Forum: GLOBAL / Articles / Grade conversion updated E-grades Login in to contribute
Grade conversion updated E-grades
  2008-10-30 00:00:00    
Read article: Grade conversion updated E-grades
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-19 21:09:34    
this made me laugh, its been shown time and time again that 8a has no understanding of the e-grade what so ever, why do you bother? these amendments are complete nonsense
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-19 22:47:40    
You should bare in mind that UKclimbing actually changed their grade conversion after 8a told them their was wrong.

You should also bare in mind that the E-grade conversion is a British invention that have been copied, in that old and wrong conversion, they usually suggested.

If we would have used the old ones, the British trad guys would have been superior, doing 9a's when the rest of the world fight with 8b's.

So please, explain what is wrong with the 8a one that make you laugh...we might update it.
OffLine Dominic Green
  2009-11-20 01:15:32    
as a rough rule of thumb - seems ok
OffLine Graeme Alderson
  2009-11-20 01:17:11    
If you understood the E grade system you would know why we are laughing ;-)
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 08:54:53    

Uk climbing has changed their E-conversion because of 8a.

Please inform us what is wrong with our conversion and we will update it.

OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-20 08:58:49    
Indeed. I think the E grade is fine for those who use it, it doesn't cross over in a nice linear fashion, nor does it need to. I also think it's a bonus that it doesn't score points. Have you climbed in the Uk Jens?
Btw am I being dense or reading correctly that you equate french8a with font 8a?
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-20 10:48:24    

jens, as u hav expressed a seemingly genuine interest i will try and explain a little.

You should also bare in mind that the E-grade conversion is a British invention

Im british so fully aware who invented it thanks :P

Firstly the e-grade (as has probably been explained to u before) does not measure only the technical/physical difficulty of the route, it measures the overall difculty, taking into account, technical/physical difficulty, exposure and danger, there for any one e-grade is never going to corelate directly to any one french grade. any correlation is going to be staggered across a number of french grades depending on wether it is a physically difficult route or a mentally difficult/dangerous route. if it is a physically difficult route it will correspond to a higher french grade, a dangerous to a low french grade.
if we take e5 as an example;
e5 5c would in most instances be a very dangerous and exposed route, probably with a french grade of 6b +or-
e5 7a would be very safe but hard, 7c or harder
i think u just need to accept that e-grades dont fit in to the 8a.nu scorecard system and leave it at that.

Uk climbing has changed their E-conversion because of 8a.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/databases/crags/comptable.html

the 2 conversion tables on here are nothing like the one shown on 8a, and seem considerably more accurate to me, also the rockfax table shows the difference between safe and bold. u will notice both show the staggered correlation i mentioned.


If we would have used the old ones, the British trad guys would have been superior, doing 9a's when the rest of the world fight with 8b's

spoken by somebody who has no idea how much effort, ability, and commitment it takes to climb e9
if u look at the amount of people operating at this level u might think it an equivelent achievement to climbing 8c+/9a
most e9 climbers operate at a high standard in bouldering/sportclimbing or both. u need too in order to have a little room to spare when climbing hard technical moves in a dangerous situation. very few people headpoint hard e-grades near their physical limits, those that do have the mental strength, focus and tenacity found in top mountaineers.

hope this gives u food for thought

(still giggling slightly)

adam

OffLine Tim Watt
  2009-11-20 11:58:37    
You've left off the other half of the British grading system, what about

Mod, Dif, HDif, VDif, HVDif, Severe, Hard Severe, Very Severe, Hard Very Severe and E1

Please could you put these in your table as your are obviously the expert on the British grading system.

Another giggling Englishman
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-20 12:52:02    

jens,a couple of other points before u reply;

if yor struggling to report ascents of e-graded routes in a way that people unfamiliar with the system will understand (a point i can understand). (I presume this is yor problem as i dont imagine many people are trying to log hard e-grades as french grades via a comparisson table.)

when reporting, why dont u seek some local knowledge or reference some british sites.
an example would be;
Equilibrium e10 7a
instead of trying to express this route with a french grade, you cud describe it thus;
A tenuous font 7c+ boulder problem section ends with a blind slap around the arete, which may or may not result in a 10m ground fall! this leads to easier but still tricky climbing protected only by a poor cam in a pocket.

this kind of description should be understandable to most climbers along with how impressive it is to make an ascent of a route of this nature.

Also in yor comparison table u hav a french route/boulder column which suggests that the french route grade and font boulder scales are equal. (dont know if this is how its supposed to be interpreted but this is how it comes across to me, and judging by his coment to Dan Peter also) It suggests that v15 is equal to french 8c, which obviously it isnt.

And as pointed out by trad man there are numerous grades beneath e1

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 14:25:23    
UKclimbing have changed their grade conversion after we told them that the old one suggested that the British guys were indeed trading 9a and 9b.

I am not an expert but I do understand that the British can NOT be superior to the rest of the world in the trad game. 
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-20 14:43:06    

Jens, would you mind reading adam's and trad man's posts again...... then really read them again. They are genuinely trying to help you....
 
"I am not an expert but I do understand that the British can NOT be superior to the rest of the world in the trad game"  How do you quantify such a statement? is it your extensive experience of Uk trad? I am genuinely interested.

Also are the boulder and route supposed to correlate as your table is suggesting ?

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 14:52:18    
Ukclimbing has invented the E-conversion, in order to compare E10 to a french grade etc.

This is NOT an 8a idea, it is an idea from UKclimbing.

The old but false E-conversion suggested that British trad climbers did trad 9a and 9b. 8a told them that the E-conversion, that has been copied and used in most topos around the world, was false.

UKclimbing changed it based on this opinion on 8a.
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-20 15:08:22    
 What has Ukclimbing trying to make conversion tables have to do with yourself? I would hope they'd acknowledge it's not possible to be accurate in converting when you're grading different things...Adam explained this well... Have you read what he posted?
Would you mind answering my two questions
Have you climbed Uk trad?
Are the boulder and route supposed to correlate as your table is suggesting ?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 15:31:08    
If they UKclimbing say it is not possible, why do you think they created the E-conversion table.

I have climbed many trad routes but not in UK. But I understand to read conversion tables and it was because of my analyses they changed it. I was just surprised that nobody else did see that it was not correct.

Of course, an 8a route is NOT equally hard as an 8A boulder. This is so obvious so we did not mention this.
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-20 16:02:11    

"If they UKclimbing say it is not possible, why do you think they created the E-conversion table"
To wind you up maybe?
The answer to that question lies with the people of Ukclimbing and i'm not going to speak for them. Two wrongs do not make a right though. Besides, what is your motivation to try and make the two convert??

E grades do not directly correlate in a linear fashion with French grades. This is so obvious that i'm surprised it has to be mentioned....Brits understand this hence the giggling. If you climbed a little uk trad then things should be clearer.

I think you need to separate the boulder and route parts on the diagram so only the E grade part looks wrong rather than the boulder part too.
  

OffLine Tim Watt
  2009-11-20 16:31:34    
I can't really speak on behalf of UKC, but from my understanding the conversion table you didn't like showed a conversion for very safe trad climbs to french sports grades.  In this case I can easily see a very well protected E11 7b being 9b etc.

No British climber I think is saying they have done 9a on trad or that there E9 is 8c climbing.  They simply suggest a E grade of their route depending on how hard the moves are, the protection and danger element.

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 18:32:32    
@ Trad man: You have to register your name to be an 8a member. In ukclimbing they allow anonymous members but here we have higher standards.

The The E11 7a Rhapsody is now considered to be 8c. It must also be considered safe as climbers have taken 100 falles without any serious accidents.

I do not think that this route would have been considered a 9b trad route if it had a harder crux move.

The guys who created the E-conversion did actually say that an E10 could be as difficult as an 9a.

Because of 8a, they have no changed this conversion, as they did not know what they were talking about. 
OffLine Tim Watt
  2009-11-20 19:30:27    
Jen's I was only trying to give you a bit of the English Perspective on how our trad grading system works.  Currently there are very good conversion tables by Rockfax, the BMC and on UKC.  Your effort unfortunately doesn't help the picture at all.

You are welcome to deactivate me, I put an anonymous name as I'm not interested in waving my willy about what I climb.  But a sick little competitive side of me would like to register my ascents and see what I get.

To help you a bit more with your understanding of the E grade, take Indian Face the first E9.  Apparently ONLY 7b+, but death on a stick with snappy holds and blind moves!  Put that one on your comparison table.

Regards Rhapsody, I don't think taking 20m lobs (guess, I know they are big) is ever save, even more so on trad gear.  Dave McLeod smashed his foot up on it as well!

I can envisage an E10 being 9a.  Think a nails boulder start then bomber gear followed by very sustained English 7a climbing, maybe more bomber gear then an english 7b move at the top.  Reckon that should get at least 9a, be safe has houses and fit the E10 bracket nicely.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 20:17:09    
@ Tradman: You do not have to register routes to be a 8a member but I think it is lame that you do not dare to put a name behind your criticism towards me.

The "very good conversion tables by Rockfax and UKC" is actually because of me. Before they were not correct and therfor they changed them!

It is UKclimbing etc who put Indian face in the comparison table. This is NOT my invention but I reported that the old one was false.

As climbers have taken 100 falls on Rhapsody without any serioes injury, it must be considered as rather safe!

As the safe E11 Rhapsody gets a 8c grade I think you are wrong saying a E10 can be 9a?
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-20 22:29:11    

jens, did u read anything i posted?

u asked why yot table was wrong, i hav given u alot of information and suggestions with no reply.
instead u witter on like a schoolboy about how ui proved ukclimbing wrong etc.
earlier i was reading the forum on jens forum debates, i can see u either didnt read/understand or just chose to ignor the coments.
it must be an amazing feeling being able to go through life never wrong about anything.
its pointless trying to hold a discussion with u, its like talking to a stuborn child, i dont know if u hav low self esteem, a huge ego, little intelect, or u dont understand english very well but all yor responses to most topics seem to be;
I AM RIGHT
REPEAT SAME THING
I AM RIGHT REPEAT SAME THING

I can see yor point with rapsody however its perhaps not the entire gading scale thats wrong but the grade of rapsody. i think over time u may see this fall to the grade of e10 once its had enough ascents.


the very big and the very small was originally graded e9 and has 8c climbing on bolts, so a completely safe e10 would warrant a grade of at least 9a.


if yor going to make any response please read my posts from the start and respond point by point as anything else is just POINTLESS :P

OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-20 23:10:05    
ok instead of being irritated by your responses im going to structure this post to enable u to giv a structured reply.
if u really hav any interest in this discussion or in learning or improving 8a pls cut and paste these questions and reply to them, thanks;

do u understand how the e-grade system has a staggered correlation to the french system depending on wether the route is safe or dangerous?

what is yor motivation for wanting to accurately directly compare e-grades to other grading systems, is it to report news in  a way people can understand or is it related to the scorecard system?

The "very good conversion tables by Rockfax and UKC" is actually because of me. Before they were not correct and therfor they changed them!
then why dont u use it? its considerably more accurate than the one u are currently using.

Also in yor comparison table u hav a french route/boulder column which suggests that the french route grade and font boulder scales are equal. (dont know if this is how its supposed to be interpreted but this is how it comes across to me, and judging by his coment to Dan Peter also) It suggests that v15 is equal to french 8c, which obviously it isnt.
please respond!

If we would have used the old ones, the British trad guys would have been superior, doing 9a's when the rest of the world fight with 8b's

spoken by somebody who has no idea how much effort, ability, and commitment it takes to climb e9
if u look at the amount of people operating at this level u might think it an equivelent achievement to climbing 8c+/9a
most e9 climbers operate at a high standard in bouldering/sportclimbing or both. u need too in order to have a little room to spare when climbing hard technical moves in a dangerous situation. very few people headpoint hard e-grades near their physical limits, those that do have the mental strength, focus and tenacity found in top mountaineers

again pls respond, do you not think that an ascent of a route graded by any system should be assumed significant by its relative difficulty with its own grading system?

As the safe E11 Rhapsody gets a 8c grade I think you are wrong saying a E10 can be 9a?

do u think its accurate to change a comparison of grading scales based on one route which hasnt recieved enough ascents to form an accurate consensus and is thought by many to b debatable?

all for now




OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 23:18:55    

1. Of course I know how the E-onsight grade works in relation to danger.

2. I do not have any motivation to directely compare E-grades. I have just wanted to say that the old one used by Ukclimbing was false.

3. i still think the new UKclimbing conversion is wrong. As they changed it once because of me, they just might change it one more time.

4. I have already responded to the comparison between an 8a route and an 8A boulder.

5. The best trad climbers in the world grade their hardest ascents as 8b+. Why should the British be capable of climbing much harder than the rest of the world.

6. See above.

OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-20 23:42:02    

1. Of course I know how the E-onsight grade works in relation to danger.

yet yor comparison table doesnt reflect this, why? it shows an e-grade corresponds to potentially 2 french grades, wen in fact it cud be as much as 7.

2. I do not have any motivation to directely compare E-grades. I have just wanted to say that the old one used by Ukclimbing was false.

seems a rather pointless motivation, especially as the table they hav on their site is considerably more accurate than the one on yor own site

3. i still think the new UKclimbing conversion is wrong. As they changed it once because of me, they just might change it one more time.

why dont u change yors as its not even remotely accurate, as u hav stated they were willing to amend thiers, why are u not?

4. I have already responded to the comparison between an 8a route and an 8A boulder.

yor answer was codescending at best and insulting at worst. it was intended as a constructive critiscism to help u improve yor site, while u may think that it is obvious that an 8a route and boulder are not the same, yor table implies this and to somebody new to climbing this wud not be "obvious"

5. The best trad climbers in the world grade their hardest ascents as 8b+. Why should the British be capable of climbing much harder than the rest of the world.

the uk has its own grading scaled used for 100 years, were quite happy with it why shud we change it? we dont suggest that we climb harder than the rest of the world, this is yor statement. i would however suggest that ascents at the top end of one grading scale are as significant as any other grading scale.
e.g. an e11 ascent is as significant as a 9b or a v15, but is not directly coparrible in terms of difficulty it takes other factors in to account
 
6. See above.

this is by no means an answer to aything

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-20 23:58:18    

Did you know that Jack Gerald has said something like that, "E-grades above E8 seems not correct."

I have the exact same opinion. I think E-onsight grading works perfect in the lower grade.

As you have a grade conversion that suggest that British climbers climb 8c+ etc, it is a British statement and above you compared E9 with 8c+/9a.

OffLine Herman
  2009-11-21 01:26:23    
Jens,

Repeating something does not make it true.

You did not make UKCLimbing change their comparison chart.

Period.

At the very best you've pointed at some inconsistency's at their comparison chart.
They've respondend by adding some text and pointing to their EXISTING table for safe climbs.

That's basically it, nothing more than that.

Offcourse some would argue that you've misinterpreted the original chart.

Some would argue that a comparison is only a approximation. which is indicated in all old and current UKClimbing charts BUT NOT YOURS (advice: either add some text or remove the E system)

And Some wouyld argue that you had a valid point in pointing at the inconsistencies.

I guess, all three views are valid, in a way.

However claiming tha 8a made UKclimbing change the charts is, as i see it, verrrry close to lying.

OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-21 01:34:07    
how many times do i hav to make the same point before u try understanding?

e9 could  possibly be 8c+/9a in theory although this is unlikely to happen due to the nature of rock and available protection when doing thin hard moves, just the same as the indian face is only 7b+ but still e9, on the other end of the scale ryans route gerty bertwick has i believe a font 8a crux, what sport grade would u give this? this route is by no means completely safe as u hav to highball the crux above mats. so we could infer from this that a completely safe e9 could hav a crux section harder than font 8a, this im sure would give a pretty high french grade not disimalar from what has been mentioned in this thread.

however the point is not how hard is the french grade of the route but how hard is it in comparison to other routes within the e-grade system.

e11 being perhaps the hardest route is comparible to 9b or v15 in that they are the hardest things to be climbed by a living human within their perticular grading systems

arguing wether its harder to climb 9b, v15, or e11, free the nose in a day, or climb k2 for that matter, is completely pointless they are all hard significant achievements within their particular field
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-21 01:40:06    
ps i see that once again u hav declined to respond to any of the points i raised in my previous post, and hav reverted back to repeating the same comment about how u made ukclimbing change their table.

at the top of this page u stated that if people gave reasons why yor table was inacurate u wud change it, was this statement truthfull?

how about we take several different grade comparison charts and hav a vote on which one is the most accurate/informative and hav 8a use that one.
after all grading is all about consensus.

an actual reply would be nice :P
OffLine TomBall
  2009-11-21 03:00:14    
Jens, -I think you are making some very valid points and the fact that changes are being made to correct some obvious mistakes is a good thing, Hope fully a more analytical eye will look at the more controversial issues and no rash changes will take effect due to random ranting on forums.
OffLine Ben Iseman
  2009-11-21 04:22:49    
v15=5.14b? what planet are you on?


edit: if it is so obvious to you that 8a and 8A are not the same why are they the same column in your table?
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-21 08:59:45    
"I do not have any motivation to directely compare E-grades. I have just wanted to say that the old one used by Ukclimbing was false"

Is this really what you want to spend your time on Jens? Hearing this sends alarm bells ringing. It makes me question your motives behind a variety of things. I think it shows a low ethical practise and a lack of integrity.

Please read again Adam's posts. He is genuinely trying to help you. You asked for advice on what is incorrect and he is honestly giving it.

I think you should take the Egrade chart out of the conversion as it doesn't correlate in a linear fashion. There are no points scored for one and a single Egrade can be a variety of french grades. I think this bothers you. Why?

Trying to put Egrades in a conversion is a bit like putting square pegs into round holes. However if you believe your chart to be accurate, we can test it and see.

I will give you the french grade of a climb and using your chart you can give me the Egrade... I'll start with an easy one that you actually should know as the answer is above.

Indian Face 7b+ 
What's the corresponding Egrade on your chart?  
OffLine Tim Watt
  2009-11-21 11:16:59    
Thanks for not answering any of my questions.  If you want a really good analogy of how our grading system works you should read the link below, it might help you.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1972

They also have a downloadable conversion table, maybe you want to update that as well as obviously you understand the E grade better than the British Mountaineering Council.

For me the conversion thing is no more than a bit of fun, I don't really need to know what my last E3 converts to.  Maybe when I'm bolt clipping it give me an aim to go for so I can get fitter and better.  Or maybe it gives a visitor new to the system a suggestion of where to start.  All of this is properly covered by the conversion tables i listed.

For what it does it's one of the best grading systems in the world.  I can arrive at the bottom of a route, look at the grade, look at the route and have a rough idea of the danger, difficulty and many other factors.

I was going to quote more examples at you, but currently your not listening.  If you could read the BMC article it might help you.  If you wish for my examples I will get some guidebooks of the shelf and quote some routes and numbers at you.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 11:41:54    
@ Herman: I can show you the mail that confirms that they changed it because of me. How can you say that this is not true? They actually constructed the safe and the bold one because of me!

@ Tradman: As you do not dare to register your name I find it pointless to discuss with you and actually your account will be closed.

@ All: Please give me some numbers on how the E-grading should be changed. It would NOT help ustojust complain. Try todo something better instead. The thing with the table is to give just an overview. In a separate table we could include all details...but it would not make any sense to have a grade conversion table with 10 columns of British grades compared with 5 for the rest of the world.



OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 11:44:25    
@ Herman: I can show you the mail that confirms that they changed it because of me. How can you say that this is not true? They actually constructed the safe and the bold one because of me!

@ Tradman: As you do not dare to register your name I find it pointless to discuss with you and actually your account will be closed.

@ All: Please give me some numbers on how the E-grading should be changed. It would NOT help ustojust complain. Try todo something better instead. The thing with the table is to give just an overview. In a separate table we could include all details...but it would not make any sense to have a grade conversion table with 10 columns of British grades compared with 5 for the rest of the world.



OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-21 11:55:46    
You claim to have no motivation to directly compare Egrade yet your actions are completely counter to this statement. please explain
OffLine Tim Watt
  2009-11-21 12:21:35    
Jen's I don't need to post under my real name to be taken seriously.  I am not being rude, obstructive or anything negative.  You don't actually seem to be discussing anything with anyone who has their real name anyway, so whats the point in registering it.  I am just trying to help you understand the British Grading system.

You ask me to say how the British grading system can be changed.  I don't think it needs to be.  For 99% of users it works perfectly well.  It is designed for an Onsight ascent and tells you how difficult and dangerous that climb is.

When I'm at the bottom of the crag I don't need to be able to convert it to a french grade.

You say it dosen't make sense to have 10 columns of British Grades compared to 5 for the rest of the world.  It does make sense because each E grade can have a wide range of difficulty.  Say the E5 example, could be anything from the very easy, but very dangerous 6b+ to the very safe but super hard 7b+.  The E grade can't be neatly pidgeon holed and converted. 

Did you look at the BMC article? 
OffLine User Deactivated
  2009-11-21 12:35:07    
I agree, there's nothing wrong with the British grading system.
OffLine Paul Brennan
  2009-11-21 13:11:15    
Nothing wrong with the E grade. And even if there was, you would be the absolute last person in a position to instigate change. What does seem to be wrong is the attempt to categorize it compared to french and other systems. If you're worried about high E grades skewing your ranking tables Jens, fear not. Anybody I've ever met who climbs above E5 wouldn't touch 8a with a shitty stick. And why have you added pluses to the technical grades? Utter rubbish.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 13:26:36    
@ Dan Peter: The aim was to show that Ukclimbing was wrong.

@ Trad Man: Your account will be closed if you do not like the rest of us register your name. What is the problem with this?

@ Paul: "the attempt to categorize it compared to french and other systems" is an UKclimbing invention. I have no interest in this but showing that their old model was wrong.

@ All: I agree that in 99 % the E-grade system works perfect. However, above E8 or so it just do not seem to do a good job, and this is also the opinion about the Editor-in-chief for UKclimbing. 
OffLine Herman
  2009-11-21 14:08:19    
Jens,

please send me the mial.

If I am wrong, i will apologize
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 14:31:14    
I found this in the forum, "Alan James, owner of UKC, at the 8a forum,

"The table that Jens refers to on UKC was created around 10 years ago and hasn't been updated since...It has now been updated..."

This confirms that it was 8a who made them update their table! It seems like many should give me an apologize!
OffLine Herman
  2009-11-21 15:10:30    
Jens You wrote:

Start quote:
I found this in the forum, "Alan James, owner of UKC, at the 8a forum,

"The table that Jens refers to on UKC was created around 10 years ago and hasn't been updated since...It has now been updated..."

This confirms that it was 8a who made them update their table! It seems like many should give me an apologize!
End Quote.

If the above was actually a correct interpretation of what happenned you are correct and I should apologize.

However, as so often you only qoute the text that you are interested in. The full quote is below. To me, this indicates clearly that my views (as expressed above) are closer to the truth then your claim that (and i quote from the front page) "8a has changed The UK E-conversion table". (please note the word "the", and not "a" or "our")

FULL quote of alan James:
[start quote]
The table that Jens refers to on UKC was created around 10 years ago and hasn't been updated since. I struggled to find it and it is my site!

I have now updated it with the much better Rockfax grade conversion which gives a better indication of E-grades for the harder routes.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/databases/crags/comptable.html
[end quote]

p.s.
i dare you to wrote a short article about this together with me (maybe using two viewpoints) and attaching a Poll to this article to see what the "community" thinks.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 15:35:42    
If it was 8a who informed Ukclimbing that their E-conversion was wrong and later they changed it, I guess this means it was in fact 8a who made them change the E-conversion.

If it had not been for 8a, they would still have an old online E-conversion to be found at their UKclimbing pages.

This must be very simple for you and anybody to understand and I thank you for your apologize :-)
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-21 16:40:08    
It was in fact Dan Peter(and others) who informed 8a their conversion was wrong.
This must be very simple for you and anybody to understand and I thank you for your apologize :-)
is this really the level of discussion you wish to have?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 17:59:46    
1. 8a told the Ukclimbing that their E-conversion was wrong, saying that the old one suggested that the British climbers did 9a trad.
2. Ukclimbing changed their E-conversion.
3. People have said that they did not believe this story, calling me a liar etc, but it has now once more been confirmed.

If somebody think think the 8a grade conversion is wrong please give me some new conversion. It is easy to just complain but we told UKclimbing exactely what was wrong.
OffLine User Deactivated
  2009-11-21 19:04:20    
http://www.rockfax.com/publications/grades-bold.html
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-21 21:32:28    
If somebody think think the 8a grade conversion is wrong please give me some new conversion. It is easy to just complain but we told UKclimbing exactely what was wrong.

it appears we have done so several times, heres a repeat of just one point

yet yor comparison table doesnt reflect this, why? it shows an e-grade corresponds to potentially 2 french grades, wen in fact it cud be as much as 7.
in actual fact it mainly shows a correlation to 2 e-grades but at e6 it shows it corresponding to 3 grades and at e8 and above only 1! how is this correct?

how about my examples of the indisn face and berty gertwick, one of which is french 7b+ the other has a font 8a boulder crux

AND ONCE MORE HOW ABOUT WE PRESENT A NUMBER OF AVAILABLE COMPARISON TABLES AND HAV A VOTE BY 8A USERS WHICH IS THE MOST ACCURATE/IMFORMATIVE, AS GRADING IS ABOUT CONSENSUS. u cud even reply this time

just to point out this;

"the attempt to categorize it compared to french and other systems" is an UKclimbing invention

is not true, grade comparisson tables have been in guidebooks for years as part of a system to help people understand how the e-grade system works.

They actually constructed the safe and the bold one because of me!

again not true this table is taken from a rockfac guidebook published in 2006

but it would not make any sense to have a grade conversion table with 10 columns of British grades compared with 5 for the rest of the world.

how would it not make sense to adequately describe a grade system. does it make more sense to publish something that is completely inaccurate?

VOTE PLS
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-21 21:42:46    

thanks to andy f on ukbouldering for this contribution;

Most people would agree that the E grade is having a bit off difficulty at the minute. In the car yesterday a couple of us came up with a possible solution.

Back in the day the E grade covered 2 (sometimes 3) French grades. They still do for totally safe climbs, so:

E5 = 7a+/7b
E6 = 7b+/7c/7c+
E7 = 8a/8a+
E8 = 8b/8b+
E9 = 8c/8c+
E10 = 9a/9a+

Now, following on from an e-mail recieved by Ian P from John Dunne it's suggested that the following apply.

Totally safe climbing fit's the above system.
If it's scary but safe add 1 E grade
If it's scary and serious add 2 E grades
If it's death add 3 E grades.

So for example:
Captain Invincible which is 8b but safe gets E8.
Indian Face, which is 7b+/7c climbing, i.e. E6 if safe, get's E9 as it's death.
Hell's Wall, which is 8a+ i.e. E7 if safe, get's E10 as it's death.
Rhapsody, which is 8c/8c+ i.e. E9 if safe, get's E11 as it's scary and serious.

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-21 22:58:08    
You are right, the E-conversion table is a British invention not an Ukclimbing creation.

The whole idea for the 8a E-conversion is just to give a quick idea how it works. We will not get into details of talking seven different grades for one E-grade. This summer, many E-graded routes have been changed and more and more people think that above E8 it is not a good system as nobody onsight these grades.

What you suggest for conversion in your table above is simply just not correct if you see what grades have been suggested.

As an example, Rhapsody is a safe E11 but it is considered a soft 8c. Based on you info it should be at least 9a!? 
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-21 23:39:18    
not my table, one devised by a few climbers including john dunne

when rapsody was graded it was thought to be 8c, scarey i.e large fall, and serious, ie dave mcloud came close to a serious injury whilst taking the fall if we look at the route like this then the above conversion would be accurate.

if as u say rapsody is soft 8c and safe (which judging by repeat ascents it may well be) u wud say it is 8c and scarey (no denying the large fall) and therefore e10, perhaps the grade of rapsody is wrong and not the conversion, time will tell after all this is/was the 1st route at this gade, routes and boulders have often settled down a grade over time especially when the original grade was ground breaking, dreamtime, memento etc.
certainly as Equilibrium is thought to be 8b/8b+ scarey and serious i.e e10 you might think that these routes are nto too far apart in grade, but this is a different discussion alltoghether. you will always find an exception to any rule. if u can giv me 10+ examples of routes that do not fit this conversion it would be more significant.

how about the vote/poll?????!!!!!
OffLine Steve Lewis
  2009-11-22 00:17:04    
E5 = 7a+/7b
E6 = 7b+/7c/7c+
E7 = 8a/8a+
E8 = 8b/8b+
E9 = 8c/8c+
E10 = 9a/9a+

Just like to say that this grading comparison is spot on and is something that has been widely established amongst UK climbers since the 1980s (long before any climbing web sites existed!).

After sport climbing took off in the UK, British climbers tended to stop using the British system
for sport climbs and just use only French grades.

Above E7 or 8a the grading table became more theoretical rather than based on actual comparisons however. By that I mean that British climbers doing 8bs in Europe did not come back and compare them to E8s in the UK. By then UK sport climbs already had established French grades.

In drawing up a comparison table don't include the British technical (single hardest move) grade. Only compare the E grade and the French grade and assume typically bolted (safe) routes.
OffLine Steve Lewis
  2009-11-22 01:00:40    
"how about the vote/poll?????!!!!!"

The above table is so firmly established it would probably say more about people's ignorance than the grading system. Then again with grade slippage who knows?
OffLine Ben Iseman
  2009-11-22 03:16:52    
Jens, you have not actually answered any questions regarding the lack of distinction between a french route grade and boulder grade which throws your conversion way off. All that you have done is dismiss them with "that is so obvious it needs no response". Click the link you provided, look at your own table and then change it so that Dan Peter can get credit for creating 8a.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-22 10:01:37    
"Above E7 or 8a the grading table became more theoretical rather than based on actual comparisons however."

What about I add next to the column that E-conversion is based on "Scary but Safe".

If we take Rhapsody as an example, the 8a E-conversion is more or less correct but the one you suggest say that it is 9a and we all know that this is totally wrong.
OffLine R D
  2009-11-22 10:20:39    
The conversion suggested above certainly seems right - ie E9 = 8c/+, E10 9a/+, and add a grade each for scary, serious, death. This is how I have always thought of E grades, in fact sport routes used to be graded with E grades and Hubble, 8c+, got E9 7b.

Jens: you seem confused by several points.

1: Some nonsense about who is responsible for making UKC change their grade tables. The CURRENT UKC grade table dates from well before your email/forum comment. It seems that at best you pointed out that the first UKC table was incorrect and they substituted it for the Rockfax table. Alan James runs both UKC and Rockfax. I don't really see the point of you banging the drum about this.

2: The grade of Rhapsody, which doesn't fit into the above conversion at E11. Macleod thought the route was 8c+ with serious climbing, so E9 plus 2 E grades = E11.

Subsequent repeaters thought it was 8c and just scary. They declined to say that it was not E11, but they did everything except come out with a downgrade, including, in Steve's case saying that he never took the biggest fall possible so it might be more serious than he found it. Personally the conclusion I reach from that is not that the whole E grade conversion is wrong, but instead that the repeating climbers were simply being a little tactful about the grade of Rhapsody.

One/two routes do not define a grading system, especially ones that have had so few repeats.
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-22 11:45:57    

jens pls stop deliberately quoting out of context its lame

"Above E7 or 8a the grading table became more theoretical rather than based on actual comparisons however."
"By that I mean that British climbers doing 8bs in Europe did not come back and compare them to E8s in the UK. By then UK sport climbs already had established French grades."

OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-22 12:09:30    
 As nobody in this debate (i use the word debate as the aproach of some people prevents this being a discussion) appears to be willing to give any ground, i feel the only way to conclude this is to have a poll on which system 8a users feel best represents the e-grade comparison.
This is something i have repeatedly asked for and jens, i find yor lack of response both cowardly and dismissive of the importance of the views of the 8a community as a whole.
You obviously feel that your opinion is more valid than anybody else posting here, despite the fact that views hav been expressed by people with intimate experience with the e-grade system, including developers of uk sport and trad climbing and uk guidebook authors. where as u hav no practical knowledge of e-grades what so ever.
Ive never come across somebody so fearful of being proved wrong before, and in this u missed the point that their is no right or wrong answer merely one that comes closest.
please give your own community some credit for their love and knowledge of climbing and let the users decide
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-22 12:53:45    
I respect your opinion but you have to allow me to think differently. We have already done a E-grading poll and we can not just make polls every day. We do often get criticized for having polls. The Chief-Editor on UKclimbing have the same opinion as me that E-grades above E8 do not do a good job.
 
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-22 14:09:56    
If you can make a poll for something as silly as the 2nd best climber, you can create a poll as Adam has requested.
The community is speaking. Can you prove yourself to be mature enough to listen?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-22 14:19:23    
So please give me the question and the alternatives?
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-22 16:01:04    
Here is a quick stab though i'm sure others can improve on it.

Should the Egrading system be kept in the conversion chart?
-no
-yes Jen's version
-yes Rockfax version
-yes Ukbouldering version

I would prefer the other forum users critique the poll and it's wording so it's not simply one persons biased view being reflected ;-)
OffLine Sloper
  2009-11-22 20:56:44    
Hello birds, hello sky, hello to the chorus of idiots and half witted morons and those who know nothing about the difference between correlation and conversion. And this includes the idiots at Rockfax who really ought to know better but actually don't.

To keep it simple, and I mean for the English readers, the foreigners probably have better grammar, there is no means of converting one grade from one grading system to another.

You might, on a good day be able to find common themes or comparable elements between a grade x on y system and a grade a on system b.

So I've climbed Font 7a problems in Font that would get V3 in Hueco and problems given V4 in colorado that would get font 5+.  So you can't even convert V to Font, you can have a rough guess but that's all.

When it comes to E grades the system is to complex to suggest that there's even a way of converting Ex in one style on one rock type to Ex in another style on a different rock type.

Then there's the complexity of the system, I have climbed E5 routes that would have a V0- or Font 4(4+?) crux, then I've climbed E5 routes with a V4 or Font 6a/b crux. 

Some routes are hard to onsight (note you English morons, that's onsight not onsite) not because they're hard but because finding which bit of the break is decent is something you get one shot at, so these routes can have a >Ex grade for the onsight which, following a pussy's cheating headpoint attempt becomes <1/2Ex.

So if you really want a system of conversion that fits in with the ethos of this site, get a ruler and measure your cock, when fully erect (if you need help look at the score cards on here) from the top of the tip down to the bottom.

You might be able to convert from imperial to metric and the nice thing is, it will tell everyone what you really are.

Does the E system work well above Ex? I really don't know and I care even less. 

Back to your dick waving boys.

OffLine Herman
  2009-11-22 23:47:54    
Jens,

If you promise not to quote me out of context i'll apalogize:
I don't agree that your representation is valid but as there is not a single truth I apologize in suggesting that you are deliberately lying.

Now for a reall poll:

[Start poll]
Some time ago Jens from 8a.nu raised some questions about wich french grade some of the more difficult britisch trad routes should be.

Based on the at that point current version of the UKCLimbing.com comparison chart led Jens to conclude that the british climbers were the best in the world as they were regulary climbing 9a+.

Also based on this UKclimbing owner Alan James has replaced the Comparison chart on his site with an new one. In his own words: "I have now updated it with the much better Rockfax grade conversion which gives a better indication of E-grades for the harder routes."

Folowing this a lot of discussions arose on the E system and the Role of Jens.
Discussions can be found Here (8a links) here (ukclimbing links) and here (other links)

Some would argue that Jens has misinterpreted the original chart.
Some would argue that a comparison is only a approximation that should never be interpreted literally.
And some wouyld argue that Jens had a valid point in pointing at the inconsistencies.

Based on this Jens has claimed that:
"8a has changed The UK E-conversion table".

What is the best representation of all the facts here and 8a's role here:
1. 8a's role is Minimal.
Jens does not understand the E grading Systems and it's conversion charts. Jens did point out some unclarity in ONE chart. Alan James pointed him (and the rest of the worlde)to another more "valid" one fore difficult climbs. We should thank Jens for his -at best- minor role in this debate.
2. 8a's role is Contributing:
The way Jens has interpreted and still does is an example that the E grading system cannot be fully understood by people who don't use it. Jens did raise attention to how inexperienced users can misinterpreted the comparison charts. We should thank jens for his contributing role in this debate.
3. 8a's role is Important
While a non britisch climbers cannot fully understand the E grading systems Jens discoverd Some major problems with it. Based on his news UKClimbing changed their comparison chart.
4. 8a's role is Critical
It Was Jens that had the biggest role in the changing of the comparison chart. Therefore: "8a has changed The UK E-conversion table".

[end poll]

There is no single truth but the opinion of the majority has some meaning. If following the above poll it becomes clear that lot's of users think you've played an important role I will reconsider my opinion and properly apologize.
OffLine Graeme Alderson
  2009-11-23 00:26:00    
:-)

OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-23 09:09:13    

hmm its a toss up between 1 and 2

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-23 09:35:58    
I only pointed out that the old conversion was wrong so I guess 8a made them change the table but I did have 0 % in how they changed it :-)

So which alternative do you suggest, I do not know?
OffLine Sloper
  2009-11-23 14:34:04    
You just don't get it do you?

You cannot convert E grades to sport grades or bouldering grades.

Trying to do so is like trying to design a table that allows you to convert boxing scores to judo, utterly meaningless.

Goodbye
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-23 15:02:05    
It is the British who have invented the E-conversion. You should tell these guys that they can not do it. I have only told UKclimbing that their conversion was wrong.

I think that E-grades do not a good job for grades harder than E8.
OffLine User Deactivated
  2009-11-23 16:05:42    
Today Jens, today. I'm no expert on E grades but don't you think that your opinion could have been expressed about E5 and E6 (for example) when those grades were at the cutting edge? No one (including you) seems to question the grading system on those routes today.
Not many climbers are onsighting beyond E8 today so that's what makes the grades from E8 and up theoretical (at least that's my impression after reading some posts here. I'm no E8 climber myself as you know...). But I guess in the future those routes will be onsighted.
So TODAY it's hard to determine the E-grades of the hardest routes, but does that necessarily mean that the E-system is wrong?
In a (maybe not so) distant future there might be an Editor of 9a.nu saying "I think E-grades doesn't do a good job for routes harder than E11"...
OffLine Dan Peter
  2009-11-23 18:41:47    

Jens
Let me get all this straight in my head.
1. Your entire reason for starting this thread was so you could announce to everyone that you had pointed out an error in an old conversion chart.....
2. You didn't suggest any alternative.....
3. You don't understand the british grading chart......
4. You don't understand it can't be converted properly to french grades as they measure something different...
5. You've never climbed in Britain.....
6. The grading conversion you've offered up is woefull but don't give credit to anyone for pointing out yours is wrong. Yet you want credit for spotting an error in an old ukclimbing one....
7. If you didn't want credit then your reasons for this barrage of tripe is mystifying as this happened ages ago anyway. Even if it didn't happen ages ago why? .....
8. All those who use the system for onsight climbing are perfectly happy with it, love it even, but you have a problem with it...... 
9. If you don't have a problem then you have no reason to speak of it. There are no points scored for Uk trad so you have no reason to get involved.......
10. The only ethic out there apart from honesty is NO CHIPPING. You think there's a middle ground in chipping but there isn't.....
11. You harp on about supposed ethics and style yet haven't got the balls to stand up for the only real ethic out there...
11. Why am I bothering with this shit when i'm responding to a fucking troll and a poor one at that........
I'm done. You can deactivate another one.   

OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-23 20:03:42    
@ Jonas: You are of course 100 % correct.

@ Dan: Out of your 11 numbered comments, at least 9 are totally wrong or I actually agree what you are saying.

1. I did NOT start this thread.

2. As you can see from the table. 8a did suggest an alternative

To many questions but I do agree that it works fine for easier grades.

It seems like there are many misunderstanding going on.
OffLine Sloper
  2009-11-23 20:33:28    
Jens,

Rather than try and deal with E grades which you clearly don't understand why not look at sports grades, as they don't make sense.

What the f--k is so hard about a 45m 9a, nothing.  There's no hard climbing on most long euro trash sports routes even when they're given grades like 9a+. 

Let's face it they're just boring stamina fests that any cretin with an IQ of 80 can climb if they can be bothered. 

Real 9a routes must be between 12m and 15m otherwise they're not really 9a.  A route can't be 9a unless it has some hard climbing and stamina routes just don't have anything hard on them, FFS a british grandad has recently climbed supposed 9a and he's shit.

Let's make sure that sport grades are applied only to short routes and develop a new system for longer routes, in fact I think the alpinists already have one handy.
OffLine Graeme Alderson
  2009-11-23 21:22:00    
Jens

Come on then tell us which of Dan's comments are wrong. And which you agree with. Answer each of his points 1 at a time
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-23 22:24:12    

1 - 4 = Wrong


5 = Correct


6 - 7 = I do not understand.

8 = Agree

9 = I just pointed out the error but and offered an alternative.

10 = I do not agree, everyone who has cleaned a route does understand the grey zone about chipping.

11 = 8a is the only climbing media whith an active anti-chipping campaign.

OffLine Ben Iseman
  2009-11-24 04:59:04    
I will help you with #6. Your conversion chart does a worse job of approximating the e-grade conversion than the one you so proudly found errors in.

For the 3rd time (+ more from others) your table does not distinguish between french route grades or boulder grades and this throws off the boulder grade comparison. Even if you bump things down a bunch so that V15=9a+ V3 would equal 5.11a and Vermin himself V1 says that V1 is 5.10+ so that doesnt match up.

10# I agree, there is a grey zone when it comes to cleaning.

11# The north american mags have run a lot of content over the last 5 years disparging chipping, even going so far as to stop reporting ascents from chipped areas. Good to see that 8a agrees but you are just joining the rest of the climbing media you are hardly "the only ones".
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-24 07:28:57    
@ Ben: Show me where in the last years you can see on their website that they comments chipped ascents like 8a does. This is something that makes the 8a anti-chipping campaign unique.

You can also see in the data base which route that has been marked as "Mainly/poorly Chipped".

i thought it was so obvious that an 8A boulder is not of the same difficulty as an 8a route so we did not have to separate. We have had this conversion for 10 years without any problem. It is just the last month people have been negative about it.
OffLine Ben Iseman
  2009-11-24 14:04:15    
If it is so obvious to you that they are different why wouldn't you make a distinction between them? That is just stupid, especially when you are making a chart to correctly compare different difficulty ratings. As I have said 4 times now, it screws up the comparison between bouldering grades and route grades.

Maybe you can just read the magazines for your. They have all done their part to put an end to the idea that chipping is an accepted part of the climbing experience.

Fine Jens you are unique in your appending a "mainly/poorly chipped" comment to info on your site. What does that mean anyway? If it is mainly chipped it is bad or if it is poorly chipped it is bad but if it is only chipped a bit or if they did a good job chipping is ok? What a strong ethical stand!

What happened to that list of "unique" 8a features that graced the front page for a day or so?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-24 14:20:44    

Of course I can change it but as it has worked just fine for 10 years I do not have it high up on my priority list.

What the magazines have maybe done maybe a couple of times over ten years, 8a does every month. Every climber who plans to go to Gorges du Loup will see in the 8a data base that most of the hard core routes are actually chipped.

Maybe, we can do more as regards to our anti-chipping campaign, but I think it is a good start.

The "unique" 8a features are always visible on the front page.

OffLine Graeme Alderson
  2009-11-24 19:43:36    
Jens - you are not anti chipping, you are pro chipping so stop talking nonsense.

Anti chipping means NO CHIPPING, it does not mean that chipping is allowed in certain circumstances.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-24 20:26:04    
As I have told you before, it is a strategy to have speaking terms with the guys chipping. I do not think guys like Mö will listen if we have a 0-tolerance. It is just a matter of strategy :-)
OffLine Graeme Alderson
  2009-11-24 22:03:47    
Yes Jens I know what you have said before about this strategy. But the bottom line is that you condone chipping in certain circumstances. That means you are not anti chipping so all your '8a is leading the world in campaigning against chipping' type comments are in fact lies.

You condone chipping therefore you are pro chipping. Geddit? No I thought not but then again this would not be the first time tonight that you have failed to see something that is very easy to understand.
OffLine Mike Smith
  2009-11-25 01:15:05    
Is the person who runs this website a megalomaniac?
Does he know what he is?

This is the craziest discussion I have read for a long time.
Why do you fellow climbers give him the time of day?
OffLine Ben Iseman
  2009-11-25 01:34:41    
"Of course I can change it but as it has worked just fine for 10 years I do not have it high up on my priority list."

Why then are you so proud of what influence you may have had in UKC changing their chart to RockFax's? It has worked fine for 10 years? It has been wrong for 10 years!

"What the magazines have maybe done maybe a couple of times over ten years, 8a does every month. Every climber who plans to go to Gorges du Loup will see in the 8a data base that most of the hard core routes are actually chipped."

You do have a point. You are much better at repeating yourself than any other climbing media.
OffLine Mike Smith
  2009-11-25 02:01:33    
All grade comparison charts are wrong. They are best estimates, rough guides. Not to be used to measure achievement.

The early ones were done by John Harlin in his west and east coast USA guidebooks to help visitors with the American grade system, compared to their home rading systems. But just rough guideline and most climbers understand that. Perhaps they still do.

It is only on this website that someone is attempting to make a science of them, like a mathematical equation. It can't be done.

The English to sport grade ones were invented in the 1980's so that hte Brits could apply their E-grades to sport grades, but only for safe climbs. It can't be done for bold routes and that is why the UKClimbing have one for safe and one for bold routes.

The one at the start of is discussion isn't an improvment, just an opinion.

Only the Brits really know and those who have climbed Brit bold routes, not a Swedish sport climber.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-25 07:46:36    

You can find grade conversions in the most topos and on the most climbing website. I guess, 8a is also allowed to have a grade conversion?

This thread started with some critiscism towards the 8a one. The only thing I have done here is to defend the one 8a is using. I guess, I am allowed to do so.

Further more, 8a will update it as we have understood it can be made more accurate.

OffLine Simon Lee
  2009-11-25 12:15:29    
Jens

The E grade has many flaws not least of which is that is also bound up with the style of the ascent. I wrote about this here which you may find helpful: www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1477

If on the comparison table you make it quite clear that the E grades are for well protected / adequately protected routes only then its inclusion makes some sense. Otherwise it is a waste of time as for example there are E5 unprotected slabs that might only be French 6a.

As for the use of the comparison tables most guidebooks have them to help visiting climbers unfamilar with the local grading system. This is all well and good. It becomes problematic if you extrapolate further as the use of this sort of table of equivalence has its limits.

Equivalence taken to extremes becomes ridiculous when you, for example, judge the performance of climbing an unprotected slab and a bolted limestone roof as being the same. Similarly it would be nonsensical to use this table as a basis for quantatively ranking climbing achievement.

Yes - make the table as accurate as you are able to but realise its limitations and consequently the limits of its application.

Best, Simon
OffLine Adam Wood
  2009-11-25 23:18:31    
Further more, 8a will update it as we have understood it can be made more accurate.

Fantastic jens, you've listened to the thoughts of members of the 8a community and decided to make changes to improve the site based on their opinions. Bravo

when updating it maybe post a proof copy on here and invite discussion, im sure people would be happy to give u imput.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-26 09:23:56    
@ Simon: I totally agree and as it is imposible to make a comparison between E-grades and a sport grade, 8a do not want to get to specific.

We just wanted to give a schematic overview which should not say that E12 UK trad ascents are equal to 9a/9b/9c sport which was how UKclimbing presented it before.
OffLine Mike Smith
  2009-11-26 20:48:55    
@Jens: I totally agree and as it is imposible to make a comparison between E-grades and a sport grade, 8a do not want to get to specific.

You still don't understand. It is impossible to make a comparison between BOLD E-grades and a sport grade.
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2009-11-26 23:12:56    
I totally agree on what you say, "It is impossible to make a comparison between BOLD E-grades and a sport grade."
OffLine Mike Smith
  2009-11-29 00:14:23    
@Jens: I totally agree on what you say, "It is impossible to make a comparison between BOLD E-grades and a sport grade."

But it is actually, but not in a comparison table. You must ask the ascender, they will give you an estimate of the sport grade, but the fall maybe death!

You can compare the safe E grade with the sport grade, just as you can compare the American YDS sport grade with the sport grade.

I hope I teach you well.
OffLine grigri
  2009-12-01 17:04:54    
Hi, I am the muggins who will draw the table up, as it will now need to be tweaked -again!- it will be a short while before I can post up a sample, please be patient.

Glad to see ppl saying 'I agree' for a change, even if it is just agreeing to differ :-)
OffLine grigri
  2009-12-01 23:46:43    
Ok so Ive drawn it up including Brit grades in a table form with two columns that hopefully express the range of the E grades. Please note: I have taken the values directly off the ammended 'bold' chart on Rockfax.com - so - if you dont like it, you only have yorselves to blame ;-) Also the values for 9b/+ are obviously just a projection. The image gets compressed again during the attachment process hence the poor quality shown here - my apologies but there is nothing I can do about that.

The table does some strange things, note how the technical grade jumps around (this is what I was trying to point out to Mick Ryan, now he can see it for himself) I would have expected a more linear progression with better correalation between the Tech and French grades as they both use technical difficulty as a basis for measurement, even if the French does take sustainedness into account. From what I can gather from the Brits, sustainedness is reflected in their E grades not the tech grade.(?)

Anyways, these conversions are always going to be approximate as each system uses different criteria as a basis for measurement.

OffLine anderfo
  2009-12-02 05:57:40    
@grigri: While you're at it, extend the table also in the lower end (YDS 5.1-5.9) just to make it complete...
OffLine grigri
  2009-12-02 08:55:57    
Anderfo - ER NO! Sorry. Note the time of my posting, I have better stuff to do with my evenings. Im also getting pretty fed up with ppl coming up with all sorts of suggestions of how they think this should read without actually taking the time to pepare a table themselves to put forward as a replacement. The whole point of this exercise originally was to try and level the playing field for the points system so that the ranking was more accurate particularly in the upper grades, I dont think climbing 5.1 (is that even a climb?) is going to get you any ranking points! So again - no. Draw your own chart, Im going skating - bye!
OffLine anderfo
  2009-12-03 19:05:09    
@grigri: Sorry, I mean that if the table will be on the route adding page it should include all grades applicable. It is currently possible to register routes down to french grade 3, so why does the chart stop at 6a?
If you need help, I am sure you know about the wikipedia chart and you are also free to ask me for help.

If I'm not the only person asking about this, then sorry but I'm not all those people. I can't take responsibility for them. Anyway, look at it the opposite way: Since so many people have asked you about this then maybe it is useful?
When you make a grade conversion chart for a web page where people register routes it is natural that people tell you if the chart covers only 70% of the possible grades.

I've never cared about the ranking but I know more people who would like to register ascents here also for grades lower than 5.10a. There are plenty of people that will never be able to climb 5.10a although it sounds like you look at 5.10a as climbing the stairs in your flat and you would let your grandmother do it free solo.

Good luck.

(edit: looks like you've extended the chart now, great)
OffLine grigri
  2009-12-03 21:32:06    
Hi Anderfo, yes you are quite right, please excuse me if I was rude, I am a moody guy!

I have put a fully upgraded chart in the 'New grade converser'(sic) thread. It now matches the 'Add Routes' page dialogue box, which just makes sense as you point out. I have included more countries/grade systems too so that ppl can feel at home and use the site easily.

Thanks for your input.
OffLine Sonso
  2010-01-19 19:55:18    
Just a thought - How would free solo ascents be graded? Let's say you climb a 40 meter french 7a free solo. As a fall above 10 meters would result in almost certain death; would that route be graded higher than it is, taking the danger factor in mind?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2010-01-19 21:06:08    
It is only the E-grading system that takes danger in to account...if you solo a sport route them grade will be the same.
OffLine BOR
  2010-03-27 14:54:38    
when will you publish the chart?
OffLine Jens Larssen
  2010-03-27 16:14:06    
As soon as we have finshed the yearbook including the distribution I will start working on it. Thanks for the reminder.