Tel,
Thanks for putting so much effort into your reply. I find it difficult to argue with much of it, and I don't particularly want to.
The example of XI is a good one, it is an absolute classic route, it has been climbed thousands of times, will get countless more ascents, at a very popular area which has had numerous, excellent guidebooks produced over the years - it is more the exception than the rule. I was reading a letter to the Editor in the most recent edition of Rock where someone lamented a terribly inadequate guidebook description.
I think my point about property rights, and the linkage between some definitions and people's respect for them - ie levels of difiiculty and boldness, is still well met.
Using my example of the British yet again - they are famous for their reverence of a bold lead followed by tall tales over a pint with the lads later that night - classic stuff. The British system underwent numerous evolutions as they went through the process of determining what they value, and set about the issue of defining it - their unique, national climbing ethos and identity was only strengthened by this process.
I am not particularly motivated to see routes retrobolted or regraded, or our grading system radically overhauled (utmost respect due to John Ewbank - what a legend), but the simple point was that an objective measure of the difficulty and boldness of climbs would go a long way in Australian climbing, for the reasons I have listed in the previous threads.. |