on when you started.

Post edited at 11:11
1
OP Slackboot 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I think it all came about when I updated my logbook and realised that so many climbs done way back had all gone up a grade. I was pleased in a way but puzzled at the same time. Your explanation and others are helping my understanding. Thank you.

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

I guess its because people moan more about classics or worse still have accidents on them. I'd agree Herford's is a pretty standard VS as a jamming or a layback crack in grit grade terms but I've done quite a few brutal routes in Wales as well. I always think consistency for an area is way more important than across rock types in different parts of the country.

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

At least in the upper grades, there's consensus (E0 notwithstanding!) about what grades are to be used.  At the lower end, I reckon it's entirely possible that the same route could be given VDiff in Yorkshire, HVD in the Peak, MS in the Lakes and Sev in Pembroke, and it would appear to 'fit' with the local grades perfectly well...

At least the worst of the lower end sandbags have been ironed out these days; you no longer find the HS that's 'traditionally VDiff' any more.  

In reply to AlanLittle:

> People also tend to forget that - even on a hypothetical perfect grading scale - the hardest E1 should be a full grade harder than the easiest E1, and only infinitesimally easier than the easiest E2. 

> Instead they seem to think everything should feel the same as the easiest routes they've ever done at a grade, and complain about things that are (correctly) in the upper half of that grade.

I liked the system they used in the current Langdale guide where they gave the routes a plus for routes at the top end of the grade, nothing for midgrade and a minus for low end. I always went into an E1+ knowing that I could expect it to feel E2ish

1
 Si dH 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Climbing has changed a lot since the 70s, and even since the early 2000s when I started. The average beginner-middling climber has got a lot stronger on crimps and on overhangs, but probably less bold and less good at crack climbing. Protection has got better (certainly since the 70s) but that affects some routes more than others. Due to all this the relative difficulty of routes for most climbers now is definitely different than it was in the 70s. It's completely reasonable that some grades should change as a result. On trad, I'd say most people get more upset about a sandbag than a soft touch, so grades tend to go up more than down. This is probably reinforced by historical sandbagging. However, there are certainly also quite a few routes in that grade range that have been downgraded since the early 2000s.

Also, what C Witter said.

I think you probably have rose tinted spectacles about the maturity of grading in the 70s. I wasn't around at the time, but weren't some of the guidebooks like Bancroft's pretty notorious? Even the first guidebook I bought to the peak, the Paul Nunn guide from the late 80s, had some real shockers in it.

Post edited at 11:18
In reply to AlanLittle:

> Brilliant! So now you have E1 and E1-plus. Then somebody moans about everything in the top half of E1 feeling more like E1-plus, at which point you then introduce E1-plus-minus.

> Repeat indefinitely

I don't think so because the grades have 'narrowed' and people have to accept there will alway be varition due to height/style considerations.

 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Do UK trad guidebooks still have graded lists? I tended to rely on looking at those…

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Yes you do...most infamously for famous classics there is  Land End Long Climb but I know plenty of others and even as keen as the lower grade checkers were on Peak grit we didn't get to visit all the obscure moorland crags or banned quarries for those climbs that never made it to full script status.

There is a new guidebook out for obscure moorland grit from Malc et al.... it will be interesting to see how that came out in terms of upgrades.

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

I did a HVS 4c from Bancroft's recent developments - Parallel Piped (E3 5c)

Hardly any routes in that book merited 5c let alone 6a - but everyone at the time saw how harshly it was graded and compensated accordingly - the important bit was the collation of new route information rather than having to go through the news sections from a whole collection of magazines. We have it so easy with t'internet.

And a lot of Paul Nunn's shockers were because he was (I believe) over 6'3" - although you'd only discover that about some routes when trying them.

Post edited at 11:21
 Jamie Wakeham 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I haven't picked up the most recent CC guide for the North Coast yet - they surely haven't kept LELC at VDiff, have they?  That's simply ridiculous.

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

We used to call Paul's selective guide "guess a grade".  Bancroft's infamous book was just a definitive supplement.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Rock-Climbs-Peak-Recent-Developmen...

 Grahame N 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Conversely, there are some routes that have crept down the grades. I cant think of many though - Prophesy of Drowning Prophecy of Drowning (E2 5c) went down from E3 in the 1996 SMC guide to E2 in the latest guide, and High Performance High Performance (E3 6a) at Dunkeld went down from E4 in the 1998 guide to E3 in the current guide.

 TomD89 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

I knew that'd get a reaction. It's not something I necessarily want to see, but where's the logic of having routes at the same grade that are substantially easier/harder than each other (after you've excluded subjective differences, morphology etc if even possible)?

You either accept the moaning and disagreement, or accept a change to allow more variance to be conveyed. An E1 + - + would become too convoluted to be of any use and impossible to discuss. Not really a fair comparison to just a single + denoting 'top end of grade' or 'transition to next grade'. An E1+ would be identical to an E2- and thus the latter redundant.

It might not totally end disagreements, but you'd get less with more nuance. You don't see many people vehemently refusing to accept a f7a+ could be considered f7b by some in the same way you seem to have with E1 vs E2.

Post edited at 11:42
3
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

I can only speculate it's some kind of collective madness (with a few exceptions like Jessie aside, if you scroll down the logbook comments)

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/lands_end-211/lands_end_long_climb...

If you bypass the awkward corner on its left and climb down into the pit normally jumped and avoid the final green wall on its left it is a VD. By the line it's described it's a HS,  and a serious one on the green wall and serious sandbag classics are not acceptable in my view in modern guidebooks. 

Post edited at 11:46
 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to TomD89:

>  where's the logic of having routes at the same grade that are substantially easier/harder than each other

How can they not be? Rock is not created in such a way that there's a bunch of climbs of exactly the same difficulty, then a clear distinct gap to another bunch of climbs all of exactly the same higher difficulty.

There's a continuum of easier-to-harder things, and any grade boundaries are just drawing arbitrary lines on that continuum. However wide or narrow you make your grade bands, by definition the hardest route of Grade X is exactly one grade harder than the easiest route of Grade X, and closer in difficulty to the easiest route of Grade X+1. 

 Johnhi 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

More of an argument for narrower grade bands than anything else, to which there are of course arguments against.

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, it is absolutely a top end Sev 4b or perhaps HS 4b in my view - not done it for a few years but will very likely do it again when I'm down there next Summer.  

I cannot believe that the newest definitive still gives it VDiff.  As I said, I thought most of these really egregious sandbags were gone now.

 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Johnhi:

It's possible to say "I think the E1 grade is too wide" without appearing to misnunderstand the entire concept of how grading works.

 TomD89 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

> There's a continuum of easier-to-harder things, and any grade boundaries are just drawing arbitrary lines on that continuum. However wide or narrow you make your grade bands, by definition the hardest route of Grade X is exactly one grade harder than the easiest route of Grade X, and closer in difficulty to the easiest route of Grade X+1. 

Yes totally agree with this, but the '+' isn't a grade it just denotes high end/transitional of the grade it is added to. Using your argument with the current way, why not have E with no additional number? Presumably someone felt the need to differentiate between the E range and so you get E1 through E11. As you say, it's just a continuum and we're choosing how to measure distances along that continuum. As long as it doesn't become convoluted then it's doing the job.

Measuring M, CM and MM is fine, but get down to nanometers and for the most part we can do without (for now).

2
In reply to Slackboot:

Climbers strengths are different now too. Strong wall bred climbers find the physically hard and sustained routes not too bad and maybe a grade easier than in days past. That thrutchy Chimney spits people without experience of thrutchy chimneys out and they feel like it's harder than climbs of a different style at the same grade. Climbers in the past were experts at these and found them easier so graded them lower.

Dont worry about it. It's only a guide. If the VS you found hard gets a down grade and the E1 you cruised gets an upgrade then maybe you were just having a bad/good day. 

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Oct 2021
In reply to TomD89:

Look at it this way: 12.9cm is almost a whole cm larger than 12.0cm, but they both truncate to 12cm.

12.9cm is very close to 13.0cm, but that's where the (somewhat arbitrary) dividing line lies.

4
 AlanLittle 21 Oct 2021
In reply to TomD89:

OK, I'm getting your point now. You'd end up with plus grades being regarded as grades in their own right as per the French system, so you're basically just doubling the number of E grades. And there'd still be somebody complaining about "hard E1+'s". There's no level of granularity that's going to satisfy everybody.

Or is there?

Leaving aside trad with its special issues, if you look at French, UIAA, Ewbank, YDS grades for sport they all have roughly the same number of subdivisions. Which suggests to me that they might all have arrived at some kind of optimum level in terms of people's ability to perceive and distinguish differences in climbing difficulty.

Post edited at 12:41
OP Slackboot 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Which routes are you thinking of?

> Mick

Ok Dinner time. Here are a few of the Welsh ones. I'm glad I asked the question though as I am learning a lot from the replies.

 I am ready to be shot down in flames!

White Slab

Shrike

Cemetary Gates

Ivy Sepulchre

Barbarian

All a grade harder now than when I first did them.

In reply to Slackboot:

Surely it doesn't matter at all? If the current generation find them harder (for all the reasons given upthread) then they should be upgraded. If the current generation finds them easier they should be downgraded. All the grade should be is an indication of how difficult you might find the route to be if you tried it.

I get the impression that some people like to use it as a yardstick to compare themselves to their peers, which I find really weird since part of the attraction of climbing for me is that it's non-competitive. Whatever, if you are going to start measuring yourself against other people's ascents then aside from grade you'd need a handicap system to take into account differences in the gear each ascentionist used, because of course modern shoes and protection make routes easier and safer, which makes them psychologically easier.

Can we just agree that if you climbed something back in the day in big boots with threaded pebbles and a hemp rope tied round your waist then you're hard as nails and superior in every way to the softies climbing today? And then shut up and let aforementioned softies get on with adjusting grades to make them a useful guide for climbers today.

1
 Martin Haworth 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> Ok Dinner time. Here are a few of the Welsh ones. I'm glad I asked the question though as I am learning a lot from the replies.

>  I am ready to be shot down in flames!

> White Slab

> Shrike

> Cemetary Gates

> Ivy Sepulchre

> Barbarian

> All a grade harder now than when I first did them.

Well I agree Cemetery Gates (E1 5b) and Ivy Sepulchre (E1 5b) are soft for E1 and they probably didnt warrant an upgrade from HVS.

Barbarian (E1 5b) is another matter, I reckon at HVS it would be a sandbag.

White Slab (E2 5c) felt E2 to me, would be quite hard at E1, haven’t done Shrike (E2 5c)…yet.

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Ivy Sepulchre (E1 5b) the story about this being upgraded to E1 is (IIRC) that a young lady was photographed climbing this and said photo made it into the guide (might have been cover or back or fronstpiece) and the guidebook writer being nice to said young lady upgraded it to E1.

I don't have that version of the Three Cliffs (or Pass) guide so this story - which must have cropped up on UKC before - may be complete baloney. Similarly I don't know who the guidebook writer was, but I can guess 😁

Ivy Sepulchre was HVS- in the Ron James, I think it was my 2nd or 3rd HVS.

Post edited at 14:39
In reply to AlanLittle:

> Do UK trad guidebooks still have graded lists? I tended to rely on looking at those…

A lot of them do.

I certainly use them. It's notable that I sometimes think a route at the top of one grade is harder than quite a few of the next grade.

OP Slackboot 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I think 'The Corner' was HVS in Ron James, and Shrike was HVS+ !!

IIRC the hardest grade was XS - . Can't remember what route it was though. Maybe Great Wall.

I will check tonight. 

Post edited at 14:54
 Bulls Crack 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

No need to understand it; just enjoy the retro-points! 

1
 Martin Hore 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> No need to understand it; just enjoy the retro-points! 

Absolutely! E2 is my best ever grade. I keep a table of those I've led. There are 12 which were E2 when I led them, and another 22 which are E2 now but only E1 when I led them. Almost every new guidebook I read gives me another to add to the list.

Martin

 alan moore 21 Oct 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> A lot of them do.

> It's notable that I sometimes think a route at the top of one grade is harder than quite a few of the next grade.

I found that I could always tick off the lowest five routes in every grade bracket, but I was never daft enough to try the top 5!

 Pedro50 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Ivy Sepulchre (E1 5b) the story about this being upgraded to E1 is (IIRC) that a young lady was photographed climbing this and said photo made it into the guide (might have been cover or back or fronstpiece) and the guidebook writer being nice to said young lady upgraded it to E1.

> I don't have that version of the Three Cliffs (or Pass) guide so this story - which must have cropped up on UKC before - may be complete baloney. Similarly I don't know who the guidebook writer was, but I can guess 😁

> Ivy Sepulchre was HVS- in the Ron James, I think it was my 2nd or 3rd HVS.

1974 Three Cliffs HVS no picture

1978 Llanberis Pass HVS no picture 

1981 guidebook not to hand

1987 Llanberis Pass (Paul Williams) E1 picture of female page 120. 

Was your guess correct?

 Trangia 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Boomer Doomer:

> All the route I did when I was younger seem much harder now.  

I'm not so certain about the 1970s when protection was becoming easier to install, but when I started climbing in the early 1960s many routes felt a lot harder than now because of the general lack of protection available other than natural features like bushes (often holly), chockstones and rock spikes.

Leading was certainly a lot bolder with unprotected run outs of sometimes up to 50ft, sometimes more, even on relatively low grade climbs such as VDiff and Severe. These were the days when the mantra "The leader doesn't fall" prevailed. VS was the top grade then, and incorporated a huge range of difficulty. There was often no indication of just where in the range that top grade fell in the guide books, and launching onto an unknown VS took a lot of guts, and often luck.

 Pedro50 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> I think 'The Corner' was HVS in Ron James, and Shrike was HVS+ !!

> IIRC the hardest grade was XS - . Can't remember what route it was though. Maybe Great Wall.

> I will check tonight. 

Great Wall is not in Ron James (1970) perhaps beyond the pale?

The following get the supreme accolade of ES-

Vector

Central Wall - Castell Cdwm 

Big Groove

Surplomb - Grochan

Erosion Groove Direct - Wasted

Girdle of lower amphitheatre Wall - Craig Yr Ysfa

The Geat Corner - Llech Ddu

Suicide Wall route 1

The Mostest - Cloggy 

Post edited at 17:17
OP Slackboot 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

Ah! Ok. Some good routes there. I wonder what he would make of standards now?

 full stottie 21 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

> Once upon a time there was machismo, and it felt it was good. Then there were people who started climbing who weren't part of this subculture and didn't get the humour of sandbagging people into things that could maim or even kill them. And they said unto the previous generation: "what shonky BS is this, that this grade system you've concocted is utter wank? It's almost as if the guidebook writers have never climbed these routes and as if the FAs are trying to prove their virility by undergrading?" And the previous generation replied, "aye, exactly. What's the problem you big Jessie?"

> Does that help?

Excellent. (and you're always welcome to Northumberland BTW) 

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

Wasn't really a guess, more wondering if I'd remembered correctly and not wanting to name names on a potentially faulty memory.

But my memory was correct - I wonder if anyone is around that can actually verify or categorically deny that story - PW obviously can't (and even if the story's false, maybe PW would have let it run anyway).

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

Wrong, Great Wall gets ES without the minus in the Ron James !!!

(and that's using 3 pegs and 5 slings)

It's not detailed as a route, just mentioned in "moving along the cliff" in the blurb for Vember.

Post edited at 17:52
 Pedro50 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

Apologies I was just using the contents page. 

 C Witter 21 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

Yeh, well... there are exceptions! I've seen some silly upgrades too, recently. I think that's partly due to the average age of the FRCC...

1
 Shani 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Ivy Sepulchre (E1 5b) the story about this being upgraded to E1 is (IIRC) that a young lady was photographed climbing this and said photo made it into the guide (might have been cover or back or fronstpiece) and the guidebook writer being nice to said young lady upgraded it to E1.

Paul Williams upgraded it in the '87 Llanberis guide so Sue Peyton (from Joe Brown's) could be seen on an E1.

In reply to Shani:

Ivy Sepulchre is absolutely correctly graded at E1 5b. It was HVS when it used two points of aid at the crux. (I did it twice with the pegs in 1968, then years later, free, in 1983.) I thought the E1 crux was unusually good, and much better than anything else on the route. 

2
 Shani 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think all my E5s have been downgraded, one E4 went up to E5 (not onsighted), and I've only ever been comfortable at VS, so I only partake in grade debates for entertainment value!

That all being said, have we identified Wales' first E0? 🙂

1
In reply to Shani:

Certainly not. My memory (admittedly from long ago) is that Ivy Sep was pretty much yardstick E1, the crux being more or less on a par with Left Unconquerable. Both involving quite dynamic moves that are much harder than the rest of the route.

1
 Pedro50 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Shani:

> Paul Williams upgraded it in the '87 Llanberis guide so Sue Peyton (from Joe Brown's) could be seen on an E1.

The picture on page 120 is of Sue Harland!? 

 Pedro50 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Onsighted in 1973 as a HVS. Its HVS. 

11
 Shani 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Pedro50:

> The picture on page 120 is of Sue Harland!? 

I've just checked and you're right. Jeez, my memory must be getting ropey in middle age. I could have sworn ....

 McHeath 22 Oct 2021
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Which routes are you thinking of?

Dragonflight (E3 5c) was originally graded HVS 5b because Chris Jackson famously didn't consider himself capable of putting up an XS; it's now E3 5c, perhaps due mainly to the polish, which was already noticeable when I attempted it 30+ years ago. 

In reply to C Witter:

Ha, I enjoyed that.

 Mick Ward 22 Oct 2021
In reply to McHeath:

> Dragonflight (E3 5c) was originally graded HVS 5b because Chris Jackson famously didn't consider himself capable of putting up an XS; it's now E3 5c, perhaps due mainly to the polish, which was already noticeable when I attempted it 30+ years ago. 

Seemed about E3 when I did it, circa 1980, no polish. Did Lapin (also then HVS, now also E3) as the warm-up. Some curious grading down the dales.

Mick

1
 Ian Parsons 22 Oct 2021
In reply to Mick Ward:

But of course, Mick, Dragonflight was done in 1976 - ie at about the same time that E-grades were initially proposed. Their widespread adoption wasn't immediate, as you'll recall; Bancroft's 1977 Peak supplement didn't use them, and I remember at the time that its use of XS-, XS, and XS+ seemed quite normal. I imagine, therefore, that Chris was simply thinking in terms of 'pre-E-grade Peak HVS' - which, of course, could easily mean anything up to E3!

 C Witter 22 Oct 2021
In reply to AlanLittle:

Take a look at the FRCC Langdale guide - that was doing + and - grades half a decade ago. ...Not that they necessarily clarify anything! Is an E1 5a really E1-? Depends whether you're happy climbing a slab above poor gear or not!

 Mick Ward 22 Oct 2021
In reply to Ian Parsons:

Many thanks, Ian. Always good to have Yorkshire VS up your sleeve - the instant solution to almost any grading anomaly!

Mick

1
 wbo2 22 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot: for those with the Paul Williams guide, what were Seamstress and Seams the Same given? 

 Shani 22 Oct 2021
In reply to wbo2:

Seamstress HVS

Seams the Same E2 5b

Post edited at 20:47
 wbo2 22 Oct 2021
In reply to Shani: .  Downgraded now... 

 Ian Parsons 23 Oct 2021
In reply to Mick Ward:

>Always good to have Yorkshire VS up your sleeve - the instant solution to almost any grading anomaly!>

And rather more potent than a concealed ace, a multi-coloured string of handkerchiefs - or is it kerchieves? - or a couple of startled-looking doves. You'll need a top hat for the white rabbit!

 Tony Buckley 23 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> If you bypass the awkward corner on its left and climb down into the pit normally jumped and avoid the final green wall on its left it is a VD. By the line it's described it's a HS,  and a serious one on the green wall and serious sandbag classics are not acceptable in my view in modern guidebooks. 

Can I offer an alternative view?

It's many years since I climbed this but it was climbed by the described line, and I think it's fair at V Diff.  If you look at who did the first ascent that should tell you everything you need to know about the type of climb you're in for.

T.

1
 Shani 23 Oct 2021
In reply to wbo2:

> .  Downgraded now... 

Both of them! The value of my climbing portfolio goes down once more....

 ian caton 23 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Protection isn't miles better. There were really good quality tiny wires and cams came in in the seventies. 

2
OP Slackboot 23 Oct 2021
In reply to ian caton:

> Protection isn't miles better. There were really good quality tiny wires and cams came in in the seventies. 

Yes but we still didn't have them! I never had a 'friend' until well into the 80's, and by the I had done my best climbing. I suppose it depended on where and who you climbed with. 

And what you could afford of course. 

Post edited at 20:23
1
 ian caton 23 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

????

I was a student. Not many cams but plenty of wires and didn't clumb my bestbuntil last year.

Grades are only to give you a rough idea of whatvyou are getting into. Doesn't matter if they are a bit wonky imho. 

OP Slackboot 23 Oct 2021
In reply to ian caton:

> ????

> I was a student. Not many cams but plenty of wires and didn't clumb my bestbuntil last year.

> Grades are only to give you a rough idea of whatvyou are getting into. Doesn't matter if they are a bit wonky imho. 

I agree on the grade thing. It's just interesting to get a conversation going and see what points of view are out there. And congrats on climbing so well in your later years. As Ali G would say....respec!

In reply to ian caton:

> ????

> I was a student. Not many cams but plenty of wires and didn't clumb my bestbuntil last year.

> Grades are only to give you a rough idea of whatvyou are getting into. Doesn't matter if they are a bit wonky imho. 

I started as a student around ‘79/80. I bought a secondhand rucksack off Steve Bancroft, along with a handful of HBs and Moacs. Between me and my climbing buddies, we had loads of wires plus some Friends from the climbing shop in Nottingham near the station. Can’t remember the name. I don’t ever remember thinking we hadn’t enough gear to lead pretty well anything. 
I’m 62 next birthday, and like you seem to be doing ok. Ive been primarily bouldering for the past 10 or so years. The plan is to keep that up until joints and hitting the deck hurts too much, then ‘retire’ back to trad.

 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Good post. Grade creep happens nearly everywhere, not just in the UK.

I think the short answer as to why is simply that many climbers are a bit dishonest.

For producers of guidebooks upgrading routes helps sell guides. If people see their hardest ticks upgraded it makes them feel like better climbers and it's a reason to buy a new guide.

I've heard of at least one climbing wall owner request that the routes be graded softly under the belief that doing so will encourage more customers. Thankfully, in Sheffield at least, no one seems to be doing that though.

I've also heard a new concept recently where some climbers are described as 'climbers who only climb for the number'. This means people are less interested in climbing harder and more concerned about appearing to climb harder. I would imagine that in recent years social media has encouraged this behaviour.

As you rightly say modern equipment, techniques and many other factors are making climbing easier not harder so if anything grades should be going down not up.

20
 Offwidth 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Tony Buckley:

Think about what you are saying. This lower grade route is not really a potential 'landmine' as you should know it's nature from the first ascentionist. To me it's the exact same idiocy that led to VDiff being retained for a serious HS: and that is due to editors, not the first ascentionist. I was comfortably ticking off VS classics in the area (hardly soft graded in UK terms) when I first led it and had to quickly focus. Fortunately such an editorial attitude is rare these days on classics.

Post edited at 10:12
3
 Offwidth 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

How many guidebooks have you been involved with editorially? I just don't recognise any motivation to overgrade to sell guides in the many teams I know (present and past). I do see sandbag routes sensibly get upgraded when they keep leading to accidients. I have seen a bit of undergrading to hold against grade creep: keeping safe beasts at the top of a grade rather than moved up to be more consistent with onsightability.

Post edited at 10:11
2
 Michael Hood 24 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

> Take a look at the FRCC Langdale guide - that was doing + and - grades half a decade ago. ...Not that they necessarily clarify anything! Is an E1 5a really E1-? Depends whether you're happy climbing a slab above poor gear or not!

The FRCC 2003 selected guide to the Lakes has + and - grades.

But, I am wondering what the difference between MVS+ & VS- is, and similarly between MS+ & S- and even more so between HS+ & MVS- 😁

 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

So what you think it's more just a case of personal egos then?

1
 Jamie Wakeham 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Tony Buckley:

>If you look at who did the first ascent that should tell you everything you need to know about the type of climb you're in for.

I'm with Offwidth on this one: 'Marines VDiff' isn't a grade, and you shouldn't need to revise your expectations of a route's difficulty based on who put it up.*

The obvious comparator is Bosigran Ridge - this is correctly VDiff - LELC is a very different proposition.

* Unless it's a JW Puttrell chimney, which always tells me I'm going to have a sweaty sweary nightmare

1
 Si dH 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> Good post. Grade creep happens nearly everywhere, not just in the UK.

> I think the short answer as to why is simply that many climbers are a bit dishonest.

> For producers of guidebooks upgrading routes helps sell guides. If people see their hardest ticks upgraded it makes them feel like better climbers and it's a reason to buy a new guide.

This is rubbish. Most modern guides now look for a consensus on grading changes rather than doing them unilaterally; obviously the rockfax databases are a great source of info but there have also been a number of threads on UKC and ukb of this type over the years. If a guidebook writer upgraded lots of things unilaterally without justification their guide wouldn't sell.

> I've heard of at least one climbing wall owner request that the routes be graded softly under the belief that doing so will encourage more customers. Thankfully, in Sheffield at least, no one seems to be doing that though.

This I can believe but it's not really relevant; indoor grades have never borne much resemblance to outdoor grades. There have always been indoor venues with soft grades and indoor venues with hard grades, there always will be.

> I've also heard a new concept recently where some climbers are described as 'climbers who only climb for the number'. This means people are less interested in climbing harder and more concerned about appearing to climb harder. I would imagine that in recent years social media has encouraged this behaviour.

Err this has been the case for ever. It's called human ego. Some people like to show off by claiming big numbers and others like to show off by grading something too low and sandbagging their mates. Both have always happened and will always happen, but perhaps the latter is less common now there are fewer new routes to go around. And social media perhaps exaggerates certain aspects of it but, actually, in the UK at least there have been fewer upgrades I'm aware of in the last ten years than there were in the previous ten. The main impact of the internet on grading was to allow (starting with PGE) people to reach a consensus strong enough that guidebook writers felt they should upgrade routes rather than stick with the traditional grade where most people thought it was wrong.

Post edited at 11:27
1
 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> If a guidebook writer upgraded lots of things unilaterally without justification their guide wouldn't sell.

Yet that is exactly what happens and that is what the OP is asking about. I know one person who worked on a new Tremadog guide many years ago. He was a very experienced climber having done most of the routes in the guide and sought the opinions of other equally experienced climbers to get the grades right. When the guidebook came out many of the grades he had put in had changed and been upgraded.

> obviously the rockfax databases are a great source of info

Er no they're not. Anyone can vote on the grade of route even if they've never tried the route or even been to the crag. The voting system is anonymous too so there is no way of telling who's voting for what at what grade. I'd say it's more accurate to say they're a great source of misinformation.

The relevance of the climbing wall example is that people are easily corrupted when they think profits could be at stake. I don't see why guidebook writers would be any different in this regard.

> It's called human ego. Some people like to show off by claiming big numbers and others like to show off by grading something too low and sandbagging their mates.

Well you've missed out the other obvious possibility and that is that they aren't attempting to manipulate climbing grades at all. They prefer to satisfy their egos by actually being good at climbing and getting better.

The type of person I'm describing is deliberately looking for routes that are soft for the grade so they can appear to be better climber than they really are. That is very different to trying to find the hardest piece of climbing you can do using the grading system as a guide as to where to try.

> people to reach a consensus strong enough that guidebook writers felt they should upgrade routes

Well consensus amongst whom? Who has a say in determining guidebook grades? And why do they upgrade rather than downgrade? Surely that is the question of this thread?

14
 Tony Buckley 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Off Width and Jamie Wakeham:

> Think about what you are saying. This lower grade route is not really a potential 'landmine' as you should know it's nature from the first ascentionist.

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Reading and interpreting a guidebook is a skill and knowing who put a route up can be an important bit of information that an aspirant leader should check.  Which of us has never looked at a route put up by Whillans and thought they'd better take a Brave pill (and possibly a Strong pill too)?

> Fortunately such an editorial attitude is rare these days on classics.

Guidebooks are just that; guides.  They aren't holy writ and they shouldn't be definitive hold-by-hold descriptions.  They should retain the opportunity to reflect the personality of the authors and the capacity to anticipate, but not reveal, surprises.  The best route descriptions stick in the mind ('or flounder miserably' is one such phrase from an old Froggat guidebook) too and can enhance memories.

Climbing is inherently and unavoidably dangerous.  People who climb have to accept that guidebooks will not and should not tell you everything, they'll just show you the way.  What happens after that is down to you.  

T.

5
 bpmclimb 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> For producers of guidebooks upgrading routes helps sell guides. If people see their hardest ticks upgraded it makes them feel like better climbers and it's a reason to buy a new guide.

In my experience, guidebook writers are a pretty conscientious lot. There are many factors to take into account when assessing grades for a new guidebook; the only one which I would say is generally absent is financial motivation. Of course, one can't say that it never happens, but to suggest that it's a significant factor in grade increases across the UK seems a bit crackpot, to be honest!

 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

Fair enough but what then is their motivation?

8
 Offwidth 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Tony Buckley:

I've never needed to consider any brave pills for any modern graded Brown/ Whillan's route...you must mean fight pills!?. In terms of really obvious B/W modern mis-grades I can only think of Masochism, which is on the obscure side and although much safer with modern pro, the average skills required are in decline (it's another route I've been pushing for an upgrade as it's nothing like E0, being way harder than easy E1 even on the stiffer Roaches area grading). Your thesis is obviously  plain wrong becuase LELC is such a notable exception for a  misgraded bold classic. Also on the Green Wall on LELC there was evidence of broken rock that might have meant it was easier and maybe safer once.

2
 bpmclimb 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> Fair enough but what then is their motivation?

Just trying to get it right, basically.

It's worth noting that although there is an overall slight trend upwards, grades do go down as well as up (a fact often overlooked by the Grade Creep Police). It's a complicated business, with many factors to take into account, involving discussion with colleagues and other experienced climbers, and much depending on the state of the script(s) inherited from previous guidebooks.

Modern guidebook writers are well aware of the phenomenon of grade creep, of course, and aspire to resist it as far as possible, but it's not like it's a prime directive - the priorities are accuracy and consistency, applicable at crag, region and UK level as far as possible.

 Offwidth 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

In my experience the average motivation is what it should be, a fair assessment of genuine anomalies: bringing less travelled route grades in line with local classics,  occasionally where the nature of the route has changed (excessive polish, broken rock, lost placements, rotting pegs etc). As the decades progressed the number of classic changes seem to me have decreased.

 HeMa 24 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

> Just trying to get it right, basically.

Ding ding. 
 

The point is that the grade reflects the difficulty of a climb. Advances in modern gear like microcams need to be taken account. 
 

As an example, lets look at two hypotetical routes next to each other. Both have the same grade of E4 5b. Both were climbed before microcams were (readily) avalabla and were in essence pure solos. But with some microcams the other line actually gets gear, even good ones at that. The pure unprotected slab line is unchanged. 
 

will the solo get upgraded (to E6 5b), orthe now protected line downgraded (to say E1 5b). My gut says the latter option. Now If the gear isn’t standard microcams, but rather something more peculiar, like was the case with that Cookson route in the moors that ’the other’ Dave repeated. I recall, he even had to modify the gear to work. In such cases the grade would stick, but perhaps the description might include some about making it safer with exotic gear. 

1
 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

> Just trying to get it right, basically.

That doesn't explain why the grades go up rather than down. If it was a simple as that an equal amount of climbs would go down as up and there wouldn't be grade creep.

Furthermore if a climb has been a certain grade for decades, like say Cemetery Gates, why on earth do guidebook writers think the grade needs to be changed after all that time? How can that be seen as trying to get it right? Do they really think that the generations of climbers who went before got it wrong and had no clue about grades?

I've never heard of the 'Grade Creep Police' but whoever they are they don't seem to be doing a very good job. It seems to me the only people who have any power when it comes to grades are the guidebook writers. And with commercial guides especially they also have significant amounts of cash tied up in them. Their incentive not to lose that money and make a profit I suspect is far greater than anything else.

23
 stp 24 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

> Modern guidebook writers are well aware of the phenomenon of grade creep, of course, and aspire to resist it as far as possible

I don't understand how they are trying to resist it. They're the arbiters of grades are they not? No one else gets a say in the matter.

I'm sure there is an invisible vociferous minority who whinge on about the grade of this or that though. But I'm unclear as to why such people shouldn't just be ignored. If the editors don't have the confidence themselves to to stick with a grade they could easily get the opinion of some other experienced climbers in the area to back them up.

Preventing grade creep is easy to do. As long as there an equal number of downgrades as upgrades (discounting routes that have significantly changed in some way) there won't be any grade creep.

1
 C Witter 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> The FRCC 2003 selected guide to the Lakes has + and - grades.

> But, I am wondering what the difference between MVS+ & VS- is, and similarly between MS+ & S- and even more so between HS+ & MVS- 😁

Ha! Indeed! To be fair, I don't know if they actually used HS+ and MVS-  And I love the MVS grade, even though it is much maligned, because I see it as a very Cumbrian grade. 

 wbo2 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp: cemetery gates isn't a very good example - when did that go from HVS to E1? At least 30 years ago

 bpmclimb 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> That doesn't explain why the grades go up rather than down. If it was a simple as that an equal amount of climbs would go down as up and there wouldn't be grade creep.

Well, as I said before, grades go both up and down - overall they only go up slightly compared to down. Seems logical to me, that a slight upward re-calibration might gradually happen, when you have an evolving system with increasing numbers of higher bands available, and large numbers of climbs "jostling for position" during repeated attempts over successive guidebooks to make everything as consistent as possible.

> Furthermore if a climb has been a certain grade for decades, like say Cemetery Gates, why on earth do guidebook writers think the grade needs to be changed after all that time? How can that be seen as trying to get it right? Do they really think that the generations of climbers who went before got it wrong and had no clue about grades?

Well it is people trying to get it right, I can assure you! They're not saying the earlier climbers were wrong, just recognizing that in a fluid and evolving system adjustments are occasionally called for. You may be falling into the trap of assuming dubious motives in the writers just because you disagree with their conclusions. I'm not familiar enough with Cemetery Gates to comment on that route specifically, but in general if you're producing a guidebook you can't just consider a mass of individual cases. Everything affects everything else. You try to arrive at an overall framework which is consistent, and then tweak grades if necessary to fit into that. You make comparisons between routes of similar grade at the same crag (and benchmark routes elsewhere in the UK). You also consider the route in isolation, of course - how sustained it is, what's the hardest move(s), what's the gear and where is it in relation to the harder moves, and all the other usual parameters which affect the grade. The final decision whether or not to change a grade takes all this into account.

> I've never heard of the 'Grade Creep Police' but whoever they are they don't seem to be doing a very good job. It seems to me the only people who have any power when it comes to grades are the guidebook writers. And with commercial guides especially they also have significant amounts of cash tied up in them. Their incentive not to lose that money and make a profit I suspect is far greater than anything else.

I suspect you're being disingenuous here - I think you know fine who I mean by the Grade Creep Police. Climbers with an over-sensitive radar who bang on about it every time they see a grade go up (never mind if several neighbouring routes have gone down; they won't notice that), locked into one rigid view, think we can ignore decades of evolution in our trad grading system and go back to the 60s, or whenever. 

For what it's worth, during production of all the guidebooks I've contributed to, I have at no point been influenced by book sales, or had the grades changed in my scripts for those reasons; the idea seems unlikely, to say the least - even if we allow your highly debatable proposition that boosting grades would lead to more sales. The reverse could equally well be argued.

 Tony Buckley 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Your thesis is obviously  plain wrong 

I disagree with you, but we'll leave it there I think.  

T.

1
 james mann 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I disagree with you about Land’s End Long Climb. It is obviously reasonably physical for the grade but the pitches are very, very short and straightforward of access. It is also possible to walk away at virtually any point above the elbow crack. I think that climbers have become much better at some aspects of climbing since the 40s and probably much worse at the kind of climbing that LELC entails. The Cliff assault wing way of doing it obviously involved all of the jumps and various handstands on the pinnacles. Done like this, it may require grade adjustment. I know of no serious accidents caused by LELC; some failure to complete perhaps. If you were looking for routes with body counts in Penwith, Anvil Chorus and Nameless at a stiff VS would come far higher up the list. If Pendulum Chimney is benchmark Cornish severe, LELC is v diff. 
James

1
 Michael Hood 24 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

HS+ Honister Wall (HS 4b)Slabs West Route (HS 4a)Tophet Wall (HS 4b)

MVS- Ant Highway (VS 4b)The Fang (VS 4b)Moss Ghyll Grooves (VS 4c)

I've only done a couple of those but you'll likely have done most of them - do they show a different "style" for the 2 grades?

I too think MVS in the Lakes is a nice grade.

 Rick51 24 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> Furthermore if a climb has been a certain grade for decades, like say Cemetery Gates, why on earth do guidebook writers think the grade needs to be changed after all that time? How can that be seen as trying to get it right? Do they really think that the generations of climbers who went before got it wrong and had no clue about grades?

The Gates was still Extreme in the 1974 Three Cliffs Guide so had sat at that grade for over 2 decades. It appeared at HVS in the 1978 Llanberis Pass Guide. An example of downgrading?

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's fascinating how close together in standard those two great mega-classics Tophet Wall (HS 4b) and Moss Ghyll Grooves (VS 4c) actually are. Yet I'd say each is absolutely correctly graded.

Post edited at 21:48
In reply to Rick51:

> The Gates was still Extreme in the 1974 Three Cliffs Guide so had sat at that grade for over 2 decades. It appeared at HVS in the 1978 Llanberis Pass Guide. An example of downgrading?

Everyone who's been climbing for any length of time knows that Cemetery Gates is at the cusp between mild Extreme and top end HVS. And that's all you have to know really.  It's obviously got very slightly easier as an undertaking – but not much – with the continual improvement of modern gear, but there's really nothing more to be said about it (except that it's also remarkably difficult to grade technically). I wish people could just concentrate on the fact that it's an absolutely superb route, with very few equals at that standard.

2
 Michael Hood 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I remember doing Moss Ghyll Grooves (VS 4c) immediately after doing Botterill's Slab (VS 4c).

My log says "I found the crux on pitch two harder than anything on Botterill's Slab", but IIRC not at all sustained (whereas Botterill's main pitch has quite a few "moves" on it) so maybe MVS 4c is about right.

Post edited at 22:25
 Colin Moody 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I thought Moss Gyll Grooves was ok, but Botterill's Slab was harder! 

In reply to Colin Moody:

I think 'in the old days' we would simply have said that MGG was Mild VS 4c, and BS, VS 4C. I can't imagine that many people would have disagreed with that.

 Martin Haworth 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Everyone who's been climbing for any length of time knows that Cemetery Gates is at the cusp between mild Extreme and top end HVS. And that's all you have to know really.  It's obviously got very slightly easier as an undertaking – but not much – with the continual improvement of modern gear, but there's really nothing more to be said about it (except that it's also remarkably difficult to grade technically). I wish people could just concentrate on the fact that it's an absolutely superb route, with very few equals at that standard.

I agree it’s a great route, but it is never E1, however it’s nice to have some routes that are easy for the grade to offset the sandbags. I’ve always felt that one of the things that makes climbing interesting is that when you tie on at the bottom of a route , even though you know the grade, if it’s graded at or near your limit there is always a question about whether you will succeed.

2
 Si dH 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I agree The Gates is bottom end of / soft for E1. But it hasn't been graded HVS for at least 20 years ish (or more? All I know is it was already graded E1 in the early 2000s) so it's ridiculous for stp to use it as an example of modern grade creep influenced by social media.

Post edited at 23:10
 Shani 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Three Pebble Slab: "I'm E0 you know".

Cemetery Gates: "Hold my beer..."

1
 KrisNash 24 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

It was E1 when I fell over 100ft down it (slipped as I reached for the belay ledge and stripped my last piece of gear) in 1992

In reply to Si dH:

In 1970, the grades were all over the place, so you couldn't really trust them at all. My diary records Cemetary Gates as XS then (which we found very easy, but "stance toe-shattering; soloed down Flying Buttress"), whilst in the same months we were doing things in Yorkshire like Great Western  and Crossbones, which were graded VS, interpersed with very soft-touch XS's in the Lakes! This mixed experience gave me a healthy distrust of grades that never really went away.

 mark s 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I've seen the odd posts saying it's the guidebook writers causing the grade creep. All I can say on the matter is in my experience of guidebook grading is they take it very seriously. I was part of the bmc staffordshire guides in 2001 2009. Grades were a huge discussion with lots of reclimbing routes to get an updated view. To the extent that a few of us weren't part of the easier route checking. As we were not considered to be at that level so couldn't accurately grade them. This made a lot of sense. Some routes were down graded. I was responsible for putting obsession fatale in at E7 rather than E8. As others have said, it's a guide to give info.its not the be all and end all. 

 stp 25 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

> when you have an evolving system with increasing numbers of higher bands available

New grades are not like empty spaces waiting to be filled. The reason we have more grades is that standards rise and people at the top are climbing harder. That doesn't imply because we now have 9b+ and 9c that we need to change the grades at 7b or 6b.

There's never been shortage of higher bands. The grades 9b+, 9c or E11 have always been available. Just as E13 or 10c+ are available now if we need them.

> For what it's worth, during production of all the guidebooks I've contributed to, I have at no point been influenced by book sales, or had the grades changed in my scripts for those reasons; the idea seems unlikely, to say the least - even if we allow your highly debatable proposition that boosting grades would lead to more sales. The reverse could equally well be argued.

Well the reason is doubtless because you've upgraded more routes than you've downgraded so consciously or not you've been towing the line.

Writing guidebooks is a business. Most guidebooks are commercial these days and there primary purpose to make money. There is also considerable investment into creating a guide: thousands of pounds, probably tens of thousands in fact. So just like any business the chief concern of people who have invested all that money is getting it back and turning a profit. In business there is the saying "the customer is always right". Which is not meant to be taken literally. What it really means is simply act as if the customer is always right and your business will do better that way.

The customer in this case is obviously climbers and many climbers are obsessed with the grade they climb. It's a massive part of their identity, their self-esteem and they'll go to extreme lengths to protect it. So there is that pressure to upgrade routes. There is no equivalent pressure in downgrading. There are people like me who are pissed off about grade inflation because it's senseless, dishonest and pointless and it makes it harder to figure out the difficulty of routes we go on when the scale is in constant flux. But I've got no vested interest in any particular route and it has nothing to do with my sense of self worth or status.

I really doubt that having a guidebook with lower grades would produce more sales but it's mostly never been tried.

28
 Jamie Wakeham 25 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

I promise, the financial consequences of changing a grade are not even considered.  Accuracy is what everyone is striving for.  You really don't get into guidebook publishing if you want to get rich...

I'm trying to imagine someone flicking through a new book and making a decision on whether to buy it based on what grades have shifted, and I just can't see it.  

In reply to Tony:

> Reading and interpreting a guidebook is a skill and knowing who put a route up can be an important bit of information that an aspirant leader should check.

I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with this.  A Joe Brown HVS should be comparable to a Joe Bloggs HVS.  You shouldn't need to learn lots of climbing history to know that this route, at grade X, is actually likely to be grade X+1 simply because of the name in 4 point text below it.

I'm fine with the FA implying a certain style - we know that a Whillans jamming crack, or Puttrell chimney, might tell you something about what to expect (although the text should also be backing this up).

Climbing is inherently dangerous - yes.  That's why it's incumbent on the author to get things as right as they possibly can.  

1
 mark s 25 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> grades are a massive part of their identity, their self-esteem and they'll go to extreme lengths to protect it. So there is that pressure to upgrade routes. There is no equivalent pressure in downgrading. 

Id disagree with that, regarding the obsession fatale inclusion in the guide at the lower grade. I was happy to see my E8 counter reduce by half to have said route included at the correct grade. In my circle of climbing friends and people I've climbed with I cannot recall a massive want to upgrade everything to boost egos. Climbers knowledge of routes goes far beyond what a guide book has written down. We know the routes that are soft and the routes that will humiliate most. 

Post edited at 10:06
 Offwidth 25 Oct 2021
In reply to james mann:

There is no grade logic presented for VD in that argument James.  My main concern is the Green Wall (I found the awkward corner harder than Green Gut on Froggatt but hey it's safe....   jumps are pretty ungradable but I'd suggest calling that one VD in average climbing experience terms is unusual to say the least, but the task is obvious and you can bypass it).

Experienced climbers get to trust grades on classics and push through. They will normally have a decent margin as we all have bad days and no one expects perfection and Cornish granite VD wasn't the most reliably graded. Yet the Green Wall at the top of LELC isn't some traditional fight, it's a bold steep wall climb on generally big flat holds.  I was, on a VD, suddenly on 4a-ish moves with a serious prang potential and with harder climbing still to reverse out of trouble. My second also an experienced guide book editor and lower grade specialist used some colourful words. I down-climbed the easy way and reclimbed the wall on a top rope to see if I'd missed anything... no, it still climbed like a bold HS 3c/4a in cornish classic terms. Checking the logbooks Simon Caldwell, who has a nose for such things at those grades, independently agreed. How would you explain such experienced lower grade checkers getting things so wrong? What's your counter evidence?

Post edited at 10:30
1
 Andy Moles 25 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

There is just as much scope for ego flattery in undergrading as overgrading.

 Mike Stretford 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Tony Buckley:

> That's exactly what I'm saying.  Reading and interpreting a guidebook is a skill and knowing who put a route up can be an important bit of information that an aspirant leader should check. 

Nonsense, it's ridiculous expecting climbers to check the first ascensionist..... there's a lot of routes put up by people who aren't well known.

I'm pretty sure most climbers want a good photo topo and consistent grading above all else. The old wordy guidebooks were good reading material for the throne but not that useful for a days climbing. The sandbags were a pain in the arse.... it's great that there's been a lot of grade checking for more recent guides and that editors are no longer bound by 'tradition'. It does mean some routes have gone up in grade but I can honestly say I don't think benchmark S to E2 has change in the 25 years I've been climbing.

 AlanLittle 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> It's ridiculous for stp to use it as an example of modern grade creep influenced by social media.

Agreed. Gates and Ivy Sep are both HVS in my 1982 Paul Williams, and E1 in the 1990 edition (both select guides, I no longer have any of my old definitive Llanberis guides)

As far as I can remember both have been regarded as borderline HVS/E1 since I started climbing in the early 80s, and it seems they still are - they're right at the bottom of the E1 graded list in the 2009 Ground Up North Wales select which is the newest one I have.

 Offwidth 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I know a couple of belters based on mistaken lines:

On Wharncliffe we upgraded what was described as a severe to E3!  (Sidewinder  was originally said to climb a non-line into Himmelswillan from the north wall.... its now corrected as a left trending line on the north wall at HS).

Also in Over the Moors there was a VD on Noe Stool (Kinder South) said to be upgraded to E5 6c: the brilliantly named Noe Picnic...the original line was less direct, avoiding the bulging top by a line round to the right... and we checked that as HVS 5b ish

On that obscure place called Stanage the route Magnetic North went from HVS to E3, and Straight Ahead from Diff to VS in the most recent definitive.

 profitofdoom 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> On that obscure place called Stanage the route Magnetic North went from HVS to E3.......

Mediator (E1 5b) at Avon used to be HS, and is now E1 5b. The route hasn't changed at all

 Offwidth 25 Oct 2021
In reply to profitofdoom:

In one single upgrade or over the years? Al the cases I listed were in one single upgrade in the latest definitive guides.

Post edited at 13:46
 Howard J 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> ... calling that one VD in average climbing experience terms is unusual to say the least..

I think that's where the difficulty lies, in the lower grades anyway.  The time was when V Diff was a respectable if unremarkable grade, and V Diff climbers were expected to have a steady head to cope with some longish runouts and the experience and low cunning to deal with unexpected situations, even when climbing in big boots.  Now it is seen as a beginner's grade (and one which many wall-trained climbers seem to bypass completely). 

Expectations for all grades have changed over time, and V Diff now seems to carry the expectation of good protection and good holds throughout.  But should a route be graded for an experienced and competent V Diff climber, or for a comparative novice?  Custom and practice says the former, but the danger is that novice climbers might be lured into something they don't have the experience to handle, which could be dangerous. On the other hand, there are plenty of warnings in the description about its seriousness, which ought to make them think twice.

I haven't done LELC, and I can't say whether Green Wall at VD is a sandbag or simply tough at the grade.  If the latter, that in itself shouldn't justify upgrading, tough V Diff is still V Diff  However sandbags, at any grade, should be avoided.

 Dewi Williams 25 Oct 2021
In reply to KrisNash:

> It was E1 when I fell over 100ft down it (slipped as I reached for the belay ledge and stripped my last piece of gear) in 1992

Bloody hell! Based on your experience I am going to suggest it should be upgraded to E2. Any takers?

 Offwidth 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Howard J:

My opinion is HS 3c/4a on the Green Wall of LELC both as, and for, an experienced climber. Everyone in guidebooks grades for standard skills at the grade or the grading system would become ludicrous. A bold VD is a standard category of the grade for me: it should have the technical difficulty of a well protected tougher Mod or easy for the grade well protected Diff, not the technical difficulty of the moves on a standard middling boldness classic severe. I have no idea if the route has changed but it had some evidence of a broken off hold. It's all too easy for extreme leaders lacking sensitivity to bomb up something thinking 'that felt roughly VD' without taking into consideration the protection context.

The awkward but safe corner on LELC also had 4a moves in our opinion.

As low grade routes do get climbed by the inexperienced it's best that bolder VD climbs have a warning in the text: as falling off a VD (or below) is generally a bad idea compared to higher grades as you are more likely to hit protrusions like ledges.

Post edited at 14:21
 helix 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Howard J:

On this particular debate re Land’s End Long Climb, I’d just like to say that on a week long trip down that way this year, on which I led up to E1, it was the top pitch of that climb that I found the most scary- call me soft, if you like! But with its flat holds on a steep bit of rock above a shelf, it’s not V Diff. Good climb, especially first five pitches.

 Michael Hood 25 Oct 2021
In reply to KrisNash:

> It was E1 when I fell over 100ft down it (slipped as I reached for the belay ledge and stripped my last piece of gear) in 1992

Even stripping the last piece of gear, that implies quite a run out from the previous piece which brings me to some questions because it sounds like quite an experience...

Were you climbing well within your grade (and just slipped) or at your limit (and then slipped)?

Were you hurt?

  • if so I hope you recovered ok,
  • and if not, most importantly, did you go straight back up and deal with it "properly"?
 C Witter 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I've only done a couple of those but you'll likely have done most of them - do they show a different "style" for the 2 grades?

> I too think MVS in the Lakes is a nice grade.

Ha! Ok, that's me shown. It's a bit of stretch, I have to say. I can kind of understand Honister Wall, Slabs West Route and Tophet Wall getting "HS+": the first is on slate, is tricky for the grade and needs care; the second is steady climbing but has a very bold 4a/4b crux (ground fall potential) and generally poor gear; the third is quite a big and exposed undertaking for a less-than-experienced sub-VS leader. I can't really understand the MVS- grades at all... And the combination of HS+ and MVS - is ridiculous - with the added hilarity that Rockfax have upgraded all the MVS routes to VS... It all leaves me feeling a bit nonplussed.
 

 Doug 25 Oct 2021
In reply to C Witter:

Many years ago when I climbed frequently in the Lakes I felt that HS meant one, maybe two, awkward, often thuggish, moves whereas MVS was more often techically as difficult but not awkward or slightly easier but more sustained.

In reply to Offwidth:

Agreed on LELC - soloed it back in July expecting to be well within my comfort zone the whole way, but had a bit of a wobbler on the last pitch! Convinced I was somehow off route. Commando Ridge felt very tame in comparison

 Michael Hood 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Doug:

> Many years ago when I climbed frequently in the Lakes I felt that HS meant one, maybe two, awkward, often thuggish, moves whereas MVS was more often techically as difficult but not awkward or slightly easier but more sustained.

I always felt HS meant possibly hard/thuggy moves for S but well protected and not sustained, whereas Lakes MVS routes seemed to be more open, possibly bold, but technically easy for VS if they were at all sustained.

I'm sure someone will be able to come up with loads of counter examples, but I can't think of any HS routes which are only S standard moves but are bold, sustained, etc - those routes seem to end up as MVS.

Post edited at 17:19
 profitofdoom 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> In one single upgrade or over the years? Al the cases I listed were in one single upgrade in the latest definitive guides.

(Mediator (E1 5b) at Avon, HS to E1 5b) I'm sorry, I don't know, I didn't follow it - I wish I could tell you

 irish paul 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

 I'm generally agnostic to grade debates,  being firmly in the camp that it's a guide and given how different something climbs due to fitness, fatigue,  weather conditions/ humidity, head game,  partner there's no point being too arsey about it.  Usually,  if we're talking about 1 grade I don't care.  I do get a bit aggravated by 2+ grade inaccuracies (looking at you Supergalactic Hammy (E2 5b) being HVS in the old Rockfax). 

That said,  I do get pangs when you see, say an E1 now get E2 and alot of people take it as a first of the grade. Feels like it dilutes the E2 experience a bit for that area,  and I can understand that annoyance from people who worked hard to get on those harder routes.  

Anyway,  fair play to all you guidebook writers,  frankly,  you do a great job and considering the numbers of climbs in the uk and the tiny % of routes talked about above its pretty astounding to get such consensus across so many styles/ areas and rock types across such a long evolving organic system!

 mutt 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I have had a longstanding theory about this which may explain some of the grade creep, not-with-standing that I agree that many HVS's and E1's were sandbags and only because the first ascentionists were being humble, or perhaps unwilling to invent a new grade.

My theory is that guidebooks used o be local affairs in the all the users were locals and familiar with the climbing techniques necessary. now that people are more mobile then they are often experiencing a new technique and their inexperience in that technique manifests itself as a feeling of undergrading.   Now that UKC and Rockfax offer voting on grades those visitors push up the average.

I have definately seen this at my local crags. Boulder Ruckle is a serious venue but Rockfax issue higher grades than the CC because visitors aren't used to the exposure. E1's and some of the E2's offer easy climbing, bags of gear and a whole heap of exposure. They are HVS's on my scale because I don't notice the exposure anymore. and yet the votes on the rockfax site definately support the higher grades.

OP Slackboot 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I'm sure someone will be able to come up with loads of counter examples, but I can't think of any HS routes which are only S standard moves but are bold, sustained, etc - those routes seem to end up as MVS.

The Night Watch (VS 4b)  fits what you describe. It was always HS but has been upgraded. 

 fred99 25 Oct 2021
In reply to mutt:

> My theory is that guidebooks used o be local affairs in the all the users were locals and familiar with the climbing techniques necessary. now that people are more mobile then they are often experiencing a new technique and their inexperience in that technique manifests itself as a feeling of undergrading.  

That was certainly the case at Symonds Yat. The 1999 Guide, in the chapter on "Grades and Conventions" stated :-

"The Yat has become notorious for its 'sandbag' grades........and an insularity of some of the crag's devotees and developers, whose techniques evolved subtly and beyond their owners' realization in coping with the special problems ....

 Derek Furze 25 Oct 2021
In reply to fred99:

Notably with Oomagooli Groove, which I battled up as a VS in the early 80s.  Now E1.  I like the Yat though and have enjoyed many fine routes there

 KrisNash 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I was generally climbing around that grade at the time, but I think I talked myself into problems in my head due to the gear situation. 

Being a poor student, my rack didn't run to large cams and as I recall, the last decent gear was a cam placement (friend 3 in old money before friend size inflation) I put in a 2 or a 2.5 which was too small, but the biggest thing I had and I watched it come out as I passed... Luckily there was a bomber thread below that. I was physically unhurt (although my belayer, three stone lighter than me and loosely tied down to the tree at the base was quite scratched up as he was dragged up the tree) but mentally scrambled. Went to climb back up but when I got above that last gear again my brain said no

 alan moore 25 Oct 2021
In reply to Derek Furze:

Weren't Mango Highway/Chutney graded HVS once as well? Stress Arete and Strathdon were also under graded. Otak was another dangerous one at HS!

 Michael Hood 25 Oct 2021
In reply to KrisNash:

Kudos for at least trying after a plummet of that length.

 Michael Hood 26 Oct 2021
In reply to KrisNash:

Forgot to say, I hope there were some other people around to witness such an impressive fall. Such events (when nobody's hurt) really need to be shared 😁

When I took my biggest plummet (nowhere near as big as yours) there were some non climbing "tourists" watching from the top (I was very close) about 5m away. Don't know what they thought but they had a great view which must have made a talking point for them "back in the pub".

 KrisNash 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

Just after I fell, someone else came off Lord of the flies from quite a height, touching the floor on the rope stretch.

The Cromlech went quiet for a while with few people climbing as people contemplated their mortality.

We retired down to the Valley where a guy in a caravanette was handing out mugs of tea

In reply to stp:

> Writing guidebooks is a business. Most guidebooks are commercial these days and there primary purpose to make money. There is also considerable investment into creating a guide: thousands of pounds, probably tens of thousands in fact. So just like any business the chief concern of people who have invested all that money is getting it back and turning a profit. In business there is the saying "the customer is always right". Which is not meant to be taken literally. What it really means is simply act as if the customer is always right and your business will do better that way.

Bit late to this party but...

This is such rubbish. The understanding shown here of the commercial reality of running a small publishing business is laughable.

However, on the more pertinent point of grade inflation to sell guidebooks, Steve couldn't be more wrong. We actually do exactly the opposite and have been consistently putting the break on grade inflation for many years.

UKC Logbook is the best guidebook writing aid ever created and it consistently delivers good consensus opinions on grades. Yes, the voting system is flawed but when the numbers are significant, then the results are clear. We are well aware that people are more likely to vote up something they have had a hard time on, rather than vote down a soft touch, and we use this in our assessment at each new guide. Routes really need to have at least 2/3 grade consensus for an upgrade to get carried through, whereas we are much less strict for downgrades. 

This isn't to say that grade inflation isn't a thing. I haven't read this thread in full so apologies if this point has been made already. The reason for grade inflation is that climbers travel further, experience different styles and different rock types and climb a lot indoors. We are all aware of the fact that transferring an indoor grade high point to outdoors is usually a humbling experience. Curiously the opposite can happen at the end of the summer when good grade performance outdoors gets a rude awakening indoors. New to an area with different rock and everything feels hard. Have you ever watched a solid high 7s sport climber try and get up The Unprintable (E1 5b) at Stanage? Of course that doesn't mean that The Unprintable should be E5, it just is a good illustration that different rock types and styles are hard if you don't climb there often. Because we use grade systems with conversions it can feel like it is the grade system that is wrong rather than our lack of familiarity.

Back in the 70s and 80s we had trad climbing outdoors, now we have indoors, outdoors, sport trad and we all travel more. This is the cause of grade creep and it is the responsibility of guidebook writers to keep a lid on it and, most of them do, There are some exceptions and these tend to have been caught out - Kalymnos and Chullila, for example, are known as soft touch areas and in both places the locals have started rationalising their over-grades.

As a final example - I made a fuss a few years ago when Scoop Wall (E2 5c) was given E3 by the (notionally non-commercial) BMC guidebook. I was ridiculed a bit at the time and the point I was making got lost. What I was trying to say was that Scoop Wall was a benchmark route and if you tinker with that then you tinker with every E1, E2, E3 limestone route in the Peak District by creating a huge set of anomalies. As guidebook writers, we know which routes these are and we need to hang onto them and keep them static. Ironically of course, Scoop Wall was given E1 when the system was first applied back in the 1970s! The BMC gave it E2 in 1987 and we have kept it at E2 ever since and will continue to do so.

Three Pebble Slab anyone?

Alan

Post edited at 10:42
 Howard J 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>It's all too easy for extreme leaders lacking sensitivity to bomb up something thinking 'that felt roughly VD' without taking into consideration the protection context.

I often wonder whether the people who get involved in writing guidebooks are able to discern the nuances at grades much lower than they normally climb at .  When you are climbing at that grade, the difference between HVD and Severe, or HS and VS, is distinct and real.  Is someone normally climbing several grades harder really able to distinguish them?

I recall reading an anecdote by someone working on (I think) a Stanage guide who was soloing lower grade routes to check them, and had to escape from a problematic HVD via an adjacent route which was several grades harder.  It was intended to illustrate the unpredictability of gritstone HVDs (a notorious grade).  However to me it revealed that checking lower grade routes wasn't taken seriously.

I'm not sure upgrading routes is necessarily a boost to the ego.  On paper I'm climbing at least a grade harder than I was 50 years ago, but I'm still doing the same climbs, they've just been graded differently.  I doesn't feel like an achievement, because it I haven't earned it. 

Post edited at 10:46
In reply to Howard J:

> I often wonder whether the people who get involved in writing guidebooks are able to discern the nuances at grades much lower than they normally climb at .  When you are climbing at that grade, the difference between HVD and Severe, or HS and VS, is distinct and real.  Is someone normally climbing several grades harder really able to distinguish them?

Yes, this is true which is why UKC logbooks is so good since it does get to the parts most guidebook writers can't reach.

> I recall reading an anecdote by someone working on (I think) a Stanage guide who was soloing lower grade routes to check them, and had to escape from a problematic HVD via an adjacent route which was several grades harder.  It was intended to illustrate the unpredictability of gritstone HVDs (a notorious grade).  However to me it revealed that checking lower grade routes wasn't taken seriously.

The classic example is Nursery Crack (HVS 5c) which was given Diff for years, then VS 5a, and will be going in the new Rockfax at HVS 5c. Not grade creep though, just never correctly graded in the first place.

 stevevans5 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Out of curiosity, have you ever considered applying some sort of weighting to the votes, either based on how many climbs of the grade in question the voter has, and/or how many different areas they've climbed to minimise the issue of localised gradings? 

Is there a list somewhere of what are considered the benchmark routes? As far as I can tell this seems to have been debated a fair bit on here over the years, so it would be interesting to know what the guidebook writers consider to be the benchmarks!

In reply to stevevans5:

> Out of curiosity, have you ever considered applying some sort of weighting to the votes, either based on how many climbs of the grade in question the voter has, and/or how many different areas they've climbed to minimise the issue of localised gradings? 

I think the flawed nature of the voting system would make this superfluous. The fact you can see the votes before voting is obviously not ideal, however we have to make the votes visible before people climb the routes since this is one of the more useful features of UKC Logbook - namely, finding what others think. Trying to eek more credibility out of the votes would need this massive issue to be addressed first and we can't do that so I think we are better off treating it as flawed and acting accordingly.

> Is there a list somewhere of what are considered the benchmark routes? As far as I can tell this seems to have been debated a fair bit on here over the years, so it would be interesting to know what the guidebook writers consider to be the benchmarks!

Each area will have its own benchmark routes and a local climber of guidebook writer will know these. They will however be many and varied and each one will have its own sub-comparisons - ie. this E2 is harder than that E2 but easier than the one over there. So whilst benchmarks may exist at national level (and Scoop Wall is an example of one of those) there are many more benchmarks that exist on a local level at a crag. I can see that a list of national benchmarks would be an interesting read, and probably an even more interesting debate, it has been tried in the past and never met with much success. The famous list in the 1977 Bancroft guidebook of Developments in the Peak District being a classic example where almost every route is now a different grade. 

 Offwidth 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Howard J:

It was certainly taken very seriously in all the most recent Peak and YMC grit definitives: there were a plenty of volunteers generally climbing sub extreme. On Stanage I'm pretty sure every sub extreme was checked multiple times by people climbing in those ranges and as part of that effort I'd personally checked every route on lead below VS, the vast majority at VS and most at HVS. The closest I came to an accident was an onsight solo on the Diff, Straight Ahead, where after a mantel turned out leaving me off balance I prevented an otherwise almost certain fall with an improvised head jam.  At most venues in the Froggatt guide, I must be the least able climber who has climbed all the sub extreme climbs (as graded either in the previous definitive or as submitted new routes); Curbar being the personal highlight.

Good guidebook grading and descriptions don't dampen adventure, it encourages it: climbers can hone their experience better; including, if desired, onsighting more consistently closer to their limits, or alternatively having a nice easy day with friends without unpleasant surprises.

Post edited at 12:05
 Offwidth 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I think the grades in that list say more about Bancroft than the benefits of the idea. Graded lists on outcrops do work well if climbers are self aware about their strengths and weaknesses compared to the average climber. I see that as one of the most important skills in route checking... the alternative of trying to force a personal view that consistently clearly contradicts an average should set off alarm bells. It's partly why, flawed by bias and skill as UKC votes are, they are still a useful benchmark within a grade. The logbook comments for me, from those I trust, are even more useful in the rare exceptions where UKC voting looks especially odd (like LELC).

 Jamie Wakeham 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Howard J:

> When you are climbing at that grade, the difference between HVD and Severe, or HS and VS, is distinct and real. 

Not to mention MS and MVS!  I have come to believe that HVD and MS are distinct, equally HS and MVS.  Not yet convinced I believe in HDiff though...

> Is someone normally climbing several grades harder really able to distinguish them?

I've long thought not.

In reply to Alan James:

> Yes, this is true which is why UKC logbooks is so good since it does get to the parts most guidebook writers can't reach.

The logbook voting is an absolute godsend.  It's not without problems, the anchoring effect of the given grade being most obvious.  The lack of intermediates like MS and MVS is also a shame... any chance of adding them in? 

 Michael Hood 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

If you're going to allow HD then surely MVD has to be in as well 😁 - although I've never actually seen it used.

 Martin Haworth 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

> Bit late to this party but...

>We actually do exactly the opposite and have been consistently putting the break on grade inflation for many years.

> UKC Logbook is the best guidebook writing aid ever created and it consistently delivers good consensus opinions on grades. Yes, the voting system is flawed but when the numbers are significant, then the results are clear. We are well aware that people are more likely to vote up something they have had a hard time on, rather than vote down a soft touch, and we use this in our assessment at each new guide. Routes really need to have at least 2/3 grade consensus for an upgrade to get carried through, whereas we are much less strict for downgrades. 

> Alan

A couple of comments;

I agree Scoop Wall is E2, and I think the BMC upgrade was quite widely ridiculed(was it a marketing/publicity exercise?).

If you are going to use you grade voting to guide you then please can you put La Demande (6a) up in the next edition. It isn't 6a and suggesting an "average team" allow 5 hours is perhaps a cause of a few of the benightments on the route. I know I am old and slow but 5 hours...average...really. I know the Rockfax route description hints at the fact that it should be taken with a pinch of salt but the route has 25/39 votes at 6b, 5/39 at 6a+ and 9/39 at 6a (7 of those high 6a).😊

On a more useful note/suggestion about times on big multi-pitch routes, could you have a voting type system for some routes where you record your ascent time so others can see the typical time taken. I would find that interesting and useful on big routes.

Edit: I notice the latest logged ascent of La Demande (6a) was in fact done in 5 hours, although the ascentionist is an 8b+ climber, maybe that's what "average" is nowadays!

Post edited at 15:05
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I agree Scoop Wall is E2, and I think the BMC upgrade was quite widely ridiculed(was it a marketing/publicity exercise?).

I think it might have been a couple of older-than-they-used-to-be climbers having a bit of a hard time on it while working on the guidebook.

> If you are going to use you grade voting to guide you then please can you put La Demande (6a) up in the next edition. 

We can certainly look at this. 

> On a more useful note/suggestion about times on big multi-pitch routes, could you have a voting type system for some routes where you record your ascent time so others can see the typical time taken. I would find that interesting and useful on big routes.

That is an interesting suggestion.

> Edit: I notice the latest logged ascent of La Demande (6a) was in fact done in 5 hours, although the ascentionist is an 8b+ climber, maybe that's what "average" is nowadays!

I suspect the five hours was my time however I have always been quite a quick climber but never got close to 8b+!

Alan

In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> The logbook voting is an absolute godsend.  It's not without problems, the anchoring effect of the given grade being most obvious.  The lack of intermediates like MS and MVS is also a shame... any chance of adding them in? 

Actually, the reason we removed them is because of the voting system. Where they are present, they are used sporadically and there is no linear correlation between grades and number of routes. ie. there are way more HS and VS routes than there are MVS. Also, many areas didn't use them at all. Technically it is awkward to deal with on Rockfax Digital and there is the small matter that the tech team would mutiny/resign if I asked to introduce a new sub-division to the grades.

So, sorry, but there is no chance we will reintroduce them

Alan

 Jamie Wakeham 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I want to grade something Hard Very Moderate...

 Michael Hood 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I've done some actual stats on this from my own climbing experience - all of this is from routes led/soloed between 1978 & 1997; i.e. up to when I last got a "new" E point (more recent repeats of routes I've previously led/soloed don't count for E points IMO) - that was a long time ago, I've been a real punter since then 😁

I've included all routes I led or soloed in that period that were either Extreme (or with an E grade) when I first led/soloed them, plus any routes that were HVS at the time but now have an E grade. Current E grades are from the UKC database so I've had to exclude any routes that now have a bouldering grade.

Now for the stats (137 routes in all, mainly Peak, some Wales/Lakes/Pennine):

  • Upgrades: 54, No change: 71, Downgrades: 12
  • 1 grade difference (either Adj or Tech): 31 upgrades, 10 downgrades
  • 2 grade differences (Adj and/or Tech): 18 upgrades, 2 downgrades
  • 3 grade differences (Adj and/or Tech): 5 upgrades
  • Extreme at the time 93, total E points 111, average E points 1.19 (so mainly I was an E1 climber, 77 of the 93)
  • Extreme now 130, total E points 159, average E points 1.22 (upgrades don't appear to have made me a better climber ☹ **)
  • Interestingly I had done 14 routes now given E grades before I did my first E grade at the time lead (Ivy Sepulchre (E1 5b) was the first)

** - this of course shows the power of how you quote statistics - of course this makes me a "better" climber, but to see this I should include all the HVS routes upgraded or downgraded but give them all 0 E points, it then becomes 111/137=0.81 compared to 159/137=1.16 - guidebook regradings have "added" 0.35 of an E grade to my ability 😁

So my conclusion is that the last 20-30 years has definitely seen more upgrading than downgrading in the low extreme grades.

 Jamie Wakeham 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

> they are used sporadically and there is no linear correlation between grades and number of routes. ie. there are way more HS and VS routes than there are MVS. Also, many areas didn't use them at all.

I'd say these are basically the same reason: no-one will grade a route as (or suggest an upgrade/downgrade to) MVS or MS in, say, the Peak, because we all know that those grades aren't historically used there.  

>... there is the small matter that the tech team would mutiny/resign if I asked to introduce a new sub-division to the grades.

To be fair, that's a pretty good reason!

 irish paul 26 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

So, of the 54 upgrades,  how many would you say were fair and in line with UK peers? 

In reply to profitofdoom:

> Mediator (E1 5b) at Avon used to be HS, and is now E1 5b. The route hasn't changed at all

Bloody hell, did it?? Now that is (was) a sandbag.

Are you sure the line hasn't become stricter? From what I remember it's a bit eliminate. I'm struggling to believe the line I did was ever considered the same grade as, say, Piton Route.

jcm

 Ian Parsons 27 Oct 2021
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That's the grade in the Wyvill/Evans guide, John; appears to exactly match the description in Steve Monk's edition about ten years later [at HVS]. Wonder if it was a typo; missed the 'V' out of H. V. Sev. - which was the form used in that book?

 bpmclimb 27 Oct 2021
In reply to stp:

> Well the reason is doubtless because you've upgraded more routes than you've downgraded so consciously or not you've been towing the line.

Doubtless? Based on what? You don't know what my personal motivations are, whether conscious or not; nor do you know that I've done more upgrades than down (unless you've done a painstaking comparison of all my guidebook contributions with earlier versions).

>  It's a massive part of their identity, their self-esteem and they'll go to extreme lengths to protect it.

A pretty good description of your ridiculous theory about financially-motivated upgrades.

 Philb1950 27 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

The only time I soloed, other than bouldering at Almscliff, among others did Yorkshire Pudding at HVS, now E2 5C. Thought it was hard for the grade. That’s why on sight I  stuck to HVS,s. Felt more like a Peak E2 in fact!. But that was 70,s Yorks. grit grades for you.

 Offwidth 27 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I'd love to see the Peak grit publication time split on upgrades for your list, as I mostly only looked sub extreme when I did similar stats over the years for Peak grit.... ie were most of those upgrades in earlier or later guides? Plus how do big classics fair on your list compared to less classic routes (are genuine benchmarks creeping or are the ridiculous joke grades getting cleared out of the less popular routes ....as we did at lower grades in the recent Peak and YMC grit  definitives)?

Post edited at 20:03
 lithos 29 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>Yet the Green Wall at the top of LELC isn't some traditional fight, it's a bold steep wall climb on generally big flat holds.  I was, on a VD, suddenly on 4a-ish moves with a serious prang potential and with harder climbing still to reverse out of trouble. ... Checking the logbooks Simon Caldwell, who has a nose for such things at those grades, independently agreed. How would you explain such experienced lower grade checkers getting things so wrong? What's your counter evidence?

errm Simon hasn't climbed it !   

 The Pylon King 29 Oct 2021
In reply to bpmclimb:

I reckon I have downgraded more climbs than upgraded climbs in the books Ive produced.

 Offwidth 29 Oct 2021
In reply to lithos:

Weird ....are you sure? I could swear I spoke to him about it in a pub down there. Even if not replace him with Dave Garnett whom I trust at least as much and plenty of others I trust.

 lithos 29 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

yep i asked him !

 Offwidth 29 Oct 2021
In reply to lithos:

Maybe I misunderstood.. Tell him its an urgent project

 GrahamD 30 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

I wonder whether a significant part of the upward pressure on grades comes from a lower (on average across all participants) acceptance of real or perceived risk.

"Severe" or "Very Severe" used to mean precisely that.  There was an acceptance that long run outs were part and parcel and there wasn't really a notion of "it can't be V Diff because there isn't enough protection "

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing; just a recalibration of the scale and the role protection and risk take in the overall grade.  I doubt Arrow Route would start off life as a V Diff if it were put up now.

 Michael Gordon 30 Oct 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

>I doubt Arrow Route would start off life as a V Diff if it were put up now.

A good example of downgrading!

 Offwidth 30 Oct 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Arrow Route never seemed like a major sandbag to me like LELC does at VD, or the true start of Terrior's Tooth did at VD before it fell down. I'd say a possibility of bad grading could equally be the opposite:  better climbers on solo not worried about risk, grading routes on 'feel'.... awkward safe chimneys being more at risk of an upgrade.

In tems of Sron na Ciche, the wonderful Median was a bold sandbag until recently at Diff (now rightly upgraded)

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/sron_na_ciche-780/median-49659

Post edited at 09:36
 GrahamD 30 Oct 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Terriers Tooth original start was just badly graded because not only was it run out - it was pretty technical as well.

I did Arrow Route (as well as LELC)  very early on when I was 'just a V Diff climber and it was an eye Peter in terms of run out.

 GrahamD 30 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

How has the grade of Arrow Route changed over time ?  I hadn't realised that it wasn't always V.Diff.

 Cog 30 Oct 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

It is Diff in the latest guide.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...