Found this on rec.climbing (referring to Neil Bentley's new route, Equilibrium at Burbage). Thought it might spark a bit of debate...
It's a hard route, and a fine accomplishment. Headpointing isn't that great a style, however, and 14d/9a/V14 is a tad bit harder than E10 7a in most peoples' books.
Matt Heason wrote in message <8a5dqb$si...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>... >Found this on rec.climbing (referring to Neil Bentley's new route, >Equilibrium at Burbage). Thought it might spark a bit of debate...
>It's a hard route, and a fine accomplishment. Headpointing isn't that great >a style, however, and 14d/9a/V14 is a tad bit harder than E10 7a in most >peoples' books.
>Headpointing isn't that great a style, however, and 14d/9a/V14 is a tad bit harder >than E10 7a in most peoples' books.
Couldn't agree more. Headpointing is not traditional style, and in terms of physical difficulty, Equilibrium is frankly rather passe. Sure, climbers have always indulged in a bit of pre-practise e.g. Arthur Dolphin t.roping Wall of Horrors, Joe Brown t.roping Great Slab, but they didn't spend months flailing on the same sequence of moves. Head-pointing doesn't advance traditional standards, it is an alternative to traditional style. If someone of Bentley's abilities wanted to do something trad, he could go and have a bash at leading ground-up some of the steep, safe-ish E8s around e.g. Reservoir Dogs, Nightmayer, Dalriada - that would be an advance. Remember, the British adjectival grading system is only relevant for on-sight ascents. It is meaningless to say someone has head-pointed E10. Bold F8b+ perhaps ?
> Couldn't agree more. Headpointing is not traditional style, and in > terms of physical difficulty, Equilibrium is frankly rather passe. > Sure, climbers have always indulged in a bit of pre-practise e.g. > Arthur Dolphin t.roping Wall of Horrors, Joe Brown t.roping Great Slab, > but they didn't spend months flailing on the same sequence of moves. > Head-pointing doesn't advance traditional standards, it is an > alternative to traditional style. > If someone of Bentley's abilities wanted to do something trad, he > could go and have a bash at leading ground-up some of the steep, > safe-ish E8s around e.g. Reservoir Dogs, Nightmayer, Dalriada - that > would be an advance. > Remember, the British adjectival grading system is only relevant for > on-sight ascents. It is meaningless to say someone has head-pointed E10. > Bold F8b+ perhaps ?
You'e obviously trying to wind people up so you won;t get much of a rise from me, but this is exactly the reason why a few people have suggested the idea that we use a 'new' grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope practice - the 'T' grade. Thus Neil would say that he had climbed T10 7a. It would be clear that he had top roped the route first. To claim that one has climbed E9 or E10 one would have to onsight the route. One letter could provide a fairly decent amount of information regarding the ascent.
> You'e obviously trying to wind people up so you won;t get much of a rise > from me, but this is exactly the reason why a few people have suggested the > idea that we use a 'new' grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope > practice - the 'T' grade. Thus Neil would say that he had climbed T10 7a. It > would be clear that he had top roped the route first. To claim that one has > climbed E9 or E10 one would have to onsight the route. One letter could > provide a fairly decent amount of information regarding the ascent.
> I like the idea anyway.
Nope. It just won't work. First ascentionists just won't adopt it 'cos psychologically they're admitting that it's an "inferior" ascent. Although personally, I think that a headpoint/worked ascent involves a lot more effort than an onsight ascent and just as much committment. An onsight is all about uncertainty on unfamiliar ground - rarely done at a person's absolute physical limit but frequently at a psychological limit. Headpoints on the other hand are about uncertainty over whether a route can be physically done and trying to not think about the potential consequences of a failure that can too easily happen. In my eyes, both styles of ascent are equally as valid. Back to your point about a new grade though. Perhaps, seeing as we are now very much stuck with E grades (I can't see T grades being applied to existing routes retroactively), they should be left as is, and a OS suffix factored in and applied to onsight ascents. This would make news of new E6s & E7s interesting again. Rather than the slightly ridiculous situation we find ourselves in now, where E9 is passe, where, to be newsworthy, an ascent has to be an E10 when not many more E9s are in existence. It's also means that existing routes, done as headpoints, could be "upgraded" when a subsequent ascensionist onsighted it.
>You're obviously trying to wind people up so you won't get much of a rise
from me...a few people have suggested the idea that we use a 'new' grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope practice - the 'T' grade.
My view is that head-pointing is not worth grading at all - it's a waste of time. Dogging a route for a long time is poor style and one will improve faster by trying a wide variety of routes at or just beyond one's current on-sight level.
I guess it comes down to whether one wants to become a specialist at one style or remain versatile.
Why? This is type of statement is quite routinely trundled out, but never seems to be challenged. What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic? You'll find very few people capable of the highest grades who don't subscribe to headpointing. Even those climbers considered the greatest onsighters in the country aren't averse to working routes. Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that headpointing is such a devalued form of ascent.
> >You're obviously trying to wind people up so you won't get much of a rise > from me...a few people have suggested the idea that we use a 'new' > grading system for ascents done with prior Top Rope practice - the 'T' > grade.
> My view is that head-pointing is not worth grading at all - it's a waste > of time. Dogging a route for a long time is poor style and one will > improve faster by trying a wide variety of routes at or just beyond > one's current on-sight level.
> I guess it comes down to whether one wants to become a specialist at one > style or remain versatile.
> My view is that head-pointing is not worth grading at all - it's a waste > of time. Dogging a route for a long time is poor style and one will > improve faster by trying a wide variety of routes at or just beyond > one's current on-sight level.
Rubbish.
Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few decades? My guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett, McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc. Now ask yourself how many of them don't headpoint? None of 'em
Bad style is to top rope a route and then not bother to lead / solo it. All this serves to do is polish and wear the route for those who would like to lead / solo it.
If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent on sight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10, one or two E8's and only a handful of E7's. In fact we wouldn't have that many E6's either. That would be progress!
In article <8a681s$qq...@supernews.com>, "Mark Tolver" <mark.tol...@match-systems.com> wrote:
> Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that headpointing > is such a devalued form of ascent.
Possibly for the reasons stated earlier. All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't apply to them!
We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
> We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
I seem to remember it was sommat to do with End of the Affair at Curbar, where after Hard Grit had been released, there'd been a few contenders, one of whom had lobbed off whacking himself quite hard. Another had turned up and burned it off without much fuss, this inheriting the disdain of his elders.
> > Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that > headpointing > > is such a devalued form of ascent.
> Possibly for the reasons stated earlier. > All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves > associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where > it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't > apply to them!
> We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
What and who are you on about? There are currently (as far as I am aware) 3 E10's, Divided Years, Rewind & Equilibrium. The first was put up by John Dunne. It isn;t on grit and he doesn't live in Sheffield. The second was put up by Mark Edwards. It isn't on grit and he doesn't live in Sheffield. The third was put up by Neil Bentley. It is on grit and he does live in Sheffield.
As for E9's sure there are a hand full of them on gritstone as there are elsewhere in the country.
Before posting Neil's (Bentley) and Adrian's (Berry) ascents on our website I spoke to them both. Neither were happy at giving a grade for the route because of the criticism it was bound to attract. However, had they done what Jerry Moffat did for Samson and refuse to grade it that atracts criticism too. They can't win. Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
What do you mean: I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good
> climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't > apply to them!
If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard grade, why shouldn't it apply to them? The only people who are qualified to up or downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in question. If you have a hard time accepting that there are hard routes out there and that there are people who can climb them, go and climb them yourself and speak to those people before you so openly criticise them.
> > We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb > > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who > > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way > > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in > > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style > > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
> As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are > referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
Check out http://x44.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=413484075&CONTEXT=952604365.1618018316&hitnum=1
>Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few decades? My guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett, McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc. Now ask yourself how many of them don't headpoint? None of 'em
Get your facts straight. Fawcett led Master's Edge after an abseil inpection. Dawes led Indian Face after a couple of t. rope ascents. Moffatt did some hard on-sights in the states when he was a teenager. These standard-setting ascents weren't head-points. Moon is a good red-pointer and what trad standards has he broken? None.
As for the other folk, what standards have they set? None.
Don't get me wrong, these others are good climbers, but they haven't pushed any limits apart from personal ones.
>If everyone was to have stuck to climbing to just below their curent onsight level we wouldn;t have a single E9 or E10<
Read my post, I suggested people stick to trying routes at or just beyond their on-sight ability (i.e. just above, not below). My argument is that at present we do not have any E9s or E10s, all we have are E7s and 'T8s', 'T9s' and 'T10s'. Progress would be for someone to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or two t.roped ascents.
Mark wrote:
>What's so wrong with the headpoint ethic?...Even those climbers considered the greatest onsighters in the country aren't averse to working routes...why do you think that headpointing is such a devalued form of ascent.<
1. It doesn't transfer to other styles e.g. routes too long to be t.roped (head-pointing won't improve your ability in the Dolomites or Yosemite)
2. It's slow (several days per route instead of several routes per day)
3. It shows a severe lack of vision, ambition and patience: Every good line you siege is one you can't on-sight. It would be feeble to decide to yourself that you aren't going to get any better in the future and therefore may as well siege a route, instead of putting in a bit of effort towards improving first.
Think how many brilliant routes there are around the world, plus all the lines waiting to be done. Can you really afford the time to spend days and weeks on just one route?
> In article <8a681s$qq...@supernews.com>, > "Mark Tolver" <mark.tol...@match-systems.com> wrote:
> > Okay, an onsight might be the ideal, but why do you think that > headpointing > > is such a devalued form of ascent.
> Possibly for the reasons stated earlier. > All of These Sheffield\Hard Grit bods are desperate to get themselves > associated with the highest grades possible - E9\E10 who knows where > it'll stop. I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't > apply to them!
This is the point I was making earlier. Whether you're arsed about the onsighting element of the grade or not, we're stuck with E grades as the standard system and it isn't going to change. However, if more was made of subsequent on-sight ascents, such as including such information in guidebooks, or maybe even allowing an onsight ascentionist to change the name of a route, then it would encourage the best climbers to attempt hard onsights more frequently. However, I do think that your last statement demeans the phenomenal effort put into these new routes. There is a limit to how strong climbers can get, and I think we're approaching those limits. I find it hard to imagine that something like Equilibrium will ever see an onsight ascent, and if that being the case, how is the first (headpoint) ascentionist supposed to grade it, if in your view, the E10 grade doesn't apply to them.
In article <8a84h7$dj...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>, "Matt Heason" <m...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> What and who are you on about?
What bit didn't you understand arsehole?
snip - some handwringing angst from the Hard Grit boys about giving their routes high grades
> Remember when John Dunne put up Parthian Shot > and graded it XS? Look at the criticism that atracted.
For the life of me I can't think why I'd forget something that memorable.
> As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are > referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
You obviously have no Idea. However that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
> What do you mean: > I don't doubt for a minute that they're all very good > > climbers but none of them as far as I've seen or heard are quick to > > point out that the E9\10 grade of their recent first ascent doesn't > > apply to them!
Because - as you are quick to point out here and elsewhere - the E9\E10 applies only to onsight ascents of which there have so far been how many?
None.
Therefore, how many E9/E10s are there?
None.
> If they have climbed a hard route that they think deserves a hard >grade, why shouldn't it apply to them?
Because they haven't climbed it in the style to which the hard grade refers?
>The only people who are qualified to up or > downgrade a route are those who have climbed the route in question.
I think Ben moon would disagree with you.
However I'm not interested in upgrading or downgrading anything. ( I'd make an exception were I asked about the quality of your education)
What I would question is the motivation of those who claim to have "put up" an E10 without also publicising that they did not do the route in a style that would warrant that grade.
> If you have a hard time accepting that there are hard routes out there >and that there are people who can climb them, go and climb them >yourself and speak to > those people before you so openly criticise them.
In article <8a84l4$dj...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>, "Matt Heason" <m...@climbuk.com> wrote:
> So name an E9 or E10 that has been onsighted. > Matt
There aren't any. Therefore there arent any E9s orE10s If there are, there's an E15 just up the road from me Mothers house. It hasn't been done either.
Matt Heason wrote: > Ask yourself who has been pushing standards over the last few decades? My > guess is you will come up with names like Moon, Moffatt, Dawes, Fawcett, > McClure, Bentley, Dunne etc etc.
> Progress would be for someone >to climb an E8 (i.e. onsight) or to climb a 'T9/10' after only one or >two t.roped ascents.
Though I seem to remember (from a recent thread) that Dawes hadn't been able to do Indian Face on toprope, so he set off to lead it so as to get that extra incentive to do it. So although it wasn't on-sight it certainly would count as "after only one or two [or in this case none!] t.roped ascents".
I agree with you there. I've just read the old post by seb that was linked to in matts post. It says that neil gresham fell off meshuga low down and smacked his head (hospital). He also said about a bloke who soloed knockin' on heavens door cos' he thought the lead was contrived. I know someone who climbs with this bloke who says he's really good, but i've also heard hes off his trolley (no surprise). He is a good climber but there are alot of climbers in shef who are prepared to take risks but forget to think that risks have bad results if you don't beat them into submission. I have a friend who solos everything below about E5 E6 when he'll get a bit worried and tie the rope round his waste. (He wants to do masters edge) Hes goo but also a complete loon, Theres alot of people who have a similar attitude. I was at froggatt last year and saw an old sheffield student top roping beau geste and just about toucihng the top out. He climbed it in a very desperate style but went back and led it straight away. He fell off the crux with two bomber friends placed as a side runner to protect the lead (completely off route) he fell and swung having to pick his legs up on the way down. There are alot of stupid climbers about who don't think about how they would cope with major injuries. The sheffield scene encourages very bold desperatew climbing but with no discussion of the risks that are being taken. With the top climbers being technicians who have honed there skills on sport routes with the abilitie to climb the routes they put up. The pretenders though are just crag rats like me who just push through the grades as fast as they can to acheive a numbered success. Theres something very wrong with the egos in the peak and with the lack of good judgement by those trying to emulate the greats. The peak district is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous places to fall off from since the ground is always so near. To avoid decking takes alot of skill and planning as well as steady nerve whilst on the sharp end. It's not as if you take a factor fall onto your belay. You take a factor one and you get injured! I currently have: one friend with a broken arm after falling off a climb. I don't knoew what it was but i know it was well above his level one friend with two broken ankles when he bennied on a VS and kept climbing with no gear. I've a friend who saw his housemate dyno the crux of artless. Go past the slap and hit the ground. He fell between two bouldering mats and broke his ankle. I expect everyone knows of others.
I think seb has a valid point in his oold post which should be heeded.
Matt Schofield wrote in message <38C797BB.6DCFB...@sco.deletethisbit.com>... >Matt Heason wrote:
>> > We had an illustration of the attitude last year where we had Dave\Seb >> > or whatever the fuck he calls himself these days telling youngsers who >> > have stolen a bit of his thunder that they shouldn't be climbing the way >> > they were. I can't even remember the lad's name nor the route in >> > question, but the point was that he had done the route in better style >> > than Seb\Dave and Seb\Dave didn't like it!!!!
>> As for this Seb/Dave person I have no idea what 'youngster' you are >> referring to that he gave a ticking off to.
>Check out >http://x44.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=413484075&CONTEXT=952604365.161 8018316&hitnum=1
