UKH

It may seem like a dumb question but I am genuinely interested in users thoughts - when do routes get up or downgraded? I ask because several routes I have tried recently have comments both for and against their current grade. It is usually down to consensus but when is that considered valid/gained or changed?

In addition does anyone know of a decent (2 star+) benchmark F7b to try? I was thinking big zipper or Systems Malfunction.

All the best
Andrew

In reply to andyman666999:
When a new guidebook for an area is produced the authors will decide what grade to give a route using the previously established grade, local consensus, personal opinion and any number of other reasons.

If you don't mind big dynamic moves on large holds Systems Malfunction is steady. I only tried Big Zipper yesterday (and didn't finish it) but I thought it was the better route. It's really easy to the crux, then an energy sapping (run out) finish. Brilliant route, and you don't have to wade across a river to climb it

In reply to deacondeacon:

Thanks - may have to try them both

In reply to andyman666999:


Its actually the guidebook author(s) decision. They will take on line opinion into account obviously but ultimately the decision is theirs.

In reply to andyman666999:

Upgraded - 5 mins before I tick them. Downgraded - 5 mins before my mate ticks them.

In reply to GrahamD:

In terms of what's written down on paper, perhaps. But there are plenty of times - hold breakage etc - where it's apparent the grade has changed from the moment it happens regardless of what the book says.

And even grade changes these days happen far more fluidly than the guidebook update timeline would suggest. I'm not going to pretend I know what grade Divided Years gets in the guide, but I bet even if it said E10 noone would claim it any more. Ditto an Ondra grade suggestion tends to have a pretty immediate and generally quite significant impact on the group-think as to the grade - those routes in the Red like Pure Imagination spring to mind...

In reply to GrahamD:


Cool, so if I write a guidebook for my favourite crag then all the routes I've led can be upgraded to E9

But seriously, I think it's only because the guidebook authors consult widely during the development of the guide and they are themselves experienced and respected climbers.

In reply to springfall2008:



Which any author worth their salt will do and the opinion of experienced climbers may well (should) outweigh the 'concensus' of the internet massif.

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes I fully agree, UKC voting is an interesting indication but less accurate than an expert opinion.

In reply to springfall2008:
Not sure I agree. This implies there is an objective reality that routes are being measured against; when it's just a subjective judgement.

This is probably most evident at lower grades. Guidebook authors will generally be climbing well into E grades; and how easy is it for an E6 leader to tell apart a severe from a HS? They will both be a path to him. For a climber who's best lead is severe, then it may be the difference between getting up the route and being stopped by it. In these cases, the consensus of votes is arguably a better estimate- that will include a range of views including those at the sharp end, where it was just too hard for them.

Though these days I can't imagine many low grade routes where the guidebook grade and voted grade differ much- maybe bowfell buttress?

In reply to springfall2008:


"Expert opinion" can be just as disparate as UKC voting!

In reply to springfall2008:


I couldn't disagree more, and agree completely with no_more_scotch_egg's post above. I think if a route is graded (for example) HVS, yet it in the logbooks it has 3000 votes saying it's VS, compared to 300 saying it's HVS, then I would consider such a weight of opinion to be considerably more accurate than the thoughts of any expert. Statistics are amazing, in that as the sample size increases, bias tends to get weeded out.

Of course, if the same route has only 30 votes, then expert opinion is probably more accurate (although it depends on the expert)!

Where exactly is 'the cut off point' of votes for when we can trust logbook votes over experts is, I'm afraid, another opinion...!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


to back you up on this. I climbed a 4 pitch route on Montserrat the other day with a work colleague. 3 pitches of bland IV/IV+ slab padding followed by a spectacular V+ pitch up the final arete. I genuinely couldn't have told you which was hardest (I found some of slab moves quite tricky balancy, whereas the final pitch was steeper but littered with enormous jugs. If I had to solo any of the pitches, it would have been the last one).

My colleague romped up the slabs but really struggled on the final pitch, simply as it was steeper and right at the limit of his ability. I would say that his opinion on the difficulty of the route is worth way more than mine.

In reply to andyman666999:

Get yourself on Brachiation Dance (7b+) at Water-cum-Jolly Cornice. It's very soft for 7b+ and more importantly is a great route!

In reply to MischaHY:


I'd agree with that. Easier than Big Zipper.

In reply to Alun:


The problem is that when people vote on UKC they tend to be influenced by the existing grade and existing votes. If you have a route that is given E1 and most of the votes are for "hard E1" and you have a similar climb given E2 and most of the votes are "easy E2", in my experience the E2 route is likely to be easier or as easy as the E1. This is because people are influenced by the existing grade and votes and think ..."although it felt E2, if everyone else thinks its E1 maybe I was just having a bad day so Ill go for hard E1" ...

In reply to andyman666999:


In Lakes, for 30 years routes have almost exclusively been upgraded, sometimes two grades, especially Jeff Lamb routes.
Also many minor classics like Shepherds Chimney, Stone Tape, Battering Ram etc and many easier routes.
This process has paralleled the rise in climbing walls and sport climbing.
DC

In reply to Martin Haworth:


I'd tend to agree with that, for example is Fibre (VS 4c) really a hard VS and Sinew (HVS 5a) an easy HVS - I suspect they are similar grade (stand back and watch the argument...)

In reply to GrahamD:

What nonsense. There's no such thing as a final decision. It's just a bit of rock with an arbitrary number attached to it. A consensus emerges amongst people who have climbed the route, which may or may not get recorded in a book. Nobody decides anything

In reply to Martin Haworth:


You're quite right, I agree. They are also influenced by all manner of things on the day of their ascent: the weather, the friction, their mental state, how many beers they had the night before, whether it was the first or last route of the day, whether the route is hard for them or not (E6 climbers are still allowed to vote on VDiffs!) etc. etc.

The point is that, given a large enough sample size, all these biases will tend to even out.

What the required number of votes is to be considered 'more accurate than an expert' is up for debate. Personally, I would trust even a few hundred votes over the opinion of a couple of 'experts'.

In reply to andyman666999:

I heard a story about a meeting of a group who were involved in a new edition of a Peak guide. The guide writer wanted views on the upgrading of a notorious HVS sandbag. Of the majority who resisted an upgrade it turned out none of them had led the route.

In reply to GDes:


There is a final decision about what grade a route is given in a particular edition of the guidebook, which was what I was referring to. The guidebook grade then tends to be used as a reference point from where discussions of upgrading or, less frequently, down grading start.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Unfortunately, many many people progress through severe, hard severe and now VS and HVS very quickly - certainly within a year of climbing. So those struggling on a severe might only have been climbing a few months, even weeks and not have the breadth of grade experience or technique to make an accurate assesment. I would argue that its people who have much more experience and have plateaued at a few grades higher that are better placed to judge. Of course the voting makes no distinction

In reply to GrahamD:

Anybody can write a guidebook and give any route whatever grade they want. I could write a new Pembroke guide and give Bloody Sunday 6a+, and Minotaur 5.11a if I wanted. There's nothing "official" or "final decision" about it. Ultimately grades are pretty meaningless anyway, and are only ever to give a rough indication as to how hard most climbers might find something. That general consensus comes from a proposal by whoever did it first, followed by a bit of tweaking by whoever has done it. There's plenty of routes in guidebooks that are given a certain grade in the book, that is different to the general consensus.

In reply to GDes:


You could, but you still need to make your final decision on those grades before starting a print run.

In reply to GrahamD:

I didn't....




So those struggling on a severe might only have been climbing a few months, even weeks and not have the breadth of grade experience or technique to make an accurate assesment. I would argue that its people who have much more experience and have plateaued at a few grades higher that are better placed to judge.

maybe, but i reckon my grade judgements have been honed to precision over time, and that i'm pretty well placed to judge on the following grades...

severe (will get up it)

HS (probably will get up it, but there's likely to be a moment of doubt...)

VS (won't get up it at present)

(except if its some sort of 'traditional' fluorescent green grit chimney, in which case it doesnt matter what the grade says, i'm not going to get up it....)

In reply to Alun:
I admire your optimism but I can predict the likely UKC vote bias on bumbly classics fairly consitently knowing what and where the route is (esoteric high in the grade routes get consistently undergraded and classic popular trade routes low in the grade get consitent overgrades) It's a mix of confirmation bias (all routes) and ego voting from those new to the grade on popular lines . Land's End Long climb also shows that UKC votes on 'VD' classics can be over a grade out (I simply don't have to try that hard on a VD corner and I'm convinced that the top wall is HS...scarier than say the short wall crux on Tophet Wall ). Bowfell Buttress is an example of the opposite... editors ignoring what I would regard as more sensible UKC voting (over compensation for safeish struggle as a 4a/b border move off a ledge doesn't make a HS). I think good editors take all the information they can and weight it to set grade standards and then climb and regrade the no star or less well travelled routes to fit to that structure. In terms of UKC, I always found the comments from experienced climbers I trust on badly graded routes more consistent than the voting.

In reply to GDes:




That rather implies that guidebook grades are the result of capricious executive decisions; it doesn't reflect at all what happens in practice - not in my experience, anyway. You could similarly state that anyone can produce a street map and call all the streets anything they want!

The grading of routes receives a great deal of careful consideration, using the grade from the last definitive guide as a starting point, referring to both earlier guidebooks and online logbook comments, climbing and reclimbing routes as necessary, taking into account any physical changes in the route, and the canvassing of opinion from guidebook team colleagues and other experienced and trusted climbers.

In reply to andyman666999:


Any route which I've just done and am pleased about will usually be downgraded shortly afterwards ;-(

In reply to Rog Wilko:


I think we should give twin grades for such routes.

Thus Chequers Crack should get "E2 (HVS/A0)", according on the style of the ascent.

In reply to Alun:
I have to say that the concept that one persons opinion matters more than another's because "they're and expert" defies logic.

Everyone is a different morphology and will find different things difficult. I would argue the "internet massif" is a reasonably informed demographic and therefore any large population sample would carry greater weight in my eyes than a single opinion to the contrary.

In reply to MischaHY:

I have been wanting to get on that - that's my goal for this year !

In reply to andyman666999:


I can't agree with that. By your logic someone who has never climbed before has just a valid opinion as an experienced guidebook author which is clearly nonsense. I would also disagree that internet votes are obviously representative. Its actually votes from a very self selecting group.

In reply to andyman666999:

It's a cracker.

In reply to andyman666999:



I think by your choice of words you're mixing two issues here.

The phrase "matters more" rather lures us into the whole world of rights, democracy - the notion that everyone's voice is equally valid. On the other hand it doesn't seem unreasonable to state that if you want a trustworthy opinion on a technical matter you should seek the advice of an expert; i.e. someone both knowledgeable and experienced.

Personally, I think the argument that a guidebook writer, who climbs hard, is unable to tell the difference between two adjacent lower grades, is bogus. All they need to do is be motivated to do the job properly, and not gloss over the lower grades - and exercise a little imagination.

By way of an analogy: I teach cello to students of a wide range of ability, and am very familiar with the ABRSM grade system. The fact that I play the instrument to a high standard myself doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between, say, grade 4 and grade 5; in fact, I'm confident that I'm far better placed to make such a judgement than any of my pupils. A guidebook writer should be similarly sensitive to grading distinctions, and if they are both competent and conscientious, they will be.

In reply to andyman666999:

Some good 7bs in the Peak that deserve the grade

Ratline at Harper Hill is ace.

Virgin King at Stoney is worth 2 stars

as is Good Time Emporium at Lorry Park Quarry.

The Mason Chronicles is another great route.

In reply to GrahamD:

In this extreme case, example, yes. But, as we've mentioned above, not all experts are alike. Somebody whose max grade is VDiff, but who has climbed 200 VDiffs, is more likely to give a better assessement of the E6 leader who hasn't climbed a VDiff in 10 years.


And guidebook 'experts' are not?!



edit: who's -> whose

In reply to bpmclimb:


See my reply from above as to why I disagree with you:
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=668070&v=1#x8604723

In reply to Alun:

Seriously, though, how many climbers have really done thousands of diffs but aren't up to VS or more ? Yes their opinion is very valid but their word is pretty swamped by inexperienced diff climbers.

Yes guidebook writers are self selecting but they are self selecting on ability to write guidebooks, not on their ability to log onto a website.

In reply to Alun:

That's a specific anecdote, relating to a single route: it may nicely illustrate the point you're making, but it doesn't constitute any kind of proof of a general truth. I daresay someone with a different set of experiences could come up with counter-examples.

Speaking for myself, when I've worked on guidebooks, I've always made every effort not to sideline the lower-grade routes. This entails taking the trouble actually to lead the Diffs and VDiffs and place the gear, all the while imagining oneself confined to moves of an easy technical standard. There's no intrinsic reason why this can't be done, and in my opinion it's part of the job. That's not to say that it is always done: guidebook writers are not equally conscientious (or they can be up against copy deadlines and other constraints), and the judging of lower-grade routes on the basis of a quick solo (or even simply regurgitating without thought the grade from the previous guidebook) does happen: my point is that it's not because of some absolute inability to make the judgement, as claimed elsewhere in this thread.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I find climbing in approach shoes with a limited rack a useful leveller to judge easier climbs. Watching many people climb is also highly useful and can often tell a very different story from grade votes and comments. I trust UKC voting least of all on stuff that is sub severe... my wide experience alongside that of my partners and watching others too often shows a very different picture from guidebook information or UKC votes.

A real complexity is where to judge acceptable skill requirements on a VD?: on grit or granite basic jamming really helps but can never be a requirement; in contrast an ability to chimney has to be there but new climbers moving from indoors may have zero experience in this. Relative skill levels have shown massively changes over time ... wide cracks being perhaps the most obvious decline but pre-modern gear climbers used to be really good at bold slabs in plimsols. I think where a particluar technical experience at lower grades is assumed, that needs to be said in the text.

In reply to GrahamD:
In medicine one of the lowest form of evidence to back clinical guidance is "expert opinion". That is because it is based around a single persons opinion and there is no hard science to prove the hypothesis.

I would like to point out that this discussion seems to be moving away from the question which was when do grades change into an exchange of opinions about who is better placed to decide when this happens but in addition I entirely disgaree with mostly everything you have written. Thanks

In reply to stp:
Cheers for the recommendations. These will probably keep me busy for a long time now. All the best

In reply to andyman666999:

Well clinical guidance certainly isn't achieved by patient concensus, using your analogy

In reply to bpmclimb:


I completely agree! If only we had some sort of database, where everybody could share those experiences, and perhaps even vote on the difficulty and quality of the route!

Apologies for the sarcasm, but it's a serious point. I've never been dedicated enough to write a proper guidebook, and I admire greatly the people who are, but I still have a (relatively informed) opinion of the routes that I climb, based on 30 or so years experience. The logbooks are the only real way I have of expressing that opinion. I guess it's one of reasons that online logbooks (UKC, 8a.nu, escalibur.eu etc.) are so popular.

Of course my vote in the logbooks is worth the same as somebody who has been climbing for a day. But the more votes a route gets, the more this imbalance will even out. My point is that bias exists in all walks of life - we pay more attention to the opinions of people we like, and guidebook book writers are no different. As with all statistics, one of the simplest ways to reduce the effects of bias is to get more data.

But yes, I accept completely that guidebook teams are always going to have a greater level of experience and knowledge, and therefore their opinions are more valid than some random person on the internet.

In reply to GrahamD:
Well actually it very much is - the best evidence comes from trials measuring the outcomes of interventions in different groups of patients. I totally agree with Alun the larger the sample of data I.e votes then the more accurate the end result.

In addition what's with all the slightly snobby talk about "beginners". Gym based climbers may not be very experienced but can be mega strong - I met a bloke in a gym bouldering V3/f6a and within a single year he had bouldered f8a. In his first year Climbing is his opinion worth less because he is less experienced or because he "climbs hard" that is discounted and he knows what he's talking about ?

In reply to andyman666999:

There is a massive difference between asking patients directly about the correct treatment (CW the grade) and getting detailed information from them which is then considered by a panel of experts along with other historical data.

A beginner is just someone who lacks experience. It's not a judgemental term. Again by your analogy I would rather my treatment be decided by an experienced consultant rather than by a straw poll of a load of medical students.

In reply to Alun:

So whats your view on the following?:

Inverted V at Stanage has got nearly as many votes as any climb on the database and its averaging near mid VS. Yet the average view of most experienced climbers is its a bottom end VS grade standard. Pretty much every easy VS on Stanage has this issue.

Also how do all these climber votes miss the fact Land End Long Climb is at least top end severe for the top wall and at least severe for the corner. The only clue to its nature is a small minority of comments. Maybe too many good climbers are not thinking hard enough?

Its simply not true that the more votes are made the more accurate the database becomes, most climbers are very over-optimistic in their ability to grade away from their experience limits, even in their range and rock type they let ego get in the way (not accounting for their strengths and weaknesses compared to grade standards) and all sorts of psychological biases cause major distortions to data, especially confirmation bias. All are well known scientific reasons why such data sets can be problematic.

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree completely with your last paragraph. My argument is not that the databases are inherently trustworthy and free from bias. My point is that bias exists everywhere. Humans are more likely to believe somebody that they like, rather than somebody they don't like, even if the unpopular person is objectively more correct. It's why we have 'alternative facts' and 'fake news' and all that. Thus, guidebook writers, in deciding whose opinions to trust, will tend to side with people they like the most, and not necessarily with those whose opinions are more valid.

BTW, and with the greatest of respect, the example you chose wasn't very convincing. Firstly the 'average view of most experienced climbers' is a very difficult statement to justify (particularly re. my point about bias above), despite your experience both as climber and guidebook writer. Secondly, I really couldn't tell you difference between low-VS and mid-VS. I'm not sure I ever could, even when VS was my maximum grade.

I'll throw a counter example to you: The Strait Gate (E2 5b) at Mother Scary's is given E1 in Rockfax guides. I climbed it years ago and thought it was the living end for E1. I found out afterwards that CC guides have it as E2 (at least, early ones did, I haven't checked the newer ones). So, two different sets of 'experts' have differing opinions. Who to believe?

Well, as it turns out, of the 117 votes it has on the UKC logbooks, it seems that most people think it is low-end E2, as opposed to high-end E1. So I gave myself an E2 tick, and felt a bit better!

In reply to Offwidth:


I (low grade, very occasional climber) was watching an experienced route setter grade indoor climbs once. In order to understand the dizzying lows of F5+ toproping he climbed the route in rubbish trainers. That works for the low grade climbers who are low grade because their footwork is poor, but for those who have OKish footwork but arms like wet noodles, I could swap round the difficulties of some routes because strong guys often don't realise when their shoulders start getting some use. Who is to say who is in the majority? I agree with you about the psychological factor of classics. I don't climb often and if I struggle up a testpiece and arrive at the top with a memory of all the places in which it scared me , I am unlikely to downvote it whatever the truth is. Perhaps what would be more truthful is a pure ranking scheme of what I have climbed relative to what else I have climbed. Grades could then be awarded via mathematics.

In reply to all:

I still maintain that part of the necessary skill set of a good guidebook writer is to take account of all the things mentioned in this thread. Of course, an experienced and able climber may well lose sight of differences in difficulty at the lower grades, but the guidebook writer must get past this, if they are to do the job properly. I still think the analogy of a classical musician is an apt one: an experienced and able performer on an instrument may well lose sight of the subtle differences between two adjacent learners' grades, and that matters not a jot - but if they are also to set themselves up as teachers, then they must get past this tendency, and become hyperaware of those differences - actually, more so than the students themselves.

In reply to Gone:


You're kind of assuming that the route setter was drawing hard conclusions just from the trainer test alone. If as experienced as you suggest, he was probably noting all sorts of other things and factoring them in to the final grade decision; just using the trainers method as a helpful indicator. To put it another way, one would hope that wearing trainers wasn't being used as an excuse to stop thinking intelligently about the task.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Indeed. Though the trainers were so grotty, I couldn't stop watching because I kept thinking he was going to fall off.

In reply to Alun:
I still think bpmclimb is spot on. Guidebook writers can lack sensitivity but if they try properly to deal with this, especially with a team including experienced lower grade climbers, they will usually do a better job than the UKC votes. It's been a relatively recent trend to try and properly sort out the grading for lower grade routes in the definitives (some of which had well known sandbags that hadn't changed grade for mutiple volumes) so old guidebooks may well have many grade errors.

I also agree with bmpclimb on the training shoe issue... its not the only factor route checkers will think about when doing that. Climbers who have weedy arms and great footwork are simply not average so they have to factor that in to their grade experience as we grade for that nominal average: VD slab climbs will feel way easier to them than a steeper VD jug fest.

The fact you are not convinced about Inverted V and the other soft Stanage VS classics just shows you don't know the crag well enough... climb all the starred HS and VS climbs there like I and most other local guidebook workers have and its obvious.

Your Straight Gate example also might not be relevant as Rockfax don't have a team of checkers checking all the routes and there will be competing sets of grade bias based on the use of the two different guidebooks. Where did Rockfax put the route on their graded list as that's also key (I don't think its possible to easily distinguish the hardest E1 from the easiest E2 for routes of a similar style)? Hence, my preference for safe routes at the top of a grade is to hold them from an upgrade unless its clearly required...this acts as as a brake on grade creep. For borderline bold routes the upgrade is maybe worth considering more (safe and hard compared to easier and bold is part of what UK trad grades are supposed to tell us), especially as some climbers seem incapable of understanding how adjectival grades work and grade way too much for the technicality of the crux or for how hard the route feels having climbed it before (missing the true onsight factor). You can spot climbers like this as they are certain 3PS is mid or low HVS (or even VS!) for an average borderline E1 onsight leader. Back to your example, if E1 is your typical onsight limit, top end hard and safe E1 may well feel like the living end.

I like bmpclimb's music teacher analogy: you put yourself in the student's mindset, analyse the full range of skills and allow for average foibles.

In reply to Offwidth:



There is a simple answer to this Offwidth!

UKC doesn't allow anyone to vote harder than HVD for the Lands End Long Climb so its never going to make it higher. Is this UKC "deciding" that easier grade climbs are not allowed to moved up by consensus because of a fear of grade drift?

I led it earlier this year and was scared enough on the top green face to ask for a top rope! A terrific route but definitely more than VD IMHO

In reply to Babika:

If that were true nearly all the votes would be top end HVD. From the actual votes that are lower than that its clear most UKC logbook using ascentionists are clueless about VD grading and that problem means votes are simply unreliable at this grade on sandbags.

Land's End Long Climb (HVD)

In reply to Offwidth:

That's missing the point. If people can't actually vote Severe or Hard Severe then there is never going to be a spread of opinion to make guide book writers re-think. The highest they can vote is HVD

But I take your point that if most ascentionists are harder climbers romping up a classic sea cliff in trainers then they won't have a clue.

In reply to Offwidth:


The bottom of Inverted V is sufficiently polished that it is actually quite hard, and mid VS is quite a reasonable grade. I suspect that the "experienced" climbers who give it low VS are able to cope with that in a way that most barely-VS leader might not.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's been that polished for decades and I've watched getting on for a hundred improving climbers use it as an early VS lead onsight without too many struggles and in any case grading is for reasonable skill levels at the grade and for the average climber, including the experienced. List me all the easier starred VS classics on Stanage if you want to argue it's mid-grade. Straight Crack can be your starter (which I think is HS)

In reply to Babika:

I get what you are saying but even if all those voting top HVD all really wanted to vote VS ( which I doubt as it would show up in the comments) the average would still be mid Severe. It's a solid HS in my view for the top wall and to get that as an average you needed an intention for HVS votes. Most of the votes for VD and low HVD must be terrible judgement.

In reply to Gone:


Maybe that's why the F4-F5+ range of routes are often stupidly easy at indoor climbing centres compared to similar graded outdoor routes. More than once I've tried to "warm up" on a F5+ outdoors and had a rather harsh wake up!

I'd hope a guide book writer who might be climbing high E grades will take into account other less able climbers views when deciding the grade. Of course less able doesn't mean less experienced, I've met many people climbing VS grades who have 30 years + climbing experience and are now climbing at a much lower level than they used to.

In reply to Alun:
The UKC voting would only be reliable if it was done on a 'blind taste test' basis - not knowing what the grade was nor what others think about it. As it is, it is incredibly biased by anchoring to the given grade, plus the bias of self-aggrandisement (this E3 didn't feel easy because it's actually more like E1, I must just be great and this is "soft E3").

Once you know how to interpret the voting patters they still give very useful information, e.g. a distribution centred on "hard E1" means "solid E2" and "easy E2 really means "easy E1", but taking the votes at face value hugely plays down how far the given grade might actually be out of whack.

In reply to Offwidth:


Many guidebook writers will I imagine check the distribution as well as the average? So if for a route almost half of the grades got say VD and almost half got HS, that would surely be useful information for a guidebook writer that the grade may need looked at. As it is, VD and HVD are pretty much the same grade (the latter is a subdivision) so anyone wanting to vote sensibly is so hampered from doing so that they probably don't consider it worth their bother.

In reply to springfall2008:

Sports routes outdoors tend to be very popular and highly polished limestone routes. They may have been that grade once.

In reply to Offwidth:


My comment was more that the indoor routes tend to be too easy for the grade rather than the other way around.... even at F5 outdoors you might well need to make some committing moves above your clip without bomer hand holds. I think indoor centres make the easy grades easier to get the punter in. I dont think there is anything wrong with having more easy routes indoors but surely an F3 should be called an F3 and not an F4 etc...

In reply to springfall2008:

Sure... but my point for UK sports routes is it's a 'double whammy' unlike say bouldering (that just tends to have the 'single whammy' of soft lower grades indoors).

In reply to Offwidth:


Can we at least have a specific campaign to regrade this? It can't be VS because Cornish VSs tend to be HVS but I wasn't kidding in my comment on the logbook that the 4b alternative start is one of the easier pitches.

There's the jump / really quite hard traverse and the Green Face both of which are both hard and bold. The Elbow Crack and the chimney pitch are less bold but clearly nails for VDiff, which means there's barely any part of the entire route that isn't at least Severe.

What it makes it a bit tricky to grade is the escapability at a couple of points but, taking into account the descent, the length and the commitment on the individual pitches it didn't feel dissimilar to something like Demo Route or Right Angle to me.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I've been trying for a few years now. I don't mind Cornwalll being a bit tougher graded than most places (I helped out on Roaches and YMC grit guides afterall and realigned slightly there) but this route is a ridiculous sandbag for a classic and serious on the top wall and the UKC VD votes are unfathomable for me from anyone with any feel for what a VD roughly is. Its also a really interesting and varied HS that more would climb if they knew.

In reply to Offwidth:

R Long Climb; I think Babika is right: if there was no HVD option then 80% of people would be voting Severe/HS for it

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Why so few comments to that effect then?

In reply to Offwidth:

Fair enough.

Except for one point:


And yet you claim that it is possible to distinguish 'low VS' from 'mid VS'??!

FWIW I have climbed buckets of VSs at Stanage, including Inverted V. I have no concrete memories of any of them (it was a while ago) other than most of them feeling quite hard, mostly because because of the polish!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yes I agree with all of this, very good post.

In reply to Alun:
I'm not quite sure why you need this explaining, as I thought it was obvious, but here goes anyhow. Grades are based on the idea of subjective noticable differences, with a UK grade band usually having two or more of these. The VS grade band is arguably the equal widest of all the adjectival grades (with HVS) so its very easy for an experienced guidebook worker operating not far above VS to tell the difference between one of the easiest VS climbs, something in the middle, and one of the hardest. In contrast, by definition, the very top of one grade is the same as the very bottom of the next, so which side of the line we put such similar borderline routes is really about history and convention. If you don't understand this, can't remember how hard Stanage classics are (super popular and often with rather distilled clear character, so some of the most reliable benchmarks we have) and dismiss this with being facetious about polish (which doesn't really affect how many of them are climbed and has been there since the 1950s) why are you bothering to argue?

In reply to Offwidth:

It quicker to vote than to comment?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Quicker still to do neither, yet if you want to point out (in a way that might be of most use to a future editor) something seems odd or wrong about route information, comments are by far the best way of doing that on the logbooks. I regularly used comments but rarely used grade votes (in the cases where votes indicated a grade was clearly wrong I usually knew that already). Comments give a much wider utility in improving the clarity and quality of guidebook information. If grade votes were publicly linked to voter indentities, like they are on Mountain Project, I'd pay a lot more attention.

In reply to Offwidth:


Agree completely - that's how I've always used UKC for anything guidebook related.

In reply to bpmclimb:


I do agree, however they would be more useful if they showed the authors average climbing grade next to the comment. If I see a route with a comment like "really hard, that wasn't a Xx grade" I'd take much more notice if the climber was climbing on average around the grade than a lot below it.

In reply to springfall2008:

I get that information on their reliability from their profile or the history of their UKC forum posts on grades. Votes in contrast just get thrown in a bucket with no identity.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes agreed but that takes time/effort so a quick metric might be useful?

In reply to Offwidth:

I apologise if I hit I nerve, but I see no need for the tone of your post, which is both aggressive and defensive, and throws in a bit of condescension for good measure. I even conceded in my previous post that you made fair points. Enjoy your climbing!

In reply to Alun:

It works both ways Alun. If we are trying to debate how to improve grading throw-away comments about Stanage VS polish is also condescending, especially for someone who has onsighted E5 (so might have other reasons for not being so sensitive on assesing comparative difficluties of VS leads). Improving lower-grade grading to help the future of UK trad is a thing of mine so sure I might be a touch sensitive.