Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

A modest proposal


HM33

4-May-2004
4:50:41 PM

assuming HaNF is refering to Have a Good Flight at araps. it is not 25 no way. its very soft at that grade.


HM33

4-May-2004
4:52:30 PM


nmonteith

4-May-2004
4:54:01 PM

Steve - you are a tall bugger - i have to get my feet onto crappy little feet and pop for the good hold. You tallies just reach straight up to the finger jug and its all over.


HM33

4-May-2004
4:55:15 PM

its funny it came up today as i was talking to a friend of mine who just got back form doing HaNF and he agrees. way soft. hes not tall. although i grant in my case i can reach through.


HM33

4-May-2004
4:58:21 PM

to be honest i actually put my foot up. on a little triangle above the super undercling flake. i wish i had left my feet down low. ive done it the same way 3 times.

Joe

5-May-2004
12:53:37 AM

On 4/05/2004 Edward Frillypants wrote:
>By the way the UK grades are for the ONSIGHT. French grades are redpoint,
>gear placed, easiest sequence.... I have no idea whether the Ewbank system
>is onsight or otherwise. Anyone know?

How does one grade a top-rope rehearsed grit route eg. E8+, for an ONSIGHT?? Surely the grade is still given for the easiest sequence, not much point in grading something by the hardest possible sequence you can envisage.
Oh yeah and I would have to agree with Kent that sport climbing is easy, and that Have a GOOD flight is more like tough 21 (a bit harder than Tannin), and Orestes would be about 27 or so on the Kudos (K) scale. Viva la (grading) revolucion.


anthonyk

5-May-2004
1:15:50 PM

surely the grade should just reflect the difficulty of the moves on the rock, and any other factors get taken into account by the climber when they read the description etc. everyone knows that Orestes is a much more respected tick than HaNF. Are you just worried that people won't respect trad climbing achievements as much just by looking at the number? lots of other factors are involved in a climb, eg if there's sketchy runouts or if the climb is 50m or 15m. surely you get an impression of the difficulty of the climb by reading all the info about it, not just the number.

As for onsight/flash grading, from (limited) experience i'd say things in the mountains are graded based on the easiest sequence (redpoint), often you get sandbagged on the onsight, take a good look, go 'ah!', and then realise why its graded how it is. Maybe its different for climbs like multipitches at araps where it may be more common for people to do the climb onsight, and a sequence that isn't so obvious may be taken into account in the grade. thoughts?


nmonteith

5-May-2004
1:43:51 PM

My experiance...

Oretes - i onsighted this (as has many of my friends). I didn't find it desperate as the gear was simple to place, obvious and bomber.

Have a Good Flight - 3rd shot same day. Crux felt much harder technically than Oretes and required a fair bit of crux working out on dog. The headspace to commit above the bolt on the crux was also a challenge which took a little working out.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-May-2004
1:58:09 PM

On 5/05/2004 Edward Frillypants wrote:
>And yes, I could definitely come up with a new system 'cos I've got a
>massive ego!
I wasn't meaning a new climbing grading system, but running a parallel ego grading system!
>> In which case CW should be 26
>CW is actually 23 ( I just looked). So a 25 that gets lots of suitors/ascents
>is a bloody sight easier and less serious than a 23. Makes perfect sense really : )
Its all part of the 'arriving at concensus'.
This could take a while because of the sandbags and 'other' obvious errors out there. It could make sense eventually, but I doubt I will live long enough to see it, so I'm not too fussed or worried about grading systems per se.
I use 'whatever system' as a guide often retrospectively as I tend to climb what appeals to me at cliffs then look up the name / history / grade etc later!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-May-2004
2:09:57 PM

You are starting to win me Ed. with comments like;
>A point also to note is that the healthiest trad scene in the world is the UK. I don't think it is a concidence that they have a grading system that venerates trad climbing

I think the basic 'problem' (if indeed it is a problem), is that the next generation (from me) often learnt indoors on plastic. The transition will have its teething troubles.
Anyone serious about 'trad' will gain the necessary skills along the way.
They may have to put their egos on hold for a while though while they acquire the skills...
I just don't want them stuffing the historical scene with their short term-sightedness in the meantime, because
>numbers mean something to people in terms of motivation and acheivement


nmonteith

5-May-2004
3:19:36 PM

I think the main reason that sport routes get lots of ticks and the trad climbs get forgotten is because a large percentage of people don't want to die. On sport routes the chances of death/serious injury are much less than on a trad climb. Of course a strong trad leader will be able to place bomber gear and live to tell the story - BUT - a less than competant trad leader could strip gear and deck out (as seen in three seperate accidents at Frog in the last 12 months). Reading stories about trad gear failing does not encourage newbies to get out and learn trad!

I think the general climbign community is much wider these days. In the good ol days you had to have some sort of adventurous streak to get involved at all. These days many people treat clibming as just another sport. Pillates on monday nights, boxercise on tuesday and climbing on wednesdays...

dalai

5-May-2004
3:29:50 PM

The only reason England has trad is as most of the cliffs are short and uninspiring. So they decided to ban bolts or hammered pitons on Gritstone to make it dangerous and more exciting!!


manacubus

5-May-2004
4:05:44 PM

>A point also to note is that the healthiest trad scene in the world is the UK. I don't think it is a concidence that they have a grading system that venerates trad climbing.

Totally agree. Introduce a system which rewards (by way of grades) a certain style (boldness, in this case), and you will see more people wanting to work their way up that scale.

>Maybe Mike has a point when he says that 'numbers mean something' to some people.

Numbers mean something to most people! There aren't too many of the "throw the guidebook away and climb for the purity of the line" traditionalists still kicking around. Most people measure their performance (and hence some satisfaction) by the grade of route they just managed to haul themselves to the top of.


adski

5-May-2004
4:17:28 PM

The default grading 'system' in use in Australia doesn't just just list a numerical grade. It also verbally highlights pertinent issues as they apply to that climb. This allows a simplicity of a single numerical grade for each climb, and allows the flavour of the route, first ascentionists and guidebook editors to shine through.

To say a route has 'adequate protection' is open to interpretation, but has more charisma than generating a guide where all climbs are garnished with an "E" seriousness rating, regardless of need. That said, I like the US system of adding R and X as applicable!

Comprehensive guidebooks such as the SRC bluies guide are fundamentally different from the ones everybody uses, such as the "Selected Climbs" tempest + Mentz series. I almost never use the SRC comprehensive guide, or Louise's comprehensive guide as like most people, I find them dry and uninspiring! It's like walking in the mountains with a 'guide' who methodically points out every single route without regard to significance, relevance or interest. He'd be out of a job!

The authors of comprehensive guides go largely unthanked, as their thoroughness paves the way for others to swoop in armed with the raw information, and produce well-informed, entertaining and lucrative selected guides. These guides are the ones people use, and their included sport icons, topos and route notes all combine with the numerical grade to form the highly effective grading "system" we use every day.


adski

5-May-2004
4:20:14 PM

(in saying "a comprehensive guidebook" i mean one that includes all routes for an area)


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-May-2004
4:40:50 PM

adski
>The authors of comprehensive guides go largely thanked
Thanked or 'unthanked' ?


adski

5-May-2004
4:45:29 PM

unthanked.
thanks!

climbingjac

5-May-2004
5:20:44 PM

Hi Frilly,

It takes longer to upskill yourself in the art of trad. You can't zipper yourself on bolts!

Also :
- You need less gear... so sport climbing is a little more cost-efficient.
- It's quicker... since you don't have to place gear... so you can do more climbs in a day.

jac

kieranl

5-May-2004
10:19:12 PM

It's a bit sad that. We made fun of the scouts who counted the value of their days by how much length they'd covered. Sport climbing counts the number of ticks.
I don't think that is a great advance.


anthonyk

5-May-2004
10:52:02 PM

On 5/05/2004 Edward Frillypants wrote:

>(do you think we'll go a hundred posts on this? : )

yes. yes i do.

There are 96 messages in this topic.