Not all 5b's are equal....

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Philchris 17 Oct 2021

I'm finally getting towards E grades after years of puntering about so I'm pretty familiar with the adjectival/ technical grade system but was wondering how the adjective bit relates to length? Climbing at the weekend and looking at a HVS 5b that's only 12m high, I was thinking how this might compare with something like Cemetary Gates E1 5b but 50m. Could you assume the general level of climbing was easier (5b being the hardest move/s on both climbs) as it's so much longer but more commiting? Or is this just a misinterpretation and length has nothing to do with the grading?

Fire at will!

4
 VictorM 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

I’m not UK based so I am in no way claiming to know anything, but isn’t the E grade supposed to reflect how hard it is to place protection, and consequently how committing a climb is? Length might factor into this obviously but at some point decking is decking. 

37
 Jon Stewart 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

> I'm finally getting towards E grades after years of puntering about so I'm pretty familiar with the adjectival/ technical grade system but was wondering how the adjective bit relates to length? Climbing at the weekend and looking at a HVS 5b that's only 12m high, I was thinking how this might compare with something like Cemetary Gates E1 5b but 50m. Could you assume the general level of climbing was easier (5b being the hardest move/s on both climbs) as it's so much longer but more commiting? Or is this just a misinterpretation and length has nothing to do with the grading?

My understanding is that theoretically, 5b should be the same difficulty whether it's a one move boulder problem off a bowling green, or it's 30m off the deck with no gear above a pool of circling sharks. However.

5b on the first move of a grit route in Yorkshire might be as hard as what I would call 6a/b (e.g. The Black Chipper (E2 5b)). The "5b" climbing on Cemetry Gates is what I would call 4c - but it's continuous, steep and in a very intimidating situation. There's just no way there's any climbing on CG that's comparable to a grit (or granite, etc) HVS 5b. It's probably fair to say that on intense little outcrops, the technical grades will be tough. And on adventurous sustained routes, the technical grade is much much more likely to be way way soft.

But of course, you've got to add the total random factor on top of that, so next time you're on an overhanging sea cliff traverse with shit gear and there's a 5a crux, you could be unlucky and find it's technically way harder than all the 5bs you've ever done. Such is trad climbing.

3
 mrphilipoldham 17 Oct 2021
In reply to VictorM:

Yes, but it can also signify that how sustained a route is. If you've got 5b move after 5b move but bomber easy to place gear then it could well still get E2 5b which would normally suggest death on a stick if going by gear placements only.

Post edited at 12:30
13
 tehmarks 17 Oct 2021
In reply to VictorM:

It's tied to the technical grade — the E bit without the technical bit is relatively meaningless. For example:

  • E1 5b — 'bog standard' E1, neither dangerous nor sustained at 5b.
  • HVS 5b — a low or well-protected 5b crux probably surrounded by easier climbing.
  • E2 5b — sustained or bold 5b climbing.
1
 john arran 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

5b tells you the level of bouldering ability you'll need to be able to cope with the crux, as long as you're not tired when you get there. That's the problem with it really, as everyone's subjective experience will be different because people will arrive at the crux with widely varying levels of fatigue.

The E grade, by contrast, reflects the sum total of the whole experience. That means:

  1. If it's longer, the E grade may be higher,
  2. If it's less well protected, the E grade may be higher,
  3. If it's more strenuous, the E grade may be higher,
  4. If it's more exposed, the E grade may be higher,
  5. If it's more committing, the E grade may be higher, etc.

So for any route on which the hardest move is 5b, the E grade could range from VS or less (e.g. for a boulder problem start with a nut above your head) up to E6 or more (for sustained, committing climbing up steep, crumbly rock).

In general, with the exception of bouldery, grit routes, I think a full-pitch top-rope grade (as expressed as a sport grade) is much more helpful than a hardest-move grade, and it isn't surprising that we're gradually seeing shifts in that direction.

1
 Mark Kemball 17 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

E6 5b for a loose chossfest is more likely to be given XS 5b  

OP Philchris 17 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

That's what I was getting at I think, as the technical grade (no matter where it lies or for how many moves) is the same between two very different routes, it's reasonable to assume the general level of climbing is lower overall on the longer route, as Jon implied. I know I've probably confused the issue by comparing a HVS with an E1 but they were the routes in the discussion I as having. 

Don't misunderstand me, I like the adjectival 'experience' grade as I think it does as good a job as any of conveying the wildly different possibilties in any given situaiton, but as I start to take on harder/ longer/ more technical climbs it's nice to be able to refine the interpretation. I think I know why a VS 4b is what it is but things get a bit more blurred as the grades climb. 

Thanks for the input! 

 DaveHK 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

A lot of discussion about E-grades (and overall grades in general) tends to ignore the fact that it works in conjunction with the written description in most guidebooks.

Obviously the written description doesn't always shed light but the combo of overall grade, technical grade and a few well chosen words often tells you everything you need to know if not everything you'd like to know.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

100% agreed about the technical grade of Cemetery Gates.

2
 Michael Hood 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> 100% agreed about the technical grade of Cemetery Gates.

Although of course if you're predominantly an outcrop climber, unless you normally climb much higher grades, or you're a very unusual person (*), it won't feel technically easier than an outcrop 5b because of the situation, etc...

(*) - if you are that unusual person who can cope with a particular technical level in almost any situation, then you'll probably be climbing at a way higher level than 5b anyway - or certainly soon if you stick at it.

 Jon Stewart 17 Oct 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> E1 5b — 'bog standard' E1, neither dangerous nor sustained at 5b.

Except that on grit, e1 5b might have bad fall potential, e.g. Acheron (E1 5b)Morrison's Redoubt (E1 5b)

Whereas in Pembroke it could be really strenuous and pumpy, e.g. Hangover '77 (E1 5b)

> HVS 5b — a low or well-protected 5b crux probably surrounded by easier climbing.

Except on grit where it might be hard 5a/b the entire way, e.g. Bachelor's Left-hand (HVS 5b)

> E2 5b — sustained or bold 5b climbing.

Or bog standard e2 in Pembroke, just long. 

The grades work totally differently depending on area, e.g. Pabbay vs. Northumberland. The theory does not match the reality of what's in the guidebooks. 

 tehmarks 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes — but that seemed inappropriately complicated as an explanation to someone who isn't at all familiar with the concept of British trad grades.

2
 DaveHK 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>  The theory does not match the reality of what's in the guidebooks. 

And therein lies the fun!

1
 Jon Stewart 17 Oct 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

> And therein lies the fun!

Agreed. The reason we have the best grading system in the world is it's about 50% describing the difficulty of the route and 50% in-jokes  

2
 CantClimbTom 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

>  and 50% in-jokes  

Cue: TPS references then

 DaveHK 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The reason we have the best grading system in the world 

Many years ago, around the fire in the campsite at The Needles a group of American climbers asked me to explain E-grades. I told them that I would speak for 5 minutes or so and then they could ask questions. About 2 hours later they went to bed convinced it was the best grading system in the world. Probably.

 jim jones 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Best of luck trying to make some sense of all the opinions! 😂 Just try some that have had many ascents to begin with. 

Post edited at 20:22
 Misha 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

I wouldn’t assume a long E1 5b pitch has easier climbing apart from the crux compared to a short HVS 5a or 5b. It may well have harder climbing. For example, the HVS might have lots of 4c and some 5a or 5b. The E1 might have lots of 4c and 5a as well as a 5b crux. Bear in mind that each adjectival and technical grade has a range. Having said that, CG is fairly steady at E1, not sure it even has a particular crux but there is a lot of 5a/b climbing on good holds but fairly steep at the grade. If you are reasonably fit you might find it easier than say a tough HVS on grit, especially if you aren’t a grit meister. 

 VictorM 17 Oct 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Right, thanks for that explanation!

 kevin stephens 17 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Cemetery Gates is a bad example because it should never have been upgraded from HVS

5
 Michael Hood 17 Oct 2021
In reply to thread:

The best description I've ever seen of UK grades is in the much maligned 2002 Stanage guide, the right to left one.


In reply to Michael Hood:

> Although of course if you're predominantly an outcrop climber, unless you normally climb much higher grades, or you're a very unusual person (*), it won't feel technically easier than an outcrop 5b because of the situation, etc...

> (*) - if you are that unusual person who can cope with a particular technical level in almost any situation, then you'll probably be climbing at a way higher level than 5b anyway - or certainly soon if you stick at it.

I did Cemetery Gates in 1983 when I was working intensively in the film industry in London (a fortnight at a time without a break, and then a weekend off, every fortnight). My only climbing/training was tree-climbing in Kensington Gardens and top-roping at Bowles Rocks. I got very strong and very fit. The Gates is a fitness thing, basically. I was astonished by how easy it was technically - though my brother, who'd done it years before me, always said 'It's only 4c'. On the sandstone I was climbing 5c solid/borderline 6a, and leading in the mountains I could do 5b solid/borderline 5c (of course, the sandstone grades were at least one full grade harder than the mountain equivalents).

I don't know why, but I never had any trouble at all with the transition from top-roping on SE sandstone to leading on Welsh/Lakes volcanic. I suppose because that's what my brother and I were used to, had done from the outset in 1967/8: we were then tree-climbing in Knebworth Park and top-roping at Harrisons. Then, in the summer of 1968, on leaving school, we went straight up to Snowdonia for a month - fortunate with perfect weather - and went straight on to leading without turning a hair. We started with Milestone Buttress (mod!) and finished the month on HVSs like Kaisergebirge Wall and Spectre. I don't remember any big deal at all about leading, though I had a few nasty frights when those appalling old runners runners we had would fall off. (Worst was the massively undergraded Angular Chimney ""V Diff"" on the Gribin Facet when all/my only runners fell off. I think that probably was genuine 5b!!)

3
 ashtond6 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart

> 5b on the first move of a grit route in Yorkshire might be as hard as what I would call 6a/b (e.g. The Black Chipper (E2 5b)). The "5b" climbing on Cemetry Gates is what I would call 4c - but it's continuous, steep and in a very intimidating situation. There's just no way there's any climbing on CG that's comparable to a grit (or granite, etc) HVS 5b. It's probably fair to say that on intense little outcrops, the technical grades will be tough. And on adventurous sustained routes, the technical grade is much much more likely to be way way soft.

And this is why it's the worst grading system on the planet.

21
Andy Gamisou 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

There are only two sorts of 5b - ones I can do and ones in Northumberland.

Andy Gamisou 18 Oct 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> HVS 5b — a low or well-protected 5b crux probably surrounded by easier climbing.

I'm in no way arguing here (dare say you know better than I) but why would a low crux give it a lower adjectival grade?  In my (probably warped) reasoning I tend to view routes with high up cruxes less dangerous than ones with low down cruxes (unless low down means a few feet off the ground and/or pads used)?  Even then I once had to cart someone off to Alnwick hospital when they took a 2 foot ground fall.  This is assuming some sort of gear on the route - which there usually is (Northumberland excepted).

 DaveHK 18 Oct 2021
In reply to ashtond6:

> In reply to Jon Stewart

> And this is why it's the worst grading system on the planet.

A poor worker always blames their tools.

8
 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> There are only two sorts of 5b - ones I can do and ones in Northumberland.

I think a lot depends on what climbing you are used to. I grew up in Northumberland and while the grades felt harder than the Lakes or Wales when I eventually got onto gritstone I was stopped dead in my tracks.

 CantClimbTom 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

We aren't the only country to have a mix of adjectival and technical, we are maybe the most granular about it. I mean take the Yosemite Decimal system they have a class (grade 1-5 at the start which is sort vaguely like the adjectival of easy when a hard scramble turns into a rock climb as "Diff" or wherever you draw the line. Then they also add things like R or A

So what's the real difference between saying  5b HVS   or describing a route like 5.7 R  you have a technical and some adjectival thing for the character, just as mentioned we go to a lot more detail in the adjectival that just R, A, X etc

To answer the length question, because the adjective covers the overall seriousness a very short climb (or one with short pitches and good stances) at a technical grade will likely get a lower adjectival grade than the same in a many long pitches setting

 stevevans5 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

A low crux has the advantage that you're fresh, so it might feel easier, but equally the same could be true of a high crux with a really good rest before

 john arran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> So what's the real difference between saying  5b HVS   or describing a route like 5.7 R  you have a technical and some adjectival thing for the character, just as mentioned we go to a lot more detail in the adjectival that just R, A, X etc

You appear to have radically misunderstood the E grade if you can describe it as some "thing for the character". In fact, it says nothing at all specifically about the 'character', only the overall difficulty of leading it. It's only when the tech or sport grade is given as well, that we can start to gauge the character of the route, by reasoning that if it's 'only 5b' (or whatever) then there must be something particularly necky or pumpy about it.

The YDS grade, by itself, will give you the whole physical story but may not give you everything you need to know about the challenge of leading a route. The E grade, by itself, gives you the whole leading challenge but may not tell you how much of that challenge is physical. They're very different beasts.

 Webster 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Much of what i will say has already been covered in parts above, but anyway...

Theoretically the tech grade should be the same physical/technical dificulty anywhere... but not strictly speaking in isolation. The 5b move/s 30m up on cemetery gates take into account the fact that you are fatigued and have the weight of the rope/s etc to contend with. if you were to stick them on the deck for a boulder problem then yes it would only be 4c ish.

so yes you can assume that if a route is a long endurance type route then the tech grade will actually be soft, but that doesnt mean it will feel soft when you get to it!

Of course there will also be the random variation crag to crag, guide book to guide book and first ascentionist to first ascentionist, but that is the same with any grading system anywhere in the world, it is not a fault of the british tech system. I still think the british grading system is the best out there in the low to mid grade purely trad routes grading systems.

2
 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Webster:

'The 5b move/s 30m up on cemetery gates take into account the fact that you are fatigued and have the weight of the rope/s etc to contend with. if you were to stick them on the deck for a boulder problem then yes it would only be 4c ish'.

But this can't be right. It is the E  grade that takes this into account and seeks to inform us not the technical grade. 5b should be 5b wherever it is encountered. In real life of course there are regional variations so a 5b on grit is often harder than a 5b on a mountain route. But if you are fatigued by the time you get to the 5b crux it is the Adjectival grade that will reflect this.

Post edited at 10:33
1
 Martin Hore 18 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

> In general, with the exception of bouldery, grit routes, I think a full-pitch top-rope grade (as expressed as a sport grade) is much more helpful than a hardest-move grade, and it isn't surprising that we're gradually seeing shifts in that direction.

I've quoted this before on here but it's relevant in this context. The UK Tech grade was originally intended as a full-pitch top-rope grade, as per this quote from Alec Sharpe's 1976 Cloggy guide:

"The numerical grades refer to the difficulty of top-roping the climb and so the strenuousness of the climb is an important factor on the steeper routes". 

I tend to agree with John A. A move (back) to this definition might be sensible. And, controversially, this would provide the opportunity to switch to sport grades to define "the difficulty on a top-rope" which would make a lot more sense to those transitioning to UK trad. from indoor walls.

So E1 5b would (normally) become E1 f6a (or just E1 6a). Obviously an indoor 6a leader couldn't expect to head straight out on an E1, but if that person understands that leading E1 is like leading an indoor 6a where you are required to wait two or three minutes hanging on one hand at each clip, then the equivalence is not that daft.

Martin

 CantClimbTom 18 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

My apologies you're quite right... I should have said seriousness not character

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

As many replies have pointed out the UK grading system doesn't tell you everything. Does a route get a higher adjective grade because it is sustained, or because it is poorly protected? Normally a combination of the grade, guidebook, and looking at the route will allow you to work out what you are getting into. Then there are the regional differences and the outliers.

Cemetery Gates (E1 5b) is extremely low in the grade at E1 and is probably only worth HVS 5a/b

Even when you have a route grade, a guidebook and are standing at the bottom of the route you can still make a wrong assessment.

I did a 50m E2 5c/6a where the guidebook indicated the hard crux was well protected. What it failed to mention was the first 10m of 5a climbing on greasy, slightly suspect rock with crap gear. So what I considered a "safe" route felt like an E2 5a bottom with an E2 5c top

Post edited at 11:54
1
 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

> Many years ago, around the fire in the campsite at The Needles a group of American climbers asked me to explain E-grades. I told them that I would speak for 5 minutes or so and then they could ask questions. About 2 hours later they went to bed convinced it was the best grading system in the world. Probably.

I hope you asked them to explain the YDS too. That's always good for a laugh.

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The "5b" climbing on Cemetry Gates is what I would call 4c - but it's continuous, steep and in a very intimidating situation. 

If you are correct about this, then it is wrongly graded (not that the grading system is faulty). What do you think is the correct grade? VS 4c, HVS 4c, E1 4c? 

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

> I think I know why a VS 4b is what it is but things get a bit more blurred as the grades climb. 

I don't think they do. 

1
OP Philchris 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

You may well be right and, as I get more experience climbing those harder grades, it will become more apparent. However, as has been pointed out in the thread generally, there is more scope for interpretation as the grades get higher due to the interaction between adjectival and technical grades which is missing in the lower grades. There is also a ceiling of difficulty up around VS that limits the potential dangers which become much more subjective as difficulty progresses. 

On the other hand it may well just be down to inexperience. 

 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If you are correct about this, then it is wrongly graded (not that the grading system is faulty). What do you think is the correct grade? VS 4c, HVS 4c, E1 4c? 

HVS 4c

2
 john arran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> My apologies you're quite right... I should have said seriousness not character

My reply would have been the same in either case.

Andy Gamisou 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> I think a lot depends on what climbing you are used to. I grew up in Northumberland and while the grades felt harder than the Lakes or Wales when I eventually got onto gritstone I was stopped dead in my tracks.

My comment was (mostly) tongue in cheek.  Should have added an appropriate emoticon.

Andy Gamisou 18 Oct 2021
In reply to stevevans5:

> A low crux has the advantage that you're fresh, so it might feel easier, but equally the same could be true of a high crux with a really good rest before

Yes.  Hadn't really considered that aspect. Doh!

 Michael Hood 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> 'The 5b move/s 30m up on cemetery gates take into account the fact that you are fatigued and have the weight of the rope/s etc to contend with. if you were to stick them on the deck for a boulder problem then yes it would only be 4c ish'.

> But this can't be right. It is the E  grade that takes this into account and seeks to inform us not the technical grade. 5b should be 5b wherever it is encountered. In real life of course there are regional variations so a 5b on grit is often harder than a 5b on a mountain route. But if you are fatigued by the time you get to the 5b crux it is the Adjectival grade that will reflect this.

I think you are correct in theory but in practice Webster is often right. It is very difficult to accurately compare the difficulty of moves in wildly different circumstances when those moves are near your limit. And if you have enough grades in hand, then it's difficult to accurately grade anything that's that "easy".

Back to Cemetery Gates, here's a possible way to accurately get the technical grade...

  • Find an experienced climber who can cruise 4c, do 5a, struggles on 5b
  • Second/TR and see where the hardest moves are.
  • Lower to just below those moves, rest and then do those moves (not all together, if there's more than 1 contender for hardest move then deal with them separately).
  • Repeat until you feel you've got repeatability on "knowing" what the grade is (but make sure you have sufficient rest between tries).

Who's going to bother with that?

So in reality it's very hard for technical grading to not be subjective, and best practice seems to be consensus and arguing about it on UKC or in the pub.

1
 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

> However, as has been pointed out in the thread generally, there is more scope for interpretation as the grades get higher due to the interaction between adjectival and technical grades which is missing in the lower grades.

Is it? I wouldn't have thought so. Just scanned the thread and can't find this.

> There is also a ceiling of difficulty up around VS that limits the potential dangers which become much more subjective as difficulty progresses. 

Really? Why do you think this?

Edit: I actually don't think I know what you mean by this!

> On the other hand it may well just be down to inexperience. 

More likely I think!

Post edited at 14:39
1
 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

'So in reality it's very hard for technical grading to not be subjective, and best practice seems to be consensus and arguing about it on UKC or in the pub.'

It has always been about consensus.

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> HVS 4c

I'd say HVS 5a

 PaulJepson 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

For me, Cem Gates was comparable with Rock Idol in difficulty, length and style. Both felt E1 5a because quite a bit of 5a and loads of 4c. If it were shorter or more often done as 2 pitches, it would probably be HVS but that feels a bit mean.

 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021

Just out of interest. Anyone got any thoughts on how Cemetary Gates compares to Red Edge ? 

In reply to Slackboot:

If you mean the Red Edge on Esk Buttress, I would say similar in grade - soft-touch E1/5a

 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to John Stainforth:

Thats what I was thinking. 

 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> Just out of interest. Anyone got any thoughts on how Cemetary Gates compares to Red Edge ? 

Vastly easier. 

1
 Webster 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

> But this can't be right. It is the E  grade that takes this into account and seeks to inform us not the technical grade. 5b should be 5b wherever it is encountered.

not completely. a tech grade is how hard a move is. its trying to quantify something which is unquantifiable, there is no metric for 'techiness'! part of how hard a move is is where it is. on the deck you can step back, walk around, have a look, have a go etc etc all without wasting too much energy. while yes you can yo-yo a bit,you cant walk backwards or sideways into thin air to have a look at a move while you are 30m up! crux moves off of the deck (or indeed a big ledge) are always much much harder for a given tech grade than moves mid pitch for that exact reason.

so yes the E grade covers how sustained and/or exposed something is, but thats not the whole story and the tech grade will still be effected by its position in a route.

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Cemetery Gates is easier than Red Edge.

1
 John Kettle 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

There's an obvious solution to all of this hand-wringing about the difficulty of Cemetery Gates..

It's clearly benchmark E0 (4d)

1
 bouldery bits 18 Oct 2021
In reply to John Kettle:

Nah,

HXS f3c+ V2 and 3 quarters 

1
 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Cemetery Gates is easier than Red Edge.

This introduces another variable into the ever ongoing discussion about grades. I thought they were similar in grade. But I was climbing well when I did Red Edge and not so well when I did CG. So as has been mentioned, the fine tuning of grades is a very personal and subjective thing.

1
 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Slackboot:

Yes, the grade doesn’t change but an individuals assessment of a route grade will be influenced by how well you are going, conditions, whether it suits your style, is it the first route of the day….

Regardless of all these factors, Cemetary Gates is only worth HVS. I thought Sabre Cut (VS 4c) without any big cams was worthy of a higher adjective grade.

3
 Slackboot 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Proper climbing discussion on UKC. Who'd have thought it! 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

The top pitch of Sabre Cut is only 4b, supposedly, so VS seems right.

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to pancakeandchips: It might well be 4b, but I would say 4c, and without any big cams you wouldn’t want to fall off.

1
 kevin stephens 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Sabre Cut benchmark VS

Cemetery Gates Benchmark HVS

Cenotaph Corner benchmark E1

Left Wall benchmark E2 (?!?!)

Memory Lane benchmark E3 serious?

Foil benchmark E3 safe?

Resurrection benchmark E4

Right Wall benchmark E5 ??

Lord of the Flies benchmark E6? 

Post edited at 20:30
4
 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

A couple of routes that are both 5b:

Death Trap (E5 5b)

Verandah Buttress (HVD 5b)

So if a climber is confident at 5b presumably…

 Michael Hood 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

It didn't feel too bad before big cams were around, VS 4b for the top pitch felt about right. In some ways knowing nowadays that you can put big cams in will make it feel even bolder if you haven't got any with you.

Also, I seem to remember that there's a crack within the crack on one of the inner walls, and I'm sure that it was possible to get gear in that because I've no memory of it being scarily run-out. 

 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Cemetery Gates is easier than Red Edge.

Certainly is. It's easy to forget that Red Edge starts with pratting about with no decent gear on an indistinct line up a gully wall on smooth rock. Then it gets going on nice positive holds and it starts to feel Cemetry Gates-esque, but by then you've done the most difficult, potentially dangerous, but willingly forgettable bit. God bless the Lakes.

Gates on the other hand is just a romp, start to finish.

1
 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

Kevin, you are probably right. My point was to highlight the variables such as a climbers strengths, lead head, gear owned,…etc.

I have done Sabre Cut a few times and it is VS but if VS was your lead grade and you forgot your big cams I think you would have a hard time.

I can’t comment on the harder climbs but I found Left Wall soft for E2, Whereas the UKC consensus is highish in the grade

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> It didn't feel too bad before big cams were around, VS 4b for the top pitch felt about right. In some ways knowing nowadays that you can put big cams in will make it feel even bolder if you haven't got any with you.

Good point, you are probably right.

> Also, I seem to remember that there's a crack within the crack on one of the inner walls, and I'm sure that it was possible to get gear in that because I've no memory of it being scarily run-out. 

There is a crack for gear in a couple of places but you still end up(from memory) 30ft up with gear at 12ft, maybe I missed something.

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris: The point you make about whether length of route has anything to do with grade is interesting. A similar point came up in a recent topic about multi-pitch.

Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

 john arran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

It isn't right, although people routinely argue for it anyway.

If E1 is the grade that x% of climbers can be expected to onsight, then far less than x% of climbers will be expected to onsight 12 of them in a row. Therefore the grade must be higher. Simple logic.

 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

Wouldn't it get E2, since the E grade is supposed to tell you hard it is overall?

In reality, it would probably get E3 5c, because it would be as hard as climbing an E3, but since 5b doesn't "go with" well protected E3, its technical grade would inevitably get inflated.*

*note, this is an invitation to have an argument about the grade of a route that doesn't exit!

Post edited at 21:04
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Sabre Cut seemed fine, long before cams had been invented.  Gordon and I did it as our first proper VS, having progressed from Mild VS the day before and from Severe the day before that! There is no comment in my diary - we just took these early climbs and their grades at face value.

5
 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Wouldn't it get E2, since the E grade is supposed to tell you hard it is overall?

> In reality, it would probably get E3 5c, because it would be as hard as climbing an E3, but since 5b doesn't "go with" well protected E3, its technical grade would inevitably get inflated.*

> *note, this is an invitation to have an argument about the grade of a route that doesn't exit!

Well I like a good grade discussion. In fact it’s a good thing that UK climbing grades are a bit woolly at times, otherwise what would we talk about after a days climbing? It’s not just in the UK, don’t get me started on the grade of La Demande (6a)!

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Sabre Cut benchmark VS

> Cemetery Gates Benchmark HVS

> Cenotaph Corner benchmark E1

> Left Wall benchmark E2 (?!?!)

> Memory Lane benchmark E3 serious?

> Foil benchmark E3 safe?

> Resurrection benchmark E4

> Right Wall benchmark E5 ??

> Lord of the Flies benchmark E6? 

Left Wall, Memory Lane and Foil all top end of grade. Right Wall bottom end. Almost benchmark boundary grade markers.

2
 Michael Gordon 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> The point you make about whether length of route has anything to do with grade is interesting. A similar point came up in a recent topic about multi-pitch.

> Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

Kind of academic since AFAIK there are no routes in the UK with twelve E1 5b pitches in a row. Better to go on a case by case basis. But generally I do think that with stuff in the UK not being overly long, an E2 for example should really have at least one pitch which would get that grade in its own right; otherwise it's liable to feel like an E1.

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Kind of academic since AFAIK there are no routes in the UK with twelve E1 5b pitches in a row. Better to go on a case by case basis. But generally I do think that with stuff in the UK not being overly long, an E2 for example should really have at least one pitch which would get that grade in its own right; otherwise it's liable to feel like an E1.

Torro (E2 5c)?
 

 Alex Riley 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Second pitch of Sabrecut has wire placements most of the way up and isn't really that tricky (unless you try and use pure jamming!).

Crux on cenotaph is as hard if not harder than that of Left Wall (I've done both routes on the same day a few times). Cemetery in my mind gets the E grade for a few reasons, rock quality (not as good as the rest of the corner, some loose stuff low down), potential for people building a poor belay at the ledge and it is reasonably sustained (although as people have said, possibly not 5b).  

All are good routes, left wall is my favourite though.

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

I've always worked on the basis that the grade of a route is the grade the hardest pitch would get in isolation. I've been told I'm wrong on here, but I've never seen a convincing counterexample.

1
 Michael Gordon 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

A good example! Others might be The Bracken-Clock (E2 5c) and Evil Spirits (E2 5c). I think these may all officially get E2 because there's a 5c pitch on each, but in each case it's arguably an E1 5c pitch. All three felt like E1s to me but I know that others may disagree.

 kevin stephens 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Left Wall, Memory Lane and Foil all top end of grade. Right Wall bottom end. Almost benchmark boundary grade markers.

Hence the question marks on some routes inviting comments. Also this is very subjective, I found Memory Lane easy (not sure I would mow) but Foil desperate and failed. All climbs require a combination of physical, technical and mental prowess, which the E grade combined with tech grade tries to capture. Climbers also have different blends of these prowesses hence the subjectivity and arguments. Grade creep is a consequence of failed attempts to resolve the anomalies thrown up.

 Michael Gordon 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I've always worked on the basis that the grade of a route is the grade the hardest pitch would get in isolation. I've been told I'm wrong on here, but I've never seen a convincing counterexample.

For stuff in the UK I'm tempted to agree. For a big wall you might expect an overall grade to be harder than the hardest pitch though. E.g. a sustained route with a solid E4 crux pitch might get E5?

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I’ve done Torro and The Bracken Clock, both worth E2 in my opinion.

 kevin stephens 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I've always worked on the basis that the grade of a route is the grade the hardest pitch would get in isolation. I've been told I'm wrong on here, but I've never seen a convincing counterexample.

Increased grading from multiple pitches is influenced by the increased commitment and/or attrition . This will have a greater impact on some climbs and less on others.

 planetmarshall 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

It's a means of attaching a number to an arrangement of rock features in a well intentioned but ultimately futile attempt to characterize its difficulty. Try not to get too hung up on it.

1
 john arran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I've always worked on the basis that the grade of a route is the grade the hardest pitch would get in isolation. I've been told I'm wrong on here, but I've never seen a convincing counterexample.

My favourite UK counterexample is The Scoop, on Sron Ulladale. The hardest pitches are E6 individually, but I don't know whether it's ever been onsighted in its entirety by anyone who hasn't onsighted E7.

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Increased grading from multiple pitches is influenced by the increased commitment and/or attrition . This will have a greater impact on some climbs and less on others.

But do you have an example where the grade of the route is higher than the grade of the hardest pitch?

 Robert Durran 18 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

> My favourite UK counterexample is The Scoop, on Sron Ulladale. The hardest pitches are E6 individually, but I don't know whether it's ever been onsighted in its entirety by anyone who hasn't onsighted E7.

Ok, and do you think E7 is the correct grade?

 kevin stephens 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But do you have an example where the grade of the route is higher than the grade of the hardest pitch?

How about Rat Race at Gogarth (if you accept the upgrade from E2 to E3)?

 Martin Haworth 18 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens: I think The Rat Race (E3 5c)is worth E3. It might be slightly soft for the grade but the crux pitch is pretty hard 5c, especially when it’s damp, which it always is!

 Jon Stewart 18 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Left Wall, Memory Lane and Foil all top end of grade. Right Wall bottom end. Almost benchmark boundary grade markers.

Left Wall is not top end E2!

It all depends on what you're calibrated to. If you're calibrated to the Highlands/Hebrides it's hard for E2, if your stomping ground is Cornish granite, it's a path. For the same rock type, compare with a top end E2 like Tumbleweed, Equus, The Tomb, etc. 

1
 duncan 18 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Cemetery Gates E1 5+

> Cenotaph Corner E1 6a+

> Left Wall E2 6a+

> Memory Lane E3 6a+

> Foil E3 6c+

> Resurrection E4 6c

> Right Wall E5 6c

> Lord of the Flies E6 7a? 

Much more informative. 

In reply to the OP:

Not all 5bs are equal because 5b could be anything from Fr 5 (Great Slab) to Fr 6b+ (Right Eliminate?). No other grading system attempts to evaluate a single move because this is not very helpful as a measure of difficulty (what is a single move? One hand movement? Two metres of vertical ascent??) once beyond move-rest-move-rest climbing.  

If you can bear it, much more here: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rocktalk/is_it_time_to_bin_the_british_te...


 

 john arran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ok, and do you think E7 is the correct grade?

Well if it takes someone capable of climbing E7 to do it, how could it possibly be E6?

 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

That was my immediate thought. I've not done this route so can't comment on the actual correctness of the grading, but IIRC it used to be given E2 5b with a lot of 5b pitches and the E2 I think was an upgrade from E1 because of the number of 5b pitches and the length and sustained nature (no easy pitches).

I think the 5c grading was more recent. All irrelevant really because of course as we all know the correct grade is Scottish VS 😁

(Edit: It's not even top of the Scottish VS graded list for the Ben, bonus point if you know which route comes 1st)

Post edited at 07:22
 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> A good example! Others might be The Bracken-Clock (E2 5c)

Isn't this the classic example of being graded E2 5c because the two main pitches would be given E1 5c and E2 5b if they were separately graded?

 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

It might be but I can't agree. I ran them together (both quite short) and still thought it felt like an E1 5c pitch.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

> Well if it takes someone capable of climbing E7 to do it, how could it possibly be E6?

By grading it by the hardest pitch in isolation. It is just a question of how the system is meant to work.

 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

Torro would be a good example if you (people in general) feel there's at least a couple of E1 pitches but merits E2 overall. For me it backs up Robert's point as without any proper E2 pitches it (to me) felt like an E1.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Torro would be a good example if you (people in general) feel there's at least a couple of E1 pitches but merits E2 overall. For me it backs up Robert's point as without any proper E2 pitches it (to me) felt like an E1.

I think it is probably worth E2 because there is an E2 pitch. If the consensus is that there is not an E2 pitch, then maybe it should be E1.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Left Wall is not top end E2!

I don't think it should ever have been downgraded from E3. It was definitive bottom end E3, so why change it?

> It all depends on what you're calibrated to. 

I'm calibrating it by N. Wales grades. The times I climbed it I was going there quite lot.

1
 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> By grading it by the hardest pitch in isolation. It is just a question of how the system is meant to work.

The grade should be for the route as a whole. But I do wonder if John's example is either a rare exception to the 'hardest pitch' rule or an example amongst a few hard routes where similar examples don't really occur at punter grades.  

 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it is probably worth E2 because there is an E2 pitch. If the consensus is that there is not an E2 pitch, then maybe it should be E1.

But which pitch would it be? For my money there's a couple of steady or low E1 pitches at the start and only 2 proper ones (the 5c pitch and the top 5b corner).

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> But which pitch would it be? 

The 5c one I think. Always felt quite hard to me.

 DaveHK 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I don't think it should ever have been downgraded from E3. It was definitive bottom end E3, so why change it?

Because that's wrong? 

1
 PaulJepson 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I did it earlier this year and thought it would have been pretty scary without a #4 to bump up. There is a small crack within the crack but it's not like it's covered in gear. I got a bomber #2 nut in it about 1/3rd of the way up, about halfway up there was a flared placement that nuts were pulling through so I blindly placed a small purple cam which could have been good or bad, and then near the end I got a meh gold offset on the left wall. I think you'd have to be very careful not to fall off.

> It didn't feel too bad before big cams were around, VS 4b for the top pitch felt about right. In some ways knowing nowadays that you can put big cams in will make it feel even bolder if you haven't got any with you.

> Also, I seem to remember that there's a crack within the crack on one of the inner walls, and I'm sure that it was possible to get gear in that because I've no memory of it being scarily run-out. 

 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

As currently used, the adjectival grade is for whole routes. There is of course an argument for having a separate adjectival grade for each pitch on a multi-pitch route.

Obviously this would provide more precise information about a route, but would it be worth the hassle (mainly for guidebook writers) to sort out.

Back to the Torro example, were you an E2 leader at the time? Would an E1 leader struggle with the totality of the route or would you need to be leading E2 to be confident of getting up the route without resorting to "French free" tactics? The answers to those should guide whether the whole route is E1 or E2. 

 john arran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> By grading it by the hardest pitch in isolation. It is just a question of how the system is meant to work.

"meant to work"? By whom?

The grade tells you how well you need to be climbing to have a good chance of onsighting a route. The fewer climbers able to onsight it, the higher the grade.

The discussion is actually quite analogous to that of the 'single move' tech grade. While it's nice to know the grade of each part in isolation, what's most important to know, grading-wise, is your chances of getting up the whole route.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

> Because that's wrong? 

There is an infinitessimaly small difference between top end E2 and bottom end E3, so no point in changing it.

2
OP Philchris 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Blimey, you step away from a thread for 5 minutes! Very enjoyable reading all of the responses though.

Please don't misunderstand the OP, I'm not after a 'could I climb X if I've climbed Y' type of answer, it was just an idle chat at the crag about how the grade of a route can be interpreted in light of the length.

Anyway, carry on!

 Twiggy Diablo 19 Oct 2021

My difficulty with translating those routes on Dinas Cromlech to sport that they’re actually pretty long.  

Of course they do exist, but i’ve never climbed a 5c/6a sport route that is 40m at a sport crag. Let alone one that is continuous vertical climbing. (Good thing seeing as my sport rope is only 70m

Likewise our local indoor wall puts big juggy 6a routes under the big horizontal roof… they’re easy enough but i’ve never seen anything like that at a crag.

 Martin Haworth 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

I thought Left Wall was steady for E2, really surprised it was ever E3. The direct finish is a bit harder and is given E3 but it is at the bottom of the grade.

I suppose a lot comes down to what type of route suits you, and how well you are going.

I thought Nexus (E1 5b) was as hard as Left Wall.

 Martin Haworth 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Apologies for the highjack.

 Martin Haworth 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Torro.

Its a while since I did it but I seem to remember the first two pitches being E1, the pitch through the overlap being E1, and the last pitch being E1. However, I thought the route overall deserved E2, but if you went with how the UK grading system is meant to be then it should be graded E1.

Post edited at 09:12
 DaveHK 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> I thought Left Wall was steady for E2, really surprised it was ever E3. 

Me too, to the extent that I wondered if there was a story behind it getting E3 for a bit like some enthusiastic 'cleaning' revealing/creating some better holds or suchlike.

 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Torro.

> Its a while since I did it but I seem to remember the first two pitches being E1, the pitch through the overlap being E1, and the last pitch being E1. However, I thought the route overall deserved E2, but if you went with how the UK grading system is meant to be then it should be graded E1.

Disagree - if you need to be an E2 leader to be able to lead all those "E1" pitches then the route should be graded E2 is how I believe the UK grading system is meant to be.

 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran:

The analogy to having a separate adjectival grade for each pitch would be a technical grade for each section of a pitch.

Funnily enough, the hardest sports routes (and maybe all the easier ones too sometimes) do get broken down when they're being projected - e.g. 8c into 8A+ boulder problem followed by 8b to the chains - and then once it's done we all ask what the overall grade of the whole pitch is - I'll point to Rainman (9b) again as an example.

 DaveHK 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

There's some proper batshit crazy talk on this thread. Are some of you genuinely suggesting that the fundamental essence of a route can't be reduced to a couple of numbers and letters? That way madness lies...  

 Derek Furze 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

That’s quite a good bit of wordsmithery there!

 Dave Garnett 19 Oct 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Hence the question marks on some routes inviting comments. Also this is very subjective, I found Memory Lane easy (not sure I would mow) but Foil desperate and failed. 

Exactly.  My memory of routes that I found easy or hard isn't even consistent with my own experience on subsequent ascents of the same routes, let alone other routes of supposedly the same grade!  

 gooberman-hill 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

Absolutely. The starting point should be the overall (adjectival) grade. So (for example) Torro might get E1 or E2 (depending on your perspective ). Then you add in the technical grades of the individual pitches, based on the assumption that the hardest move on each pitch is graded as if it was a boulder problem (i.e. close to the ground, no thought of seriousness).

Starting from the opposite perspective (grading each pitch separately, then trying to work out what the adjectival grade should be) doesn't really work.

Steve 

 gooberman-hill 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Am I right in thinking that when Simon Nadin won the first sports climbing World Cup he cruised up an overhanging headwall full of slopers that stopped everyone else. When asked what why he could do it, he replied something on the lines of "Roaches 5b"

Steve
 

 HeMa 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

what I find interesting in all these talks, is how every time the tech+adjective grade is brought up, every one is trumping how superior it is...

and right after, they mention that often a written route description is needed. If you need to read the description, to really know what you get into, then almost any grading system works.

E.g. E4 5C.... bold unprotected slab into tough, well protected crux crack.
7a R, bold unprotected slab into tough, well protected crux crack.

So in both cases, you do not know about the easier un-protected slab (low E-grade and the R) imply that it will be quite easy, but still... And in both cases, you also get the short, so cruxy info from the description... not the grade.

After all, E4 5c, without any description could also be rather sustained line with good protection the whole way ... in fact, for that the sports grade would actually tell more... 7a (no R or X), so you know it's "safe"...



in fact, I remember Steve McClure wrote a bit tongue in the cheek that you need way more variables... he went a tad overboard (using different bouldering grades to reflect different kinds of parts of the climb). But the general idea is actually sound.

You need to know, how physically hard the climbing is... like a sports grade. Then you need to know how hard the hardest part of the climb is.... so not a single move, but rather the defining hardest sequences... which is a boulder grade... and lastly you'd need to know how dicey it is, so some sort of method to describe the quality and amount of the gear. I do agree, that perhaps the PG,R,X is not enough or the best... but in the lines of that... in fact I do prefer the method my friends have used in a small region of the archipelago they have developped... grading all the trad routes on the quality of the gear... ranging from teddy bear, to ibex, to gorilla, to spider (AFAIR). But I'm sure other suitable methods could also be taken into account.

With just these three attributes, you could make rather good quesses where you would end up, even without having any descriptions.... 

Let's lookup e.g. Downhill Racer (E4 6a).
So E4 6a... unless you read the description, you might think this is a reasonable well protected line with a hard crux... not unprotected slab in a scary position.

Let's assume it would get the sports grade of 7a, but since it is unprotected X would end up there as well... from this you actually already know more without the description...

Lastly 7a 5C Spider, well 7a on toprope, (my guess) font 5C boulder as the crux sequence and unprotected (by any real account, sure ducktape plus skyhook might be utilized... but let's be realistic about it and say that they most likely will not hold). This ins't actually much more informative than the sports grade + danger aspect... but for some other routes that actually have gear, they will tell more.

2
 PaulJepson 19 Oct 2021
In reply to HeMa:

You almost need a Top-Trumps-esque ranking along-side the UK grading system.

The Rockfax symbols are quite handy sometimes but does one mans quest for pre-climb knowledge spoil anothers onsite experience? 

Really, if it's a particular outlier in terms of grading, it should be at least hinted at by the guidebook writer in the description.  

 TobyA 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> Is a single pitch E1 5b worthy of the same grade as a multi-pitch route with 12 consecutive E1 5b pitches? The UK grading system would grade it overall E1 5b, but how can that be right?

Not the UK, but when the first Rockfax miniguide came out to Lofoten they gave Vestpillaren Direct (n6) E2 5b on the basis that it 11 pitches are pretty sustained. That freaked me out when I first saw it because when it just Nor 6 I had very nearly given it a go, and when I got back up there E2 was being thrown about, and I had hardly climbed any E1s let alone any E2s. I went for it on the basis that my partner was an E5 leader so figured he could pull me up the hardest parts, but actually we swung leads the whole way up. And what E2 5b doesn't tell you is there is hardly a move in the 500 odd metres of climbing that you couldn't aid off a nut or cam if you really had to! It felt super well protected the whole way, which E2 5b doesn't really capture does it?

Anyway it's back to just 6 now, with all the mystery, hope and terror that can involve!

Post edited at 13:08
 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to HeMa:

> what I find interesting in all these talks, is how every time the tech+adjective grade is brought up, every one is trumping how superior it is...

I don't think that is actually true. What people are fiercely protective off is the adjectival grade. I think people are pretty open minded about what it would be best paired with; a very strong case can be made with a French grade, or even a YDS one (if agreement could be reached on what it actually means....... )

> You need to know.......

What you mean is "it can be useful to know". Any two tiered system only shows two bits of information. It is just a matter of deciding which two bits we would like, with the rest left to a description or visual inspectuon, or left unknown.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Not the UK, but when the first Rockfax miniguide came out to Lofoten they gave Vestpillaren Direct (n6) E2 5b on the basis that it 11 pitches are pretty sustained.

I've done it twice and thought that the crux pitch was E2 and probably worth 5c.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

> Me too, to the extent that I wondered if there was a story behind it getting E3 for a bit like some enthusiastic 'cleaning' revealing/creating some better holds or suchlike.

I've belayed three E2 leaders aspiring to E3 on Left Wall and all three failed on it (one was before the downgrade and the others after but with the reputation for being top end E2)

It may be that the E3 grade was kind of self-fulfilling and freaked them out - perhaps, if it had never been given E3 (or at least subsequently had a reputation for being top end E2), they would have cruised it and wondered what all the fuss was about.

Or maybe it was my fault for telling them I thought it was worth E3!

Perhaps if Right Wall were downgraded and lost its massive reputation as being THE tick for aspiring E5 climbers, it would get loads more stress free ascents at E4 than it does at E5.

2
 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to HeMa:

Basic grading systems theory:

  • Properly applied, any 2 factor grading system will tell you more than a 1 factor grading system.
  • Properly applied, any 3 factor grading system will tell you more than a 2 factor grading system.
  • Etc.

Since your "7a 5C Spider" has 3 factors, it's bound to convey more information than E4 6a.

And similarly Adj+Tech will tell you more than just Sport (although depending on which climbing game you're playing that may or may not be more useful).

But Adj+Tech v French+R/X will tell you the same amount of information, it's just it'll be different information and the bits you have to infer (from the relationship between the factors) will be different - in which case it just comes down to personal preference or maybe which combination of grade systems is best for that particular climbing game at that location.

You need to go back to Drummond's Avon Gorge guide with his numerical grading for "all" relevant aspects.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to john arran.

> The grade tells you how well you need to be climbing to have a good chance of onsighting a route. The fewer climbers able to onsight it, the higher the grade.

Yes, of course, but it could be argued that it would be more useful to grade it by the hardest pitch and assume it was obvious to any E6 climber that they have less chance of onsighting 6 (or whatever) E6 pitches in a row than just one.

How many E(n) pitches are worth E(n+1)? Or even E(n+2)?

Anyway, if you do alternate leads of 6 E6 pitches, who gets to bank the 7 E-points? I've always assumed I get the points if I have onsighted the crux pitch - maybe I shouldn't have!

Post edited at 13:35
 Andy Hardy 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Having skim read the rest of the thread I should point out that all the grades cover a wide range of difficulty, and 5b / 5c probably covers the widest range out of 2 contiguous grades so it's not going to be any surprise to find there are some that are easy and some that are hard!

Coupled with that is local grades for local people. If you climb a lot on granite you find the moves unfamiliar on slate (for example) and hence think slate grades are nails, whereas the habitués of Llanberis might find Haytor grades challenging.

 Michael Hood 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, of course, but it could be argued that it would be more useful to grade it by the hardest pitch and assume it was obvious to any E6 climber that they have less chance of onsighting 6 (or whatever) E6 pitches in a row than just one.

One would hope that it was obvious (especially at E6 where there are few beginners), but grading from just the hardest pitch has several problems:

  • Might be more than 1 hardest pitch.
  • 2 contenders for hardest might be different climbing styles so hardest might depend on each climber's strengths and likes.
  • Doesn't really convey any more information than overall adjectival grade, except where the hardest pitch does NOT have the highest technical grade.
  • It assumes that if you can climb the E"n" pitch, then you can always climb any E"n-1" pitch and of course that's not always true because they may be of different styles etc. 

Adjectival grading each pitch would be a useful change since it would increase the amount of information (do we always want that? - a different question) and similarly to above, it should be fairly obvious how hard the whole route's going to be if you know how hard each pitch is.

Technical grade would also be more useful if it was hardest move (i.e. how hard it felt) as you climbed the pitch rather than hardest move in isolation - so a long sequence of say 5b (by the single move definition) might have got 5c or more because the last "5b" move might have been a grade harder to climb by the time you got there - I think that's how it was initially applied by some - Ron was one I believe.

Thank goodness there are no perfect grading systems out there, what would we talk about 😁

Post edited at 14:02
 rka 19 Oct 2021
 Philb1950 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

If R.W. was E4, then Resurrection would be a well protected E3 and so on. As far as I’m concerned R.W. ticks all the boxes for E5. Fairly sustained, not over protected, with the crux at the top above the gear. The move out of the porthole is fairly intimidating. I’ve seen many notables struggle there, some off.

1
 Jon Stewart 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Isn't this (bracken clock) the classic example of being graded E2 5c because the two main pitches would be given E1 5c and E2 5b if they were separately graded?

Yes, exactly. 

 Jon Stewart 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I don't think it should ever have been downgraded from E3. It was definitive bottom end E3, so why change it?

Because that's the wrong grade for a middle e2.

> I'm calibrating it by N. Wales grades. The times I climbed it I was going there quite lot.

There you go. N Wales grades are soft.

1
 PaulJepson 19 Oct 2021
In reply to rka:

For Avon Gorge as well!

I'd love to see an updated version of that grading. I think there'd be a few 3s for rock and gear!

In reply to PaulJepson:

Back in the late 80's after a lot of apprehension and putting off I led Last Slip in the Avon Gorge on sight. At that time is was E4 but I was on form and hyped up for it and found it relatively easy.  Not wishing to sound too immodest, I cruised it.  The following year I was seconding it and finding it much harder I fell off.  Several months after that I tried again on a shunt and still didn't manage to clear it. Move on a couple of years and a subsequent down grade I found myself trying to shunt it once again with similar results and wondered how I had ever led it let alone found it easy. That's how subjective grading can be.  I tried trying to make sense of all this and gave up  years ago

Al

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Because that's the wrong grade for a middle e2.

Of course. But not if you think it is right on the grade boundary.

> There you go. N Wales grades are soft.

Yes, probably, but I think LW should be graded consistent with N Wales grades if grades vary (unfortunately) with area.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philb1950:

> If R.W. was E4, then Resurrection would be a well protected E3 and so on.

Not necessarily. If RW is seen as very bottom of the grade (as I always understood it to be), then if it were demoted to very top end E4, that does not mean that Resurrection cannot be the same grade and still be a significantly easier lead. Just as LW was a lot easier than Foil when both were E3.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Grading from just the hardest pitch has several problems:

> Might be more than 1 hardest pitch.

Why is that a problem? The route would get the grade they both have?

> 2 contenders for hardest might be different climbing styles so hardest might depend on each climber's strengths and likes.

But that is the case when comparing different routes. The grade would be the harder one by consensus (ie for most climbers)

> Doesn't really convey any more information than overall adjectival grade, except where the hardest pitch does NOT have the highest technical grade.

No, but it more usefully compares the difficulty with other routes of any length.

> It assumes that if you can climb the E"n" pitch, then you can always climb any E"n-1" pitch and of course that's not always true because they may be of different styles etc. 

Again, no different from comparing different routes.

1
 Rick51 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Scap the numerical grade and go back to just using Extremely Severe for everything. Possibly throw in Exceptionally Severe for a couple of routes that are by no means the hardest around.

After a couple of years the current grades will look quite appealing.

 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

In answer to your questions about Torro, yes I was leading E2 at the time. Given it gets E2 in the guide, it would be a bit silly to attempt it if I was only leading E1. Of course, beforehand I didn't know that really it was only an E1

It's impossible to say how hard a route would feel grade-wise if you had attempted it when you weren't climbing so well. All I can do is compare it with other routes I've done. Take the Bat for example - a VS pitch, a couple of HVS, an E1 then a proper sustained E2 battle trying not to emulate Haston! There's just no comparison.

I think when you get a short safe E1 5c / E2 6a etc pitch on a route, as with single pitch, you aren't grading so much for the onsight but for (a) how hard the pitch feels and (b) what is judged about right for an E1 climber to attempt considering commitment, how safe it is and yes, perhaps whether aiding is an option if necessary. An E1 5c pitch is nearly always going to be fairly hard for an E1 climber but that's just the nature of the beast. You seem to be suggesting that one should grade more softly on multipitch, something I can't really agree with unless it really is commiting i.e. you can't just ab off and walk away.   

 Michael Gordon 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Disagree - if you need to be an E2 leader to be able to lead all those "E1" pitches then the route should be graded E2 is how I believe the UK grading system is meant to be.

Putting aside whether you really do need to be an E2 leader to lead it or not (a matter of opinion and impossible to test since realisticly folk are going to wait until they can lead the guidebook grade), you do raise an interesting question as to whether routes are generally graded assuming both climbers in a team are evenly matched or that only one of them is capable of the hardest pitches. I think generally routes are graded for the hardest pitch and if there's a few hard ones in a row then climbers simply make their own judgement on whether to find a strong partner or accept that it may feel hard for the grade given they've chosen to do all the heavy lifting.

 kevin stephens 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I've belayed three E2 leaders aspiring to E3 on Left Wall and all three failed on it (one was before the downgrade and the others after but with the reputation for being top end E2)

> It may be that the E3 grade was kind of self-fulfilling and freaked them out - perhaps, if it had never been given E3 (or at least subsequently had a reputation for being top end E2), they would have cruised it and wondered what all the fuss was about.

> Or maybe it was my fault for telling them I thought it was worth E3!

> Perhaps if Right Wall were downgraded and lost its massive reputation as being THE tick for aspiring E5 climbers, it would get loads more stress free ascents at E4 than it does at E5.

In the current CC guide True Grip was downgraded from E5 to E4, but the author forgot to remove the comment “low in the grade” in the description copied from the previous edition on the guide. I wonder if aspirants reading the guide proved or disproved your proposition?

 TobyA 19 Oct 2021
 HeMa 19 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

The middle N6 pitch has the hardest indevidual moves… at least that is how it felt on both times I climbed it. Slanting corner is sustained, but not really that difficult. In fact I thing the first N6 pitch of the direct had also harder climbing than Slanting corner.

 Robert Durran 19 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Fairy nuff then. We might have discussed this before, but which did you think was the crux, the long slanted corner high up that everyone takes the photos of? Or the shorter steeper techy corner some pitches below that? 

The third pitch of the direct start with a distinct crux overlap (I thought the only candidate for a 5c move on the route). 

 TobyA 19 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

I repeated the Direct Start a couple of years after I had done the whole thing, so have actually done that bit twice. Toby led those pitches the first time, but I got up them fine, and then I think I led them when I repeated the start without huge difficulty. I do remember they were hard, but funnily enough I also thought the crux was much higher (the pitch in the photo I linked earlier). Interesting. But a good long time ago, so who knows how I would fine them now. I do remember though I repeated the Direct Start pitches on my first day of being 30. It was late afternoon before we decided to try climbing something because we were rather hungover from celebrating around a beach campfire the night before! So I seem to have found it OK even with a hangover!

 Dave Garnett 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Maybe I was having a good day but I don't think I've ever managed any 5c pitches in the UK without falling, 

 

Really?  It’s only like sport 6b but with gear you’ve put in yourself!

I’ll think of something suitable.

How about Yew Tree Wall (E1 5c)?

 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I've only just scraped my way up a few 6bs, which tend to be very slabby (everything at Moss Rake, the one 6b I onsighted on Finnish granite), probably really just a badly graded 6as (the route on the right of the main wall at Hidden), or things where the clips were already in and someone was yelling beta at me (my 6b I flashed at Horsethief back in the summer). So yes, English 5c sounds pretty terrifying! - Even more so considering how hard I've found grit HVS 5bs in recent years. I haven't done many E1s onsight in the UK, and of the ones I have, I don't think any of them of have been on grit. I suspect HVS 5b is the hardest I've onsighted on grit.

 Cake 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

That is truly incredible, considering you once told me that you found Tower Crack (HVS 5b) fine (or words to that effect). That was the only time we've spoken, and, yes, I was currently failing on said route.

Absolutely nails.

 Offwidth 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Haworth:

Verandah Buttress isn't HVD 5b though, its on the 4c/5a border if you spot the (incredibly difficult to spot) trick; then there are about 10 different harder methods and when I've watched ascents it's most often climbed by a bit of 5c crimping and a quick scrabble. It was reported as a fair VD in the earliest guide (when combined tactics was a thing) then it lost a key hold. As a ground-up with no beta it's at a minimum a tough severe. The start risk isn't trivial if you ping off and needs careful spotting.

To me the adjectival grade should be the average difficulty to onsight taking everything into account  (more strictly the average ground up, as its daft to invalidate a slip especially on bouldery routes). The tech grade is the (top rope) difficulty of the easiest way to do the technical crux section. These grades should apply to people operating roughly at the grades given and with reasonable experience of the rock type and the skills required at those grades on routes in normal good conditions. Where routes are unusual or rarely have good conditions the text should warn of that (preferably with some humour?).

UK traditional grades are a great system for everyone from bumblies to punters, but terrible these days for the elite and tricky to get into for trad beginners. If we wish to ensure the trad game and it's grading has a healthy future it needs a good dose of honesty and at least a strong eye on democracy. Despite much better efforts these days we still have too many UK routes graded by people with little or no sensitivity and some of those were set plainly as joke sandbags or ego graded (and not properly checked) so the rise of logbooks like we have on UKC is very valuable. Even so the logbooks show clear confirmation bias for the experienced climber who knows that every easy VS classic on Stanage isn't anything like the mid VS that the UKC logbook votes indicate. Plus some horror show sandbags where lines traditionally varied but the modern line defines a specific variation like Land's End Long Climb... which is a tough HS classic with serious prang potential on the top wall, given VD and voted as HVD (in contrast to grading problems in the opposite direction like Bowfell Buttress, a grade standard HVD 4a/b, graded HS 4b and voted VD/HVD. 4b).

Good grading doesn't go against tradition as the earliest guidebooks were well graded for the experience and equipment of the time,  it was bad grading (often in the 70s) that did that. Good grading doesn't detract from adventure, bad grading does that by forcing excessive caution from bloody noses and scary surprises.

4
In reply to Philchris:

One huge anomaly and a repudiation of many of the arguments proposed in this thread and indeed the grading system as a whole is Hargreaves Original at Stanage.  Once graded Severe with absolutely no gear it was upgraded to VS at a time when it became protectable. 

This is probably an example of the circumstances described by Offwidth above.

Al

 Derek Furze 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Cake:

If anyone told me Tower Crack was 'fine', I think that would be the last time I spoke to them as well! 

 Offwidth 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

You need to second some harder routes to take away the mystery and get somewhere friendly that's likely to suit you, like Pembroke (North?) and pick and choose likely candidates on a low gravity day and trust your ability and judgement (including backing off if necessary). If you try hard and try everything it's soon obvious personal grade ranges can be huge: I've only onsighted up to E2 but seconded quite a few E5s clean and sussed all the moves on one over-graded E7. I've also failed to second many E1s and backed off onsight on many dirty bold VS climbs and even been stopped by a Mod (sort of at least....I didn't fit through the crux hole). I know from headpointing new routes (and checking and cleaning dirty climbs on guidebook work) that didn't suit me I could have headpointed some bold grit E4s that did, on a day with good conditions when I was going well....I just regarded it as cheating though.  Grit HVS deserves respect.

As others said above, onsighting depends so much on form, conditions and what suits your skills. It's why we need many opinions and to watch people when we grade, rather than listen too much to the personal legends some climbers spin or rely too much on one personal experience. TPS is great for people watching.... the climb to me demonstrates E1 focus on onsights but it can be a breeze at 'E1' for better climbers who know it well (although, as one mid-extreme leading friend of mine discovered, you can slip soloing on such padding moves you know well ) and it generates 'bs' legends down to HS.

I just love trad and bouldering so I guess Ill keep going until old age or injury means a genuine mod or f1 gets too much for me. So much focus on Peak sport seems such a waste... .but if it really floats your boat fair enough.

 Offwidth 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I bang on about such grades a lot. Grading below the elite level went very wrong in the 70s and 80s as gear improved: when routes like cracks and break-to-break climbs became protectable, grades should have gone down but they usually didn't and sometimes increased. There was a huge grade drift at that time about what onsighting a VS meant. It riles me that some oldies of that generation moan about modern grade creep which is trivial in comparison. Plus too many editors stopped caring about grading stuff well, if below E1, leaving way too much machismo about well known sandbags.

People can still experience what Hargreaves Original was once like by soloing it in plimsoles. Early climbers were highly talented balance climbers, from the grades, as they had to hone those skills.

I'd add that for UK golden age context John Gill soloed The Thimble in 1961. 5.12a in 'modern US money' with modern sticky rubber.

Post edited at 11:38
1
 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Cake:

Can't of been me because I fell off Tower Crack! I also fell of Terezza Crack, although I managed that one after a rest. Coming off the crack onto that slippery polished slabby mini groove on Tower Crack utterly defeated me!

 Offwidth 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Both gritstone HVS brutes.

 Martin Hore 20 Oct 2021
In reply to thread:

Lot's of good discussion here - I always like a good grade discussion...

My thoughts, for what they're worth:

There are arguably three distinct aspects of difficulty that a trad grade needs to cover: technical difficulty of the hardest sequence, sustainedness/strenuousness, and seriousness. Each contributes to the overall difficulty of the pitch.

A (current) UK trad grade such as E1 5a attempts to cover these three aspects in two dimensions: technical difficulty of the hardest sequence (5a) and overall difficulty (E1). An amalgam of sustainedness and seriousness is implied. In this case the pitch will be rather more serious or rather more sustained than the average 5a  (ie an HVS 5a) but with no indication which of these it is - it could be one, or the other, or indeed both. The current UK trad grade effectively combines sustainedness and seriousness in a single dimension. A current UK trad grade of E1 5a does tell you that the overall difficulty will be comparable to an E1 5b or an E1 5c, but it doesn't definitively tell you why.

Full three dimensional grades have occasionally been experimented with - as per examples others have given above - but they've not caught on. Two dimensions is about as many as most climbers can cope with.

When the current UK trad grades were originally introduced in the 70's, the numerical grade had a different meaning. Both technical difficulty and sustainedness were amalgamated in the numerical grade which was then defined as the "difficulty of top-roping the pitch". So, back then, the "E1" part of E1 5a told you just that it was rather less well protected - ie more serious - than the average (or HVS) 5a. As with the current system, its overall difficulty, taking seriousness into account, was comparable to climbs graded E1 5b or E1 5c.

This IMO is simpler, and worth considering reverting to. Amalgamating technical difficulty and sustainedness in one single dimension is more sensible, and nowadays very familiar, as it's the basis of sport grades.

The next logical step would be to replace the numerical grade in the UK trad system with the corresponding sport grade. This would be radical and controversial, but it's already creeping in at higher grades, and is simpler to understand for newcomers trained on climbing walls (provided the transition to trad is carefully explained, so that f6a wall climbers don't damage themselves attempting to lead an "E1 f6a".)

All the above relates to single pitch trad climbs. In my view there's a case for grading each pitch of a multi-pitch route with its adjectival as well as its numerical grade. This will help climbing pairs of different abilities decide how best to split the leads. But I appreciate it would give guidebook writers a lot more work. As mentioned by others it would also permit long climbs with difficult or serious retreats to be given a higher overall adjectival grade than the adjectival grade given to any one individual pitch.

As with other grading developments, even if desirable, none of the above will happen until one or more guidebook writers stick their neck out and trial it in a real guidebook. Anyone up for the challenge??

Martin

1
 PaulJepson 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

What about something that sits aside from the grade? You'll struggle to change the English trad grading system but you can supplement it with something to make the picture clearer. I don't like the idea of officially adding french sport grades alongside the routes because that still doesn't necessarily give you the full picture. 

Great Western Rock do this with their sport guide in the form of traffic-light faces that range from sad/red, medium/orange, to happy/green. As a sport grade alone doesn't give you the full picture (is the rock shite, is the first bolt 8m off the ground, are they mixed-metal bolts that have rusted beyond trust, is there a nasty ledge you'll clip if you fall off the crux, are you clipping pegs rather than bolts for one section, is it badly bolted? etc.). 

Arms Race (E4 5c) in Avon is given E4 5c. As a simple grade, all it tells you is you could either die if you fell off it, or that you need euro-sport 7a endurance to get up it without resting on gear. E4 5c tells you it's the latter.    

 Michael Hood 20 Oct 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Arms Race (E4 5c) in Avon is given E4 5c. As a simple grade, all it tells you is you could either die if you fell off it, or that you need euro-sport 7a endurance to get up it without resting on gear. E4 5c tells you it's the latter.    

Bad example in one respect because just looking at it from the road tells you it's the latter. (Edit: actually the name tells you 😁)

But you're basically advocating a 3 factor grading system so that will be better at conveying the difficulty of routes than our current 2 factor grading.

Post edited at 13:41
 Michael Hood 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I'm sure the UKC collective can point you at appropriate (genuine) grit E1s if you detail your strengths etc.

Ignore the HVS 5b horrors 😁

 Michael Gordon 20 Oct 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Great Western Rock do this with their sport guide in the form of traffic-light faces that range from sad/red, medium/orange, to happy/green. As a sport grade alone doesn't give you the full picture (is the rock shite, is the first bolt 8m off the ground, are they mixed-metal bolts that have rusted beyond trust, is there a nasty ledge you'll clip if you fall off the crux, are you clipping pegs rather than bolts for one section, is it badly bolted? etc.). 

> Arms Race (E4 5c) in Avon is given E4 5c. As a simple grade, all it tells you is you could either die if you fell off it, or that you need euro-sport 7a endurance to get up it without resting on gear. E4 5c tells you it's the latter.    

I'm guessing that a happy face means it's well protected (you haven't actually said that). I guess it does help clarify things at a glance, and is both simpler and much more useful than the often suggested adoption of a sport grade. I do prefer the happy face symbol (e.g. in On Peak Rock) for really well protected stuff than the fluttery heart which could mean anything from runout but safe to death on a stick.

 PaulJepson 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes sorry, happy face means well-bolted, good rock, no problems.

They don't do it with their trad books. I guess that would take a lot of effort and would potentially invite litigation if someone got the chop on something you gave a smiley face. 

Post edited at 14:14
 Michael Gordon 20 Oct 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> I guess that would take a lot of effort and would potentially invite litigation if someone got the chop on something you gave a smiley face. 

Not that much effort surely. I think many folk would be able to tell you how safe a route is. But it should be restricted to very safe all the way up the pitch type routes.

Can't see how it could invite litigation. As I say, it's been done with On Peak Rock, without any issues AFAIK. No different to saying "very well protected" in the description, and every guidebook comes with a disclaimer.

 PaulJepson 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

The effort I was thinking is that with that sort of thing on less-well-travelled lines (where not much can be gleaned from logbook entries), the writers would have to climb every route or at least have a look on a static. For most routes you can have a look at the voting and previous guides and get a pretty good picture without setting foot on the route. If you then wanted to apply another level of grading which hadn't really been done much before, you'd probably have to get on it. And with a comprehensive guidebook, that's going to be a lot of effort. 

 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I've seconded Dexterity (E1 5b) a couple of times and thought it was OK - I think once by the left HVS finish and once the whole way, so E1 and thought, I should give that a go on lead as it went fine. So cracks with lots of good protection I suppose is what I manage best. And if they are less than vertical so much the better! Most of the E1s I have managed not on grit have been cracklines, things like Red Square (E2 5b)Combat Rock (E1 5a)Bee Keeper's Bother (HVS 5b) (although I note that's down to HVS these days). I have done Westering Home (E1 5b), although that ended up being a full on redpoint, over three trips spread over 20 years, so doesn't really count!

 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Cake:

I've been thinking more about this - I think I do remember chatting with someone on Tower Crack - presumably you, but I would never try to sandbag someone - encourage them maybe, but not by lying and saying I had done something that I hadn't. I remembered there's a picture of me on Tower Crack in this review https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/footwear/rock_shoes/the_ocun_ozone_plus-779... so I wonder if I told you that I found the crack bit of Tower Crack OK (I remember a foot slipping at one point, but my handjams being solid and holding me) and you didn't hear, or forgot me saying "but I fell off where the crack runs out"? Looking at the picture it's the bit maybe a 1.5 mtrs above my head - where the crack stops it looks like a ledge in a V shaped recess but I remember it feeling more like a slab you're trying to slither onto with no footholds or crack for hand holds. Utterly desperate. I have no idea if that is the crux or if the route gets yet worse as you traverse right and I think finish up the arete? Anyway, like others had said - an utter brute of a route!

1
 Sam Beaton 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I once tried to follow a mate up Tower Crack. His parents were supposed to be walking up to meet us and say hello. They didn't need to phone us to find out which route we were on, the grunting and bellowing from me made it quite obvious where we were from some distance away.

 Cake 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Yeah, I'm sure you did say that, but I was battling with the crack at the time! 

At that level of competence on cracks Encouragement, Hen Cloud could be a good bet. Dexterity would be easier, particularly as you've done it before. I can't think of lots of other good E1 hand-cracks currently.

 Dave Garnett 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Cake:

> At that level of competence on cracks Encouragement, Hen Cloud could be a good bet.

Although I don‘t think the jamming on the second pitch is the hard bit!

 Michael Gordon 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> I have done Westering Home (E1 5b), although that ended up being a full on redpoint, over three trips spread over 20 years, so doesn't really count!

Westering Home, although only about 4m of climbing, is pretty thin and definitely pushing 5c. You'd do well to pick something steadier / more sustained at E1; there are countless examples of better choices (and better routes!) in Scotland. There are surprisingly few really great ones at Reiff; Golden Fleece (E1 5b) is perhaps one of the best.

 Sean Kelly 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> One huge anomaly and a repudiation of many of the arguments proposed in this thread and indeed the grading system as a whole is Hargreaves Original at Stanage.  Once graded Severe with absolutely no gear it was upgraded to VS at a time when it became protectable. 

> This is probably an example of the circumstances described by Offwidth above.

> Al

My first grit lead back in the 60's and I  distinctly remember holding up a runnerless rope when I reached the top. Obviously no beta in those good old days.

 Now as you say, sticky rubber, cams and an upgrade makes you realise it's only about how difficult you found the climb during your own ascent. All this debate about grades is pointless. Just get on it, or better still discard the guidebook and climb as the first ascentionists did!

Post edited at 19:16
1
 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Glad to hear others think Westering Home is tough, although it's probably more like just 2 metres where all the climbing is! Oddly the day before (or was it the day after?) we did Vlad the Impaler (HVS 5a) on Stac Pollaidh which I thought was great fun but would be about HS 4b, maybe soft 4c if it was in Derbyshire! Then a few days after we did Route Two (HVS 5a) at Diabeg which seemed spot on for HVS. Not sure what conclusion to draw beyond Scottish crack grades are variable? It was such a great week that one.

 Michael Gordon 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Yes, Vlad is probably low in the grade and of course a very different style to Diabaig. If you're going well, Jack the Ripper (E1 5b) is well protected and perhaps not as bad as the old guide makes out.

 Fatal 20 Oct 2021
In reply to DaveHK:

> A poor worker always blames their tools.

Yes ! And each tool has its uses. E.g., using an hex wrench you shouldn't blame it for being 3/8" instead of 9/16" (or 19/32"), nor the wrench-size system to allow for some overlap... (when all you need is 15mm. Isn't life simple ?)

Just saying : as a tool, wouldn't use the E grading system to repair the toilet.

  

Post edited at 20:07
2
 alan moore 20 Oct 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Glad to hear others think Westering Home is tough, although it's probably more like just 2 metres where all the climbing is! 

I'd agree with all that. Vlad the Impaler is easier than November Groove (an old fashioned VS). 

Route 2 at Diabeg is straight forward and easier than Boabs Corner (which was HS when we did it).

Westering Home looks like it's going to be a doddle but I couldn't find any gear or holds. I think it's the only E1 slab climb I ever failed on...

 Robert Durran 20 Oct 2021
In reply to alan moore:

> Westering Home looks like it's going to be a doddle but I couldn't find any gear or holds. I think it's the only E1 slab climb I ever failed on...

Yes, it is a very tricky E1 with unconvincing protection, giving the lie to those who say that Reiff grades are all soft (in fact they are just a bit inconsistent). Razor's Edge (E1 5b) at Seal Song is another desperate sandbag at E1, probably as hard as the E3 Seal Song (E3 5c) just to its left!  As someone said, there is a curious lack of high quality E1's as Reiff, quite in contrast to the plentiful brilliant E3's.

 TobyA 20 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, it is a very tricky E1 with unconvincing protection,

Well I tested it with whatever I had on my rack in 1995, again in 1997 and then again in a couple of years ago on my first attempt - and each time the gear worked fine! I don't remember it being much of a fall so I must have got stuff in up to quite near the top.

 mark s 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Philchris:

Crack of gloom at the roaches is everything an E1 5b should not be. 

 Michael Gordon 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Razor's Edge (E1 5b) at Seal Song is another desperate sandbag at E1, probably as hard as the E3 Seal Song (E3 5c) just to its left! 

Hmmm. Razor's Edge is a tricky number but is absolutely not an E3!

 Michael Gordon 21 Oct 2021
In reply to alan moore:

> Route 2 at Diabeg is straight forward and easier than Boabs Corner >

I don't think many would agree with that.

 Robert Durran 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> Hmmm. Razor's Edge is a tricky number but is absolutely not an E3!

Maybe both are E2 then.

 Michael Hood 21 Oct 2021
In reply to mark s:

You are a very naughty man for even putting the thought of that route into the ether 😁

Wasn't it E2 5b in at least one edition of the definitive?

 mike barnard 21 Oct 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Hi Robert, just recalling our day there and the discussion of which of the E1-3 routes we'd just done you'd select if forced to solo at gunpoint. It definitely wasn't either of the E1s!

Elastic Collision is surely E2. Would say mid E3 for Seal Song. 

 Robert Durran 21 Oct 2021
In reply to mike barnard:

> Hi Robert, just recalling our day there and the discussion of which of the E1-3 routes we'd just done you'd select if forced to solo at gunpoint. It definitely wasn't either of the E1s!

I'd forgotten that discussion! I seconded it again this year and I would certainly have failed on lead.

> Elastic Collision is surely E2. Would say mid E3 for Seal Song. 

Sorry, yes, I got muddled up. I meant the right hand one Elastic Collision - definitely easy Reiff E3, whereas Seal Song is hard Reiff E3.

I'd rather solo either at gunpoint than Razor's Edge; without the need to get pumped placing gear, they wouldn't be too bad, whereas Razor's Edge is hideously insecure just to stay on it! There are Reiff E4's I'd rather solo, certainly The Screamer.


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