Orestes is a bargain at 24. 23 more like it. Crawling from the wreckage was regraded to 20 in the latest select guide, though i would say 21/2 esp if youre taller. Stanger in a Strange Land – is that the one at Peak Head? Havnt done it i dont think..

For a bit of perspective on 24 consider:

Endless Pitch, Fingernickin’ and Robbin Hood at Moonarie.

Paladin, Blue Eyed and Blonde, Die Loaded at Araps or the top pitch of World Party on Taipan.

No comparison really.

Ben’s point is valid that we shouldnt get wrapped up in grades, but we all still use them to whatever extent is meaningful to us. Its a yardstick and we are conferring to ensure all our sticks are the same legnth is all.

remember though its not the legnth of the yardstick that matters….

I have spoken with Emil about his harsh re grading of several of WA’s 23/24/25’s. But I got out my Tassie guide books last night (Where I have done a lot of my climbing) and tried to recalled most of the climbs I have done there and at Araps / Bluies / Nowra and am starting to agree with him that there are a few WA climbs that are a bit soft for the grade. There I said it. But I still believe you need to grade for the onsight so here is my 2c

Fun love and Joy – Wallclife – 23

Hang Ten – Mt Quarry – 24

Heavy Metal – Willys – 24

Turbo Crack – Hardy Rd – 24

Thrutching the Bison – Kalbarri – 22

Llama arete – Hardy Rd – 23

Chain Reaction – 22

For those that bring up the age old response to this discussion, “what do grades matter, climb for fun, enjoy the experience etc, etc, etc”. I think most people do climb for fun and they do enjoy the experience. The most memorable climbs I have done were at a much lower grades to my redpoint ability. But climbing is the most egotistical sport I can think of. Grades do matter, that’s why most? people climb. It allows you to always be striving for something better and for pushing yourself to your limits but still knowing there is room for improvement. Deliberating over the grade of a climb just gives a benchmark for oneself

Ross “grades matter to some people, trad climbing matters to others, bouldering to other yet…whatever.”

Are you saying that trad climbing and bouldering dont have grades? I dont think it is the style of climbing that is an issue here. Sure people do different styles some people do them all, but the chase to continually better oneself in all aspects of life let alone climbing is why we have grades so we can see our improvement. Grades isnt necesarily why we climb but it definitely keeps us in perspective of how we climb. I agree with Marks previous comments.

Hi, Ethical Filter here, as I seem to have been named.

Matt, only 2 climbs spring to mind that I have suggested should be downgraded, Llama Arete and The Shield as you’ve mentioned.

In both cases I looked at other similar types of climbs or ones in the same area. Llama Arete I think is not as hard as other 24 granite routes around – say Shredder at Toodyay or your desperate 24 at Shark Rock. Three of the posts above reckon Llama Arete is 23.

The Shield at Mtn Quarry I benchmarked against Hang Ten, which I think is solid 24 and a bit harder.

As for Karma, it took me a few goes before I got it and at the time I was thinking that maybe it should be 23. If you took the crux off it and put it on a short Perth granite route then it would probably only rate around 22/23. Others reckon it should remain at 24 (it was originally graded 25!).

IMO grades should be based on redpoint. Although some climbs are notoriously hard to onsight, the climb is still the same no matter how many goes it takes. Onsight will always be the best type of ascent and the most rewarding so just be happy with the extra prestige when bragging about your onsight. I do!

I would not use Hang Ten as a guide in grading a quarry 24. This climb has been worn out. All its good original holds are only a shadow of their former glory: in the halcyon days of our youth, a bright period when Ron first walked the quarry floor, we would solo Hang Ten blind folded at the end of a long day.

In grading 24 in the quarry Star Wars and Month of Sundays are better guides. I believe that with these two lines in mind the Shield is 24 on sight.

Shredder is now missing a couple of low holds that were present when it was originally graded and to my mind the line is now a full grade harder.

I respectfully suggest that if you are going to change a climbs grade then talk to the person who graded the climb originally and climb it in the style that the grade intended so that an accurate opinion can form.

I graded Llama Arête 24 some time after its FA – climbed without a fall, placing all gear on lead. I discussed the grade with two very experienced climbers, my 2nd and another. I considered the grade should convey the same style to a climber armed with only his gear, the grade and a sporting sprit.

It was downgraded a week later by those who had not lead it. Unfortunately, I was not consulted.

I did the same for the Shield. However, with the Shield I climbed it with 3 separate groups (all OS) and consulted them before settling the grade at 24. It was downgraded. Again without a clean lead from the retro graders and zero consultation.

To me the message in the grade is important. The Ewbank grading system is our system and “considers exposure, technical difficulty or any combination of problems, access to protection and their placement, strenuousness and time involved in surmounting problem”. Ewbank, John ‘Grading System’ THRUTCH April 1968, pp 18-23

Retro grading from a top rope or using pre placed gear may result in a lower grade being attributed. It is easier as a more dynamic flowing style of climbing is possible. Finding your way, stoping to place gear is all part of the job and is part of the Ewbank grade.

I would still advise a climber that is heading out to do a clean lead of Llama and/or the Shield that they should be prepared to climb a Ewbank grade 24.

isnt it funny how a sport that can foster such a good sense of community spirit amoungst climbers can also so easily turn into a slanging match full of hurt egos.

Lets stop all this crap arguing about a climb being +/- 1 grade….

lets face it unless you use the grading system to bolster your ego a grade should only be used as a guide to indicate to a climber what climbs in an area are achievable for them and as a safety measure so they dont jump on something that is way of of their depth.

Lets all just grow up and stop playing little boys with bruised egos.

Respectfully, I would like to summarise my main points as I given them some consideration and I think they are getting lost:

I propose we use John Ewbank’s system and refer to his published description of what the method considers – see THRUTCH April 1968, pp 18-23

I propose we grade lines with an OS in mind and of course expect that the gear is placed on lead not pre placed.

Before grading a climb I recommend consulting other experienced climbers particularly on the better lines.

I don’t agree with climbs being published with a changed grade without consulting the FA if possible or at least other climbers (that is more than one other). I think that one or two people deciding by themselves to retrograde climbs is not best practice.

With regard to Ross’s comments my response is:

Firstly, I am confused by the comment about the Thin Red Line. The mini guide holds the original grade I posted on the CAWA site – there was no regrade.

Secondly, you are right I did try very hard to get the FA of what was to become Turbo Crack. My best result was three days before the line was claimed. On my first attempt I fell and while I pulled the ropes I left a single wire in place which I clipped on the way through to the top. Because I had left a wire on the line I did not consider this to be a claimable FA. The climb was claimed a few days later.

I agree with Matt in principle. I just want to highlight that grades are by consensus, but consensus takes time to develop and in the last issue of the Perth guide there were 100s of new routes. Before the next issue of the guide (nothing planned), if I am still connected with it there will be a draft copy available in the gyms and anyone is very welcome to mark it up with their opinions which will not be ignored(just like last time but last time the draft guide did not have all the routes because routes went up until the day it was published).

Jess – how about Lynn Hill on The Nose: unrepeated by any male in any similar same style? When I aided that roof pitch in ’99 I could not fathom anyone freeing it; and there is about 20 pitches before that!!! And it would be incredibly powerful. I think the strength/weight ratio for women, given their lighter built, can be just the same as for men and the only reason the top males are stronger is because 10 times as many males climb at the high level then women, it seems.

Have to agree with Claire and Jess here, and Jess brought up something that particularly erks me. This is probably more of a climbing gym issue, so I’ll just talk about plastic for now….

I don’t like grading that is partly based around (or even inconsiderate of) height. At 6 foot, I don’t have any real trouble reaching the holds on most Perth climbs, but many people do. Some climbing gyms are notoriously reachy or even include a reachy section as part of a grade. Some gyms are better than others for this, and I believe training and difficulty on plastic should be based around technical difficulty, and height shouldn’t really be much of an issue. So if you’re a route setter, please try and keep the shorter population in mind. 🙂

Just reeelaaaxxx and trust them feet, big girl….I know yer all tense because of the slightly runout nature of the situation up there. For a real 19 try Slot Machine at Darlington or Quiver at Mt.Cuthbert (just an 18). I made those just for you. Go on…

EBQ = medium height slim girl, right di? 🙂

Tendon’s not too bad, been bouldering at kalamunda with ben’s guide. gym plastic always injures so much more though, i think my appearance at the comp will definitely be of a helper, not of a competitor.