|On 24/11/2008 The good Dr wrote:
>On 24/11/2008 tnd wrote:
>>I think the R/X idea is good, as over the years the Ewbank system has
>>stuffed by gradings like the above.
>I have applied the Ewbank system (after Lindorfization) ;)
>I believe that the route description leaves no doubt about the nature
>of the protection on the route.
The last line shows that the Ewbank grading system has been correctly applied in this case
Here is a quote from EWBANK'S Blue Mountains guide about his grading system:
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.
And it would be good if Kevin could remember this as well, he probably does I guess. It just seems to him that 10-15m above your last bit of gear is NOT run-out - while the rest of us disagree.
PS How do you apply italics or bold to replies?