Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

to A(id) grade or not to A(id) grade


manacubus

15-Mar-2005
6:28:54 PM

Definitely ditch the M grade. A grade all the way. I certainly don't prescribe to the M system in my guidebooks (Glasshouse Mountains Guide, for example). Let's see if we can pull our collective arses out of the dark ages.

James

15-Mar-2005
9:30:44 PM

>Wot is it with this expression "old school"? Heard it a few times on the
>weekend .. e.g. in relation to Morfydd (19) 'it was too old school for
>me'. It's just rock, guys, you just climb it! What excuse do we think
>the "old schoolers" would use in its place?

yep, just an excuse for those who can't climb outside the square that is gym climbing (i.e. can't do moves that aren't replicated in the gym).

I vote leave the M grades for the Buffalo. If it takes you more than 3 seconds to translate a conversion table for aid grades then you have bigger problems....


simon_vos

16-Mar-2005
3:45:30 PM

On 15/03/2005 nmonteith wrote:
>Old School - refers to climbing technique in regards to free climbing.
>Hand jamming, offwidth thrutches and trad gear routes could all be decribed
>as 'old school'. New school is overhung, endurance clip-ups!

Hey Neil,
In the Squamish Guides and elsewhere I believe, they refer to Aid climbs as Old School and New School in a similar way to the way one refers to free climbing. However, as Mark, "mrbumble' said, the purpose of the distinction is to make the A system more representative at the top end of the scale.

My Two Cents
This is necessary because the easier older A routes have either got easier through usage, or simply are easier with a double rack of cams, micro nuts and vast quantities of any imaginable bashable thingy.

Simon


maxots

16-Mar-2005
6:46:19 PM

hi yeah i meant old school/new wave in regards to aid grades

http://home.tiscalinet.de/ockier/ratings1.htm

A few words from this site

"The good news about aid climbing rating scales is that the whole world uses a single scale (see were so backwater in terms of aiding that no one even knows of our graing system) that goes from A1 to A5. The bad news is that there are many interpretations of that scale. It will all depend on where and when that first ascent was made. "

I guess the first set of ratings are "old school" and the new USA grades are "new wave"

cheers

gfdonc

16-Mar-2005
10:30:13 PM

It isn't practical to expect consistency across a single grading system across regions. Witness the French grades which I hear are "soft" in Thailand. Also believe there are variations in the Ewbank system between here and out friends across the Tesmun.

At least having a separate system forces people to reassess and reappraise.

kieranl

16-Mar-2005
10:52:52 PM

I would strongly support using A grades if the system wasn't so stuffed. What place do nonsenical grades such as A3+ have. Surely the next grade above A3 is A4. Don't Americans understand this?
You may as well have a modified british descriptive system and grade things Hard Very Dangerous or Short Quite Stupid and the like. That would not require an interpretive table to tell you what it meant.
For now, stick with the M grades.


mrbumble

17-Mar-2005
12:03:04 AM

A3+ makes perfect sense to me. It means its hard/tricky A3. Similar if slightly elevated fall danger, etc, with the addition of awkward placements or a particularly difficult section without A4 fall danger. The relative aid grades are about fall distances/dangers. The +'s just mean tricky/pain in the arse.

At least with the american grades you know what you're getting in for. Not enough australians aid climb for our own grading system to establish itself with any sense of vague consistency.

dalai

17-Mar-2005
10:48:18 AM

On 16/03/2005 gfdonc wrote:
>Witness the French grades which I hear are "soft" in Thailand.

Climbs are graded for the 'normal' conditions. When the heat and humidity are lower the climbs will feel softer for the grade...

No grading system is perfect, as the differences physiologically between climbers and also the style of climbing will give individuals a different view of the same climb. For example a thin face route vs an overhanging pumpy route. A power route vs a endurance route of the same grade...

But back on topic - A grades all the way!!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

17-Mar-2005
12:28:33 PM

On 17/03/2005 dalai wrote:
>But back on topic - A grades all the way!!
As said earlier by someone, ... might as well go with the European grading system for free routes while we are at it!


nmonteith

17-Mar-2005
12:35:51 PM

On 17/03/2005 M8iswhereitsat wrote:
>As said earlier by someone, ... might as well go with the European grading
>system for free routes while we are at it!

There are at LEAST five grading systems in the world for free climbing. Each systems has hundreds of thousands of climbers using it. The free climbing world is divided and confusing - why make aid climbing the same?


IdratherbeclimbingM9

17-Mar-2005
12:48:05 PM

>The free climbing world is divided and confusing - why make aid climbing the same?
It was tongue in cheek Neil, and I think the irony of the point has been lost on you.

There are probably at least as many Aid grading systems also.
Historically the Sth Africans, Brits, etc, etc, etc have had their own.

Your experience is obviously comfortable with the A system. Thats fine, but its not a valid reaSON to corrupt our cultural heritage!

30 years from now you will thank me when we have 20 logical grades of aid climbs instead of the illogical A system which has demonstrated already it has required 'new waving' to make it presently (only) relevant.

dalai

17-Mar-2005
1:53:35 PM

On 17/03/2005 M8iswhereitsat wrote:
>
>Your experience is obviously comfortable with the A system. Thats fine,
>but its not a valid reaSON to corrupt our cultural heritage!
>

Yes, lets forget about progress. Revert back to miles, pounds and the denegration of the native population. Because we must protect our cultural heritage...

Just because it's how things were done in the past, doesn't mean we can't progress FORWARD!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

17-Mar-2005
2:15:55 PM

>FORWARD!
Forward requires a starting point, & this is different to dissing our past.
Yes, lets move forward on the sensible baseline of our past otherwise we are doomed to re-invent the wheel!
Cultural heritage does not mean remaining turkeys or like ostriches sticking our collective heads in the sand.

Here is a tongue in cheek scenario for you; ...

It could be argued that the greater number of climbers in Australia are gym climbers. (Talking sheer numbers here).
Would 'forward' in this sense mean that we forget about climbing outdoors because the future (based on mass opinion?) is more varieties of indoor plastic climbing??

[Hey you gym persons, I am not flaming or wanting to get into the old trad vs etc debate. Its a hypothetical OK.]

Your logic (to me) Dalai, seems to be saying lets forget our roots, and the emotive inclusion of imperial examples (as used in your debate) implies that anyone who advocates keeping in touch with the past has emotional blinkers on.
I tend to disagree and think we are the richer for having this past history rather than stymied by it.


nmonteith

17-Mar-2005
2:18:02 PM

Does anyone know what aid system New Zealand uses?

dalai

17-Mar-2005
2:21:00 PM

On 17/03/2005 M8iswhereitsat wrote:
>Your logic (to me) Dalai, seems to be saying lets forget our roots, and
>the emotive inclusion of imperial examples (as used in your debate) implies
>that anyone who advocates keeping in touch with the past has emotional
>blinkers on.
>I tend to disagree and think we are the richer for having this past history
>rather than stymied by it.

But that is what a comprehensive history section of the guidebook is for. I love reading the exploits of the past which has forrged where we are today with climbing. I never said forget the past, including the vision of those that created the M grade. But to realize we are part of the global village and that some change is not bad.


nmonteith

17-Mar-2005
2:22:38 PM

No matter how much technology changes - the A aid grades still work. As climbing protection technology increases everything will shift downwards. Gear holds better - meaning smaller and less dangerous falls = smaller aid grades. A6 means that nothing will hold a fall on the pitch INCLUDING the belay. How do you get any higher than that? You don't need an open ended system for aid climbing.


LittleMac

17-Mar-2005
2:24:59 PM

I'm almost ceratin they use the A system (in NZ). Or at least that's what I was told when I was over there


nmonteith

17-Mar-2005
2:26:19 PM

On 17/03/2005 dalai wrote:
>But to realize we are part of the global
>village and that some change is not bad.

Do Australians really invent anything new in regards to climbing? We got the idea for ropes, pitching, carbiners, chalk, bolts, redpointing, bouldering, crashmats, tick marks from overseas didn't we? The M grading system is just our own version of something that had been invented previously.


LittleMac

17-Mar-2005
2:30:54 PM

Bravo Mr Monteith,

My sentiments exactly, we don't need an open ended system because the A system so clearly defines what constitues each division.


sticky

17-Mar-2005
2:36:48 PM

I could be wrong here, but I'd hazard a guess that most of the proponents of 'A' grading tend to have done most of their aid climbing overseas, in particular Yosemite, whereas the defenders of the Ewbank 'M' system tend to do most of their aid climbing in Oz.

So I guess it all depends what you're used to. They both make sense to me.

I'll shut up now.

There are 104 messages in this topic.