From: u6409886@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Australian grading
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:15:04 GMT
Organization: The University of Melbourne

Here at last is Part 1 of Aussie climbing 101. Those who contacted me regarding
Australian climing areas will soon receive a template to fill
out, so we can present a coherent source of information. I do not pretend to
speak for anyone else, and all comments (and some criticism) is welcome.

	Andrew Davies, Physics, Melbourne Uni
********************
(i) History. The so-called "Ewbank" grading system now almost universally
used in Australia dates from the mid '60s, and is the brainchild of John
Ewbank, a climber from the state of New South Wales. (NSW) Prior to that
the English scheme of grading climbs as "easy", "hard"....."hard very severe"
was in use. I have a copy of the first printed guide to Mt Arapiles, which
lists about 100 climbs (for comparison, the latest has 2000+ climbs ),
the hardest being "extremely hard very severe". It
is of interest that that climb is graded 16 (5.8). The Ewbank system 
described below) has several advantages: (i) It is very easy to understand
and use (important for Australians :=) :=) etc), (ii) It is concise, unlike
the descriptive system it replaced and, (iii) It has (had) no inbuilt
bottleneck (at 5.10) that the yosemite decimal system has. Having said that,
there was a time when climbing, largely due to equipment (esp friction
boots and protection) and technique, hit something of a wall and
there was a sticking point around the grade 18 mark, and it was some
time before it was generally accepted that harder grades had appeared,
and as a consequence, there are some pretty solid 18's around.

(ii) A general description. There are no equivalents of class 1 - class 4
in the Australian climbing grading (that I know of), all grades being
assigned to technical rock climbs. The free climbing grading is an open
(upper) ended quantized system, from grade 1 up (the highest being 32 for
now). Grade 1 is very easy, lots of good big holds, and I have seen small
children happily solo on a 1. Generally, most people would be happy
unroped on anything up to 4, unless it is exposed. (A slight caveat is
required here: somtimes I think climbers who are capable of high grades
have used routes as an access, and off-handedly graded them as "1 or 2",
whereas they are more like 8-9). Most beginners, top-roped, would be
able to handle anything up to 12 or so, which corresponds (roughly) to
5.6. Grades 12-18 are for "sometimes climbers" or solid first or second
year climbers, though 17-18 is getting hard enough. (Roughly 5.9) A climber
who spends most weekends climbing would be looking at 20 or so, and the
limit for weekend climbers appears to be 23-24. (5.11d) Of course, these
are generalizations. A surprising number of people seem to be getting 
into the 25-28 range, but 29-32 is still very much for the elite.

Mechanical grades: I can't resist quoting from a guide book to the Grampians
(Victoria). "Like the free grades, the mechanical grading system is open
ended, grades ranging from M1 up, though there are fewer of them." Not a
mathematician. In practice, mechanical grades range from M1 (bolt ladders),
M2 (bolts + ocassional easy nut placement)....M8 (touch and go hook moves
&/or dicey small nut (RP) placements). A climb that is free in parts, with
some aid, will be graded :  "Ozymandias, 22 M4"  in a fairly self-explanatory
notation. 

(iii) Comparisons. It has been my feeling for a while that Australian
climbs were in fact a bit stiffer than the usual conversion tables
indicate. (This refers to North American grades, I don't really know
about European ones). Conversations I have had both here and in the US
seem to back up this view. It is interesting that a recent US magazine (R&I ?)
article took the tack that Australians were habitual sandbaggers, rather
than the (I think) more accurate view that the standard conversions
are not completely reliable. General advice would be to pick a climb
that is a couple of grades below where you think you are, and go from there.

(iv) Idiosynchratic Grades. The Australian sytem seems to be quite
consistent from cliff to cliff, though as with any system there will be
oddities. There does seem to have been one or two prominent climbers
who sandbagged routinely (Editors note: divine retribution caught up
with one of them), but recent guidebooks have ironed out some of the
worst excesses. An ongoing problem is the 24 leader who puts up a new
"16". As readers will appreciate, it is often hard to accurately grade
a climb much below your ability, and I have found examples of climbs
being 3 or so grades above their nominal rating. By and large, this is
only a big problem at new cliffs, and it will pay to read the historical
notes in the preface of most guide books. Some cliffs are intrinsically
odd, and grades there might seem severe to newcomers (I gather the Gunks
in the US is like this), but experience usually shows that the grades
are about right. An example is Bundaleer (Vic), where the climbing is
very steep, and quite intimidating, and may seem undergraded at first.
Newsgroups: rec.climbing