Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

The greatest sandbags in Victoria

11-Aug-2003
11:25:48 AM

Ewbank stated in one of his articles back in the late '60s that there is no reason why somebody won't climb 39 one day. 35 years later and someone is approaching that number, what is needed is more people with that mans vision. It could be one of the reasons that the upper grades are plateauing. Maybe we need another Carrigan, who visualised routes that he couldn't get up (Lord of the Rings, etc) and set a challenge for other, mainly OS climbers.

11-Aug-2003
1:48:39 PM

Niel is really coping a serve about his interpretation of the Ewbank grading system. Frankly I find his grades about right. I don't really think it matters how you determine a grade for a new route as long it's within the realm of reality for that grade. I think those who want to give people a hard time about the grades they put against their climbs but have never put up a new route of their own, should respect the guidance of the first ascentionist and appreciate the effort and vision they have shown to put up the route. If you want some real sandbags try Moonarie as a general rule you will find that you climb 2 grades lower than you do in Vic. The point is that the grades are a guide only and as a guide they are very subjective. It's fun to push grades but it's the enjoyment of the route that really counts.

Niel, remember the sandbag at grade 24"Licorice all Sportz", well it's got nothing on some of the routes in Moonarie. I tried Wild Child as Moonarie and it easily felt harder to me than De La Soul (26) at Van Demonds.

Have fun and don't stress about the grade.

(removed)

12-Aug-2003
10:36:53 AM

On 8/08/2003 kieranl wrote:
>Fatboy, this is a new one on me. I have never heard anything about Ben
>Moon at Arapiles. My first instinct is that it's a hoax. That's also my
>second instinct. If you can provide any references for this alleged visit,
>I'll be happy to check them out.

You will have to check Trumpet's brain as I'm pretty sure that's where it came from. Amusing tale though if you get a chance to read it.

ness

12-Aug-2003
12:21:40 PM

I have a thought to add to the grading system. Its been added before on many occasions, but thought it deserved a mention here.

Sure - the "hardest move" grading system doesnt take into account the other features of a climb such as pro or exposure (not that exposure should come into it, it might add stars though), but consider that it doesnt take many 22 moves in a row to make a fairly serious 24. If all the moves are 24, the route is not 24. Its probably 28 or something higher even.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

12-Aug-2003
12:45:33 PM

On 12/08/2003 ness wrote:
>Sure - the "hardest move" grading system doesnt take into account the
>other features of a climb such as pro or exposure (not that exposure should
>come into it, it might add stars though)"

My understanding of exposure is that it also includes the 'protection factor', and is not simply based on height, ie if the climb is run-out then it is exposed.
Whether these moves are a long way above the deck or close to it doesn't matter in a sense, unless the consequences of the possible fall are dire. The more severe the consequences then the greater the exposure, ... which is directly related back to the pro or lack/reliability of it.

A twist to this that I have experienced from time to time is the 'unknown' factor, eg if I launch out around an arete committing to the unknown climbing (& pro) beyond then I feel exposed!

ness

12-Aug-2003
2:21:02 PM

The unknown factor will always be there the first time you are on something - ie, the onsight attempt. Independant of seeing the rock ahead sometimes too - you may not always see holds, if they are tiny, or its undervertical with no chalk, or you're blind, or whatever.

Exposure or the unknown factor don't really add to the grade in my opinion, the moves are still the same. If the pro is difficult, such as stuffing a nut into your only hold or crap like that then it can add to the difficulty of the climb, to onsight or redpoint. If you have pre-placed gear and are pink pointing (as most hard natural ascents are done) then it doesn't matter, or if you have worked out a funky & efficient way of getting the piece in, then it just becomes another move.

The protection and exposure of a climb aren't affiliated in my mind.

Ness


IdratherbeclimbingM9

16-Aug-2003
9:52:07 PM

On 12/08/2003 ness wrote:
>The unknown factor will always be there the first time you are on something
>- ie, the onsight attempt. .

Where I am coming from is the 'trad' perspective. This acounts for about 90% of my climbing, and I have found that even if I am on a route I have done before, and decide to run it out, ie skip pro opportunities, ... then I feel exposed, unless I am climbing well within my limit.

>Exposure or the unknown factor don't really add to the grade in my opinion,
>the moves are still the same. >
>The protection and exposure of a climb aren't affiliated in my mind.

I have to disagree. The extreme example of my point would be to free solo the climb. Try this sometime and I think you may change your mind!!
In my experience when I rope-solo I find the exposure factor seems to add a couple of grades to a climb, ... even those climbs that I am well familiar with.
Sure the moves are the same, but my head sure feels diffferent!
I have not free-soloed anything significant, but I would expect my head to be in for an order of magnitude quantum leap again, if I was to attempt it.

kieranl

17-Aug-2003
10:37:07 PM

Hugh, did you actually read what I wrote? Of course it's total crap and I never believed a word of it. I'm flummoxed as to how you could have interpreted that piece as taking the "Ben Moon report" seriously.
Kieran


contactgav

7-Oct-2009
8:53:54 AM

I can confirm that Ben Moon has never been to Araps.

in regards to the topic,
i prefer the UK grading system for natural lines as it gives a indication of the climb.
Of course a well written route description is best.
However i have heard somepeople 'complain' that sometimes these well written descriptions give too much insight/information about a climb. Giving details of what type of protection or moves / holds are there can take something away from those purists who want the true onsight experience.

i like the UK grade system as it gives an adjective / descriptive grade and the single hardest move grade.
i think it would work well when combined with the ewbank system. it would move away from the confusing 6a, 6b etc and use defined numbers.

Lets use Kachoong as an example. Kachoong is graded 21.

however with an adjective grade it could be Hard Very Severe 20
meaning its hardest move is a grade 20 with good protection nearby the crux and easy climbing on the rest of the climb.

if Kachoong was a scary route with poor protection protecting its hardest move, it could be E3 20. E for Extreme for those that may not know.
E3 as it would be as bold/dangerous as a climb could be at this difficulty. the protection offers very little help/comfort at its hardest move.
Alternatively E3 20 can also be a route that is safe, but has a lot of moves at grade 20 and becomes very difficult to climb cleanly due to its physical sustained nature.

other end of the spectrum, it could Severe 20, an utter bush walk with one hard move well protected with easy safe climbing either side of the crux.

one other thing to remember, the grading should be done in respect to a someone trying ground up onsight attempt. not spending minutes/days sitting on a bolt/ protection working out how to do it. something that often gets neglected nowdays.

ithomas

7-Oct-2009
9:04:30 AM

Hmm? I can't recall the climbs on Tibrogargan (with one exception) being under-graded. Perhaps it's the
abilities of modern climbers which have been over-graded?


pmonks

7-Oct-2009
9:29:29 AM

Not in Victarctica, but whatever...

"Bringing a Blush to the Snow" at Diamond Bay in Sydney was graded 17 for a long time. When I was editing that area for SSS Mikl admitted it was probably more like 24, and that, combined with the seepage, sand and dodgy bolts probably made it a pretty full-on sandbag!

JDB

7-Oct-2009
12:46:21 PM

Witch at Camel's Hump is the toughest 17 I've done.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

7-Oct-2009
1:19:57 PM

Re-reading this thread makes me wonder if nmonteith still grades things by the hardest move or if he now acknowledges the Ewbank System as it was first envisaged?

On 24/04/2003 Robin wrote:
>I also think that Vertigo at Tenneriffe is damn hard for 23, but Bob Cowan and Co. confirmed the grade.

This could be a double-sandbag as BC is/was known for grading things 'easy' if he found them so...


ambyeok

7-Oct-2009
1:27:47 PM

On 7/10/2009 JDB wrote:
>Witch at Camel's Hump is the toughest 17 I've done.

Oh, im so happy, I crapped myself on that one. I picked it as a good route to attempt a hex only onsight (why?). I succeeded but didnt stop shaking for ages.

egosan

7-Oct-2009
1:29:19 PM

On 7/10/2009 ambyeok wrote:
>On 7/10/2009 JDB wrote:
>>Witch at Camel's Hump is the toughest 17 I've done.
>
>Oh, im so happy, I crapped myself on that one. I picked it as a good route
>to attempt a hex only onsight (why?). I succeeded but didnt stop shaking
>for ages.

Respect!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

7-Oct-2009
1:40:36 PM

18/03/2003 phil_nev wrote;
>Why do i get the feeling theres going to be a lot of mikl routes posted here.

19/03/2003 oweng wrote;
>MIke Laws entertaining interview in the articles section of the site gives a bit of an insite into the grading methodology.

~> Here it is, for those who did not look it up…

Chockstone;
Q: In the early 80's, when Kim Carrigan was pushing the grading envelope at Mt Arapiles, you were doing routes of similar difficulty levels throughout Victoria. You seemed to be routinely in the habit of under-grading your new routes at the time. Was this a commentary on Kim's obsession with ticking big numbers, or was it more related with a desire on your behalf to avoid the limelight?

Michael Law replied;
Mark (Moorehead) and I didn't think anyone was really climbing that hard in Australia. We also used to enrage Kim by grading everything 23 (this turns out to be THE chosen grade for sandbags all around the world).
"So Mark, what's the lowest grade you can give this thing with breaking out laughing?"
"Umm, 22 hahaha, it's no good, I can't do it. It'll have to be 24 "

Love it!


nmonteith

7-Oct-2009
2:10:17 PM

On 7/10/2009 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>Re-reading this thread makes me wonder if nmonteith still grades things
>by the hardest move or if he now acknowledges the Ewbank System as it was
>first envisaged?

I just try and compare grades to other popular routes in the same style and area. I've done enough climbing to have a pretty good idea on what is aprox right. Of course there are people who say something is hard or soft for the grade - but whatever. The grading system is almost entirely subjective and unmeasurable. I've been sandbagged so many times i've lost count.


porkpie

7-Oct-2009
4:20:09 PM

I think NM is right. The ewbank system is meant to be the hardest move. But i believe that is how hard a move feels on the ascent (onsight, redpoint, etc) not the dog. So a route like Rubber Lover is 25 but the hardest move on the dog is only about 20 (from memory).

Other grading systems (ie English) offer more info on the sustained nature and potential danger but are confusing. So my idea is we give a route numerical grading say from 1 to 38 or so, let the grade get confirmed or changed by numerous ascents and then offer any significant info in the route description (such as no gear, sustained, one move wonder etc). Now there's an idea........


gordoste

7-Oct-2009
4:26:44 PM

oldfella -- as far as i know the australian system is NOT based on the onsightability (unlike the UK one). And all grades are supposed to be taken in conjuction with the guidebook description (which should mention any notable dangers). The Ewbank system is supposed to just say how hard the hardest move is. One issue it does have is that a cruxy 20 is much easier than a sustained 20.

Regarding the original topic -- I've found Wicked Solitaire (17) and Beowulf (18) at Mt Buffalo to be tough for their respective grades.


nmonteith

7-Oct-2009
4:30:54 PM

The English system is totally bizarre. Rather than a cryptic code why don't you just say the route is 'a one move wonder' or 'sustained' or 'dangerous' in the route description. A bunch of numbers and letters is way more confusing than just explaining what it is in words.

There are 127 messages in this topic.