Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

The Eyrie, Mt Boyce retrobolted! Badly... 16-Mar-2018 At 10:23:26 AM IdratherbeclimbingM9

Message

I have just re-read this thread after it being mentioned in a current post elsewhere, and am intrigued that the following wasn't discussed further...

On 21-Apr-2017 BA wrote:
>On 20/04/2017 PThomson wrote:
>
>>In Ewbank's original proposal for the grading system that we use, he
>specified
>>that the grade WOULD encompass difficulty in placing the gear, quality
>>of gear, runouts, rock-quality, and the entire experience. Obviously
>that's
>>one aspect of it that never really took off.
>
>No he didn't. If there were difficulties in placing gear, runouts,
>poor rock etc they would be mentioned separately in the written description.
>Peoples lack of understanding (ignorance?) of Ewbanks sytem is the real
>reason it hasn't been properly implemented.

and; Ewbank's

Grading takes the following into consideration. Technical difficulty, exposure, length, quality of rock, protection and other smaller factors. As these are more or less all related to each other, I have rejected the idea of 3 or 4 grades, i.e. one for exposure, one for technical difficulty, one for protection etc. Instead the climb is given its one general grading, and if any of the other factors is outstanding, this is stated verbally in the short introduction to that climb, e.g. 'Freds Frolic’ 17. 302’-6”

A fine climb, marred by poor rock at (crux) and poor protection on 4th pitch. etc, etc.

I feel that this system will soon be accepted, and the Americans seem to be thinking of something along similar lines.

As far as protection goes, the general terms “good”, “fair”, “poor” are used. However, it should be noted that I have taken the use of modern gear into account, and therefore this point will vary according to the individual, the amount of "silent aids" he carries and his ability to use them.

Hmm.
PThompson has subtly introduced the words 'difficulty in placing', which I read as different to 'protection', or indeed lack thereof.
BA is right about separately mentioning protection if some factor about it is 'outstanding' (sic), otherwise it is simply good / fair / poor (sic) Ewbank.

Ewbank himself allowed for evolution (of sorts) when he referred to the protection point/s varying according to the individual and use of 'modern' gear, but I think he was referring to protection/lack thereof, rather than "difficulty in placing", which is a much more subjective thing.

PThompson also wrote;
>difficulty of placing the gear relative to how strenuous/endurance-orientated the route it, on the basis that it's harder to place gear if you're getting pumped.

True, however that is already covered in general terms by the overall grading of the route!