UKC

I thought that the UK grading system was a consensus of the climbers who have actually done the routes in question.

Why has JG reported this? - The Promise - "The grade has now settled at E7 7a".

When JP gave it E10 the yanks E8, JR E8, and PR gave it E7?

Surely the average grade should be the consensus.

I´m concerned that, during the late 80´s and 90´s head pointing was the fashion, now that a more purest style is used, "ground up" people are potentially going to get on things they shouldn´t and get hurt.

Not taking the consensus, but the lowest denominator will lead to injury or worse. Is this irresponsible?

Rich Mayfield

In reply to Rich M:
Surely the mode NOT the mean is a better representation as it's not thrown out by an anomalie.
James

In reply to Rich M:

Rich, totally agree, see my last post on the thread in question. At the least, this seems to be settling more at E8, not E7. And that's in the knowledge of quite a few folks lobbing onto originally suspect gear (which James to his credit appears not to have bounce tested).

In reply to james oswald:

The mode would be E8 as well (as would the median).

In reply to Rich M:

Of course it is the consensus, otherwise one person could be sandbagging everyone else.

Oh feck, got dragged into a grading debate.;-(

In reply to thomasadixon:
Very true. Just a point that the mean isn't always the best interpretation.
James

In reply to Rich M: Yes, I reported E7. That was because we thought that at the time of climbing (or in my case attempting) the route. I apologise for any offence caused.

It may well be E8 7a.

I will amend.

Thanks,

Jack

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:


Ah but would that be for ground up and no pads as the English grade demands?

It seems these days you use pads on grit - its a boulder grade.

si

In reply to Rich M:

i think its acceptable for the grade to be settled at E7 if the route has taken 20 falls onto bomber gear, and can be ground up. E8 is too serious a grade for this kind of route.

JP accurately graded the route E10 without mats and thinking the gear was crap

Yanks accurately graded the route E8 after realising the gear was fairly good and that with a few mats and their high ball bouldering skill made the route more like an E8 in difficulty and seriousness.

The gear has now been proved the be bomber, the route has now been determined to be relatively safe (something Jp and all the people who tried before never imagined) and so the grade has reached a consensus of E7,

Seems a fairly straight forward process to me, and all parties involved have shared their thoughts along the way and I think everyone was accurate in their grades.

Congrats to all and props to JP for unlocking a route that many others have tried and would never dare leading.

In reply to Silum:

The consensus (ie majority opinion) of people who've climbed the route (no offence to you, JG but if you don't climb it you don't get to grade it) is that it's E8, therefore the route is E8. That's how it works with E1s and VSs, that's how it should work with E8s.

In reply to Silum:

Ah, but for the on-sight?

Serious question.

No knowledge of gear etc. Doesn't that take us back to E10 or thereabouts?

In reply to Silum:

I would agree with this but ONLY when the consensus from other climbers have confirmed the E7 grade.

Rich

In reply to Silum:
>
>

Its a highball not a route then...

In reply to JonC:

To answer my own question, I suppose the grade should actually be for the on-sight (obviously) but assuming the easiest possible route etc is taken. So one should assume that you do indeed on-sight it but happend to have that particularly esoteric piece of gear with you (in all seriousness) and, if you do, then maybe it is only E7/8.

But it's a hard call to make and perhaps this route is a great object lesson in grading. I feel a few articles being written as we type...

In reply to JonC:

the gear is bomber.

If I do a VS and assume the gear is crap even though its bomber, would you give me E1


....no

In reply to Silum:

Read my post again. That's what I said, I think, except I was caveating it slightly by saying that this was a rather unusual piece of gear whcih you wouldn't expect to be on your rack. Which I think would, on a VS, yes, make it harder than VS. I don't actually know what the "rules" are on a high E grade but remember we're talking about grading for a pure on-sight. So, you have a standard rack and hit that placement, and it suddenly becomes a 7a solo.

Is there any precedent?

In reply to JonC:

Again, to answer my own question, I suppose a few old routes have been downgraded as gear has become better eg. micro wires/cams.

So do we assume that, even on an on-sight, we know the correct gear to take? Would you give someone an on-sight if they did Braille Trail and flashed it but came equipped with nails etc.

I don't see much difference here. If you truly you on-sighted the Promise, you'd probably not have the right bit of pro. So 7a solo to on-sight? Or do we have to assume you have some level of beta....?

In reply to JonC:

Do you still accept the onsight if you read a guidebook description of a route and it mentions the hidden friend 5/ tiny tricam placement if you don't normally carry that piece of gear on your rack? I'm sure I remember threads around the time the first Grit East came out flaming Alan and Chris for some descriptions containing hints on the gear and I could probably find examples in other guides (if I wasn't on a boat halfway round the world from my guidebooks at the mo...)

In reply to Rich M:
Is there a bit of a shifting opinion at the moment over gear beta?
As someone has already said, if you climbed braille trail with nails, could you still claim an onsite? I notice on the onsite DVD, leo goes for an "onsite attempt" of balance it is, with a very small and specific rack hanging from his harness, and I remember noticing this in a couple of other films

In reply to pottsworth:

Yeah we've noticed that. An on sight attempt, but just one nut on a quickdraw for the crucial placement????? Too many have got sucked into the whole debate, even as I type this now I'm being mentally primed by the three 'on sight' t-shirts at the top of my screen! Here's a question for you, how many routes filmed in 'on-sight' are actually on-sight, in the modern sense of the word?

In my opinion, the notion has been taken too far. What seems to happen these days is that someone flashes a route, (because that's all we're allowed to do) and then a load of climbers who go out once a month come wading in, discussing the merits of knowing this piece of gear or where that pebble is and how this drastically reduces the overall difficulty and how it would affect this VS or that VD. Then, the flip side of the coin, when some one actually does come along and make a genuine (in the current sense of the word, if this is at all possible) on sight of a route and the same people are like "so what if he used one mat or two" or "how's seeing a video three years ago really going to help?"

Have to agree with Sam on this. Putting the news title as "E7" is clearly to stir things up, when I'm sure the general consensus is now E8 and this has only been stated by climbers who've had the benefit of knowing the gear quality and of multiple pads. Saying it feels E8 when you climb above a stack of pads, could almost be compared to saying it feels a certain grade when climbed on a top-rope, it's not quite the position to make the judgement from.

Also, as an aside, I hear that the gear placement may have grown now with all the falls and that the Parthian Flake had to be gingerly bent out to get the stuck nut out of it. Is there a time when the ground up attempts should cease in favour of a headpoint to help save the placements? Or should the routes be beaten into submission in the name of ethical progression/one-up manship?

Andi

In reply to andi turner:

Just for the record this is not Sam.

Rich Mayfield

In reply to all:

Of the ascensionists so far, who has the most experinence in uk trad grades at this level?

Either Pete or Ben on their own have more than the rest put together. This should not be ignored.

In reply to Rich M:

Sorry Rich, my mistake, I'm terrible with names.

In reply to andi turner:

Very good point andi. What's worse for the rock, a bit of top rope practice and a swift headpoint or loads of falls onto a possibly dodgy placement? I'm also not completely convinced that the "ground up" approach is always the most ethically sound when any tactics can be employed save a top rope. It's all getting a bit blurred.

In reply to seagull:

In reply to Andi and Jasper,

Those are radical ideas. So ground-up is to be discouraged in favour of top rope rehearsal then lead in an effort to reduce rock erosion.

Quite a turn around that one!

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Not necessarily. All I'm saying is it's not so black and white as "ground up good - headpoint bad".

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
So ground-up is to be discouraged in favour of top rope rehearsal then lead in an effort to reduce rock erosion.

not just gear placements. think of all that skidding down slabs!

In reply to seagull:

Bloody typical, you and your filthy southern sandstone top-rope addiction..........


tee hee

how are you fella??

j

In reply to john horscroft:

I've had a minging cold for two weeks thanks for asking mate!

In reply to seagull:

Obviously working too hard! Or down The Works too often????

j

In reply to thomasadixon:

The concensus is definately NOT the same as the majority opinion. It is a generally agreed position.

In reply to andi turner:

Ive also wondered about this. Surely taking 20+ falls onto that crappy flake is a bit uncalled for. I'd be tempted to say, your not good enough to do it in that style so move on or do it in a lesser style so that stronger future generations can do it. If your taking 20+ falls, to me their is very little difference between that and the headpoint.

In reply to pottsworth:

yes but he also tried two different wires for a particular placement.....showing me it probably was an onSIGHT attempt.

In reply to andi turner: Saying it feels E8 when you climb above a stack of pads, could almost be compared to saying it feels a certain grade when climbed on a top-rope, it's not quite the position to make the judgement from.


So how is it to be graded? Do you have a diffrent grade for each style or one grade for a generally agreed style ? If so what is that agreed style ?

...or as I have argued you grade for difficuly (not style), probably Font-whatever, and leave style up to the ethic and ability of the aspiring ascentionist.

You would think there was a law that decrees it is essential to badge every route with an E grade, however unsuited.

In reply to Simon Lee:



On sight no mats english grade.

Mats = highball - V or font grade?

Grimers done a wee article on it here:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=2857

Cheers

Si

Si

In reply to Simon:

Hur hur: "If you don’t like it, why not get really agitated and put your thoughts down on a website. "

In reply to andi turner:

Definately something that all should think about. What's more important? The rock or (arbitrary) ethics?

In reply to Jon Read:

The ethics obviously, otherwise fat people would have to be banned from climbing.

In reply to gallam1: I thought they were?

In reply to Rich M:
Hi Rich, I think that anybody taking on any E7 has the potential of getting hurt, that's why it's E7 (unless it's E for effort, and would be indicated in the description), so I think you don't have to be so concerned, because they will be at a standard of knowing the game anyway. I have no opinion of the route in question, as I have not climbed it, and will not have an opinion on it's grade until I have done so either. Mark

In reply to Rich M:


Going on a route is a personal decision and you have to take responsibility for yourself. The grade is just a rough guide - always has been.

Those attempting bold or dangerous routes usually gather other information from other sources - first off themselves by looking at the route, and from other ascensionists.

This is how it has always been as you know Rich, and how it will remain I'm sure.

When climbers were climbers (and money and kudos wasn't involved), in Yorkshire at least, HVS covered all sins, all the way up to E3 and slightly beyond when we went metric. Reverse grading, known as sandbagging was an excellent sport. Never did us any harm, everyone survived.

Now we have all gone soft and sensitive, want to be led by the hand, scream foul at the merest slight, we demand an accurate grading system (and an insitu emergency top rope team if we muck up), so perhaps you are right.

DEMAND HYPER-INFLATED GRADES NOW.

Sign the petition.

We need to save climbers from themselves!
'

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Signed, Robert Jones

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Rich is in Spain and already in bed, he will respond tomorrow.

Sam

In reply to M. Edwards:

Hi Mark

I dont think you need to explain the E grade to Rich do you?

Its not the grade of the route that Rich questioned it was the decision to decide the grade, Jack has edited the news item in question.

Sam

In reply to Rich M:
I think it is generally accepted that onsight grading assumes a standard rack, and that any specialist gear would be described in the route description of a guide book if needed,
in the case of the promise, having to climb up slightly off the route line to place a slider then reverse to the line actually climbed, in my opinion would not prevent it from being on-sight,

in the same way as when i did one of my first routes of a particullar grade, one of my friends passed me a size 5 friend, and said, youll need that at the top, it still felt like i was onsighting the route.

as to the grade of the promise, ive not tried it, i wouldnt like to say!

as to the point of ground up, lots of falls before eventually getting it, andi speaks a lot of sense here, particually on bad placements.

TBH, after a couple of tries at the onsight then ground up. if ive taken a few falls, it no longer feels like it makes sense to me, to keep trying and falling off, and seems obvious to put a top-rope on the route or leave it for another day, but mabey thats cos im a big girl!

In reply to JonC:

Who on earth is still gonna be able to claim an onsight? I've never climbed on grit but know that this route has 1 piece of gear, a slider nut, which has held 20 falls therefore bomber, and that is massive beta.

I read in another thread too but what constitutes beta? How can someone claim a true onsight? If they know the route is on grit, they already have beta. ie probable route length, probable gear/climbing style, bring some bouldering mats.
imo to really claim an onsight you have to no NOTHING! so you'd turn up to the crag with your ice gear as well

The route is deffo 7A,if you're not tall.I understand the 1st ascent was soloed and if you're not very tall the solo is at least E9(matless).For an onsight solo E10 seems to be right.The route is now protectable to some extent and so the grade comes down.Best to wait for some on sight repeats to see how people grade it.On top rope my biggest problem was the reach for the final holds.Brilliant effort,James.

Mitch


In reply to Rich M:

In reply to paul mitchell:

the route was lead with the same gear thats held 20 falls, just without mats

In reply to M. Edwards & M Ryan:
Hi Mark
I agree with your E7 leader comments, but what about as Mick seems to be suggesting they have deliberate sand bags in order to...... not quite sure what he means there.

Do you think that Mick is suggesting we get rid of the E grade all together and go back to HVS and XS. I know we could have MXS XS and HXS just like at VS. Oh hang on did we try that already!

As people who put up new routes, and the early ascentists do we not have an obligation to at least try and grade them in relation to other routes, whether that´s V Diff or E10? I would rather have no grading system than one that is deliberately dangerous.

I´ve got the solution any route done during the festive season, regardless of grade, could have the following grade "Xtremely mild ard severe". That should give us enough scope for sand bagging.

Happy Xmas everyone.

In reply to EricpAndrew:


Eh?

Are you not allowed to look at a route before starting on it now?

I'm told that top climbers have superhuman powers which enable them to determine that a full set of hexes may not be necessary in an 8m finger crack.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Dynamite Paul, a short post packed with errors. James is the tallest of the ascensionists so far, he led it with the same runner using the same sequence.

Knowing Pete, I can see why he has gone for E7. I suspect he has never made a ground-up ascent of an E7 before, let alone an E8, that he'd be happy to repeat straight away. Have a look at the footage on Onsight and consider whether you think he'd like to jump straight back on Gravediggers or even Master's edge.

In reply to niggle: that is missing my point compleately....

the grade is for climbing with a standard rack available, i.e. on british trad, a set of wires, and cams, slings QD's etc

obviously you can (and I do) look up a route and strip away things im not going to need.

my point is that having a sliding nut, tri-cam, size 6 friend, HB brass offset etc as crutial gear for a route is not part of a standard rack, and acordingly i would expect to be told I needed a "crutial RP2" or similar in the route discription in the guide.....

in the case of the promise, its not in the guide, but i would consider it to be a ligitimate OS if someone climbed it knowing that the gear was the sliding nut, but had not practiced the moves, or studied the videos etc

In reply to Rich M:

If The Promise can be downgraded for re-appraised protection, is a downgrade for Parthian Shot not overdue?