Darth grader and G,PG,R,X ratings

I have seen PG here and there, even on mountain project.

I think it’s good etiquette to highlight the “safer” climbs for the newer climbers. I could get behind seeing G, PG and PG13 used more frequently.

My main hope would be that it would stop folks complaining about how far apart the bolts are (on every single route ever) if they could just know the suggested “safety” rating ahead of time.

it would be interesting to see a long term consensus of safety ratings for various routes.

Could spark just as much controversy as the meaning of 5.10(plus) or (minus)  

Then there could be the inevitable inflation over time where the G’s become PG’s, PG13’s become R’s and the true R’s and X’s become hard to search out. Or we extend to X+ and X++ or Xa/b/c/d. Lol

None of us actually knows what the F is going to break a bone or kill someone with any fantastic degree of certainty. Hank was right about this. Leave it at pg13 and R and X. Beyond that we have no idea and even these numbers are a wild ass guess when extrapolated to specific injuries, like someone was doing above (“from this distance you shall fall and break your femur but not your tibia”). Riiiiiiight. 

@Jon Clark honestly curious to hear from you if you've done both routes, from the comfort of my couch it doesn't seem like they're *that* different in seriousness profile. I have done FZ but only looked at the BY from the ground. The runouts on the BY are longer, but they're also on bolts without any risk of ground fall. On Forbidden Zone, the crux gear isn't ideal and if it rips you're looking at potentially decking from 60ft up. I would guess that the fact that BY's runouts are significantly more sustained causes it to be much more mentally taxing, which opens up an interesting conversation about whether the "sustainedness" of a routes' seriousness should factor into its overall seriousness rating (sounds familiar!)

szheng wrote:

@Jon Clark honestly curious to hear from you if you've done both routes, from the comfort of my couch it doesn't seem like they're *that* different in seriousness profile. I have done FZ but only looked at the BY from the ground. The runouts on the BY are longer, but they're also on bolts without any risk of ground fall. On Forbidden Zone, the crux gear isn't ideal and if it rips you're looking at potentially decking from 60ft up. I would guess that the fact that BY's runouts are significantly more sustained causes it to be much more mentally taxing, which opens up an interesting conversation about whether the "sustainedness" of a routes' seriousness should factor into its overall seriousness rating (sounds familiar!)

I've done both routes and will reiterate that FZ is child's play in comparison.

Jon Clark wrote:

I've done both routes and will reiterate that FZ is child's play in comparison.

If there is such a large gap, it doesn't make sense for them to have the same R rating. Do you think FZ should be "downgraded" to PG13, or BY "upgraded" to X? In my view neither are fully appropriate given the definition of X as "dying or maimed is a serious possibility in the event of a fall". (Also want to re-emphasize we are just talking about pitch 2 here)

I personally feel that adding another gradation makes more sense - R/X could be used to describe routes like BY (and probably To Be or Not to Be) while leaving X to the truly "death" routes. A revised "seriousness" grading scale might go something like:

G - Safe

PG13 - Heads up. More scary than dangerous.

R - Risky. Ankle breaking fall exposure is limited to brief sections of the route or marginally protected.

R/X - Dangerous. Large portions of the route feature ankle-breaking exposure or limited exposure to more serious injury.

X - "Death" route; rope and protection is mostly psychological

I'm not interested in legislating finer gradations, Xa/b/c/d, or any of that nonsense. Sure, someone can always come along and argue for why their 7 point scale system better captures the underlying reality than this one. But I think it's worth it to at least try to get people on the same page as to what we're talking about, otherwise what's the point of using ratings for anything in the first place? When a climb is R-rated, someone who has done many R rated routes of a similar tech grade shouldn't come down from it thinking, "wow that was an ocean of difference in seriousness."

The inventors of the YDS literally wrote a paper to describe it and how it breaks down. They talk about how many sustained moves without rest should factor into the difficulty vs a one move wonder etc. You can read the publicatiion in Steve Roper's camp 4 book.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Disagree. E grades are overall grades, so do include the seriousness/danger aspect, but for them to be useful, they need to be ( and almost always are) accompanied by a number grade for the technical difficulty alone, i.e.; a route rated E5, 6a would be roughly the same technical difficulty of a route rated E3, 6a, but likely to be significantly more 'serious'.

Ah I see Americans still don't understand E grades. 

E for extreme, E for endurance, E for exposure

E5 6a could just as well mean it's super sustained and well protected. 

That E grade could also be bumped up for generally being more serious, such as a big mountain route or seacliff route that is difficult to escape. It can even be ramped up for things like roofs and headwalls that add a feeling of seriousness even if they don't add technical difficulties or danger. 

E grades are flawed in that they try to do too much, they work well enough when you can stand at the base of a 14m bit of grit and see every single hold, or grading a large mountain ascent in a similar way alpine grades work. But outside that they're a bit crap. 

Let's not even begin to talk about the compression in the top end caused by overly macho elitism in the 80s and 90s.

The American g, pg, r, x system is beautifully simple and intuitive, you can tell this because whenever people post on MP how they feel its confusing and give more or less the same meaning as everyone else who has talked about it or been "confused" by it. It is also written at the start of guide books, X and R sections are written on topos, it's a great system. Sadly useless for the uk as almost everything we have that isn't a crack is R rated and virtually nothing X rated. 

that guy named seb wrote:

Ah I see Americans still don't understand E grades. 

E for extreme, E for endurance, E for exposure

E5 6a could just as well mean it's super sustained and well protected. 

That E grade could also be bumped up for generally being more serious, such as a big mountain route or seacliff route that is difficult to escape. It can even be ramped up for things like roofs and headwalls that add a feeling of seriousness even if they don't add technical difficulties or danger. 

E grades are flawed in that they try to do too much, they work well enough when you can stand at the base of a 14m bit of grit and see every single hold, or grading a large mountain ascent in a similar way alpine grades work. But outside that they're a bit crap. 

Let's not even begin to talk about the compression in the top end caused by overly macho elitism in the 80s and 90s.

The American g, pg, r, x system is beautifully simple and intuitive, you can tell this because whenever people post on MP how they feel its confusing and give more or less the same meaning as everyone else who has talked about it or been "confused" by it. It is also written at the start of guide books, x sections are written on topos, it's a great system. Sadly useless for the uk as almost everything we have that isn't a crack is R rated and virtually nothing X rated. 

No even remotely functional grading system so far devised accurately 'captures' all the potential variables. In the early '70s, Colorado climber Harvey T. Carter ( the editor/publisher of the original version of Climbing magazine) proffered what he called the Universal Grading System, which had a combination of 5 or 6 or more (forget how many) letters and numbers per grade in an effort to quantify all such variables. The system was so complicated that it was 'still-born'---only being used for a brief time by Carter in his publication and never gaining acceptance in the wider climbing community.

As for the E-grades ( and other UK adjectives ), it is usually pretty apparent when looking at a route whether it is graded for being serious or being sustained. Additionally, this distinction can ( and often is) be clarified by a word or two in the  route  description.

But, we can see that you are not being serious here, when you wrote that in the UK "virtually nothing (is) X rated".

Alan Rubin wrote:

No even remotely functional grading system so far devised accurately 'captures' all the potential variables. In the early '70s, Colorado climber Harvey T. Carter ( the editor/publisher of the original version of Climbing magazine) proffered what he called the Universal Grading System, which had a combination of 5 or 6 or more (forget how many) letters and numbers per grade in an effort to quantify all such variables. The system was so complicated that it was 'still-born'---only being used for a brief time by Carter in his publication and never gaining acceptance in the wider climbing community.

That's why you just put an R next to the run out on the topo, trying to capture the complexities of a route with just a string of numbers and numbers is fruitless. It's why the E grades often confuses people. 

As for the E-grades ( and other UK adjectives ), it is usually pretty apparent when looking at a route whether it is graded for being serious or being sustained. Additionally, this distinction can ( and often is) be clarified by a word or two in the  route  description.

This only works for shorter single pitch routes though, as soon as you go into the real of multipitch it stops working, is that a perfect splitter finger crag on that head wall or is it actually a slabbed out micro crack that is technically easy but only protected by micros both could be the same e and tech grade. 

But, we can see that you are not being serious here, when you wrote that in the UK "virtually nothing (is) X rated".

It's true that very little in the uk is x rated, much of what may have previously been x rated is now simple bouldered with half a dozen pads, routes like ulysese bow which definitely would have bought risk of serious injury when first onsight solo'd by Moffat is now just another highball. Pads have made a lot of British climbing much safer as has the use of skyhooks in the top end. Sure there are some death routes, especially on slate, but most is just R rated ankle breaker territory.

Don't think pads would make much difference on the sea cliffs ( Lleyn, Culm, etc.) or on Cloggy, or other big cliffs in Wales, the Lakes, Scotland--all of which have a significant number of routes that would get an 'X' here. I also think that, in most circumstances, the 'protection' provided by hooks is more illusory than actual.

saign charlestein wrote:

The inventors of the YDS literally wrote a paper to describe it and how it breaks down. They talk about how many sustained moves without rest should factor into the difficulty vs a one move wonder etc. You can read the publicatiion in Steve Roper's camp 4 book.

I would be very interested in reading this "paper" that you mentioned ( and I have a very vague memory of once--long ago--seeing something like that), but in a ( admittedly brief) look through Roper's Camp 4, I was unable to locate it. Can you point me more specifically where to find it?

Alan Rubin wrote:

Don't think pads would make much difference on the sea cliffs ( Lleyn, Culm, etc.) or on Cloggy, or other big cliffs in Wales, the Lakes, Scotland--all of which have a significant number of routes that would get an 'X' here. I also think that, in most circumstances, the 'protection' provided by hooks is more illusory than actual.

People get caught by hooks surprisingly often. 

And there you have stumbled onto the reason why these big routes aren't generally actually that dangerous, they're big! It's much harder to take big ground falls than little ground falls as generally something will catch you, even something like once upon a time in the south West or the monster whips on lexicon, run out and poorly protected yet they take falls without incident.

Not saying there aren't death routes, but they're few and far between and generally not super hard. Even routes such as elder statesman e7 7b which has seen a rope get cut, this was originally done with 3 ropes because of it. Avoiding death or serious injury is very manageable in the uk weather that's 3 ropes a fat stack of pads or a side runner. Gaia is another example of very manageable risk. 

Czek sandstone on the other hand virtually every route is atleast R/X or X rated. 

that guy named seb wrote:

The American g, pg, r, x system is beautifully simple and intuitive, you can tell this because whenever people post on MP how they feel its confusing and give more or less the same meaning as everyone else who has talked about it or been "confused" by it. It is also written at the start of guide books, X and R sections are written on topos, it's a great system. Sadly useless for the uk as almost everything we have that isn't a crack is R rated and virtually nothing X rated. 

Interesting, I disagree with this and have advocated(in my mind lol) for the adoption of the E-grades as the universal trad system. V scale for boulders, font for sport, and E for trad. I think there is simplicity in the US system, but like any form of subjective grading, the gear ratings differ wildly, and I think it matters to encapsulate the whole experience. Where is the gear in relation to where you are most likely to fall, how is the quality of it, how is the fall if you take it, etc etc. The E system seems to account for that, at least in the lower end, where even soloing a lowly graded route can only get a certain number of E-grading.

Gear ratings are supposed to only apply to onsight attempts, but even in that vein, I've headpointed R-rated routes that I wish I tried to onsight because the gear was obvious and fairly standard. I've also headpointed R-rated routes which required hooks, ballnuts, half-nuts, offsets and racks of specialty gear you'd never carry on an onsight unless you were a crazy person. 

To provide some real-life examples from my home-crag with the same YDS and Gear rating

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).

No Solution 12a X, guaranteed deathfall potential through 5.9 climbing. The first half of this route feels like a solo and requires specialty gear. You have some OK gear for an 11d roof down low, which may only hold because if you fell you'd be so close to it. The upper cruxes, the actual 5.12 stuff, G with some further fall potential but no actual injury risk.

The Summer 12a X, the SECOND half of this route feels like a solo. The crux is off the ground and then the next 50 feet is mid .11. For the upper stuff, you get a wonky offset, a horrific nut in a flake guaranteed to break, and some shallow and janky cams in a pocketed, flaring horizontal. The upper cams are a 1 out of 5 in terms of confidence. This route feels like soloing 5.11, a significant step-up in commitment compared to a route like To Be. I'd rather take my chances whipping on to the #2 of To Be, from 20 feet above it, then whipping onto the cams on this route if they were at my face height, because if those cams go, you're grounding from 50 feet.

They're all 12a X, but that doesn't tell you anything about the experience of leading them(other than "don't try to onsight this"), and if I had to choose which one I'd never want to lead again, it would be the summer, though no solution is the only one with guaranteed deathfall. I'm sure all of these routes would get a different E-grade(whatever that might be), which could perhaps tell you a bit more about whatever you're in for.

Eric Marx wrote:

I'm sure all of these routes would get a different E-grade(whatever that might be), which could perhaps tell you a bit more about whatever you're in for.

I'm not convinced that the E grades would be any better, and perhaps would be even more muddled. For the examples you've given, have a try at proposing E grades to see if that seems any better.

And those Gunks routes are quite British in nature - runout face climbing headpoints. So that's the US terrain where E grades are most suited. For physical granite crack climbing on the West Coast, I'd much rather have a YDS grade.

For any grading scale, you can only get so much detail and none will be perfect. Ultimately you need a narrative description or annotated topo to get the desired level of detail. A topo that notes one section as 5.12a G and a later section as 5.9 X -- that's the way you really get that info (and I think YDS with R/X ratings is a better way to give this section breakdown, vs the more holistic E grades).

I have no idea, so these are totally made up, but the progression of seriousness for me would be To Be, No Solution, The Summer, so((totally made up) E4 6a, E5 6a and E6 6a? So you at least know they arent quite the same in terms of approach. Or whatever the accurate technical UK grade would be.

It seems a bunch of cracks of the same difficulty wouldn't be affected by the gear rating so if you understand the technical grading it would give the same exact info as .12G. Like if i gave a font grade for a trad route, or a YDS grade. Why any preference for YDS, other than it's the one you know the best?

Some gunksapp routes annotate like that 5.10G 5.8R, definitely helpful for onsighting, if the info doesn't blow the onsight!

Eric, One comment on your proposal. You suggested using 'font grades' for sport routes, but I think you meant French 'sport grades'. While they superficially look similar, 'font' grades, denoted by a lower case 'f', are bouldering grades, as implied by the title, while 'sport' grades are indicated by an upper case 'F'. The same number as a font grade will be substantially harder than as a sport grade; I.e., an f6a will be much harder that an F6a ( as I clearly learned from personal experience !!!). In Europe very occasionally you will see a font grade on a roped route--usually a very short one, but by far the majority of routes will have the F 'sport' grade, though the 'F' is frequently left off the grade.

Yes, french.

Has the entire world adopted my proposal yet lol

Eric Marx wrote:

I have no idea, so these are totally made up, but the progression of seriousness for me would be To Be, No Solution, The Summer, so((totally made up) E4 6a, E5 6a and E6 6a? So you at least know they arent quite the same in terms of approach. Or whatever the accurate technical UK grade would be.

It seems a bunch of cracks of the same difficulty wouldn't be affected by the gear rating so if you understand the technical grading it would give the same exact info as .12G. Like if i gave a font grade for a trad route, or a YDS grade. Why any preference for YDS, other than it's the one you know the best?

Not quite the same info. The tech grade portion of the E grade system is weird since it is just a "hardest move" rating and doesn't include eudurance/pump factors. To quote the BMC:

"The second part of the grade, the technical grade, is there to give an indication of the hardest move to be found on the route, irrespective of how many of them there might be, how strenuous it is, or how frightened you are when you do it."

So the tech grade does not contain the same information as a YDS or French grade, nor does it contain the same resolution for indicating the physical difficulty. The endurance factor is mixed up with the danger factor. This isn't that useful when trying to differentiae between two long pitches. They might have the same level of hardest move (the tech grade), but one gets a higher E grade. Is that because the one with the higher E grade is more sustained, or does it have a runout? I'd rather have a YDS grade to tell me the overall physical difficulty (combination of moves and pump), and then danger separately (G, R, X, etc).

In other words, the E grade groups pump with danger, and grades hardest move separately. Whereas the YDS (plus G, R, X) groups pump with difficulty of moves, and grades danger separately. The latter system (YDS) is way more useful for the sort of trad climbing we have in the western US.

Another problem with E grades is you can grade-chase by taking on more risk. This encourages some dangerous behavior, especially by up and coming young climbers.

In the YDS, if you want to climb a new grade of trad route (your first 13a trad route), the only way to do that is by finding something physically/technically harder; danger is separate. This encourages up and coming, grade chasing climbers to seek out safe routes and push themselves physically. But if you want to climb your first E8, for many climbers the fastest way to get there is choose a physically easier but dangerous route of the grade. You increase your grade by accepting more risk, rather than having to level up physically. This absolutely impacts the decision making of ambitious climbers (see young James Pearson in his early grit phase, as an example).

It all depends on your value system in climbing, but I prefer the incentive structure that the YDS creates. Less encouragement for young climbers to off themselves in pursuit of the next grade.

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.