I've just realised, Kin's bored again. This is an obvious troll and Ive bitten yet again!

The great grade debate will always rumble on, it doesn't just stop at Tigers Wall, there are loads of routes in Northumberland that are debatable, the prime example in my opinion being Trouser Legs (E1) at Ravensheugh. Recently put up to E2 5c in the new rockfax, and described by Bill Birkett in his "Rock Climbing in Northern England" book as "could equally be graded E3 in another area". I know several E3/4 leaders who have had a really tough time on this route who have on the same day managed some of the other mid extremes on the crag with a minimum of fuss. I aim to climb this route once a year and still find it a real fight everytime i'm on it, and I'm sure there are people out there who have the same experiences but on Lorraine, Tigers Wall and Wilfred Prickles.

The great thing about grades is that they are debatable, they aren't set in stone, and what is VS to one person may well be E1 to someone else, as is the case on this thread. My own opinion is that Tigers Wall would be given HVS in any other part of the country, as would Lorraine, but we have come to either love or hate them as traditional "Northumbrian VS's!"

Some good points, as for Trouser Legs, I looked at it last time I was at Ravensheugh, apart from the green slimey stuff running down it, the route didnt look too bad, it looked like it would be a straightforward E1 (I didnt try it though), but I have been told that a rather good climber by the name of Mr Savage, said that he wouldn't be surprised if it was graded E5! (so it musn't be as straightforward as it looks!)

Another one to debate - The Arches at Back Bowden has been re-graded to E1...

I still dont think Tigers Wall should have been re-graded though. Everyone always says the crux is unprotected and quite high, implying that the crux is the overhang in the middle, I dont think it is. The overhang is quite easy (bold but easy) and it is reversible, I really dont think it is a 5a move. The overhang on Tigers Overhang at Peel is much more technical and only graded 4c. I think the most technical part and therefore the crux/5a moves on Tigers Wall is the slab at the bottom, which starts at the ground and is only a couple of metres high (no adjective danger there!). VS in my book!

Also, and I am quoting the words of a 'southerner' who wrote in Climber magazine recently - ''VS still means something in the County''!

AndrewC wrote:

QUOTE:

I still dont think Tigers Wall ....Everyone always says the crux is unprotected and quite high, implying that the crux is the overhang in the middle, I dont think it is. The overhang is quite easy (bold but easy) and it is reversible, I really dont think it is a 5a move. The overhang on Tigers Overhang at Peel is much more technical and only graded 4c. I think the most technical part and therefore the crux/5a moves on Tigers Wall is the slab at the bottom, which starts at the ground and is only a couple of metres high (no adjective danger there!). VS in my book!

No, objective danger on Tiger's Wall? You must be 10 feet tall and only a couple of feet off the ground when you reach the crux. If you fall off at the overhang before you put any gear in, you'll twist your ankle or smack it or worse.

Your reasoning of VS grade shows you are not in line with the rationale of the British grading system. VS 5a, without actually seeing the route itself in real life, just by looking through the guidebook, one should be able to say the route has bomber gear and one hard move and pretty safe. Tiger's Wall isn't. You only get gear AFTER the crux, which you're right. People didn't imply the crux was on the overhang. In my opinion, the crux is the slab sequence. Definitley warrant a 5a. VS adjectival grade doesn't reflect the overall seriousness of the route. This is the grade to assist people to decide the seriousness and overall situation of the route. VS doesn't reflect that. When I put my first piece of gear into the bottom of the crack whilst hanging on the big slot jug hold the other week, I thought if I fell off here I'd break something. That was like half way up the route already.

Your grading consideration only takes into account the technicality but not the overall situation, which British grading system take into account.

Tigers Wall used to have reasonable gear just above the slab and the move into the top crack was protected. However over time rock damage has removed these placements. It was originally graded Vs on that basis, and has remained as such since.

Similarily pitcher wall and pitcher wall direct have lost their gear placements making them more serious than they once were.
At least Ptcher wall direct has been upgraded, now E2 I believe.

Jeff Breen wrote:

QUOTE:
Tigers Wall used to have reasonable gear just above the slab and the move into the top crack was protected. However over time rock damage has removed these placements. It was originally graded Vs on that basis, and has remained as such since.

See. That's why it should have a higher grade now because it was graded with VS with gear in mind. This confirms exactly what I understand about British grading system...taking gear, exposure, technicality, landing, strenousness, etc into account. Andy didn't. When people update their guidebook, they try to do all the routes and take into account of any changes. NMC clearly didn't do anything about it in this case. It saved time I suppose.

I've heard of the rock damage before and one can see the fresh scar but I or anyone new to the route wouldn't know what's been changed and can only judge by the 'feel' of the climb. This is when the grades become what the grades should be....consensus.

QUOTE:
See. That's why it should have a higher grade now because it was graded with VS with gear in mind. This confirms exactly what I understand about British grading system...taking gear, exposure, technicality, landing, strenousness, etc into account. Andy didn't.

No no no. The gear, which by the way didn't seem to work which is why the rock's snapped off, was above the crux. The crux is low downand has never been protectable, it's a 5a boulder problem with a classy VDiff above it. Exactly the same as Woolmans wall. Do you think that Woolmans Wall should be E1? Or put another way, are you saying that it should be E1 because it has a 5a move 6 foot off the deck, E1 because it has no gear for 15 feet?

QUOTE:
When people update their guidebook, they try to do all the routes and take into account of any changes. NMC clearly didn't do anything about it in this case. It saved time I suppose.

The consensus on this route and several other candidates for upgrades was that it's VS, just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. Save time? I won't grace that comment with a reply.

jdal wrote:

QUOTE:
No no no. The gear, which by the way didn't seem to work which is why the rock's snapped off, was above the crux. The crux is low downand has never been protectable, it's a 5a boulder problem with a classy VDiff above it.

You've said it yourself. The crux is the same place as it's ever been. Now, the pro is even higher than it used to be. Therefore, you need to get higher before you get any gear, which is what I said before, half way up the route above the crux. If the gear was lower down, then VS is a perfect grade. Since the absence of satisfactory gear before or near the crux, then VS 5a is unreasonable. If someone hasn't done the route and look at the grade, they will think it's got bomber gear but it hasn't. That's why the grade is misleading (is there a pun?). If it's not E1, HVS has to be called for at least to raise the awareness of the unaware!

Consensus for VS? Who are those consensus? Bob, John, Steve? They're not consensus. Consensus come from the sum of all who have climbed the same route and take the majority vote. Anyone done any survey when writing/rewriting the guidebook? At least as many people as possible. Ask 100 people from all over the country to do the route, see what grade they say without looking at the guidebook first. It'd be interesting.

Sometimes, I wonder if people climb in Northumberland most of the time will lose touch of what grades feel in other parts of the country. Hence, sandbagging occurs.

I did Diocese (VS 5a) on Chair Ladder in Cornwall last summer. The gear from the belay to the crux and after the crux was plentiful and bomber. Now that's what I call VS 5a. Tiger's Wall doesn't have that faculty. Of all the VS 5a's I've climbed, up and down the country, Tiger's Wall is probably the least protected before the crux I can recall.

5a boulder problem? That's a problem, too. People now treat routes as boulder problems, perhaps due to the advance of bouldering mats. Do you then write in guidebook, saying, it's only a boulder problem start, bring your bouldering mat as PROTECTION!?!? Like Mark said to me in WildTrak last weekend about the new bouldering guide. County Ethics now a bouldering problem but it's also a route in the definitive route guide. It is this that people nowadays belittle routes as boulder problems, highballs, all because they have lovely bouldering mat instead of shiny metal! Before long, all the single pitch routes will become boulder problems since bouldering mats will become so good!

Skinny Kin wrote:

QUOTE:
British grading system...taking gear, exposure, technicality, landing, strenousness, etc into account. Andy didn't.

You say, and rightly so, that you should take all of the above into account, but the only thing you have taken into account is the gear. I have taken it all into account - exposure, not very exposed, the crux is only a couple of metres high; technicality, the only technical bit is the first two moves; landing, not bad, flat and grassy; strenuousness, not very strenuous at all, the overhanging bit looks like it is going to be strenuous, but it isn't. So yes, the gear is very high up, but if you take it all into account, you get VS.

People should use the guidebook description, and their own judgement, as well as the guidebook grade, when picking a climb, so as long as the description explains that the route is bold and has high gear, there shouldnt be a problem.

Kin - get a grip!

Tigers is VS - if you think that it should be E1 then your going to struggle on an actual E1. Tricky slab at ground level + massive holds on overhang + vdiff flake = VS 5a.

You see, in the county VS still means something. Unlike when you go elsewhere and you climb their poxy VDiff come VS...

What about tacitation then? Thats no more than a Severe if you take away the bottom bit - I think that VS it a bit too much but what do I know? Maybe as the hard bit is also unprotected it should get E1 aswell??