The E grading system is perfect also for everyday life. Like, the same task at work could be E6 if your coworkers are nice and competent, or E7 if they are arrogant and messy. Driving to the lake is usually E2, but can become even E4 with the traffic of a holiday.
@@TheRubenDK Yeah, it is for sure on the soft side of 8b+s to free solo (I acknowledge it sounds quite absurd!) But even then, I think that any 8b+ sport route is supposed to already be on the top end of E8. Can't remember a specific example but the first sport routes in the UK in the f8 range had trad grades associate with them, so there should be little debate about that.
Agreed. Just compare how many E8's are climbed (headpoint style) against how many 8b+'s get soloed. The poor correlation would suggest that they are not equivalent. However, maybe an 8b+ solo would equal an E8 onsight?
@@xyrandus the UK scale adds information to a climb which other scales do not. If it has merit, it has merit everywhere. If it doesn’t make sense outside the UK, it doesn’t make sense inside the UK
I have climbed trad in the UK for 5 years, and I learnt the E grades from the start, so they make sense to me. However, it still escapes me why the community (or elites) haven't yet proposed a change to a grading system that shows the actual French grade of a climb (so the user knows exactly how hard it is), accompanied by the E grade, so they know if it's a death trap or not. @climbermacleod you well pointed out how Darwin Dixit is 8b+ (E8) and Tolerance is 7b+ (E8). If I looked at a book and saw those two routes together I would quickly know one is bloody scary but easy (Tolerance), whilst the other is just really really hard (Darwin Dixit). Same as Indian Face 7b (E9) vs Dalriada 7b/+ (E7)... Seeing those two, I would attempt Dalriada before Indian Face. Currently, two equally graded E4 6a couldn't be more different: one could be safe F6c/+ whilst other at F6b could be sending you to A&E if you fall in the wrong spot. Having the french grade attached could definitely help a lot more on decision making when on-sighting. Maybe it's time MacLeod, Wideboyz, Pearson, McClure, Gresham, Cookson, Small, Bransby, McHaffie, Lines... and all the rest got together and settled it in this decade . It's been demonstrated that the UK tech grade is pretty useless on the upper end, and very confusing throughout, anyway.
As a Swedish trad climber, with no first hand experience of E- grades these are my thoughts exactly. And I'm yet to find any arguments as to why an E-grade, even along with a tech grade is more useful, or convenient, than Nordic 6-/6/6+ with the R/X addition or any such combination. I'm very curious about it, but currently inclined to believe it's an artifact kept alive by tradition and mythology, a bit like being contracted to build a football field, specified in imperial units, but instead of giving length and width the schematic only gives you the area😄
Some might say Dave is sandbagging his routes, but he is something more valuable … consistent. Consistency is the real purpose of grades and not what route is the most difficult. If Dave grades a route you know what to expect.
I’m not too fussed about the grade but I’m desperate to see an extended doc of someone stupidly strong trying to repeat echo wall. Great video Dave, like with almost everything it seems like open communication and justification without being fearful of ridicule is the best tactic. Easy for me to say from the comfort of this keyboard.
@@tommybinson I think visibility wasn't optimal on the day and Steve probably doesn't spend a lot of time on the Ben. Possibly easy to see from a distance but hard when close up? Been to a few crags lime that.
The end about not getting intovolved in certain grades makes a lot of sense with your comments on Lexicon. If I remeber it was 'My E10s are harder and more dangerous but yeah sure lets say its E11' 😆 love it
23:32 "The primary measure of my success as a pro climber is how much help I can be to other climbers to push their own climbing." ^ This attitude shows. I love your channel, Dave.
I really appreciate Dave's non-sensationalism. From his approach to grading the hardest routes, to putting out RUclips content, he comes across as level headed and honest. The polar opposite of Jake Paul and a rare quality in the age of likes and subscriptions.
The one angle I didn't hear mentioned is that trad grades are meant to reflect the onsight difficulty, not the headpoint. Surely this has a major impact, particularly at the higher levels? Crackin' vid, Dave!
Agreed. And it really should be at the very forefront of any conversation about (uk) trad grading. I'm not sure how we expect a grading system that developed organically out of the tradition of on sight climbing to suitably represent headpoint style, and yet we continue to crowbar it in there and wonder why it doesn't work. The E grade system as it stands functions perfectly up until the point you start pre practicing a route (at any difficulty). At that point the American R/X system or even a straight sport grade is a more suitable marker. You could go as far as to say the highest E grade currently is E8, since that is the hardest on sight to date, but you'd then need to introduce a separate system ro represent the headpoint. The problem is we only ever hear about grading controversy/discussion at the very top end of the spectrum where routes are being headpointed, which leads to the misconception among non trad climbers that the grading system is somehow unfit for purpose across the whole spectrum, which isn't the case.
I really appreciate this video. I hate grading routes, but I love to hear how others approach and think about grading, especially on a first ascent. I am not a very good climber but I do enjoy putting up new routes.
I completely agree that you can't simply separate difficulty and danger factor if you want to be precise in your grades. Actually I think a you can run in to the same issue if you try to grade sport grades by just considering the boulder grades of the cruxes. It is important to consider how they interact with each other.
Good story, i seen the wideboyz vid too and this makes a lot of sense for a non brit who follows the scene for 20 years now. I agree that someone should try and repeat those routes that would be insightfull in the higher E grades too, cheers from Holland
Great vid. Always interested in stuff like this even though I don't climb that hard. Generally these vids just wanna make get out climb though. Dave's routes always look inspiring
Another point which was not mentioned is the saftey aspect of grades. For example last year I got on a HVS 5a as a warmup in Northumberland without really thinking or looking at it. But quickly realized it was sandbagged when I was already committed. There was no good protection so it was a solo with the crux near the top of the route. Maybe the issue is that I hadn't prepared myself for a bold climb. But the grade didn't reflect at all the danger of the climb. If it was E1 5a it would have made me think twice and prepare more for a solo, read the route etc. Was slightly annoyed it was so sandbagged. But I have learnt my lesson and look at route more regardless of the grade.
I guess this is not so important for the grades of e7+ which dave is climbing. You would rarely try to on sight such climbs. So people would get an idea of the danger on the head point. But for lower grades where folks will on sight it important to be fair with the grades imo.
This is a bit tangential to the topic of the video, but on the note of grade inflation, I think sometimes it can actually be a good thing. I've never climbed in the UK, so I have absolutely no qualifications to talk about the E grading system, but I have spent a bit of time climbing in the states with the YDS system and holy hell is it a mess. I've climbed at Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Vantage, around Lake Tahoe and at Red Rocks, and having experience all those areas and how they handle grading I can say that the more inflated YDS system from areas like Vantage, Lake Tahoe and Red Rocks is much more helpful for finding climbs than the conpressed system in Yosemite and Joshua Tree. In yosemite and jtree it is very hard to know what kind of experience you will have on a climb of any specific grade until you get on it because the range is so incredibly broad. When I had less experience trad climbing, I went and climbed the grack (5.6) one day, then went and climbed swan slab gully (5.5/5.6) the next and the grack felt like a walk in the park and was incredibly easy while I couldn't even start swan slab gully the next day! Even getting into the lower 5.10s I've had the same experience where 2 climbs of the same or similar grade and style can be on complete opposite ends of my ability level (in this case I climbed goat for it and the unnamed TR right of grants crack and I cruised goat for it while the unnamed tr utterly kicked my ass. I did eventually make it up it, but it took me a lot of tries. They are even both 5.10a!) Meanwhile in the areas that have had more recent route development and use the inflated grading scale, you are much more likely to have consistent experiences on the same grade. You do get more grade debates going on because the bands that each grade represent are smaller, but on a whole that evens out much more to the point where you can be pretty certain that, for example, a 5.11a might take a small number of tries, a 5.11b might take a few tries or be a mini project and a 5.11c might be a mini project or it could be a long term project, but you at least know if it is going to be a warmup or if it will be a project. Anyway, those are my missgivings about the yosemite decimal system and why I think grade inflation is a good thing (at least in the united states)
Another video about how grades are subjective and very much subject to be +/- depending on the climber. David sharing his wisdom as usual. More people need to understand this. Grades are a guide, but not the end all be all. IMO grades are the biggest disservice to climbing until we come up with a better system.
I think one of the biggest reason routes get over graded on first ascents is the psychological aspect of doing something not done before. You go into it with the thought of “is it possible?” Once a route has been done and people know it’s possible then you attack it in a very different way.
No one person is the same, from body morphology to mental game and how they feel on the day so naturally opinions will vary. E grades should be seen as a guideline for the expected danger and difficulty assuming you're an expert in the type of rock and climbing that the route is. There needs to be an assumption then that if you're a novice to that style of climbing that you seek second opinions before grading a route. Tentatively positing a grade and allowing for second opinions and feedback before solidifying on the grade. And to a point, I think this is what a great deal of people do and is one of the reasons the E grading system somewhat works.
Interesting thoughts, particularly when you say near the end about Rhapsody maybe still having a higher E-grade than EW, but you acknowledge, and I seem to remember you stating at the time, that the 'harder' climbing is on EW. One other minor point I'd make though is that early in the video you say TWOL "is not sustained since it is easy angled". Maybe you have a different definition of "sustained" from me but if something continues [in the same nature] for an extended period then it's "sustained", irrespective of its nature. From what I've read and seen of the route, it certainly looks sustained since the gradient and difficulty of the climbing looks to be consistent for most of its height. The fact that it's on a slab really doesn't matter at all.
Sustained is usually about the effort level being high, unable to recover/relax. Your version of sustained is more akin to something being “consistent” id say. A long slab and a long 30° overhanging route could both be consistently difficult from top to bottom but the steeper one will likely be more sustained.
@@climbermacleod It's interesting that Angus described TWOL as sustained in another sense in that it required a huge amount of "psychological endurance" to climb something that's quite insecure and never really lets up for 50m. I've definitely described routes that haven't let up as 'sustained' when they weren't particularly pumpy. I think if you, Birkett and the E-Grader chaps sat down and filmed it, you could run it as a PPV.
I love your work Dave, and very much enjoyed this video. But if you systematically grade conservatively, or as you put it "grade on the lower side of the confidence interval" it will definitely create a downward bias in the grades you produce. That is the definition of sandbagging ;) Just embrace it. It is okay to be a sandbagger. As you say in the end things usually come right. One of your arguments is that you do it to protect yourself from psychological damage (not your exact words). I very much appreciate that argument. But the other argument you make is that "routes tend to be given a high grade" (i.e. graded softly), and so your sandbagging approach "should even things out". This is not a good argument. In my view if you want to contribute to accuracy all you can do is be as accurate as you can be and not employ a systematic bias in one direction. To do this you would either always pick the midpoint of your interval, or pick a random grade from your interval, so that some lucky routes get a high grade and will get downgraded, while others get a low grade and will be upgraded ;)
It is a good argument, precisely because it is not employing a systematic bias in one direction. It's adjusting for a known and very common bias (grade inflation). Moreover, the fact that it works well is reflected in most of my routes being confirmed at the given grade.
Could it be that your routes are generally confirmed because there is a broad cultural reticence to upgrade routes among climbers? Yes upgrading happens, but at least in NZ it is often frowned upon. I don't know about Scotland (though my forefathers came from there :)) but in NZ climbing culture it is much more acceptable to suggest a downgrade of a route than to an upgrade.
Well part of the reason I made this video was because various climbers had been suggesting upgrades of several of my routes (without having actually climbed them of course!). There have been a few cases also in other disciplines like bouldering where I did under grade a couple of new lines in error, and they were soon upgraded. Likewise in sport climbing, I can think of one or two routes that I did that were upgraded. But aside from actual, semi-formal upgrades, there is the general discussion among climbers about whether routes feel easy or hard for their grade. As far as I know, this lines up with my comments above. Also, one can tell whether a route is soft or harsh just by observing how other climbers get on with it, when you know a bit about their ability.
Sandbagging today perhaps only implies undergrading; in the past (80's?) it implied an intention to deceive or manipulate others. Dave seems to be defending a grade scale as he honestly perceives it against a more modern interpretation. See also moderate V-grades assigned in the early 90's. Regularly bemoaned as sandbagging today when they are in fact the literal definition of the scale
Interesting perspective. I think there is some nuance to the argument near the end of the video that more boulders/sport routes/trad routes are downgraded rather than upgraded and therefore sandbagging is not a problem. If there are two climbs of the same difficulty, one of which is overgraded and the other sandbagged, most people will prefer doing the one with the higher number attached to it. This leads to more climbs being repeated that are soft and therefore downgraded than climbs that are hard and therefore upgraded. Additionally I think ego leads some people to be more likely to downgrade rather than upgrade. Take Echo Wall as an example. As you mentioned, had you graded it E11 it would be more likely that someone would have repeated it by now and potentially downgraded to E10, while if you had graded it E9 it is much less likely that someone would have repeated it and then upgraded it to E10. TLDR in my opinion if someone grades equally often soft and sandbagged this leads to more of their climbs being downgraded rather than upgraded.
I think that even if climbs were graded incorrectly there is a greater incentive to downgrade over upgrade due to perceptions, so the lack of upgrading isn't necessarily indicative of sandbags being uncommon
An interesting video, thanks! I think the point about "grade calculators" missing the many variables that comprise "difficulty" is well made. It also seems an important correction to refer back to 1980s routes and consider whether routes really are that much harder. It also seems right to point out that grade and "difficulty for X climber" are not the same thing. Nonetheless, your own difficulty in grading Rhapsody and Echo Wall shows the limits of the approach of judgement based on experience. It seems like you're looking back on past achievements and rethinking them, revising them... "Was I really that good?" And it seems like you're trying to deal with the problem by being cautious about overgrading... even though you don't want to be called a sandbagger! I don't think it's easy to sidestep the fact that grading will always be controversial whilst reputations are made on big grades. You seem to recognise this instrumental aspect of grading when you also recommend building a professional career on less shifting sands than grades! Timely vid, thanks!
Why would a downgrade cause you pain and an upgrade not? A downgrade could make some people think that you think too highly of your self which is regarded as bad, and the opposite could make you appear in a positive light, as humble or strict perhaps. Which would mean you might link something to grades, since you would either like to (not) be percieved in one way, based on what grade you gave. Which is just one possible explanation of course, I don't want to judge. If the self isn't linked to grading, it wouldn't matter in which way the own given grade deviated from what others think.
In my opinion, the problem of the E grade system is unsolvable. It is trying to combine two independent variables into a single number. That can work reasonably along a diagonal but thing get problematic once the route diverges from that diagonal. This is reflected in totally safe but hard routes and easier but free-solo-with-a-rope routes having the same grades. Personally, I think that it would be better to just grade the single dimensions and avoid condensing this into a single number. After all, the main purpose of grading is to give a climber a reasonable expectation of the route and having that divergence between safe + hard or easier + dangerous climbing simply does not do this.
Great video, great to get an insight from someone who's done so much at the top end of the (current!) spectrum. When I got into climbing, I was always told that E grades are designed to give an "overall difficulty" for an onsight attempt. As a lower grade climber, this resonates quite strongly. Typically the nature of the "experience" I'll have trying to onsight a lower grade climb is quite well indicated by the grade, I wonder whether you consider this as a factor when grading at the upper end of the spectrum? It seems unlikely that many of these routes are primed for an onsight any time soon, so is this distinction a bit useless maybe? Secondly, would you say that British tech grades have become inflated to the point of uselessness? Perhaps better to offer a font grade for the crux? Or a sport grade if it's sustained?
Do you have any comments on the difference between headpoint trad difficulty, and onsight difficulty? Up to E5 I have confidence that the trad grade reflects an onsight, but at harder difficulties I imagine a headpoint - or at least some pre-inspection is common practice. I expect the majority of commenters who weigh-in on these controversies are more familiar with onsighting lower-mid grades, sandbagging at that level could be lethal. With your harder routes I imagine the biggest danger of sandbagging is wasted time on a shunt/top-rope.
So as I understand it, Bon voyage doesn't really seem dangerous enough to justify E12. 9a sport alone doesn't seem enough. Has Dave already said anything about it?
Dave needs to go to Annot . . . . Seems like this video came out at an interesting time in comparison to media from James. O3 - ondra confirmed 9a/+ . . . So does echo wall E10 at 8b+ then make 9a/+ on gear E12? Finally I think it's highly possible formulate a grade, you just need to input a relative security estimate.
I don’t think it’s anything to do with the Adam repeat it’s more Tom Randal calling him out by name as the main problem Egrades are bunched and that he’s a sandbagged after admitting he’s never tried any of Dave’s routes
@@matthewlock1425 I would disagree based on; James heavy involvement with creating Egrader + really a lot of references to routes getting down graded and multiple grade downgrades, and the stuff about not being bothered if he's wrong. I don't know, to me just the tone and stuff, saying the grade of E12 has probably never been climbed, right after an E12 ascent from a guy who was chased out the country after Dave down graded his route 3 grades. Felt like bad taste to me. But for sure the "Dave sandbagger grade compression thing" from Tom was addressed as well. No dispute there. There's a good podcast with James Pearson on the nugget who points out when Hubble was first done it was given E9 (e.g. bolted routes when bolting first because a thing in UK they were given E grades) e.g. perfectly safe route of X difficult = E grade X
@@dannygrout92 Personally I don’t think a downgrade can be in poor taste, if he thinks it’s to be downgraded that much then he’s allowed to do that, and general consensus has seemed to agree with him save for Tom who himself doesn’t think it was E12. But only way you can way in on the idiosyncrasies of a climb is if you have climbed it too. So I wouldn’t have an opinion that holds weight not climbing hard trad I don’t see the relevance of the E grade for Hubble that is sort of thought process is covered by Dave again, that the E grade is not just all about danger and that a safe route can still have a high e grade. And by that logic then to backseat grade for a second, Bon Voyage is said to be pretty well protected not amazingly and is graded 9a/+ sport Hubble is 9a and E9 so dont see how there would be such a big jump for same sport difficult. Also the E grade for UK sport was just because we weren’t using French grading at the time. From the podcast as well I remember James saying he thinks there were some internal oversights himself with the fact he tried to climb rhapsody and couldn’t but told himself it’s because it was bad climb and he didn’t really wanna do it. For sure he’s far more experienced now than most and he was then so not refuting an E12 could exist, just don’t think Adam is the man to confirm it. People with more trad climbing grading and history under their belt should weigh in. Steve McClure, Franco Cookson etc (Also I pray to god the O grade meme doesn’t catch on think that’s the bit that makes this whole reporting by UKC so cringe) Dave only brings up walk of life I feel as people constantly lambast him for being a sandbagger (this is one of Tom’s example) and frequently mention this and also people can’t interview James Pearson within asking him about it. Feel like it’s done people just need to move past it. It’s an interesting dialogue and I’d rather just see them have a talk about it or a climbing panel rather than just these isolated videos (Sorry if it’s littered with spelling and grammar errors my proof reading skills in a phone are shocking haha)
@@matthewlock1425 not questioning the down grade at all, fully agree with that. Just the making a video to poke the subject years later after the person in question had just said a new route could be E12 and then for Dave to say it probably doesn't exist without trying the route. It's the tone of this particular video I think was in pour taste, not down grading a route the was definitely over graded. By the sounds of it the additional aspects of the route / trad in general as per the Egrader formula. +0.5 because when Hubble was first put up was 8c+ so E9 would be 8c+ . +1 for being on relatively fiddly gear, +0.5 for being really run out with large sideways fall potential, +1 for the possibility of swinging into / hitting a block at the bottom (from the podcast apparently Siebe is putting pads over the block after James swung into it on a filming go). Really to summarise I think it's a bit hypocritical for Dave to say, when he made the down grade . . . Well he didn't come and do my E11 (which I totally agree with) , to then say, E12 probably doesn't exist without trying the route given that grade. As for the O grade, lighten up. It pokes fun at the totally arbitrary and pointless nature of climbing.
@@dannygrout92 I do think Dave should try it obviously don’t know he will with he travel ethics, but I think he can weigh in with a general statement about the grade, with his knowledge and experience that he doesn’t think climbing has progressed that far. I think for me the grade doesn’t really take away from the climb graded E12 or E11 it don’t matter really it’s just about the aesthetics of it. (Probably cause I can’t climb hard) which leads to my next point which I feel is more philosophical side of climbing. I get your points but personally think the E grader isn’t what the sport needs really it’s trying to boil down something so subjective and ethereal down too mathematically, I think rather than remove focus on grading it focuses on it even more. Mathematical systems and models just reinforce the bias of the creator/ programmers most of the time. Just think it stands in direct opposition of what climbing as a lifestyle pursuit is about. I just think grading needs to take a back seat as a whole I appreciate the whole not grading a hard project or just not commenting on it personally I know that isn’t many people’s view but I just think the not caring about the grade of you project or not making it a focus of discussion is the best way to be so I have no horse in this race really when it comes to caring about up or downgrades. I found what Jorge Diaz-Rullo did with his third accent of sleeping lion one of the more refreshing things in climbing and when others do that as well. I also get the O grade is a joke I’m not dense don’t worry haha. Just was funny at first when they did it for the video, not for me when repeated. Thanks for the enjoyable back and forth as well refreshing for comments to not be a hellscape 🤜🤛
Ive not fully watched this video yet so forgive me if im way off. I nearly commented on the wideboyz video but didnt. I dont see why e10 isnt the highest risk grade (i.e. youd likely die) and the technical grade ie. 7a is just unlimited as the climbing gets harder. Is there a problem with a grade like (e6 7b i.e really hard climbing and mangled legs if you fell?).
I think the takeaway is that you're very humble and look down on yourself when compared to others, and that is causing the sandbagging. I do think its odd that you can take a route thats harder for you personally, but you grade it lower because you think it would be easier for...someone else? Do you really have that understanding of what it feels like for others? It sort of adds to the reputation of the e grades as being nonsensical. I really think the guidebook notes are the right place for all this detailed analysis. Putting it all into a grade just obscures the info. Its like taking the average of a large collection of numbers: there could be some big or small numbers in there, but you wouldn't know by the average alone.
I was so naive I thought E1.2... is for risk level and 4c, 5a... for how it feels physically dificult at first ascent (or whoever repeats that again at his first ascent) So I will rather avoid England so I will not get myself into pickle :)))
I believe the grading system has been complicated by the fact that most climbers are now much physically fitter than their predecessors due to the huge improvements in training knowledge and facilities. The average elite climber will walk up to the base of a hard climb in much better physical condition but with similar (or lower) appetite for risk. E grades should be adjusted to reflect this by either upgrading bold routes or decreasing the E grade of physically difficult routes.
Also I am not sure that looking into how scary a route feels instead of looking how hard the moves are and how dangerous the route objectively is a step forward tbh… also it’s a bit strange to suggest slabs should get harder grades than overhangs because of the insecure nature of the climbing?
@@climbermacleod If there were E9s in the 80s we should be at least at E12 today, seeing that we moved from 8c to 9c in the same timeframe? Anyways, if you’re not sure that there are even E11s, well that seems pretty compressed to me, basically going from E9 to E10 in 40 years or so…
I really hope you and James are friends, otherwise this video feels like quite the dis. Grade will always be subjective, no matter how hard we try. I really feel for James and I have no time for obvious sandbaggers. I’m not saying Dave is or isn’t a sandbagger, I just hate the ego driven culture of sandbaggjng, especially here is Australia.
maybe the E grading system should be extended to other countries. Giving trad routes a french grade only seems incomplete and not indicative of the hardness of the climb.
Absolutely no need to retrospectively justify one of your routes getting downgraded by Caff - he's a notorious sandbagging so and so, as Emma said in Robbie's video.
I think this misses why routes are more likely to be downgraded than upgraded. Routes are definitely more likely to be downgraded than upgraded but I think this is more because of ego than an actual problem of widespread overgrading. Downgrading gives you an ego boost, while upgrading often hurts your ego. Downgrading says “I’m better than the other people who have climbed this” in style, strength, ethics, etc. People don’t want to upgrade because either it says “I’m not as good as the other people who climbed this” (even if it actually is a sandbag!) or people don’t want other people to claim a higher grade. This happens a lot a popular crags that I’ve seen first hand and is a big push against upgrading routes even when they obviously should be, and hampers “consensus grading”
I was expecting this video at some point given James Pearson's E12 proposal and Ondras repeat. As a novice climber it is very confusing and a point neither you or James have addressed directly...how can the hardest UK trade route be an unbolted 9a sport route in France? How can a UK trade grade be given to any route outwith the UK? Ondras repeat makes me question the grade aswell, 3 session (o3 grade) for a solid 9a climb, however, if Ondras saying it's safe and well protected I don't understand how it can be graded E12. Have you invited Ondra to try Echo Wall, I suspect he would be more hesitant. I'm glad you addressed the issue of grades and how it affects you psychologically (or not as may be the case). Pearson was on a podcast and basically stated he had PTSD as a result of the double downgrade....if he's traumatised from internet trolls he can't have done much scary trad climbing?!
Why do brits crap on endlessly about e grades? Everybody else just have grades based on difficulty. And then mention if it's dicey a bit in the guide book.
It's not possible to grade trad routed based on just difficulty. A route with solid protection every two metres is far easier than exactly the same route with just one dodgy runner half way up. The physical difficulty is the same but the routes are very different propositions.
I don't get how you can grade something 15 years after you've done it and yet be somewhere precise. Well time will tell. I am more confused now than before :)
Watched the video thinking is he really going to go the whole video without talking about the biggest downgrade in UK climbing ?? Then he chucked it in there at the end 😅
Why make yourself a target ? No need to give any grade at all. You could mention that something is serious and /or strenuous , and how many tries it took for success. Repeat ascensionists can then argue endlessly over what grade they would give it. For more than 99% of climbers these headpoint routes will never be attainable, yet they spend hours debating that which they know not of.
The UK trad grading system is nuts! How can you possibly have a 7b+ and an 8b+ in the same grade band??? Ridiculous. How is a climber supposed to have any clue what they are getting on? The route descriptions must be massive!!!!!
I like how British trad climbing has hardly progressed in the last 2-3 decades while the rest of the sport has advanced so tremendously. Not too many younger guys trying to push this aspect of climbing. An old man’s game
Dave refutes being a sandbagger by grading his hardest route E10 instead of E11. What a nice touch!
😂
This comment is too good!😂
Great video Dave. Some really good insights and thoughts from your perspective, thanks for sharing this 😀
I feel this may be in response your video on 'Dave's constant undergrading' hahahaha
You guys should definitely get on a call together and discuss this (and record it) or just head up to Scotland and siege some of these classics
@@Ollie_1997exactly my thoughts. The famous sandbagging by scottisch trad climber named Dave Macleod😂😂
Wideboyz repeating some of Dave's routes video ?? 😎🤘
@@Ollie_1997 I love how Pete and Tom Random are clear trolls, but Dave still respects them enough to give the community a well thought reply.
The E grading system is perfect also for everyday life. Like, the same task at work could be E6 if your coworkers are nice and competent, or E7 if they are arrogant and messy. Driving to the lake is usually E2, but can become even E4 with the traffic of a holiday.
25 minutes of considered, logical argument. The Scottish enlightenment as applied to climbing. You are a treasure of the sport, Dave.
dave hume, dave mac's namesake
It is quite bold to suggest a free solo of 8b+ is E8 when you are concerned with your sandbag reputation hahah
The crux is very low though, and it is very physical
@@TheRubenDK Yeah, it is for sure on the soft side of 8b+s to free solo (I acknowledge it sounds quite absurd!) But even then, I think that any 8b+ sport route is supposed to already be on the top end of E8. Can't remember a specific example but the first sport routes in the UK in the f8 range had trad grades associate with them, so there should be little debate about that.
Agreed. Just compare how many E8's are climbed (headpoint style) against how many 8b+'s get soloed. The poor correlation would suggest that they are not equivalent. However, maybe an 8b+ solo would equal an E8 onsight?
@@marchd1997I think Statement of Youth (8a) got given E7 6c when it first got done
I guess the only thing to do now is jump on Bon Voyage…..
And down grade it to E9…… 😂😂😂
- finds out Dave doesn’t fly anymore
- grades e12 again in a different country 😂
Spoiler alert: its 9a, but no way is it E12, that's just the trauma speaking.
There's no point giving E grades to climbs outside the UK.
@@owenjones8723 yeah it totally doesn't seem e12.
@@xyrandus the UK scale adds information to a climb which other scales do not. If it has merit, it has merit everywhere. If it doesn’t make sense outside the UK, it doesn’t make sense inside the UK
I have climbed trad in the UK for 5 years, and I learnt the E grades from the start, so they make sense to me. However, it still escapes me why the community (or elites) haven't yet proposed a change to a grading system that shows the actual French grade of a climb (so the user knows exactly how hard it is), accompanied by the E grade, so they know if it's a death trap or not.
@climbermacleod you well pointed out how Darwin Dixit is 8b+ (E8) and Tolerance is 7b+ (E8).
If I looked at a book and saw those two routes together I would quickly know one is bloody scary but easy (Tolerance), whilst the other is just really really hard (Darwin Dixit).
Same as Indian Face 7b (E9) vs Dalriada 7b/+ (E7)... Seeing those two, I would attempt Dalriada before Indian Face.
Currently, two equally graded E4 6a couldn't be more different: one could be safe F6c/+ whilst other at F6b could be sending you to A&E if you fall in the wrong spot. Having the french grade attached could definitely help a lot more on decision making when on-sighting.
Maybe it's time MacLeod, Wideboyz, Pearson, McClure, Gresham, Cookson, Small, Bransby, McHaffie, Lines... and all the rest got together and settled it in this decade .
It's been demonstrated that the UK tech grade is pretty useless on the upper end, and very confusing throughout, anyway.
As a Swedish trad climber, with no first hand experience of E- grades these are my thoughts exactly. And I'm yet to find any arguments as to why an E-grade, even along with a tech grade is more useful, or convenient, than Nordic 6-/6/6+ with the R/X addition or any such combination. I'm very curious about it, but currently inclined to believe it's an artifact kept alive by tradition and mythology, a bit like being contracted to build a football field, specified in imperial units, but instead of giving length and width the schematic only gives you the area😄
I'm disabled, by a stroke and getting g upstairs to bed is my e12 I do it daily😊
@@tommybinson me too
I was looking forward to a response to the Wide Boyz video. Dave, you never disappoint! Cheers
I would love a video talking about your first climb at every grade, from diff to E11 and how you developed with your progression.
I am almost finished writing a book that covers my apprenticeship to E11 and the decisions or good fortune that led me through the progression.
Some might say Dave is sandbagging his routes, but he is something more valuable … consistent.
Consistency is the real purpose of grades and not what route is the most difficult. If Dave grades a route you know what to expect.
Hard, the answer is hard
agreed
"Confidence interval" - love it. Next time I want to see your prior and a credibility interval
Bayes ultras unite
I’m not too fussed about the grade but I’m desperate to see an extended doc of someone stupidly strong trying to repeat echo wall. Great video Dave, like with almost everything it seems like open communication and justification without being fearful of ridicule is the best tactic. Easy for me to say from the comfort of this keyboard.
Steve McLure went looking for it but couldn't find it at least once!
@@tommybinson I think visibility wasn't optimal on the day and Steve probably doesn't spend a lot of time on the Ben. Possibly easy to see from a distance but hard when close up? Been to a few crags lime that.
I like the parting message, Dave. Basically, “Get out and touch rock” ;) A good philosophy for life
Not really what I was getting at, but sure
The end about not getting intovolved in certain grades makes a lot of sense with your comments on Lexicon. If I remeber it was 'My E10s are harder and more dangerous but yeah sure lets say its E11' 😆 love it
Hi Stan
@@tobiasbrewin4355 hi
After watching this Im convinced Dave sandbags
23:32 "The primary measure of my success as a pro climber is how much help I can be to other climbers to push their own climbing."
^ This attitude shows. I love your channel, Dave.
I really appreciate Dave's non-sensationalism. From his approach to grading the hardest routes, to putting out RUclips content, he comes across as level headed and honest. The polar opposite of Jake Paul and a rare quality in the age of likes and subscriptions.
The one angle I didn't hear mentioned is that trad grades are meant to reflect the onsight difficulty, not the headpoint. Surely this has a major impact, particularly at the higher levels? Crackin' vid, Dave!
Agreed. And it really should be at the very forefront of any conversation about (uk) trad grading. I'm not sure how we expect a grading system that developed organically out of the tradition of on sight climbing to suitably represent headpoint style, and yet we continue to crowbar it in there and wonder why it doesn't work.
The E grade system as it stands functions perfectly up until the point you start pre practicing a route (at any difficulty). At that point the American R/X system or even a straight sport grade is a more suitable marker.
You could go as far as to say the highest E grade currently is E8, since that is the hardest on sight to date, but you'd then need to introduce a separate system ro represent the headpoint.
The problem is we only ever hear about grading controversy/discussion at the very top end of the spectrum where routes are being headpointed, which leads to the misconception among non trad climbers that the grading system is somehow unfit for purpose across the whole spectrum, which isn't the case.
@@christyboothroyd5891this is a bit silly, but the hardest sport on sight is 9a+ which translates to E10 on egrader lol.
"It's only dangerous if you actually fall off" is a line I think I'll be quoting a lot.
@21:38 what a beautiful shot of the ben, i'm psyched for summer trad but she still might be in winter conditions for a few weeks more now!!!
I really appreciate this video. I hate grading routes, but I love to hear how others approach and think about grading, especially on a first ascent. I am not a very good climber but I do enjoy putting up new routes.
I completely agree that you can't simply separate difficulty and danger factor if you want to be precise in your grades. Actually I think a you can run in to the same issue if you try to grade sport grades by just considering the boulder grades of the cruxes. It is important to consider how they interact with each other.
So much wisdom, honesty and maybe a large dose of modesty too.
I think we can all agree the one thing we can take away from this video, is that Dave climbs E12+
Good story, i seen the wideboyz vid too and this makes a lot of sense for a non brit who follows the scene for 20 years now. I agree that someone should try and repeat those routes that would be insightfull in the higher E grades too, cheers from Holland
Absolutely brilliant video - fascinating insight into the very top end of the sport
Great vid. Always interested in stuff like this even though I don't climb that hard. Generally these vids just wanna make get out climb though. Dave's routes always look inspiring
Fascinating! I never knew there was so much to it. Some great clips included too! 🙏🏼
Another point which was not mentioned is the saftey aspect of grades. For example last year I got on a HVS 5a as a warmup in Northumberland without really thinking or looking at it. But quickly realized it was sandbagged when I was already committed. There was no good protection so it was a solo with the crux near the top of the route. Maybe the issue is that I hadn't prepared myself for a bold climb. But the grade didn't reflect at all the danger of the climb. If it was E1 5a it would have made me think twice and prepare more for a solo, read the route etc. Was slightly annoyed it was so sandbagged. But I have learnt my lesson and look at route more regardless of the grade.
I guess this is not so important for the grades of e7+ which dave is climbing. You would rarely try to on sight such climbs. So people would get an idea of the danger on the head point. But for lower grades where folks will on sight it important to be fair with the grades imo.
What a fantastic video and a great accompaniment to the recent @wideboyz video. Both made me want to climb more Trad!!
This is a bit tangential to the topic of the video, but on the note of grade inflation, I think sometimes it can actually be a good thing. I've never climbed in the UK, so I have absolutely no qualifications to talk about the E grading system, but I have spent a bit of time climbing in the states with the YDS system and holy hell is it a mess. I've climbed at Yosemite, Joshua Tree, Vantage, around Lake Tahoe and at Red Rocks, and having experience all those areas and how they handle grading I can say that the more inflated YDS system from areas like Vantage, Lake Tahoe and Red Rocks is much more helpful for finding climbs than the conpressed system in Yosemite and Joshua Tree. In yosemite and jtree it is very hard to know what kind of experience you will have on a climb of any specific grade until you get on it because the range is so incredibly broad.
When I had less experience trad climbing, I went and climbed the grack (5.6) one day, then went and climbed swan slab gully (5.5/5.6) the next and the grack felt like a walk in the park and was incredibly easy while I couldn't even start swan slab gully the next day! Even getting into the lower 5.10s I've had the same experience where 2 climbs of the same or similar grade and style can be on complete opposite ends of my ability level (in this case I climbed goat for it and the unnamed TR right of grants crack and I cruised goat for it while the unnamed tr utterly kicked my ass. I did eventually make it up it, but it took me a lot of tries. They are even both 5.10a!)
Meanwhile in the areas that have had more recent route development and use the inflated grading scale, you are much more likely to have consistent experiences on the same grade. You do get more grade debates going on because the bands that each grade represent are smaller, but on a whole that evens out much more to the point where you can be pretty certain that, for example, a 5.11a might take a small number of tries, a 5.11b might take a few tries or be a mini project and a 5.11c might be a mini project or it could be a long term project, but you at least know if it is going to be a warmup or if it will be a project.
Anyway, those are my missgivings about the yosemite decimal system and why I think grade inflation is a good thing (at least in the united states)
Another video about how grades are subjective and very much subject to be +/- depending on the climber. David sharing his wisdom as usual. More people need to understand this. Grades are a guide, but not the end all be all. IMO grades are the biggest disservice to climbing until we come up with a better system.
Hi Dave. Burning question at my end: once you've been able to TR a route in 1 go, have you always been able to headpoint it?
I think one of the biggest reason routes get over graded on first ascents is the psychological aspect of doing something not done before. You go into it with the thought of “is it possible?”
Once a route has been done and people know it’s possible then you attack it in a very different way.
Yes, I think you are right.
I would pay actual money for a trad video of Dave, Ondra, and Ghisolfi together
No one person is the same, from body morphology to mental game and how they feel on the day so naturally opinions will vary.
E grades should be seen as a guideline for the expected danger and difficulty assuming you're an expert in the type of rock and climbing that the route is.
There needs to be an assumption then that if you're a novice to that style of climbing that you seek second opinions before grading a route. Tentatively positing a grade and allowing for second opinions and feedback before solidifying on the grade.
And to a point, I think this is what a great deal of people do and is one of the reasons the E grading system somewhat works.
Interesting thoughts, particularly when you say near the end about Rhapsody maybe still having a higher E-grade than EW, but you acknowledge, and I seem to remember you stating at the time, that the 'harder' climbing is on EW. One other minor point I'd make though is that early in the video you say TWOL "is not sustained since it is easy angled". Maybe you have a different definition of "sustained" from me but if something continues [in the same nature] for an extended period then it's "sustained", irrespective of its nature. From what I've read and seen of the route, it certainly looks sustained since the gradient and difficulty of the climbing looks to be consistent for most of its height. The fact that it's on a slab really doesn't matter at all.
Yes, I have a different definition of sustained than you. If you can take your hands off after each tricky section, it's not sustained.
@@climbermacleod Yeah, I realised just after I'd posted my comment that that was probably what you'd meant!
Sustained is usually about the effort level being high, unable to recover/relax.
Your version of sustained is more akin to something being “consistent” id say.
A long slab and a long 30° overhanging route could both be consistently difficult from top to bottom but the steeper one will likely be more sustained.
@@climbermacleod It's interesting that Angus described TWOL as sustained in another sense in that it required a huge amount of "psychological endurance" to climb something that's quite insecure and never really lets up for 50m. I've definitely described routes that haven't let up as 'sustained' when they weren't particularly pumpy. I think if you, Birkett and the E-Grader chaps sat down and filmed it, you could run it as a PPV.
I love your work Dave, and very much enjoyed this video. But if you systematically grade conservatively, or as you put it "grade on the lower side of the confidence interval" it will definitely create a downward bias in the grades you produce. That is the definition of sandbagging ;) Just embrace it. It is okay to be a sandbagger. As you say in the end things usually come right. One of your arguments is that you do it to protect yourself from psychological damage (not your exact words). I very much appreciate that argument. But the other argument you make is that "routes tend to be given a high grade" (i.e. graded softly), and so your sandbagging approach "should even things out". This is not a good argument. In my view if you want to contribute to accuracy all you can do is be as accurate as you can be and not employ a systematic bias in one direction. To do this you would either always pick the midpoint of your interval, or pick a random grade from your interval, so that some lucky routes get a high grade and will get downgraded, while others get a low grade and will be upgraded ;)
It is a good argument, precisely because it is not employing a systematic bias in one direction. It's adjusting for a known and very common bias (grade inflation). Moreover, the fact that it works well is reflected in most of my routes being confirmed at the given grade.
Could it be that your routes are generally confirmed because there is a broad cultural reticence to upgrade routes among climbers? Yes upgrading happens, but at least in NZ it is often frowned upon. I don't know about Scotland (though my forefathers came from there :)) but in NZ climbing culture it is much more acceptable to suggest a downgrade of a route than to an upgrade.
Well part of the reason I made this video was because various climbers had been suggesting upgrades of several of my routes (without having actually climbed them of course!). There have been a few cases also in other disciplines like bouldering where I did under grade a couple of new lines in error, and they were soon upgraded. Likewise in sport climbing, I can think of one or two routes that I did that were upgraded. But aside from actual, semi-formal upgrades, there is the general discussion among climbers about whether routes feel easy or hard for their grade. As far as I know, this lines up with my comments above. Also, one can tell whether a route is soft or harsh just by observing how other climbers get on with it, when you know a bit about their ability.
@@climbermacleod Thanks for the insight and taking the time to reply :)
Sandbagging today perhaps only implies undergrading; in the past (80's?) it implied an intention to deceive or manipulate others. Dave seems to be defending a grade scale as he honestly perceives it against a more modern interpretation. See also moderate V-grades assigned in the early 90's. Regularly bemoaned as sandbagging today when they are in fact the literal definition of the scale
Interesting stuff. Anything over E4 is kinda lost on me though!
Interesting perspective. I think there is some nuance to the argument near the end of the video that more boulders/sport routes/trad routes are downgraded rather than upgraded and therefore sandbagging is not a problem. If there are two climbs of the same difficulty, one of which is overgraded and the other sandbagged, most people will prefer doing the one with the higher number attached to it. This leads to more climbs being repeated that are soft and therefore downgraded than climbs that are hard and therefore upgraded. Additionally I think ego leads some people to be more likely to downgrade rather than upgrade.
Take Echo Wall as an example. As you mentioned, had you graded it E11 it would be more likely that someone would have repeated it by now and potentially downgraded to E10, while if you had graded it E9 it is much less likely that someone would have repeated it and then upgraded it to E10.
TLDR in my opinion if someone grades equally often soft and sandbagged this leads to more of their climbs being downgraded rather than upgraded.
I think that even if climbs were graded incorrectly there is a greater incentive to downgrade over upgrade due to perceptions, so the lack of upgrading isn't necessarily indicative of sandbags being uncommon
An interesting video, thanks! I think the point about "grade calculators" missing the many variables that comprise "difficulty" is well made. It also seems an important correction to refer back to 1980s routes and consider whether routes really are that much harder. It also seems right to point out that grade and "difficulty for X climber" are not the same thing. Nonetheless, your own difficulty in grading Rhapsody and Echo Wall shows the limits of the approach of judgement based on experience. It seems like you're looking back on past achievements and rethinking them, revising them... "Was I really that good?" And it seems like you're trying to deal with the problem by being cautious about overgrading... even though you don't want to be called a sandbagger!
I don't think it's easy to sidestep the fact that grading will always be controversial whilst reputations are made on big grades. You seem to recognise this instrumental aspect of grading when you also recommend building a professional career on less shifting sands than grades!
Timely vid, thanks!
Why would a downgrade cause you pain and an upgrade not? A downgrade could make some people think that you think too highly of your self which is regarded as bad, and the opposite could make you appear in a positive light, as humble or strict perhaps. Which would mean you might link something to grades, since you would either like to (not) be percieved in one way, based on what grade you gave. Which is just one possible explanation of course, I don't want to judge. If the self isn't linked to grading, it wouldn't matter in which way the own given grade deviated from what others think.
In my opinion, the problem of the E grade system is unsolvable. It is trying to combine two independent variables into a single number. That can work reasonably along a diagonal but thing get problematic once the route diverges from that diagonal. This is reflected in totally safe but hard routes and easier but free-solo-with-a-rope routes having the same grades.
Personally, I think that it would be better to just grade the single dimensions and avoid condensing this into a single number. After all, the main purpose of grading is to give a climber a reasonable expectation of the route and having that divergence between safe + hard or easier + dangerous climbing simply does not do this.
Great video, great to get an insight from someone who's done so much at the top end of the (current!) spectrum.
When I got into climbing, I was always told that E grades are designed to give an "overall difficulty" for an onsight attempt. As a lower grade climber, this resonates quite strongly. Typically the nature of the "experience" I'll have trying to onsight a lower grade climb is quite well indicated by the grade, I wonder whether you consider this as a factor when grading at the upper end of the spectrum? It seems unlikely that many of these routes are primed for an onsight any time soon, so is this distinction a bit useless maybe?
Secondly, would you say that British tech grades have become inflated to the point of uselessness? Perhaps better to offer a font grade for the crux? Or a sport grade if it's sustained?
Do you have any comments on the difference between headpoint trad difficulty, and onsight difficulty? Up to E5 I have confidence that the trad grade reflects an onsight, but at harder difficulties I imagine a headpoint - or at least some pre-inspection is common practice.
I expect the majority of commenters who weigh-in on these controversies are more familiar with onsighting lower-mid grades, sandbagging at that level could be lethal. With your harder routes I imagine the biggest danger of sandbagging is wasted time on a shunt/top-rope.
Very interesting, thanks Dave!
So as I understand it, Bon voyage doesn't really seem dangerous enough to justify E12. 9a sport alone doesn't seem enough. Has Dave already said anything about it?
Dave needs to go to Annot . . . .
Seems like this video came out at an interesting time in comparison to media from James.
O3 - ondra confirmed 9a/+ . . . So does echo wall E10 at 8b+ then make 9a/+ on gear E12?
Finally I think it's highly possible formulate a grade, you just need to input a relative security estimate.
I don’t think it’s anything to do with the Adam repeat it’s more Tom Randal calling him out by name as the main problem Egrades are bunched and that he’s a sandbagged after admitting he’s never tried any of Dave’s routes
@@matthewlock1425 I would disagree based on; James heavy involvement with creating Egrader + really a lot of references to routes getting down graded and multiple grade downgrades, and the stuff about not being bothered if he's wrong. I don't know, to me just the tone and stuff, saying the grade of E12 has probably never been climbed, right after an E12 ascent from a guy who was chased out the country after Dave down graded his route 3 grades. Felt like bad taste to me.
But for sure the "Dave sandbagger grade compression thing" from Tom was addressed as well. No dispute there.
There's a good podcast with James Pearson on the nugget who points out when Hubble was first done it was given E9 (e.g. bolted routes when bolting first because a thing in UK they were given E grades) e.g. perfectly safe route of X difficult = E grade X
@@dannygrout92 Personally I don’t think a downgrade can be in poor taste, if he thinks it’s to be downgraded that much then he’s allowed to do that, and general consensus has seemed to agree with him save for Tom who himself doesn’t think it was E12. But only way you can way in on the idiosyncrasies of a climb is if you have climbed it too. So I wouldn’t have an opinion that holds weight not climbing hard trad
I don’t see the relevance of the E grade for Hubble that is sort of thought process is covered by Dave again, that the E grade is not just all about danger and that a safe route can still have a high e grade. And by that logic then to backseat grade for a second, Bon Voyage is said to be pretty well protected not amazingly and is graded 9a/+ sport Hubble is 9a and E9 so dont see how there would be such a big jump for same sport difficult. Also the E grade for UK sport was just because we weren’t using French grading at the time. From the podcast as well I remember James saying he thinks there were some internal oversights himself with the fact he tried to climb rhapsody and couldn’t but told himself it’s because it was bad climb and he didn’t really wanna do it. For sure he’s far more experienced now than most and he was then so not refuting an E12 could exist, just don’t think Adam is the man to confirm it. People with more trad climbing grading and history under their belt should weigh in. Steve McClure, Franco Cookson etc
(Also I pray to god the O grade meme doesn’t catch on think that’s the bit that makes this whole reporting by UKC so cringe)
Dave only brings up walk of life I feel as people constantly lambast him for being a sandbagger (this is one of Tom’s example) and frequently mention this and also people can’t interview James Pearson within asking him about it. Feel like it’s done people just need to move past it.
It’s an interesting dialogue and I’d rather just see them have a talk about it or a climbing panel rather than just these isolated videos
(Sorry if it’s littered with spelling and grammar errors my proof reading skills in a phone are shocking haha)
@@matthewlock1425 not questioning the down grade at all, fully agree with that. Just the making a video to poke the subject years later after the person in question had just said a new route could be E12 and then for Dave to say it probably doesn't exist without trying the route. It's the tone of this particular video I think was in pour taste, not down grading a route the was definitely over graded.
By the sounds of it the additional aspects of the route / trad in general as per the Egrader formula. +0.5 because when Hubble was first put up was 8c+ so E9 would be 8c+ . +1 for being on relatively fiddly gear, +0.5 for being really run out with large sideways fall potential, +1 for the possibility of swinging into / hitting a block at the bottom (from the podcast apparently Siebe is putting pads over the block after James swung into it on a filming go).
Really to summarise I think it's a bit hypocritical for Dave to say, when he made the down grade . . . Well he didn't come and do my E11 (which I totally agree with) , to then say, E12 probably doesn't exist without trying the route given that grade.
As for the O grade, lighten up. It pokes fun at the totally arbitrary and pointless nature of climbing.
@@dannygrout92 I do think Dave should try it obviously don’t know he will with he travel ethics, but I think he can weigh in with a general statement about the grade, with his knowledge and experience that he doesn’t think climbing has progressed that far. I think for me the grade doesn’t really take away from the climb graded E12 or E11 it don’t matter really it’s just about the aesthetics of it. (Probably cause I can’t climb hard) which leads to my next point which I feel is more philosophical side of climbing.
I get your points but personally think the E grader isn’t what the sport needs really it’s trying to boil down something so subjective and ethereal down too mathematically, I think rather than remove focus on grading it focuses on it even more. Mathematical systems and models just reinforce the bias of the creator/ programmers most of the time. Just think it stands in direct opposition of what climbing as a lifestyle pursuit is about.
I just think grading needs to take a back seat as a whole I appreciate the whole not grading a hard project or just not commenting on it personally I know that isn’t many people’s view but I just think the not caring about the grade of you project or not making it a focus of discussion is the best way to be so I have no horse in this race really when it comes to caring about up or downgrades. I found what Jorge Diaz-Rullo did with his third accent of sleeping lion one of the more refreshing things in climbing and when others do that as well.
I also get the O grade is a joke I’m not dense don’t worry haha. Just was funny at first when they did it for the video, not for me when repeated.
Thanks for the enjoyable back and forth as well refreshing for comments to not be a hellscape 🤜🤛
Ive not fully watched this video yet so forgive me if im way off. I nearly commented on the wideboyz video but didnt. I dont see why e10 isnt the highest risk grade (i.e. youd likely die) and the technical grade ie. 7a is just unlimited as the climbing gets harder. Is there a problem with a grade like (e6 7b i.e really hard climbing and mangled legs if you fell?).
I’ve heard you think lexicon is E9?
Appreciate ya as always good sir.
I think the takeaway is that you're very humble and look down on yourself when compared to others, and that is causing the sandbagging.
I do think its odd that you can take a route thats harder for you personally, but you grade it lower because you think it would be easier for...someone else? Do you really have that understanding of what it feels like for others?
It sort of adds to the reputation of the e grades as being nonsensical. I really think the guidebook notes are the right place for all this detailed analysis. Putting it all into a grade just obscures the info.
Its like taking the average of a large collection of numbers: there could be some big or small numbers in there, but you wouldn't know by the average alone.
I was so naive I thought E1.2... is for risk level and 4c, 5a... for how it feels physically dificult at first ascent (or whoever repeats that again at his first ascent) So I will rather avoid England so I will not get myself into pickle :)))
I believe the grading system has been complicated by the fact that most climbers are now much physically fitter than their predecessors due to the huge improvements in training knowledge and facilities. The average elite climber will walk up to the base of a hard climb in much better physical condition but with similar (or lower) appetite for risk. E grades should be adjusted to reflect this by either upgrading bold routes or decreasing the E grade of physically difficult routes.
Also I am not sure that looking into how scary a route feels instead of looking how hard the moves are and how dangerous the route objectively is a step forward tbh… also it’s a bit strange to suggest slabs should get harder grades than overhangs because of the insecure nature of the climbing?
You said when you started climbing (1993?) the hardest route was requiem e7 and yet later an e9 from 1989 appears in your video? I am confused
The hardest route in my country. I am from Scotland. Face Mecca is in Wales.
@@climbermacleod If there were E9s in the 80s we should be at least at E12 today, seeing that we moved from 8c to 9c in the same timeframe? Anyways, if you’re not sure that there are even E11s, well that seems pretty compressed to me, basically going from E9 to E10 in 40 years or so…
Really interesting
Well done great achievement
someone go do echo wall
I really hope you and James are friends, otherwise this video feels like quite the dis.
Grade will always be subjective, no matter how hard we try. I really feel for James and I have no time for obvious sandbaggers. I’m not saying Dave is or isn’t a sandbagger, I just hate the ego driven culture of sandbaggjng, especially here is Australia.
maybe the E grading system should be extended to other countries. Giving trad routes a french grade only seems incomplete and not indicative of the hardness of the climb.
Can someone remind me. Did everyone agree Lexicon was E11?
Noone who climbed it disagreed.
Love the subtle digs at James 😅
Sounds like you just need a factor in the algorithm for security of holds 😉
Absolutely no need to retrospectively justify one of your routes getting downgraded by Caff - he's a notorious sandbagging so and so, as Emma said in Robbie's video.
Maybe not but you have downgraded E12,
I think this misses why routes are more likely to be downgraded than upgraded. Routes are definitely more likely to be downgraded than upgraded but I think this is more because of ego than an actual problem of widespread overgrading. Downgrading gives you an ego boost, while upgrading often hurts your ego. Downgrading says “I’m better than the other people who have climbed this” in style, strength, ethics, etc. People don’t want to upgrade because either it says “I’m not as good as the other people who climbed this” (even if it actually is a sandbag!) or people don’t want other people to claim a higher grade. This happens a lot a popular crags that I’ve seen first hand and is a big push against upgrading routes even when they obviously should be, and hampers “consensus grading”
Only one solution; repeat Echo wall :)
I was expecting this video at some point given James Pearson's E12 proposal and Ondras repeat. As a novice climber it is very confusing and a point neither you or James have addressed directly...how can the hardest UK trade route be an unbolted 9a sport route in France? How can a UK trade grade be given to any route outwith the UK?
Ondras repeat makes me question the grade aswell, 3 session (o3 grade) for a solid 9a climb, however, if Ondras saying it's safe and well protected I don't understand how it can be graded E12. Have you invited Ondra to try Echo Wall, I suspect he would be more hesitant.
I'm glad you addressed the issue of grades and how it affects you psychologically (or not as may be the case). Pearson was on a podcast and basically stated he had PTSD as a result of the double downgrade....if he's traumatised from internet trolls he can't have done much scary trad climbing?!
Why do brits crap on endlessly about e grades? Everybody else just have grades based on difficulty. And then mention if it's dicey a bit in the guide book.
It's not possible to grade trad routed based on just difficulty. A route with solid protection every two metres is far easier than exactly the same route with just one dodgy runner half way up. The physical difficulty is the same but the routes are very different propositions.
@@sinad153yeah, hence why it makes more sense to split difficulty and risk into two parts instead of combining them in some vague way
I don't get how you can grade something 15 years after you've done it and yet be somewhere precise. Well time will tell. I am more confused now than before :)
We get hung up on grades a bit too easily
sandbagger doesn't really fit, as no advantage is gained...... Modest is a better description
Watched the video thinking is he really going to go the whole video without talking about the biggest downgrade in UK climbing ??
Then he chucked it in there at the end 😅
Why make yourself a target ? No need to give any grade at all. You could mention that something is serious and /or strenuous , and how many tries it took for success. Repeat ascensionists can then argue endlessly over what grade they would give it. For more than 99% of climbers these headpoint routes will never be attainable, yet they spend hours debating that which they know not of.
The UK trad grading system is nuts! How can you possibly have a 7b+ and an 8b+ in the same grade band??? Ridiculous. How is a climber supposed to have any clue what they are getting on? The route descriptions must be massive!!!!!
It's pretty simple - soloing 7b+ can easily be as demanding as a totally safe 8b+.
I like how British trad climbing has hardly progressed in the last 2-3 decades while the rest of the sport has advanced so tremendously. Not too many younger guys trying to push this aspect of climbing. An old man’s game