Hello All

I'm needing some help. There is an old grading system that was in use, but has faded off the scene.
In the Table mountain Classics, Tony uses the A to E system. A being a light scramble and E being a
equipment protected climb with the use of rope. So How does this convert to the current grading system we
use? Does any1 Know?

Help would be greatly appreciated.

_________________
Don't cut that which you can untie. Traddies are hard core, they can hang on their nuts.

See http://www.climbing.co.za/sa-climbing-b ... mparisons/

_________________
Climb ZA - Administrator

Maybe the South African 8a users can use this table too, as there is way too much overgrading going on.
Cormac

This is going to start a whole big debate again... K.I.S.S.!

It's tough below 6a/18 but after that it is a simple 1:1 grade scale to keep it simple.

6a = 18
6a+ = 19
6b = 20
6b+ = 21
6c = 22
6c+ = 23
7a = 24
7a+ = 25
7b = 26
7b+ = 27
7c = 28
7c+ = 29 (Monster)
8a = 30 (Jack of All Trade)
8a+ = 31 (The Beast)
8b = 32 (Jaberwocky / Godzilla)
8b+ = 33 (Rodan)
8c = 34 (Streetfighter)
8c+ = 35 (Mazawattee)
9a = 36 ( Sharma's Era Vella)
9a+ = 37 (Sharma's Realization)
9b = 38 ( Chris Sharma's Jumbo Love)
9b+ = 39 (Adam Ondra's route CHANGE)

_________________
I hate this real world place... I'd be more than happy to live out there rather...

Hi

I think it is good to define a climb everybody recognises as the standard for a grade in each province. The same as in industry where you use approved standards such as standard weights, standard pharmaceutical active ingredients, standard solutions for calibrating instruments etc. There should be a grading committee comprising of climbers of differing climbing abilities who define which climbs are the set grades, (perhaps even 2 or 3 of each grade such differing styles of climb). These climbs are published in guides as climbs defining that grade and anybody who wants to know what a certain grade is, just go climb that climb.

I also agree with Brian above that the table is incorrect and his table is the correct one.

A-E guys, 18+ is out of that league. To keep it simple. E is where climbing starts and scrambling ends (yes, I know Alex Honnold "scrambles" stuff I can't even dream of climbing, but I'm talking about normal people's idea of scrambling). A table won't help much and to try and compare it to new climbing grades is mostly pointless. Nobody cares about new grades below 17, so they simply don't line up. The old grade was developed for old school trad climbing. The objective back then was to just climb up something, get to the top. Gear ranged from crap to non-existing. Subsequently, the grades, to an extent, reflect how scary it is. Now scary differs not just from one person to the other, it also differs from day to day, did you have coffee, tea or marijuana for breakfast. Add to the mix that trad climbers are generally a bunch of bastards who gets a lot of enjoyment out of sandbagging the hell out of other people. Go climb Mhlabatini chimney if you don't believe me, it is graded 10, but I imagine you'll hear a lot of complaining from sport climbers who "climbs 20s". So the point of my post is, that you are far better of trying not to compare the old grades with the new grades. Take it as a rough guide where you'll probably want a rope on E grade, but in all likelihood you won't find much use for it (i.e. there's no protection). Climbing shoes will also make a big difference in grades, most of those routes were graded by people climbing in hiking boots, especially in the Cape.

Can you change England to UK?

And are the answers given opening a whole can of worms the OP wasn't asking to be opened (apart from shorti's)?

Someone (may have been Mike Scott?) once suggested:
A - no hands needed
B - one hand needed
C - two hands needed
D - rope may be needed
E - rope suggested
F - rope required (though all the soloists may disagree)
G - hard climbing

The Ewbank system came to SA around the time EBs were introduced, hemp ropes went out of fashion, and climbers started regularly venturing into H's. You'll see more 23's than H1's.

I think it was Colin Ingles who came back from Europe in the '60s and realised that our alphabetic system was too coarse, so they went back dividing E's, F's and G's into easy, medium and hard. Hence E1, E2, E3, F1, etc.

Beware E3's, F3's and G3's: many of those are sandbags, and were simply graded at the hardest level used when the route was opened.

Enjoy!

Forum been really quiet lately so maybe some debate needed :-)
I am curious as to how you have come up with your grade comparison.
Can you expand on these,
Cheers
Cormac

I think in a way the A-D is similar to the American 1-4 where one is walking and 4 is scrambling needing both hands. When you hit 5 it's regarded as technical climbing and is then subdivided 5.1, 5.2 etc

I've still got an old Tonqs Guide with the old and new grades, even a couple of H1s!

I agree that bouldering, sport and trad can't be graded equally. One is aimed at ridiculous moves and small falls, one is aimed at really tough moves with very secure protection and the latter is very technical from a gear point of view more than the moves. Lets face it - it would take a suicidal person to do a trad route graded 30 or more, or to boulder a 15m high inverted slope.

If difficulty derives from different aspects, a straight comparison will never work...

But any way - just my opinion on this one...

_________________
If you are what you eat, rock climbers must be people who eat nuts...

Thank you all

I have found this very helpful. To answer the question of where I got this from. I got the grading system from Tony Lourens in his book Table Mountain Classics.

I'm also thankful for the name of the system. I've had the question asked to me. What are these grades related to.

Looing forward to more response.

_________________
Don't cut that which you can untie. Traddies are hard core, they can hang on their nuts.

There are plenty climbers tradding 30's and the ones I know don't seem to suicidal.

that's insanity. This coming from a person who only took up rock climbing to be able to climb some technical Drakensberg peaks, and finds proper mountaineering to be an appealing future hobby...

_________________
If you are what you eat, rock climbers must be people who eat nuts...

Yes, they can be and are graded on the same scale, the scale refers to the technical difficulty of the hardest move or crux of the route. The protection or lack there of is in a different scale (R or X in South Africa) listed alongside the difficulty rating. Trad grades seem more difficult than sport grades, my hardest trad redpoint is several grades less than my sport redpoint, because the grading system is only related to the technical difficulty of the route and not the extra endurance required to hang around and place gear or the extra strength to pull the move with a rack, two ropes and all the other paraphernalia.


Trad gear works, that is why we use it. I've fallen on lead several times and have survived just fine (not at grade 30 though). I'd have to agree with the opinion that Snort has expressed on this forum many times that easy, low angle (less than vertical) trad is more dangerous than hard trad on steep to overhanging rock, not because falls are more likely (which is obvious) but because the consequences of falling on low angle rock are more severe. Low angle trad is difficult to protect properly due to the number and size of the ledges you will hit. The steeper it is, the more likely you will fall off but the less likely you will hit something.

_________________
Happy climbing
Nic

Nic...well put, same goes for sport though I poop myself on on-balancy hard (for me) stuff:P

Exactly my point

_________________
If you are what you eat, rock climbers must be people who eat nuts...