Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Grading Systems


Rupert

12-Jun-2003
10:08:54 AM

Last night at the Gym I was (jokingly) ragging Ben about his 'stupid English grading system' which he countered by saying that it provided valuable extra information about the climb. I stubbornly faffed on about the Ewbank system as simple and easy to understand. Then I heard the US grading system described in a way that made quite a bit of sense - in that it had the ability to accomodate a lot more range within each grade level - perhaps better taking into account the difficulty and the 'kind' of climbing.

As was mentioned to us in discussion last night: A grade 22 slab is not the same as grade 22 trad face climbing or grade 22 steep sport climb . They are very different beasts and require very different strengths and approches. Which is 'harder'? ...and how does an effective grading system accomodate this?

Should grading systems take into account the seriousness or just the technical difficulty? - maybe the guidebook description is the place for that - What do others think?

(removed)

12-Jun-2003
10:45:11 AM

I reckon ...

. Grade for technical difficulty.
. Description for protection, style etc.

Actually the Ewbank system is supposed to take into account all the other factors such as exposure, protection etc. but is now more commonly used for purely technical difficulty ala the French system.

Separate question: If someone who climbs 30 on steep sandstone does a slab at his or her limit, is it 30 ?
My answer: Depends on how good they are at slabs, hence the constant revision of grades. The grade surely is representative of the proportion of the climbing community who can do it, not how hard an individual finds it.


nmonteith

12-Jun-2003
10:57:14 AM

I like the USA method of adding an R or an X to the end of a grade. R - means seriously runout with potential for injury if oyu come off. This is not a 2m ruinout but something dangeorus. An X means if you fall off you will hit the ground and proberly die. X routes have sectiosn which are almost solos.

For techincal difficulty or style of the clibm I think the route description is the best way of describing it. Rather than using some weird grading sysrtem to describe a 'runout up a slab to finish' you might as well just write it in the description. That way the info will be correct and not misinterprated.


The Elk

12-Jun-2003
11:08:43 AM

Grading is always such an intriguing point of discussion... I think we become accustomed to the grading of the specific country we're from. I find the Ewbank system great, with extra info put in the description. (ie: dodgy gear.)

That said, I feel that each system has it's merits... I think we should "understand" the different systems, so when we head O.S. to climb we are aware of what the grading means and how best to judge the safety or technical elements of the climb.

(Yet, I still don't understand Aid climbing grades?) ;)

cheers

12-Jun-2003
11:38:56 AM

"Grading is always such an intriguing point of discussion... I think we become accustomed to the grading of the specific country we're from. I find the Ewbank system great, with extra info put in the description. (ie: dodgy gear.)"

That is exactly the way Ewbank envisaged his grading system to work. If there was poor rock, runout sections or poor runners it was supposed to be mentioned in the climb's description. Do that, and his grading system works quite well.


alrob

12-Jun-2003
12:10:59 PM

easy, medium, hard, death, how more simpler can it get?? lol


tmarsh

12-Jun-2003
4:12:23 PM

On 12/06/2003 alrob wrote:
>easy, medium, hard, death, how more simpler can it get?? lol

Doable. Doggable. Impossible.

tim


IdratherbeclimbingM9

13-Jun-2003
2:06:46 AM

Elk: (Yet, I still don't understand Aid climbing grades?) ;)

Interesting topic.
I also would appreciate clarification of the nuances within the Australian M0 to M8 system.

I note the USA A1 to A5 system has evolved further with the 'new wave' version of same which is documented in their literature, however have not heard of the Australian system undergoing the same evolution.
The closest we have come is possibly accepting into our climbing culture their system instead of ours?

I guess it comes down to individuals pushing the limits and the climbing community accepting the newly redefined standards. A classic example would be Reinhold Messners formalisation of the 'introduction' of the '7th Grade' to mountaineering.

I have heard that Eskimos have 20 different words for what we simply call 'snow'. They obviously know their environment and can appreciate / differentiate between subtleties that would flumox the uninitiated.

The fact that different systems are in use for Free, Aid, Bouldering etc is evidence that trying to get valid grades is more specific than technical or physical difficulty, so climb descriptions will always have a place.

Here is a site for a simple description of USA vs European grades; http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/rankingguide.php
(In particular see the 'aid ratings explained').

Differentiating betwen 'clean' aid ratings and conventional aid rating is a whole other topic!


Mick

13-Jun-2003
11:32:49 AM

Just to get an idea would anyone like to have a go at giving an English grade to some of Arapiles popular classics?

Brolga 16
Quo Vadis 19
Dazed and Confused 20
Birdman of Alcatraz 23

Having no experience of English climbing, I have always been confused as to how they would relate?

Cheers,
Mike


alrob

13-Jun-2003
5:35:43 PM

hehehe, nice one tim!

kieranl

13-Jun-2003
8:55:22 PM

Brolga HVS 5b
Quo Vadis E1 5c (because of the groundfall potential on the first crux and I think it's 20)
Dazed and Confused E2 5c
Birdman of Alcatraz E3 6a

It's been twenty years since I've climbed in Britain so these are pretty rough guesses. I'm happy to see what anyone else thinks


BenHev

14-Jun-2003
9:53:08 PM

This is what Rupert was trying to get me going about (see the first post).

Kieran, for a straightforward climb, I think of HVS going with 5a, and E1 with 5b. So for the objective grade 5b, you're saying Brolga is a bit of a soft touch. Is this what you intended?
Having just done it last weekend, and getting a 'little worried' on the 2nd pitch (bit runout for me) I'd say more like E1 5a (more serious for the move).
The route might be E1 5a, 5a, 4a.

Qua Vadis, haven't done it, but the same comment applies, straightforward route would be E2 5c, since you're saying its serious, then maybe E3 5c.

I haven't really come across the USA system of R and X, but the principle seems similar, its just that with the British system, you have to know what 'normal' is! (The Brit system can also indicate a climb that's a soft touch).

Cheers
Ben

kieranl

14-Jun-2003
10:54:18 PM

Ben,
You're quite right, Brolga should be HVS 5a (or 4c). It has been a long time since I've climbed in Britain. I don't think Brolga is E1, E1 seems to cut in about 18.
Quo Vadis is 20, it's about as hard as Cenotaph Corner but a bit scarier at the start.
Having just re-visited my old Llanberis Pass Guide, Quo Vadis is probably E2, 5b.
Dazed and Confused is probably E2, 5a
Birdman of Alcatraz E3, 5c
I don't swear by any of these, they are just my impressions. I did like the british system when I was there. It had some coherence in adventure climbing areas.
Kieran


Rupert

16-Jun-2003
9:18:18 AM

How about one of you explain this "eenglitz" grading system to the uninformed like me - if you have a moment - What does the second part of the grade tell us? Cheers

Dalai

16-Jun-2003
9:20:17 AM

From my limited understanding - the E grade is for gear on the route and the second part is the technical grade for the hardest move on the climb.


Mick

16-Jun-2003
10:34:27 AM

Thanks for the insight, however if the E grade is for seriousness shouldn,t Dazed and Confused merit a higher E grade than Quo Vadis. Haven,t climbed it in 18months but I remember quite clearly that there wasn,t really much in the way of great gear anywhere on the route. Most of the gear sits behind/in hollow or fragile sounding rock. The start seems to be only protectable by a tiny cam. (I believe there probably was some kind of nut placement 1.5-2 metres off the block but when I set placement with a short tug on the draw a hairline crack appeared in the side of the flake.

I also think it was at least a Ewbank grade harder than Quo Vadis.

Any thoughts?

Mike

Robin

17-Jun-2003
5:50:25 AM

Just for my 2 bobs worth I like the Australian system but I have to confess that I have no experience using either the British or the American grading.

I think that a simple number grade is the easiest to understand and any additional information is better presented in the route description. More information such as the size and type of protection can be written into the description, or perhaps just words such as 'boldly', 'exciting moves', 'committing' etc.

I've climbed Dazed and Confused twice in the last year. The start is bold with marginal gear to protect the first 3 or 4 meters. After that I thought the gear was quite good. I think that the technical difficulty is about the same as Quo Vadis but Dazed and Confused is probably worth 1 extra Ewbank grade for the committing start.

Dazed and Confused (20) also makes an excellent link up with the final pitch of Trojan (21).


oweng

17-Jun-2003
8:26:40 AM

While I prefer refrences in the text describing inportant info about a route (as we currently use) as opposed to having to interprit an X/R or E type system, I wonder if in the future we may need to move to a simpler system simply to cope with the huge number of routes there are going to be. At the rate their being pumped out in the gramps etc at the moment in 10 years (let alone 50 years) time the guidebook collection containing routes with written descriptions would be the size of the encyclopedia britanicca! One benefit of the english system would be that you could simplify things by having only diagrams and grades. Anyway, thats a point for the future.

(removed)

17-Jun-2003
11:58:16 AM

Off the beaten track here a bit, but anyway ...
What about Mental Debris pitch 1 (21) into Trojan pitches 2 and 3 (21) ? Looks even better methinks ?? Anyone know what the gear is like on Mental Debris ?


Rich

17-Jun-2003
2:48:15 PM

On 17/06/2003 oweng wrote:
..>One benefit of the english system would be that you could simplify
>things by having only diagrams and grades...
I believe that's a reason not to head towards a more detailed grading system. Having a colourful description of the climb in the guidebook is a great aspect IMO that can be lacking in other guides of such areas and also sporty areas such as Thailand and even the new Bluies guide which i found pretty disappointing, again IMO.

There are 60 messages in this topic.