Darth grader and G,PG,R,X ratings

Eric Marx wrote:

I like that take, JCM, but it does seem odd that the oldest, strongest, and most consistent climbers hail from the UK(Gresham, McClure, Macleod, Pearson, and on and on) all went through this process of grade chasing their way up dangerous routes. I genuinely wonder what it is about the culture that causes that, but that’s probably a separate conversation from the grading system. Maybe there’s utility in slowing the body down by achieving grades that aren’t as physically difficult? I don’t know.

The climbers you listed are all very strong, elite climbers, but they are not and never were at the cutting edge of difficulty. They are iconic precisely because they have done committing and/or dangerous routes, precisely as JCM postulated. Now, Ben Moon, Jerry Moffat and Ron Fawcet, going back a generation or two, absolutely were at the cutting edge of difficulty. 

Frank Stein wrote:

The climbers you listed are all very strong, elite climbers, but they are not and never were at the cutting edge of difficulty. They are iconic precisely because they have done committing and/or dangerous routes, precisely as JCM postulated. Now, Ben Moon, Jerry Moffat and Ron Fawcet, going back a generation or two, absolutely were at the cutting edge of difficulty. 

Disagree with this. How are you defining "cutting edge"? If you are limiting it to pure technical difficulty ( whatever that is), McClure, at least, was up there with the best, and the other 3, 'had their moments'. But pure technical difficulty (and even here, do you mean bouldering or sport climbing as the medium?), is only one dimension or aspect of 'cutting edge' climbing. If one's definition of 'cutting edge' factors in things such as seriousness or commitment as in traditional climbing, then all 4 were/are as much at the cutting edge as Moffat, Moon, or Fawcett were in their day ( and you forgot perhaps the most cutting edge of all--Johnny Dawes). Of course, if one is talking about alpinism---none of those you mentioned really ever played that 'game'.

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Danger levels don’t change the difficulty of a climb. Grades are for difficultly levels, danger ratings are for protection levels.

The first sentence of this does not necessarily ring true, though I don't disagree with the second part of this and think its probably the best way to grade climbs for the sake of simplicity/consistency.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1YKU1TOgw5/?igsh=MTB0ZHIxMHJtY2l5aw==

Just an example of the lack of x rated routes in the UK. 

Evan Yorston wrote:

The first sentence of this does not necessarily ring true, though I don't disagree with the second part of this and think its probably the best way to grade climbs for the sake of simplicity/consistency.

How would the danger change the physical difficulty of a climb? If I do a move while clipped to a draw or that same move soloing, it is still the same move of the same physical difficulty. Grades are based on physical difficulty, not mental fortitude.

If anything it’s harder when your clipping draws and placing gear. All the solo routes need to be downgraded 

If I were to write a guidebook, I'd use these grades less as holistic danger grades and more as quantifiable protection grades. They'd give a climber an idea of the frequency of reasonable gear placement opportunities (reasonable with a standard or otherwise suggested rack given average gear placement skills). Question: How good is the gear? Answer: G = good (at least every 10 feet), PG = pretty good (occasionally every 15 feet), R = runout (often 20 feet or more), X = extremely runout (few placement opportunities). I'm just making up numbers at the moment, but you get the idea. Then a climber could use other info (such as YDS physical difficulty, angle, topography, mental and physical state) to come to their own conclusions about the probability and danger associated with a 20, 30, 60 foot fall, for example.

Insert thread devolution to discussion over what’s a standard rack 

However a lot of climbs can really change how scary they are based on protection. This is especially true with big cams 

Tim Meehan wrote:

If I were to write a guidebook, I'd use these grades less as holistic danger grades and more as quantifiable protection grades. They'd give a climber an idea of the frequency of reasonable gear placement opportunities (reasonable with a standard or otherwise suggested rack given average gear placement skills). Question: How good is the gear? Answer: G = good (at least every 10 feet), PG = pretty good (occasionally every 15 feet), R = runout (often 20 feet or more), X = extremely runout (few placement opportunities). I'm just making up numbers at the moment, but you get the idea. Then a climber could use other info (such as YDS physical difficulty, angle, topography, mental and physical state) to come to their own conclusions about the probability and danger associated with a 20, 30, 60 foot fall, for example.

To make this useful you'd also have to state exactly where each peice of protection is in the route for the climber to be able to make an informed decision about the danger of the route, essentially you'd need a topo, and at that point you're missing the point of having one concise letter trying to describe the danger of the route. e.g. if the runnout is on pure vertical terrain is way different than over a ledge. The point of the danger rating is to give the climber a quick overview of the route, and having to pull in all of those other factors makes that moot. The danger rating isn't supposed to be a perfect description of what the climber will find but a general description, there are more detailed descriptions the climber can look for if that's what the climber wants which will describe the route much better than the general rating.

Greg Kosinski wrote:

e.g. if the runnout is on pure vertical terrain is way different than over a ledge.

You speak the truth. So do you think it should be about general danger related to falls or general danger related to all route characteristics including things like loose rock? Any thoughts on dangerous approaches or descents?

I think it depends on the situation.  

If its a route that's more alpine in nature I think risk on approach and descent is very fair game.  This would be some sort of route with a defined goal, ie a summit tower.  In other words if you have to do something really sketch on the class 4 approach or descent I'd want it reflected. 

If the route was more cragging in nature with a sketch approach I would be much more inclined not to include it.  This is hyperbole but in a situation where you go through whatever hell you are required to traverse through and then get to a cave where the routes are located, I wouldn't include it.  In other words even though Jumbo Love is hell to acess that hasn't effected the grades because that is not the point of that type of climbing.  (Discount the fact that even though the approach is hell it's not dangerous.  The difference here is you are approaching to a safe spot and likely doing multiple routes that end with anchors and then you come down. 

Most routes are likely somewhere in the middle or safe approaches.  In other words is the approach part of the expirence or just kind of something you need to walk through? That is my $0.02.  

Eric Marx wrote:

I like that take, JCM, but it does seem odd that the oldest, strongest, and most consistent climbers hail from the UK(Gresham, McClure, Macleod, Pearson, and on and on) all went through this process of grade chasing their way up dangerous routes. I genuinely wonder what it is about the culture that causes that, but that’s probably a separate conversation from the grading system. Maybe there’s utility in slowing the body down by achieving grades that aren’t as physically difficult? I don’t know.

It’s culture, and that culture has long been vehemently opposed to the placing of bolts everywhere good pro isn’t available. It’s been that way for >80 years. The UK has only a few areas, such as Cheddar Gorge, where bolts are acceptable. 

Eric Marx wrote:

To Be or Not to Be 12a X, you're looking at falling off mid 5.11 climbing onto a bomber #2 and probably taking a 50-60 footer either into the ground or very close. The only person I know to have taken this fall is Russ Clune, and he came very close to the ground but was uninjured. With a different belayer it could have been a different story. The other cruxes protect well with headpointing tactics and perhaps not so well onsighting(the low crux particularly).

Hi Eric. Was speaking to FAist Russ Raffa (who was belaying Russ Clune that day) about this recently and he seemed to recall local legend Mike Freeman took the whip from even higher above the #2 placement than where Clune came off and still didn't hit the ground. In those days they used nuts around where your partner Kevin placed the two small cams, ending the runout above the #2. According to Raffa that's about where Freeman came off. 

Well above my pay grade for sure, and not recommending the whip, but I thought you'd be interested for the history and the additional data point.