From: AWaddington@acorn.co.uk (Andy Waddington)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing
Subject: Re: climb ratings
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:33:57 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, England

A brief note on climbing grades this side of the Atlantic :

In the UK, there was originally a series of adjectival grades (Easy,
Moderate, Difficult, Very Difficult, Severe, Very Severe).

The higher of these grades later acquired a 'mild' or 'hard' qualifier.

'Hard Very Severe' soon got stretched upwards until it became a separate
grade. Eventually, in England and Wales (but not Scotland), there came
'Extremely Severe'. This sometimes had 'mild' or 'hard' tacked on, and
for a while, there were some climbs graded 'Exceptionally Severe'.

In short, like most originally closed grading systems, it had become a
complete shambles with increasing standards. There were now two innovations.

1) The Extreme grade got split into E-grades (originally E1 to E5, but this
is open ended and we are now up to E9)
2) Adjectival grades came to mean how hard a route was, whilst numeric
'technical' grades were invented for how difficult it was.

Technical grades go from 1 to (currently) 7, with grades from 4 (or
occasionally 3) upwards being subdivided into, for example 5a, 5b, 5c.
These technical grades represent the technical difficulty of the hardest
move(s) on a pitch, and translate fairly well into the US YDS system.

The adjectival grades are still a bit of a compromise, but take into account
both the technical difficulty and other factors such as how long and
sustained a pitch is, how difficult retreat would be and how good the
protection is. For example, the typical E1 has a technical grade of 5b, so
something graded E1, 5a is technically very easy for the grade, but may be
very sustained, very difficult to retreat from, or have very little gear.
Likewise an E1,5c probaly has only one or two 5c moves, just above a good
runner. You can get anomalies, like Severe, 5b where there is one completely
stupid move to get off the ground, followed by a perfectly reasonable climb
above. There are also, like anywhere else, guidebooks that are
'inconsistently graded' (they contain more or less blatant lies).

A new innovation in Britain, applied to routes on some quarries and limestone
crags are grades like F7a. This means French 7a, ie. a sport climb, where
protection is not a consideration (because it is in place to clip and pull
on just like ze feelthy foreigners, oops, sorry, no offence intended). This
causes lots of confusion, because French grades look like UK technical grades
but are about one step out (approximately, ie. UK 6a is somewhere near French
7a, but the difference is not consistent, since not all the grades are the
same 'width').

The most radical innovation applies to Yorkshire gritstone, where a
(supposedly closed) protection grading of P1 (you may notice you have
fallen), P2 (you may get hurt) or P3 (you will die) has been applied. As the
guidebook notes, it may not stay a closed system, since someone will use P4,
claiming they would have died more if they fell...

Oh, yes, there is A0-A4 for artificial routes, not that these are approved
of anymore, of course.

The UIAA Roman numeric grades are applied to routes in the Alps, which are
invariably more 'serious' than single or short multi-pitch crag routes, but
where the difficulties are on rock, and a technical grade can be
consistently applied. The French adjectival grades (Facile, Peu Difficile,
Assez Difficile, Difficile, Tres Difficule, Extremement Difficile) are
applied more to snow and ice or mixed routes, where precision is impossible
in changing conditions from season to season, year to year or even day to
day. These grades get qualified by superieure (or '+') or inferieure ('-'),
and may also be applied to steep ski descents !

Finally, serious technical winter climbs on snow, ice or mixed may get
Scottish winter grades from I to VI. These grades have different meanings
when applied to gullies or buttresses, and are so influenced by the
conditions of the day as to be almost useless until you have so much
experience that you can tell the grade by looking anyway.

Any 'UIAA approved' rockclimbing guidebook will nowadays contain a table of
equivalences (which I can't quote, 'cos I don't have one handy, sorry). As
I have tried to indicate above, this is of limited value. In many ways you
can tell as much about the climb by which *system* it has been graded under
as you can tell by the actual *grade* assigned.

The day has almost arrived when people flaunt their knowledge of other
countries' climbing by giving their new climbs polyglot grades which do
more to confuse than to enlighten (things like E3, 5c,6a (F7a),P2 - the crux
felt like about 5.11c and the descent is V+).

In short, read the UIAA equivalence table as a guide, then start climbing
a couple of grades lower than you think you should be able to cope with.
If the equivalence is OK for your style, you can move up in a couple of
routes, and it saves having epics if you think the grades are complete
b*ll.

I'm just off to ski an S4 couloir (D+ in ascent, TD- in descent, with a
pitch of III+, and Scottish 4 to get off the glacier....).

Have fun now.         Andy.