UKH

Talking to a friend about my "head game" (or lack of it), he said: "But, don't you trust the guidebook grade? In other words, don't you trust that, if it's an E1 on the tin, the holds and gear will prove to be E1 standard?"

"Not on your bloody life," I replied. "I've been up too many sandbags and gearless horrorshows."

Talking about it, we wondered if it's "a Lake District thing" or maybe a product of being less experienced at certain grades/styles. But, anyway: do you trust the guidebook grade or do you treat it with scepticism?

Ta

The guidebook grade is useful but your trust should be placed in your own abilities and judgement.

Any attempt give a linear measurement to an arrangement of rock features is never going to be perfect. Consider that almost any time you ask someone what grade they climb they'll give you a range - eg HVS/E1 - as if one of those categories wasn't broad enough!

It's not so much trust as it is "sensor fusion". You can take the grade, the description, the rock type, the first ascentionist (anyone tackling a Brown/Whillans gritstone HVS has some idea what to expect), personal strengths and weaknesses, put it all together and then decide whether or not to tie on.

I've always been doubtful about the accuracy of guide books, and yes it is a limiting factor that discourages a go for it attitude.

Not that the guidebooks are necessarily wrong; you just never know whether you are going to find a climb easy or hard.

This weekend I did S W Climb on Pillar (VS) and Tower Face on Black Crag (VDiff) within an hour of each other. The crux of the VD was miles more technical, off balance and awkward than anything on the VS. Was I surprised? Nope.

No, because im probably off route anyway ...

Not in Northumberland.

This is arse over tit. Northumberland is right and everywhere else is wrong.

Climbing would be boring if we always new what we were getting ourselves into 🙂  I expect routes to be within a grade up or down of what's printed and that'll do me. 

...and a cheeky look at the logbooks/votes. Makes a big difference.

I usually only do that after the fact. Sometimes there's too much information!

I assess a grade or the likelihood of me getting up it based on where it is / the type of rock I'm used to:

*An E2 at Avon on slabby Main Wall rock - piece of cake

*A steep E2 crack on grit, well-protected or not, I'm going to struggle all over the place

For some other people, no doubt the exact reverse is true

As I guidebook writer myself, as time goes by,  it's become more and more apparent to me how subjective grades are.
And to be honest, online databases haven't helped much, maybe even made it harder. 

I will say though, that in the UK there seems to be a real reluctance to adjust traditional grades.

Good post but i dont really agree with this part - lots and lots of routes have changed grades since the 90s, mostly upwards and often wrongly so in my view.

I too disagree with this upgrades are common.

Indeed. Grade inflation is more of a problem than reluctance to change. In fact I wonder if the original comment was born out of that very thing.

As someone involved in several guidebook productions I was given an electronic grade compiler. You just pointed it at the route, pressed a button and up popped the grade. Done by laser or sound waves or something. The answer was definitive and infallible. I'm amazed they never caught on.

I reckon UK guidebook grades are rarely very far out, but at the end of the day it gas to be a personal judgement call whether to get on a route.

As another who has worked in extensively in guidebooks, I was always interested in grade inflation. It clearly exists but in historical terms by far the biggest changes happened from the 60s through to the mid 80s, as better gear generally made climbs much safer yet adjectival grades didn't drop. If you look at the benchmarks, the most climbed classics at our most popular crags they usually haven't changed much since the mid 80s. I think the UK system works but there are tensions in grading on over and under reaction to risk and sometimes mistakes are made in both directions. Generally most grading can be trusted by experienced climbers who know their strengths and weaknesses, the rock type and the seasonal changes (especially friction on grit). The quality of modern UK guides is often amazing.

In reply to redjerry.

Most of our long climbing holidays were in the US and we climbed harder there on average than back home. We find it much easier to rely on YDS with the risk ratings as we normally want no more than medium risk (PG) at near lead grade limits and we know our YDS ability levels. We mainly trad climb below 5.10 in the SW. Joshua Tree is the main place we have climbed a lot where YDS grades seem inconsistent (from what we normally expect to very hard). Red Rocks is the most consistent (and slightly easier graded than most )

There was a spate of "joke" grades in the 70s and 80s that did need sorting out though. Propellor Wall at Ilkley was given HVS. There is also the (linked, in my view) problem of the UK tech grades being too broad. From the bottom of 5c to the top of 6a should probably be split into 4 (say from 5c to 6c). I've never got above 6a tech but I wouldn't be surprised if the same doesn't apply.

ding ding... 

Guidebooks give an indication. But as the  E-grades take into account way too many variables, if you simply look at the grade. You might end up on a sustained gear eating crack... hard work, but safe as hell (provided you don't run out of steam to place gear). Or a no-gear slab, with easy climbing but high consequences of messing it up.

Which is funny as when comparing different grading systems the superiority of E-grades always comes up... yet is always boils down to read the description (ie. no gear slab, or sustained well protected crack). Which is exactly the same info you'll get from any other grading system grade + route description ... in fact, you might get more from say the french sport grade plus good description (how physically hard it is to climb the line cleanly from the grade, and then if it is tricky and how is the gear) than from a E-grade (naturally in combination with the Tech grade) with a bad route descriptions.

But to get back to the question, the grade and route description (of any system and any quality) will give you an idea if the line is feasible for ya or no... but additional information might also be required, so online logbooks, knowledge of the climbers that have done it, and naturally how it looks/seems when you finally get there. I.e. I've checked out some reasonably new lines in the past and what I saw on them corresponds well with the online guide and also the logbook. All who have climbed the line were taller considerably than I am. And gave the same grade as the FA. Only one or two smaller persons have climbed the line (or in some cases none), and graded it considerable harder --> gut says it's reachy and you bet they have been. Can it be climbed by those with less height, why yes but often not at the given suggested grade. Naturally this is not always the case, as the grades evolve as time goes (or morpho/reachy/harder for the short/tall gets added to the descriptions). This boils down to the rock we have locally available, which tends to only offer a limited amount of holds, especially good holds (for the grade). Luckily for me, the climbing circles are still small enough that I do have some idea of how tall/short a good portion of the people are, so reading the logbooks helps. Might not be the case in UK .

I think it's not as black and white as trust vs. no trust.  I wouldn't have though many experienced climbers would just blindly trust the guidebook grade, but I guess some will trust it more than others. I am definitely, like you, disinclined to simply take it as read because it is just so subjective.

I wonder if it's also especially hard sometimes in the easier grades because (in the Lakes) you often don't get a technical grade until VS.  And that ought to make people wary, I think. Also, I think sometimes, especially with newer routes, they are likely to have been graded by people who generally climb much harder and they may have been soloed on the FA.  So, not only are they graded by somebody for whom it's pretty hard to tell the difference between, say, a vdiff and a severe.  But also they might not really have paid much attention to how well protected the route is.  Or maybe I'm just making up reasons why things are harder for me than they are for others ...

Totally agree with the sandbag point. Fortunately there is much less sympathy for such nonsense these days and most of the famous examples have been dealt with.

UK tech grading plain doesn't work above 6a and I'd prefer we take a collective decision to just rewrite the system as the current grade widths are enormous. I've got above 6a at my best but I always claimed that all my 6b successes must have been overgraded... which is the sort of modesty that I guess led to grades getting that wide !?

Thanks all. It's good to see I'm not the only one who feels that something being "in your grade" is not enough information, in itself. Especially in relation to local routes, I'm very guilty of scouring the logbooks for every scrap of information about whether there is gear or not and whether the route is high or low in the grade, rather than just trusting the guidebook. I also, of course, tend to avoid routes that are sure to expose my weaknesses (pure crack and steep things!).

But, yesterday, I backed off a route because I couldn't see any gear options ahead on what appeared to be an 8m runout involving technical climbing. I suspected there might be some hidden gear somewhere, but just couldn't commit. Annoyed and curious, I abseiled afterward and spotted a hidden slot half way along - space for an Alien and a nut. Perhaps I should have trusted that, given the guidebook grade, gear would have appeared? Who knows? (The friend in the OP, that's who! I'm sure he would have felt vindicated! Smart arse.)

p.s. particularly enjoying the Lakes vs Northumberland grade debate.

If being reachy makes a big difference to a grade I think it should be in the text. If it makes a big difference to the risk I think its essential to be in the text. The experienced short climbers I know are often very able and inventive in technique and protection, as they had to be.

...

We all second guess ourselves in this kind of way and reflection is a good thing when we want to develop. But ultimately you have to make a decision in that moment and remind yourself later that you made it with the information you had then. In that situation, we ask ourselves how we'll feel if there turns out to be no gear ... maybe some days we decide we'll cope and on others we decide not to chance it.  There are so many variables at play. And obviously, we all get into situations where we actually haven't got a choice but to press on.

I also think that we should all be very wary of encouraging others to be bolder and/or to press on. Years ago, I encouraged a friend to keep going when she wasn't confident and after she'd fallen I reflected on whether I'd do the same thing again. She was OK but since then I try and encourage/support people I'm belaying without pressuring them to do something they feel is risky. It's great to climb with people who have the judgement to know when they should back off, and the skills to execute it safely. Who wants to climb with the rash who scurry and dash and scare the shit out of everyone who is watching (although, of course, in that there's also a theoretical 'happy medium')? Your friend who is pushing you probably feels they are helping, and it's often useful to help us reflect when people give us their view ... but they should also consider how they might feel if it all goes tits up.

Some good points. I think so much depends on the climber. Everyone should have some ability in hand at the grade on trad, especially in the lower grades where you often hit things if you fall. With experience that leeway can be narrower. I've read a lot on how to improve head games but it can't be forced. The 'rock warrior' approach of being confident in your ability above good gear but cautious above bad gear only works in the first scenario if the confidence is there to do it and in the second scenario if the experience and control is there to recognise the risk... then we have all the variation between those positions.

I've had many near misses because newer climbers I didn't know lied about their experience and some with people pushing their limits but few with experienced trad leaders at their normal lead grade. Most serious climbing accidents and deaths are down to lack of attention or objective risk (that which is largely outside of the climbers control). Not so many experienced trad climbers have serious accidents on lead falls at their lead grade..

Good points and I agree - though, to be fair to the friend in question, they're definitely not pressuring, having put up with my um-ing and ah-ing in a very patient and supportive way. They've also said on several occasions: "It's not a failure to back off; a failure is when I have to call mountain rescue to helicopter you off the hill." I think the pressure comes from myself!

I've been in that situation you describe, though, of encouraging people to trust themselves and climb something a bit pushier, then regretting it. I particularly remember encouraging a friend to do Coral Sea, as they could climb 4c all day and normally placed good gear. Somehow, though, they seemed to develop a mental block whilst leading where they just couldn't place gear - despite it being a very well-protected route. They pressed on and on, until they were facing a ground sweeper... wandered too far left, onto the thinner holds of the E1, wandered back up and right... eventually placed something unconvincing... moved up above it... I've never felt so awful belaying someone. And I've been a lot more reluctant to recommend routes ever since!

The information in a guide book is only part of the armoury for successfully climbing something.  It gives you an impression of what to expect and where to go, but it cannot factor in you having an off-day, cold, heat, seepage or any of the other things that might have an impact.  Regardless of what the guidebook says, you still have to use your 'skill and judgement' to align what you see with your abilities and the conditions at the time, which includes your ability to manage risk.

So you backed off - OK - no big deal.  Now you know a bit more about it, you might give it a go.  No-one got hurt, sports plan a bit damaged, but other than that, no harm done.  

You will always find exceptions to what you consider to be accurate grading, but that might be down to you having a bad day when the guidebook writer had had a good day.  It is not and never will be an exact science

And how to know when your confidence is misplaced? Very tricky!

I've also read a lot about the psychological aspects of climbing and I'm really interested in it - partly because I'm a psychologist. But also because for most of the time I've been climbing I've bought into the idea that I have a 'problem with my head game' and recently I've actually started to question that a bit more. It's always an interesting process when you start to question something that for years on end has been a key part of the way you understand yourself.  I love the Rock Warriors Way, although the title (and the name of the 'warrior analogy') makes me cringe. But it seems to me to be one of the most sound approaches from a psychological point of view. And there is just the most enormous amount of twaddle written about the psychological aspects of climbing in particular IMO. Although I think this is changing a bit now and many people writing about it seem to be better trained/informed about psychology.  Psychological change is hard, especially when our patterns have become well worn grooves, but I also think sometimes we can lose sight of the fact that psychological change might be more about behaviour than about thoughts and feelings.

Sorry ... I am probably taking this way off topic now.

I know a lot people respect The Rock Warrior's Way, but I've never liked it. I think there are some good things in it, but I don't like the way it encourages people to assume a false pretense of wisdom nor the warrior metaphor. I also think becoming conscious of something you are unconscious of is a tricky process, and much of the "newfound consciousness" people may feel they've found with is just a new layer of delusion. Sometimes this is harmless; other times, people might think they are in control when they are anything but. Either way, I don't go rock climbing to become a warrior; I go rock climbing for the joy and intimacy that are integral to it.

Sometimes a vdiff feels hard and a VS feels fine. Somedays the VS that felt fine last time feels hard today.

Grades help to plan your ambitions and your judgement keeps them in check once you've set off.

So yes, I trust the grades to help me make a plan, which is very adaptable as the day goes on.

Interesting that in putting together the new Peak District Gritstone guide, Graham Hoey went and climbed 2/3 of the routes in the book afresh (having climbed 95% previously) in order to check the grade consistency. He tweaked a few, not sure how many.

I think its very much on topic. Grades are a subjective average guesstimate so can never always be perfect for the individual. The most interesting factor is how we mentally approach risky climbing and where in climbing risk mistakes are most often made. On the one hand most experienced climbers clearly nearly always make excellent choices on harder climbing, from low number of accident reports, and on the other relax way to much when on easy terrain or when undertaking mundane tasks. Understanding climbing psychology will help achievement and satisfaction in decision making on harder climbs, as well as removing much of the stupidly in lack of focus that way too often leads to needless accidents and deaths. The YOSAR data completely transformed my view of climbing risk:

http://www.bluebison.net/yosar/alive.htm

"Most Yosemite victims are experienced climbers, 60% have been climbing for three years or more, lead at least 5.10, are in good condition, and climb frequently."

"at least 80% of the fatalities and many injuries, were easily preventable.  In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."

Yes, I find the whole warrior thing very off-putting.  I doubt I would've read it if it hadn't been recommended to me by somebody I see as very down to earth and intolerant of woo. I guess I like the bits I like enough to ignore the bits I don't. I think the focus on noticing what is happening is very useful (although I see why you'd be sceptical about this) and I also really liked the stuff about owning your decisions (which, while it has flaws, is useful in the context of thinking about backing off things).

Yes, but sometimes is is no text... only line drawn and grade.

And as said, often than not the line/route/problem is possible even if you're shorter. But the not at the same grade. It really depends of the line and so on. Thus "guidebook" grade gives you some info. But other tidbits are also needed (like, description, what do other people think about it... and lastly how does it look to you).

I disagree there. One can train as hard as one likes but the biggest gains in performance are usually seen on the publication of a new guidebook.

The older I get, the better I was. 

should have said, Graham wasn't just checking grades but descriptions and other things too.

I found the language off-putting but realised some of that is how warrior attitudes have been distorted in the modern world. I'm very glad I read it. Another transformative book of that type was Doug Robinson's The Alchemy of Action 

Click books on https://movingoverstone.com/ 

I'll be looking at his tweaking efforts soon and reporting on it. He's one of the climbers I'd trust most. Our sub E1 BMC consistency tweaking was from lower grade climbers of various shapes and sizes. We changed few classics but a large minority of unstarred routes.

Yes, my alleged climbing standard has apparently risen enormously since I stopped climbing 14 years ago.

At my modest grade it has a lot to do with familiarity with the location. Much of my climbing has been Lakes-orientated. In consequence, though littered in epics at the higher-end of my achievement svcale, I have always thought of a Lakes HVS as more amenable than one in Wales - or in the SW. I've only ever climbed in Northumberland once: got thoroughly spanked by Vibram Wall at Simonside. Though it was cold and I had a night-after head, I thought I'd have been able to get more than 10ft up the first section - the previous day we'd done both Banzai Pipeline and GE Corner in Borrowdale...In the end put it down to an off-day...but I also felt I was in some alien, unfamiliar place which sowed the doubts...

It's a bit variable, I think - some easy/amenable HVS in the Lakes and some that's pretty testing/serious and probably E1. But, yes, I think in general in the Lakes you get used to lots of nut protection and fairly decent holds on VS - E1 - which becomes familiar and reassuring, even when the route is a bit mossy, your belayer is out of sight and you're 60m up. Then you get on the grit and suddenly you're having to layback on sidepulls and smears with no gear 6m above the ground, to reach the "sanctuary" of a slopey break which only takes the no.4 cam you normally leave at home...

Yes, and visitors to the Lakes often find it tough.

In recent years I have done more sport climbing than I used to, this has taught me that success is related strongly to style rather than grade. There is likely a 2 full grade spread in my on sight ability across various styles of routes.

Interestingly, whilst trad grades drift upwards, sport grades do the opposite. I can't rely on guidebook progression here. 

I've not noticed sport grades drifting downwards. I do think that sport grades change over time, especially as limestone holds break or get polished. Examples like Let the Tripe Increase (7c) and Sturgeon in the Cupboard (7c+) have undoubtably got harder in the last few years after hold breakage and this is not always reflected in guide book changes very quickly.

Fair comment, I do most of my Sport climbing abroad where I have noticed grades drifting downwards. I will resist the cynical comment about holiday grades 😊

Brilliant, I'm the total opposite. Pretty happy on grit as local to the peak so used to it, can see the entire route from the ground/spot most gear placements etc.. On Sunday I was 30m up the 40m third pitch of a route in Wales and was felling very strung out by the gear, route finding and climbing!

Actually, was mostly thinking about traditional grades of sport climbs when I wrote this. But I think it's often true of trad climbs in the case where fixed pro deterioriates.

I usually climb in The Peak and always find The Lakes easier. The rates are rarely as cruxy, and you tend to be much less likely to hit the floor. Yes you'll often need to do more climbing, and may be out of site if your belayer more often, but that doesn't seem to bother me too much.

Horses for courses I guess 🙂

By and large yes - particularly now with all the consensus data available.    In 40+ years of climbing I struggle to think of many incidences where the book g0ot it badly wrong! 

Similarly, I slogged away on HVS's for years, unaware that I was, in fact, an extreme rock cruiser.

Are you by any chance from The Coun’y?

Did you hear the one about the soldier who was the only one in step?

I suppose the problem here is, and I've raised this before - that that the guide does just that. It guides. People select routes based upon grades, and can therefore, loaded with false pretences; a full rack and a sense of trust ("it's only an hvs, I can climb e1, it must just get easier after this move/there must be some gear a bit higher") get themselves into dangerous places.

Everyone has a story of someone who is actually only a severe leader jumping on threadneedle street, faced with damp overhanging gymnastics, muddy blocks and a belay block that wouldn't hold a wet fart and having a bad time. I'm not convinced that the guidebook doesnt hold some responsibility. 

In these examples I'm the bloke that thought a Northumberland 'classic 3* hvs' would be a fun cruise and has remained bitten ever since. 

The thing about guidebooks is that they're just that; guides.  Something might have a hard crux for someone that's insufficiently tall to reach the obvious holds that a six foot something person can grasp without issue, for instance.  How can a single grade reflect that?

T.

Or a pictogram as with Rockfax I guess.

I've never read it because the title sounds so ridiculous. Does anyone know if the writer ever was an actual "warrior" in some way? Which I guess in the contemporary world means was a soldier who has been deployed on active duty in conflict? I would be interest to hear thoughts about that book from any climbers who have spent 6 months or a year dodging IEDs and getting intermittently mortared in Iraq or Afghanistan. He might be spot on, but I suspect going climbing and going to war aren't that similar really.

No, for better or worse, it's much more 'woo-like' than that.  The intro to the book states that it draws on the "rich warrior tradition and literature. Its style is very different from what many people think of as war-like, being neither combative nor overly aggressive. Rather, it is a program of balance, harmony, and insight that is inspired by a peaceable application of ancient martial traditions."

It took me some effort to not be put off by that kind of thing, but I think there are some good insights in the book.

I know the Peak vs Peaks argument has been done to death, but wonder if one based around "The Lakes" has legs (so to speak) given that there's only one body of water in the Lake District that's named as a lake?

This is exactly it, in a nutshell.

It's unrealistic for people to always spot such things (if you can reach the hold you'll probably rarely stop to think about whether somebody else could). And the idea that guidebook contributors can ever have this kind of encyclopedic knowledge is also unrealistic.  If gross errors that are flatly dangerous are avoided then I think we're doing OK.  Photo topos are obviously really useful in many ways, but I think sometimes they can accidentally reinforce the mistaken idea that a guide is 100% accurate.  It's the old problem of precision vs. accuracy.

I'd add to that that people tend to overestimate their grade based on routes they did well rather than those which they struggled or failed on or didn't even attempt (they're all sandbags, right ?).  So you will come across "VS leaders" who can, in fact, only manage 50% of any of the random VSs you point them at.

I'm as guilty as most.  For a while I convinced myself I was breaking into E2 based on a few selected routes - whilst ignoring being totally shut down by the likes of Phil or Ximenes.  At that time I was probably an HVS leader.

Just need to add that I have read a bit further on into the intro and he does specifically make reference to a soldier in combat. Hmmmm ....  Perhaps we can add being a bit muddled over this issue to the critique?!

I think Cumbrians are too down to earth to get embroiled in an interminable debate about pluralisation...!

My original point is not whether guidebooks are accurate (of course there are limits), but whether you trust them so that, questing up a route onsight, you think: "well, maybe I can't see any gear or holds from here, but they are bound to appear given the grade." Personally, irrespective of the question of accuracy, I struggle to simply trust that things will be well.

OK, although: "Its style is very different from what many people think of as war-like, being neither combative nor overly aggressive. Rather, it is a program of balance, harmony, and insight that is inspired by a peaceable application of ancient martial traditions." does sound rather bollocksy to me!

The way I came to think of it is that it's generally quite sound (in terms of how it links to more formal academic psychology) but is expressed in a way that makes it seem otherwise!  (And obviously it's not necessarily a given that formal academic psychology is not b*llocksy either.)

That's a very quick way to end up in hospital. Tbh the fact that sandbags don't have a pile of bodies under them shows that climbers aren't doing this. 

Or, like, MR does a reasonably efficient job at taking bodies off the hill.

A couple of weeks ago while at Long Scar. Platt Gang Grove. The guidebook and my first impression of the route, steep for a diff but seemed to be obvious gear placements and good positive holds. A good first outdoor lead for some who had done quite a bit of indoor climbing and is strong but with poor footwork? I would have led it first, to be sure anyway, but thanks for your comment on here. 

Firmly in the no way category. Grades feel like the vary dramatically from area to area and even between crags in the same area! This is both will be both regional differences and due to my own strengths and weaknesses.  

If I'm anywhere near my limit I want to know more about the route e.g. on an E1 5b it could be a well protected 5b move with the E1 grade given for some boldness, which leaves me with sweaty palms.   

Also in the Lakes a lot of routes are way less travelled than those in Pembroke and North Wales so a more esoteric route in the Lakes is much more likely to have the wrong grade attached due to a lack of consensus that its a sandbag. 

This is exactly what puts me off bolder routes as shorter climber. Making a harder move than a taller person which is well protected is one thing making a harder move without a good piece is completely proposition. 

I seconded up Gormenghast and was so glad to have a rope above my head, the holds are great but the moves are quite sizeable between them and I was throwing in the odd intermediate to make to the next jug and the fall is serious.     

Up to a point.  The guide book grade tells me if I'm in the ball park.  Looking at the route tells me if I want to play. There have been times when I've willed myself on, on the basis that at the grade there should be holds and gear.  I would say that 9/10 it works out like that.

Al

Once you've started, beyond the necessary stuff about where the route goes and anything else the guidebook deems important to know then no, I never trusted that holds and, especially, gear would appear, whatever the grade given.  What I did trust was my own experience, what that old-fashioned word nous sums up.

Always bring your nous along.  Takes up no room, often saves your bacon.

T.

Nous is pretty vital for trad climbing close to our limit. Another way of putting this would be a focus on a full situational awareness, combined with experience. Guidebook teams put a lot of effort into getting things right but some grades are wrong and some topo lines are wrong and some routes will have changed character due to vegetation or rockfall. The individual climber has to apply good judgement and as per the participation statement recognise a possible bad consequence of getting that wrong.

The area of climbing that worries me most in this respect is sport climbing on slightly unsound rock. People get used to indoor climbs not needing nous but nous is important outdoors on sport climbs in the UK. I'd rather the worst of such routes got an adjectival grade as well as a French grade.

Excellent idea, we need to introduce more fixations to spread the load. The current honeypots are showing signs of wear.

Makes you wonder how in the past and from personal experience people onsighted first ascents across all grades up to E5, without prior inspection or cleaning.

They probably didn't always do that strictly speaking. Someone else maybe cleaned it before, lots of other minor cheating went on (inspection, siderunners etc) that is written out of the equation with rose tinted views of the past. The speed of growth of lichen and vegetation has also accelerated a lot since then as the air got cleaner.

I'm not getting at those climbers... they usually were not being dishonest about style. I'd also agree that in the Peak, where I know best what's going on,  when I stated climbing obsessively in the late 80s there seem to be more people climbing E5 in good style than now. I'd put that down to more people playing other climbing games (bouldering, indoor climbing) and the average trad climber being a good bit more risk averse.

Edit...changed as I misread the onsight first ascent bit

I think it would make tremendous sense to separate out the 'danger' aspect of the UK adjectival grade, it would help tremendously especially when planning a trip to unfamiliar territory.

Trying a new line ground up is a very different experience from starting up a route you know is given a grade that is your top grade, though. And probably only a relatively small proportion of climbers have done, or tried doing, onsight new routes anyway.

Your comment to Hannah does sound a rather like a not particularly subtle alternative to saying "I'm a much better climber than you are". If that's what you want to say, you could just say it like that. 

The YMC tried it with P (for prang potential) grades but it didn't catch on and even they gave up. Guidebooks can just put anything from the blunt 'unprotected' to more detailed points like 'easier at the top but don''t fall off' in the text. Yorkshire grit does seem to have more than its fair share of blind breaks that look like they might take gear from below.

Phil was actually performing at elite standards. Other old men were more open about the fact some were cheating or say freeing aid routes clean from use (and the blatant sandbagging of the 70s and 80s.... Bancroft's guide was maybe the most notorious ever).

E3, 5c and a word or two in the description tells me all I need to know. Ed Ward Drummond came up with a concise single line grading system for the Avon Gorge many years ago but it was roundly rejected by the climbing community. A combination of letters and numbers described every characteristic of the route but if I recall still included a description.

Beyond that and you are beginning to grade the climber and not the climb.  I did a route in the Lakes and was chastised by my partner for not putting enough gear in.  He managed to get almost half as much again as I did because a) he had more appropriate gear b) was more observant and c) very good at placing it in awkward situations.  How do you grade that? 

Al

Thanks for posting. The 'Ottery tragedy from Outside was a worthwhile and harrowing to read.

Yes, and the system is given in Mick Ward's excellent article about Drummond on UKC, you can see the link to it below:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/ed_drummond_1945-2019_-_a_retr...

It doesn't require much nous to look at somewhere like Tintern or Woodcroft Quarries and realise that some of the routes are on tottering piles of choss, whereas somewhere like Tirpentwys is pretty solid.

I don't think that anything beyond a note in a guidebook about unsound rock at a particular crag or sector is really needed unless it's got particularly lethal potential. The Wye Valley Sport guidebook uses smileys to (amongst other things) indicate the rock quality, and it just felt as though I was getting nannied.

I feel similarly "nannied" when people post warnings about loose blocks on routes, usually high mountain routes.  I know they are well intentioned therefore it seems a bit petty to criticise but every time I see one I can't help thinking "no sh*t sherlock" but then I feel bad about it.

Al

The one that annoyed me most was the person who took it upon themselves  to remove the small loose chock on Kelly's crack on Crow Chin, that had been loose for the history of climbing on the edge.

You are not a climber new to the outdoors though are you? You are beng way more nannied by having bolt spacings typical for sport climbs on what, if the rock quality is less than good, should be a bolted adventure climb or a top-rope. The BMC rightly debolted some loose routes at Horseshoe for such reasons.

True, and perhaps I've been climbing on rock sufficiently long enough that I've forgotten what it's like to be a beginner - and my early climbing was largely on rock rather than indoors.

I do agree that too many easy routes are being bolted on dubious rock, and that the low grades combined with copious bolts makes those sorts of routes more attractive to the inexperienced (and are at least as equally nannying), but resolving this by adding a "danger grade" to each climb does remove some of the self-reliance and individual judgement that most climbers seem to feel is valuable. I think one gets more of that from a general warning about a crag than a separate grade for risk.

Perhaps it would be better if equippers on iffy sports routes with dodgy rock kept to minimal bolting to discourage those with a low appetite for risk...

I'm 5'3''. Don't trust it remotely (nor, conversely, do I on plastic, but that tends to be less serious).

Just starting to lead and did my first Severe at Castle Naze with an instructor jugging up next to me the other day. If he hadn't helped and encouraged me to step up a few times on airy feet to scope a placement, down, get a cam in, down, the crux move would have been completely unprotected for me, right above a big ledge. Yes, I could climb it, but whether I can protect a move clearly makes a massive difference, and not being able to reach the pro until I'm mid-crux rather than at some lanky climber's rest point is clearly going to change that a lot... also, on the same climb (and often, topping out or bouldering), actually seeing the thank-god holds. I regularly second climbs with terror at how unprotected a move (e.g. getting up into a crack from under an overhang - cf Gunpowder Crack at Bamford) would be for me. 

As others have suggested, sometimes the adjectival grade is less reliable than the technical one (not always).

Then again, I've learnt to seldom trust that the design or engineering of the average man (grading, routesetting, many other things in life...) will have remembered the average woman exists...

I don't,  because 'danger' is personal.  One person's safe ground fall is another person's ankle snapper.  One person's safe run out is another's total nightmare. One person might have that crucial micro cam and another not.  By making a statement that a route is not dangerous or safe is more fraught than saying nothing.  One compromise I do like is the sparingly applied 'fluttery heart' because the absence of this symbol in no way implies "safe".

Snapshots of a climb through time

Pincer, Roaches

1973 - HS

1981 - MVS

1989 - HVS 5a

2004 - VS 5a

Rockfax - VS 5a

Varied due to advances in gear, grades (earlier grade a hang over from when XS was top grade) etc.

One that gets talked about quite a lot is Bowfell Buttress, now Hard Severe. 1980: V Diff; 1967: Diff (hard).

It's worth bearing in mind that it is the climb that is graded not the climber.  Other than in exceptional cases a VS 4c should be a VS 4c regardless of an individuals height. I'm 6', I climbed for many years with a guy who is 5' 6".   He could reach holds I couldn't because he was more wiry, more supple and had an arm span a good 4" longer than mine. He was also lighter and more talented. It really should not matter especially at the lower grades so don't let your height be an obstacle to your ambitions.  Many of the worlds best climbers have tended to be short and lean. There are times when being short is a disadvantage but to counter that taller people are heavier and that weight is with you on every climb and not just "at times". In this sense the grades do end up being averaged out with regard to difficulty.

Al

If you really don't trust the guidebook grade, what else do you have to go on?

Chris

They're all about VS, not too wild really. 

I climbed Whiskey Wall  at almscliffe and we only had  a guidebook from the 70s with us (don't ask). I thought it was pretty stiff for HVS until I got home and found out it's actually E3 these days. 

What it looks like above you (moves and rests as well as protection), the feel of the holds, whether you're getting pumped hanging around worrying about it etc. Climbing into difficult ground with no immediate protection possibilities is going to make you think "should I or shouldn't I?" even if the grade should be well within one's capabilities.

Just to pick a point, are you saying at 5' 6" he had to have longer arms, be more supple and be a better climber than you to climb the same grade? That sounds like height does matter as one of many factors. 

I'd say on Redpoint sport climbs and bouldering height doesn't tend to matter all that much apart from on morpho moves as you can often find alternative sequences that work for your body short or tall.

On trad I've found (and chatting to tall friends) that on balance being taller is more beneficial because its generally on vertical terrain which means a lot of your weight is in your legs anyway and you don't have to haul your "heavy frame" with your "weak levers". Being tall will enable you to use the obvious holds and not be left short of them in bold sections of climbing.

I've come to terms with the benefits and disadvantages of my specific dimensions and I'm enjoying on working on what I can to help myself perform better and trying not to worry too much about others.

Going back to the original post about trusting the guidebook grade. I generally trust the grade if it's well travelled route but I do tend to have a sneaky look at ukc voting if it's something towards my limit so I don't have any nasty surprises.

I agree - I'm a smidge over 5'4", and the only climb I've done where reach/height makes a real difference is Baran (E2 5b) - it's possible to do it if short, but requires a pop off a very marginal foothold to gain a jug - the consequences of missing are a fall on to an easy angled slab with two microcams as your only gear. If you're taller, it's just a reach from good footholds.

Hazel Findlay is (IIRC) about the same height and certainly climbs far harder than I do, so it's not really an excuse! I think that some low-grade climbs can be disconcerting for new climbers who expect to be able to lace all easy routes with gear, when in fact there are many easy routes with very little gear at all. That doesn't mean they're dangerous though - the chances of falling off are low.

I reckon just about anyone could name a pro climber who is their height and that's the beautiful thing about this sport. We all have our strengths and weaknessess and our height plays into that, taller people will have far more issues with steep bouldering and dynamic movement, and smaller people don't always get the good holds given to us on a plate, which in my opinion can lead to spicy times on trad. 

The concept Hazel Findlay and Lyn Hill are both shorter than me has come up before as some type of inspiration. But all I can think is but they have talent in their little toes than I have in my entire body 😂

Most disputed grades seem to hover within a grade or two but one that always defied me was the Vixen at Newstones

1973 - VS

1981 - VS 4b

1989 - VS 4a

2004 - HVS 5b

and still hovering around that. It is a jammers crack. I tried it a few times when I was regularly leading E2 and couldn't even get started, even with the "hidden" hold. Which I suppose means that it is hard to grade somethings for everyone as it will depend on the build of the climber.

I had to smile at that. He had to be "more talented" (i.e. capable to climbing a harder grade) in order to climb the same grade. In fairness, a good ape index is a real advantage.

It's OK saying "the grade is for the route not the climber", but then all a grade is is how hard a route feels to people. Without the human element grades would be meaningless; it would just be a fanciful line up a piece of rock. 

And being short does make a lot of routes harder. If a bold E2 5b necessitates a 6a move for someone who cannot reach the next real hold, then it's going to feel more like E4 regardless of guidebook grade. 

I was really pleased to find I'd broken into the E5 grade when the 'Over The Moors' guide came out a few years back

I used to use my lack of height as an excuse, then I climbed a little with Cubby Cuthbertson who more or less the same height as me. Obviously he was just a lot better at climbing than me.

You can't sensibly deal with dangerously loose sport climbs on a crag basis as at most venues most routes are sound but a few are not and some are in between.  It needs to be dealt with on a route by route basis. Too many lower grade Peak 'sport routes' are just not.

That wasn’t my point. I was making the point that although guidebook grades can vary slightly, they are more or less correct following consensus from the guidebook team and you should deal with that. Nobody would grade an E5 E1 for example. There will always be regional variations in grading, but again the given grade will not vary widely with other similar grades in an area. Whereas setting off up a line without any prior knowledge of the possible grade is far more committing and you can come unstuck, but that’s climbing, challenging yourself and taking a risk.

The trick is to try the Fox first, and then it seems easy!

That one spat me out too!

I also remember the painful dyno-into-a-jam that was Little Nasty on Ramshaw

I'm saying that the measurement from fingertip to fingertip with his arms in a crucifix position was 4" (referred to by some as the ape factor)more than mine despite my being 5 or 6" taller. His build made him better on steep/overhanging stuff but I tended to be better on vertical and slabby. He was more supple and had a more beneficial strength to weight ratio.  He was also more dynamic when required.  I was always a rather static climber.

I'm not saying height is never an advantage, I'm simply stating that it's not quite as simple as that.  Wasn't it Don Whillans, a very short climber, who on being asked what he did when he couldn't reach a hold said "I climb up to it"

Al

It's not true that all routes are roughly consistent.  So Many Classics was a starred HVS in a popular section on the most popular crag in the UK and is up to E3 over one edition. Similarly on Stanage, Magnetic North is up to E3 from HVS and Straight Ahead from Diff to VS.

...but was an absolute nightmare for carrying his grocery shopping?

Great Western Rock guidebooks have got a really nice feature of faces next to the grades , :-|, and a skull&cross-bones. If there is anything to worry about (loose rock, dodgy clips, poor fixed gear, etc.) then you know about it. If I'm climbing a sport route, I don't want to unknowingly find myself in a trad situation.

Personally, for sport climbing, I think it's the guidebook writers responsibility to make readers aware of anything other than a well-bolted climb on sound rock. I climbed a starred 6a+ the other weekend using the new South Wales CC guidebook which had no mention of anything sus. I found at 2 points it relied on old rusty pegs in breaks and had quite a loose top section. Reading the logbook comments after, quite a few people mention this and some people used supplementary trad gear. I don't see why (especially at novice grades) stuff like this isn't flagged more readily in guidebooks. I don't want a step-by-step walkthrough of where to put my hands and feet but a little assistance in staying alive would be nice. It's only sport climbing, after all.      

2 grades out is quite possible though, and there's a world of difference between E3 and E5.

I've often heard this argument but based on experience to date don't often buy it, to be honest. Perhaps becomes less relevant at very high grades but while height might not always mean you *can't* climb it, as I said, it may well mean that a crux move is unprotected. That seriously affects the grade in reality (no use having a bomber placement if you can't use it). I've noticed this when I've struggled to clean stuff too.

Nb I think it comes down to the fact that when most people refer to the supposed advantages of being short etc they're really talking about a short man. 5'6'' (esp with a good ape index!) is still noticeably taller than the average woman, let alone a short one. I don't doubt there are advantages to being under 6' when you've got to fold all that lank away, but sub-6' doesn't mean 'short' - it's still the better part of a foot taller for plenty of women.

Tldr I agree with you that VS should be VS for everyone, but in reality it's VS for the average male (yes, so many routes were put up decades ago when it was only men doing so. However, guidebooks are written now).

I was referring to the advantage a shorter person has of carrying less weight.  Perhaps you would care to comment on that? As disadvantages go, how does that stack up against being short? How would that fit into any modifications to the grade that you seem to be implying? It's worth bearing in mind that the majority of easy climbs were ascended and graded at a time when protection was minimal to non existent. Perhaps everything should be downgraded?

IMO grades come about by taking all of these things into consideration and arriving at an average especially over a long period of time when opinions have consolidated.

Al

I hate to be picky but what about all the short girls who can't do very many pull ups because genetically girls aren't built to be able to do many pull ups, does being lighter help then too?

Please just admit it's a fact that on trad being 5ft can affect the grade to make it bolder because you can't reach good holds/protection a 5ft 6 (still on the cusp of normal/short) or 6ft man could

Edit: And similarly being on the extremely tall end of the spectrum 6ft onwards will effect how easy or hard things are but they'll rarely make things bolder 

Edit: so yes the average grade may be VS 4c to most people and most people will agree that its correct but there will be outliers on both ends that will find it easier/harder 

If you are going to be picky you may wish to read what I posted.  Of course a 5' person will find some climbs harder than a 6' person.  If I implied otherwise it was unintentional. I'm simply offering the counter point that a taller person has the extra weight to contend with. Being short is sometimes a disadvantage, extra weight is always a disadvantage.

Al

The term "warrior" is being used as in the writings of Carlos Castaneda, and those influenced by him. This context is made pretty explicit in the preface and introduction.

I've not come across him before from what I remember, but from a read on Wikipedia it seems that the Rock Warrior book is based on what seems to be agreed now to be fiction! Interesting.

According to William W. Kelly, chair of the anthropology department at Yale University:

"I doubt you'll find an anthropologist of my generation who regards Castaneda as anything but a clever con man. It was a hoax, and surely don Juan never existed as anything like the figure of his books. Perhaps to many it is an amusing footnote to the gullibility of naive scholars, although to me it remains a disturbing and unforgivable breach of ethics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castaneda

This is my final reply as I feel we are going in circles here. If you read my reply properly, I asked what use is being lighter if you can't do many pull ups (relative to men) like a lot of girls... So being lighter is really cancelled out in that case. Plus being really light you've got to carry a larger percentage of your bodyweight in gear when trad climbing. 

Extra weight shouldn't be a disadvantage. Look at Johnny dawes, he's not a light bloke and can still no hand climb E4s... Or how about John dunne he's not a small either (this is the same logic provided for Hazel findlay and short people). 

I'm in agreement with you that being heavier is a disadvantage... On steeper terrain that is often not found on your average trad route in the grades the majority of climbers operate. Mostly when you are on slabs and vert you stand in your feet and really if you're doing it right don't need to pull bodyweight at all.

When sport climbing and bouldering I'll happily admit I have many advantages over tall people and they will have to work a lot harder to do some things which might come easier to me being light and dynamic and nimble. 

But with relation to the original post about trusting trad grades. My point is being shorter means that specifically the adjectival grade may not be what it says on the tin because of increased possibility of boldness due to not being able to reach a hold or gear from the "good" position. Its why reachy symbols exist in rockfax. I'm not saying a trad route can't ever be harder for someone tall because of their weight so sorry for any confusion there. 

We are mostly in agreement but I'm not sure about the logic of the debate. If a route was put up in say 1920 with essentially no protection and given a grade of severe, why is this adj. grade untrustworthy because a short person cannot reach to place a specific piece of modern protection?

The fact that one person will find a route harder or easier than another because of some physical attribute is indisputable.

Al

Grades are a consensus opinion, look at the route and work out if it will suit or not

Never understood the guide book mentality of slavishly following someone else's route to the millimeter. I've often just used a guidebook to find an interesting looking bit of rock to play on. Usually end up on routes climbed before but it's more fun finding my own way

Doesn't the average punter just go out and look at the rock and pick their own route any more, or is it all about pre planning, training and ticklists these days? 

They've been generally agreed to be fiction for many years. It would be foolish to imagine that Ilgner took them to be strictly autobiographical, as he has read extensively around the subject and the stories are supernatural in nature. Works of fiction that are presented as factual have inspired beliefs and practices many times. See also: every major religion.

As for subject of the thread: Доверяй, но проверяй.

Here is an example. I stood with my partner at the bottom of an E2 5b, a lovely line with a slightly bold start which looked a little unlikely. 
He started up the route and found all the holds were better than they had looked from the floor and the movement was pleasant and in balance. He got into a good position and was able to stretch up and place wire above his head to protect the next sequence which was a little tricker but nothing desperate. 

I seconded up and got the same position I looked up and realised there was no way I’d have been able to place that wire and neither could I reach into the hold he’d used to make the moves. On second I figured out an alternative sequence and dispatched the moves but this was the one of hardest moves on the route and above a several meter ground fall if I had been on lead. This for me would be an unjustifiable risk - I’ve just been let out the last thing I want is ankle injury! 

Sometimes when you are shorter you have to make a more difficult sequence or make an extra move to get to a good placement. On bold terrain this makes a difference compared to a safe route. This means I take extra care at my limit on bolder routes and will look around for more information and not blindly trust what a guidebook says. Whether that’s someone climbing severe, E1 or E8 that is reasonable especially when it’s close to the top someone’s physical or mental climbing grade.

This is no different from a heavy person choosing not to do steep route because it’s harder for them to carry their weight up or someone who is bad at jamming choosing not to try a jamming crack at their lead limit. I doubt many people climb close to their limit and pick routes without weighing up their strengths and weakness. If they do I suspect they could climb a routes in their best style at a higher grades if they did a bit of research. 

Btw the FA of the route described was in 1981 so it’s true that the first ascensionist probably didn’t have a number 3 or  4 wire to protect that move and my partner placed a cam and there is nice shiny peg at the end. But the grades are based around the gear we have now not what was available the in the year of FA. In a way back before modern gear was invented it’s a whole different head game required. I have absolute respect for what they were doing but things have moved on in that time. 

I take it you know how to link two wires for extra reach but still couldn't reach? 

I've used this technique a few times but I'd be surprised if anyone could use it comfortably unless they had a hands free rest and the placement was obvious/easy (not having to wiggle it into a crozzly crack and work into position). 

Not sure if anyone has posted this route but it appears to worry quite a few judging by logbook comments.

Bridle Piton Slab (D)

Mostly I have found them to be accurate, the reality of how the route feels depends on the climber and their abilities.

However, it would be nice if the guide books provided a little more information about Trad routes, specifically how good the gear is and how sustained the climing is for the grade e.g:

VS 4c - Plenty of gear - Sustained climbing

VS 4c - Some runouts - Plenty of rests

etc...

Is there not a point where the quantity of information given removes all sense of adventure and the point of an onsight ascent? VS 4c implies to me that I'd be unlucky to kill myself falling off it, and that it's probably not sustained 4c. Add in the MkI eyeball and the description, and you should be good?

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I think UK guide books do a pretty good job in indicating when a route deviates significantly from typical routes of a grade.

2 linked wires were used on the 4th or 5th ascent (and maybe all the earlier ones as well) of Profit of Doom (E4 6b) way back in the late 70's - not sure there's a hands free rest there 😁, and the linking was definitely pre-done on the ground rather than in-situ.

At the risk of establishing a regular midweek grade wingeing post... we did Shadow Wall (VS 5a) last night, intended as a warm-up.  VS 5a in the BMC guide and described as 'technically intriguing'.  Rockfax gives it VS 4b noting a 'long reach' 

My impression of it was that it was technically intriguing in that it was hard to read onsight with the best line hard to figure out.  Not really any long reaches (even for me) but quite fingery for a couple of moves.  What neither description mentions is that the good runners low down won't stop you hitting the ledge below the hard bit.  Or that the next ones are the small, but very welcome, cams that protect the exciting mantelshelf onto the top.

I thought the moves were probably not 5a, but the runout and very real risk of a ground fall weren't VS.  The combination of VS and 5a carries the pretty clear implication that it's hard but safe, which it isn't.  VS 4b implies it's probably a bit bold, but easy, which it isn't (for VS).  HVS 4c for me,  suggesting VS-ish climbing in a position where you really don't want to fall off, particularly while people are trying to take evening selfies.     

I always thought that was how it works too, until I moved to the Peak where I've found a number of VS 5as which seem to include the chance of ground falls at a height where if you JUST broke an ankle or two you could consider yourself lucky. 

We have it as reachy and technical (and independently agreed with the BMC grade....we didn't have much input to Burb infinity).... protected at the crux but exposed above (has a placement blown out maybe?).

Outcrop grades have often seemed outwith that general concept to me, whether on grit, or northern sandstone, or...actually, my experience is pretty much confined to grit and sandstone in that respect — maybe that explains it! The worst perhaps being those routes with equivalent 'safe' grades that look like they'll take good gear in breaks — but actually the breaks are near universally too shallow and flaring to take any gear. Never a pleasant surprise.

Ha, I did Shadow Wall as a warm up once. It wasn't - found it quite a stiff move and not that well protected

I agree but that's why we did so much work at lower grades in the latest BMC and YMC guides.

In reply to steveriley

Shadow Wall is a weird one as it definitely had pro at the crux (can't remember what though) and if it doesn't now it's an HVS.

Examples?

Well exactly. OK when you have some prior knowledge of the need for this technique, and know the nut size, but not often an option for onsight climbing.

I think part of the problem is that it probably depends how strictly you stick to the line (wherever that is).  I started in the middle of the wall and trended right towards the break at the top.

There's an initial scramble up to a ledge where I put a good cam on the right and a wire on the left.  The problem is that they are pretty low down and I doubt would stop you hitting the ledge even during the crux sequence.  It carries on being fairly sustained above this and the first break you are aiming for is disappointingly lacking gear.  At this point it does get easier and I just pressed on to the break under the springboard and traversed right to the comfortable big footholds at the arete and inserted the obligatory black totem.

Maybe further left there's gear somewhere, and there are horizontal ribs and breaks but the line I followed didn't feel obviously escapable.  Even now, I think I still have a few grades in hand on something like this, but someone regularly climbing Hard Severe looking to push their grade on VS 4b (Rockfax) or a nervous VS leader looking for something technically hard but safe (VS 5a BMC) might get a real scare.    

We'll check it out again when we can but it wasn't like that when we did it or we would have given it HVS. Lobbying for the removal of poorly protected sandbags is our thing.

Climbed this again a few weeks back; admittedly my head game is not good after the long lay off, but I found sparse poor gear, moves out of balance, and lots of slippery lichen, as a grade VDiff always gives me pause, I should really learn that Diff means “run away” for me. 🙂

Yorkshire grit P grades did just that but proved unpopular for some reason. 

Oh! I forgot this insane brute of a climb...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/stanage_plantation-101/helfenstein...

"After much futile huffing & puffing, grapple & wrestle, swearing & gasping, battle & bash, scrapping and fighting, scuffling & tussle, screaming & shouting, in a vain hopeless wasted exertion that I utterly failed to negotiate an exit via squeezing through the vice-like crevice. So finally in desperation I resorted to the much easier outside finish at only S 4a. No small wonder Helfenstein gave up climbing immediately afterwards!"

One is either small enough to get through the hole, or not.

I'm not small enough, have tried it more than once, even when at my lightest/thinnest - just can't stop that bit sticking into my chest too much to allow me to make that final bit of movement that would allow the cork to pop out of the bottle 😁

Luckily, the outside alternative is quite enjoyable - not sure it's worth S 4a though - the though route is probably better graded as a chest/bra size.

Climbing without using a guide book can be a cool adventure, too. Have only done it once (not climbed much since), but it was the most memorable climb because of that.