Talk:Grade (climbing)/Archive 1

Yosemite Decimal System (revert)
I don't mean to be rude by simply reverting, but the new version was incorrect. YDS does rate a climb based on the difficulty of the hardest move. (See e.g. Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills.) -- Spireguy 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Free Climbing First!
It seems odd that when going to specifics, that aid climbing comes first. Free climbing is the most popular discipline, and really should come first. I'd like to move the Aid Climbing section down perhaps to just after Free Climbing, maybe lower. Objections? Discussion? Ratagonia 02:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs on old books
I prefer listing the ISBN that is shown on the actual book. If the same edition is available with a modern ISBN, then that is good to list. (Roper Yo Guide 1971 has an older ISBN that does not automatically link). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratagonia (talk • contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Ice Climbing Grades
Hey, does anyone else think it appropriate to add on to the ice climbing grades section? I know that in the article there is no mention of the New England Ice system, as outlined here (at the bottom of the page). I think it might be a good thing to add, for as far as I know, all the ice climbs in, for instance, the Adirondacks, are still rated with NEI style ratings. akokskis 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vermin Bouldering Scale
Is there a reason the Vermin Bouldering Scale is not represented here? My suggestion:

This table is a bit off in terms of the Vermin Scale. You should refer to 8a.nu to get a more accurate comparison of rating scales. Barhamd (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A few points:


 * The V scale isn't mentioned anywhere in the text of the article, making this column very confusing to the diligent reader.
 * There is already a Grade (bouldering) article which explains the different bouldering grades, although it doesn't yet have a comparison table; perhaps it should.
 * If there is to be a comparison of bouldering and climbing grades at all, it ought to be accompanied by the usual disclaimer that it's like comparing apples and oranges. (In slightly more encyclopedic language of course.) --Blisco (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibility of Death
I added "(possibility of death/injury, even when properly protected)" to the R/X ratings in the YDS section and thought that it might need clarification. Long runouts are never considered "Properly Protected" but since some say that once a route has been established you can not add bolts to it, some climbs will not be properly protected according to definition. One example of this is "The Shinning" above the Ahwahnee, a 5.13 face climb with nowhere for natural-pro placement, intentionally left as a runout to prevent "Hang-Dogging". It has one bolt between the top and bottom belay stations and so the posibility of taking a 180 foot wipper is pretty high. There are also climbs that due to the layout of the rock will send you flying into another rock if you fall, even with maximum protection, like some overhangs. So climbing the route as intended with "Normal" protection (no added bolts or body armor, aside from helmets), is what I meant by "properly protected". So climbing the route as intended with "Normal" protection (no added bolts or body armor, aside from helmets), is what I meant by "properly protected". If you can think of better phrase try it, I might like it. --Billy Nair (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples
Some examples associating grades with specific mountain climbs would be helpful and illustrative. I'm not an expert in this area and I find the article (and the child articles with each different systems) all give little context. -Rolypolyman (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that unless they are considered "World Class" climbs (Yosemite's nose, Mt. Everest, etc.) that most examples would be biased to the location of the climbers, and although YDS is use in most US locations, a 5.11 in Utah would be considered a 5.9 by most Yosemite climbers, so giving examples might not really be applicable here? --Billy Nair (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are not a climber, pointing out that Resolution Arete is 5.10 does not really mean anything. So in the context of the non-climber, it would take more than a few hours hunting around the wikipedia to see the difference between, for instance, Equinox (J Tree) II 5.13a and Assalam Alaikum (Great Trango Tower) VI 5.11d A2. Ratagonia (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Color coding to comparison table (request for comment, informal)
An interesting effort - I wonder how many editors find it appropriate (and I think the written descriptions are peculiar):

Please comment "Keep" or "Delete" with a brief reasoning - thanks Ratagonia (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - needs work / original research / impossible to make written descriptions that are sensical... Ratagonia (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: descriptions are currently original research (maybe these can be cited?) and without them, the colors are not useful -- Spireguy (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Improve - Since people generally boulder at a higher level than they climb routes, I think it would be a good idea to adjust the color code on the bouldering section accordingly. --A Random Design (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Improve - Use a color gradient that blends the border? --A Random Design (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

THE RESPONSE was underwhelming. I have removed the comments about the colors, but left the colors in the table (because it makes the table easier to read, and is pretty). Ratagonia (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Period of training required
(All these grades require protection equipment — rope, harnesses etc. — and should never be attempted except with professional instruction.)

The amount of training required to achieve a particular grade varies vastly between individuals. Of special significance is finger strength (load born by the forearm muscles) used for supporting one's body weight using a small rock-hold. Next most important is the development of upper body strength, in particular the latissimus dorsi and brachialis muscles, essential for pullups. Moderately committed recreational climbers typically train 2 to 4 times a week.

On the Ewbank (USA in parenthesis) scale, grades 14 (5.7) and below are achievable by non-climbers who are physically fit and agile. Grades 11-12 (5.6, 5.7-) are rarely vertical, and grades below that are considered scrambling rather than rock-climbing.

Grades 13-14 (5.7) walls will usually have large holds big enough to grasp deeply up to the palm with all fingers. Grades above 14 (5.7) are almost always vertical.

Grades 15-16 (5.8) are achievable with a few weeks of training. This grade will possibly have sloping holds (a more challenging grasp), and mild pullup moves. Complexity will be introduced in the sequence in which toe and hand holds are used: an out-of-order attempt will force the climber to backtrack.

Grades 17-18 (5.9) will typically take many months to achieve. This grade will possibly have awkward laybacks as well as smaller holds, under-clings, and severe pullups. The rock face may also be overhanging.

Grades 19-20 (5.10b - 5.10c) are achievable within one or two years, and may have "large" crimpers (holds too shallow to grasp except up to the first knuckle.) as well as difficult combination moves that require planning.

Grades 21-23 (5.10d - 5.11b) is achievable after three to five years. These might combine complex combinations with even smaller crimpers at awkward angles. Difficult overhanging moves are common.

Grades 24-25 (5.11c - 5.12a) might have a dyno (a jump where the climber physical leaves the rock face) to a moderately easy catch. An overhanging move requiring tremendous strength in one arm, and/or crimper holds on only one or two fingers (and at awkward angles), might also be included.

Most climbers never manage to achieve higher grades than 25 (5.12a). Beyond 25 (5.12a) the difficulty of the moves becomes abstract. One arm pullups, boy inversion, toe-hooks, and awkward dynos are common.

Grades over 30 (5.13) represent the strength and training of an Olympic-level athlete.

The above descriptions represent common walls, however specialized types of rock-climbing have a very different skill set. For instance, sloping granite climbs have very small crimpers and high grades, yet may not be vertical. Crack climbing requires its own training so that a climber will find him/herself limited to much lower grades for a crack climb than say for a regular wall.


 * I found this contribution interesting, but unencyclopedic. It is an interesting exercise to try to explain what makes a "25" harder than a "20" to a non-climber, but I don't think this belongs in this article, and/or in the wikipedia at all.  It is unclear to me that non-climbers would have any interest in the arcane art of debating route ratings - but are perhaps interested in knowing that a rating system exists and that each country (of course) has its own system.  Are these descriptions based on a published article?  or Original Research?  What do other wikipedians think?  Ratagonia (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not Include: unencyclopedic. Ratagonia (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not Include: as it stands, it has no source, so it is OR by default. If it gets sourced, it might be appropriate in a general rock climbing article, but not in this article, which is focused just on the grading systems. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The “new wave” aid system A6
Grade A6 currently states "Same as A5, but with belay anchors that won’t hold a fall. A fall will kill the whole team."

I can't see why anyone would use such a belay anchor, rather than soloing. Am I missing something? --Ozhiker (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be true if A6 truly existed but "Freedom of the Hills" says 5+ is theoretical. Aid route are generally many pitches so the idea would be that a pitch would end in an insecure location from which the party started another pitch of A5 climbing.  How a part gets a their haul sack and portaledge to this insecure belay station is beyond me.  My understanding that its inflation applied to a finite scale.  It was good that A6 was removed.


 * I still think the aid grading sections is pretty bad right now, the numeric component of the system is not predicated on what type of gear is used but rather the fall potential. For example right now the article reads "C2: Moderate aid. Solid gear, but difficult to place. May require cam or sky hooks." it a mistake to say that a rating it may require a nut, leaper, sky hook, or cam hook.  The route will be climbed with whatever gear suits the climber and the terrain regardless of grade.  The grade is based on the longest potential fall when the route is protected in the best possible way.  I think the section should be altered so that its inline with "Freedom of the Hills" which also matches my experience with guides and routes.--OMCV (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Grades
I feel that this article should not only have all the grades, but also a short history of the grades as well. It would not be necessary to include alot, just a paragraph or two. 203.129.39.80 (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality of "Grade systems for mountaineering" section
Maybe it's just my opinion, but I think that the "Grade systems for mountaineering" section in this article is sub-par. For starters, the lead paragraph doesn't properly introduce the sub-sections that follow. That lead paragraph should begin with something like, "There are many systems in common use to grade the difficulty of individual mountains. Some systems also grade each individual aspects..." Additionally, each systems should ideally give a solid description of the grades. For instance, the French Alpine section lists the classes as "easy", "difficult", etc. but doesn't not define what is meant by the terms. This renders the information useless. Furthermore, no indication is given to the applicability of these systems. How is the systems use constrained by geography? What systems (if any) is usually applied to the Andes? When were the systems implemented? Is there any effort to for an international standard? Lots of important questions remained unanswered (I don't know the answers to these). Jason Quinn (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WI Descriptions
thank you for adding the descriptions of WI (Winter Ice) ratings, 128.223.222.62. But, kinda need a citation for that. What did you use as a source? Ratagonia (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you jest?
"The Extremely Severe grade is subdivided in an open-ended fashion into E1 (easiest), E2, E3 and so on. As of 2006 the hardest climb was graded E11: Rhapsody on Dumbarton Rock, climbed by Dave Macleod, featured French 8c+ climbing with the potential of a 20-metre fall onto a small wire.[1] In 2008, James Pearson climbed The walk of life at Dyer's Lookout, North Devon; the ascent was performed without using bolts or pitons, with just mobile protections, and was graded E12/7a.[2] However, many climbers consider such high grades provisional, as the climbs have not yet been achieved on sight."

Really? A 73m high hill is the worlds hardest climb and is verified by a film by some unnamed bloke? And nobody has noticed this addition? Which has then be usurped by some other unlinked hill two years later? Come on. (yes I know I can edit Wiki but I know zero about climbing. So I didn't want to tread on anyones toes in case that 73m climb is somehow like the north face of the Eiger) VonBlade (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Looks good. Quite the achievement.  MUCH harder than the Eiger, at least in a technical sense.  I will add a citation to a legitimate journal. Ratagonia (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Expanding Ratagonia's comment: the claim is that this is the "hardest climb" in the sense of the difficulties of the moves, not in terms of the length of the climb or other factors that enter into, say, mountaineering grading systems. I wouldn't say that it is "harder" than the Eiger or vice versa; I would say that they aren't easily comparable, since different grading systems need to be applied to such different climbs. Thanks to Ratagonia for the better source. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Really I couldn't see how on earth that could be classed as difficult, but having seen the new reference it's insane. Glad I asked rather than edited :) VonBlade (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The statement is still not right; it isn't and wasn't the world's hardest climb (it's F8c+ on scary trad gear) and wasn't even Britain's hardest route (number of F9a routes at Malham for example). What it was was Britain's hardest trad climb (and one of if not the hardest trad line in the world but that all gets a bit complex). - Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.172.57 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit tag to article

 * Mentions "conflict of interest" which is rather unclear. Perhaps lame.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Grade comparison chart adjustments
While the current grade comparison chart may or may not be assiduously sourced, certainly any changes to the comparison chart requires some really good sourcing, and consensus on the Talk Page (ie, here). A simple "when I climb 5.9, if feels like Wasingo Ultimate "UB-30-&terw" to me - don't you agree??". Questions? See WP:RS Ratagonia (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources: Conversion tables from climbing websites, such as 8a.nu,summit Post, UKC, Squamish Climbing (which is very creative and invents a - for the French scale) or rockclimbing.com. Or from guidebooks such as any supertopo guidebook, or randomly grabbed from my shelf: Southern California Sport Climbing by Troy Mayr. Lastly, also two of the conversion tables suggested by users in the past. Steple (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you state, simply, the changes you want to make, which are in accord with the sources listed above? Then we could put it to a vote??  Ratagonia (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * as a passer by here I would say that the uk technical column doesn't match up to the uk adjectival column. the ukclimbing link above will confirm this.  The S grade is centered on 4a (it is rare for any VDiff to have a technical grade).  HS = 4b, VS = 4c, HVS = 5a, E1 = 5b, E2 = 5c.  Thereafter things get more spread out, your existing matching of E4 with 6a is about right.  The entire table should come with a reminder that different grading systems measure different aspects of a route and so are not directly comparable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.141.4 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there an grades between 1 and 5?
The article defines Grade 1, and then talks about all the Grade 5 points. How about explaining what 2, 3, 3+, 4 etc. are?--TDKehoe (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences in the bouldering grade
This page has a table comparing bouldering grades and there is also a similar table in here, the two tables should be the same, shouldn't they?-- quimey (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

British (and Irish)
The British grading system may be used in Ireland, just as the French system is used outside France, but it was invented in Britain and is universally called British - I've never heard it called "British and Irish" outside Wikipedia. I've therefore reverted to the usual name, with a mention of the fact that it is used in GB and Ireland; I think that should be sufficient. --Blisco 21:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm Irish. I landed on this page wondering which grading system we use. If it's the British system it should be called that, jused as we use British sockets and swiss fuses. I would like a section that says which system is more prevalent in each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.178.70 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comparison Table
I don't want to tread on anyones toes, but would it be worth replacing the grade comparison table image with a markup based table as below? This would allow the table to be edited if necessary. -- pcrtalk 20:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In principle, I think this is a great idea. One change that I think would be beneficial though is the removal of the horizontal borders between the grades. Those lines currently imply (at least to me) a clear boundary between grades and, more crucially, a definite correspondance between respective grades in the various scales. I'm not sure how straight-forward such a change would be, but if you can do that then I'll wholeheartedly recommend using this table instead. Stewart Adcock 21:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, I've removed the horizontal lines and replaced the alternating row shading, which also tended to suggest equivalence, with a gradual gradient. I'm going to sit on this for a few minutes and if i still like it put it in the main page. -- pcrtalk 22:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! Can you put the horizontal borders back into the heading section? Stewart Adcock 22:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not easily! I'm using the wiki tables format which is a little more constrained than regular html tables, but is easier for non-geeks to edit when the table has been created. I'll see whether i can do something though. -- pcrtalk 23:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about that? I'm not sure how it will look on some browsers, but looks ok to me on i.e. -- pcrtalk 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain how to change it, but in the current table the lower end of the Finnish grading is completely wrong at least in comparison to UK grades - which I know. 5- is about UK 4c, 5/5+ is 5a to hard 5a, 5+/6- is 5b. Sustained 6- routes like Ukkosen Johdatin at Olhava would be considered tough E1 5b in UK grades. Few finnish routes are graded lower than 4+, but 4+ would be around 4b and 4 about 4a. - Finnishing 07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Norwegian grades in the table. There are no routes graded harder than 9+ (8c) in the Norwegian grade system. Therefore we do not know how 9a or 9b would translate to a Norwegian grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.108.7 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, Just dropping by to say thank you! This is absolutely brilliant =) 90.196.178.135 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ewbank system
"...climb that is well-protected and offers good rests but has a couple of very difficult moves around 19 or 20 might also be a 17"

Serious?? I don't know Mr. Ewbank personally, but like it says earlier in the article his system initially only tried to rate the hardest move. Now it has become the custom that if a route is long and sustained then it might be rated 19 even though no single move on the route can be said to be harder than 17. But if a route has one move that is clearly a 19, then the route is a 19 no matter how easy the rest of the route is. Anyone agree?

(a)I disagree, you need to go back and comprehend the artical, "The Ewbank system is not intended to simply grade the hardest individual move on a climb...".

Dispite this, in my experence (20 year of climbing of which I have four years as an instuctor in my younger years), grades will vary from crag to crag for any number of reasons. This is not only true in Australia but in every other country i have climbed in.

In essence the system nowadays really doesn't differ from the YDS, its a sliding scale that rates difficulty. One day your tradding a 21, the next day at a different crag you get spat off an 18 sport route... Just like life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.187.144 (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I completely agree with all the facts on this page. My experience (and reason :-)) says that the route difficulty (grade) is rather an "energetic" weight of all the route than the weight of one of it's move . :-) Problem is how to calculate unknown difficulty of system of moves from known difficulty of particular moves. :-) This is harder than intuitively expected, this is serious problem of physics related to many-body systems and interactions . Therefore we can only follow the way of intuitive definition of the grade of the route , in the end . :-(

Just let me add some facts of that :

Even though some routes have the moves quite separable one from other, so the difficulty of them doesn't "accumulate" to rise the grade of all the route , it is not the case for most of routes. Especially, this is not true for the routes of top-most grades on the rock. Generally, it is not the case at all , even worse it is relative dependent on training and skills of the climber.

The interaction between moves contributes significantly to the route difficulty (energy), to the grade of the route , it causes accumulation of difficulty. This is generally physics of interactions topic, specially the biochemistry of the body system – metabolism topic. If two consequent moves are to difficult in connection to the relaxation space between them (relax is to short), then the fuel of muscles decreases (on one level) and second move is done in relatively harder biological context than the first one , so is harder. This fact is objective and directly implies increase of difficulty.

The decrease of muscles fuel strongly depends on the level of ability and training of the person. So it is that not only difficulty of moves is relatively different for different climbers, but even the difficulty accumulation effect of the moves differs from climber to climber. This makes it even more hard to define grade of the route objectively. It means that the route difficulty is not a linear function of relative (with respect to person) moves difficulty, but a quadratic one at least. It means that two difficulty grades are closer one to other for the trained climber then for less trained one. (This also partially explains why expert climbers continuously downgrade the older routes . Partially it is because their sensitivity to low grades which are far from their current max. degenerates .) It means that as you are going to succeed in being trained and skilled climber, the difficulty of concrete route relatively decrease for you not linearly but at least quadratically. The route is becoming for you more decomposed to the moves as interactions becoming weaker comparing to moves difficulty. Moves difficulty go down linearly while interactions go down quadratically.

“General true” is that harder the route is for you, higher the interaction quotient is (for you) so higher is accumulation of difficulty. :-) Event this theorem is disputable but it would be than very long debate and it already is . :-). Let’s conclude that putting energy to training makes the route easier regardless what and how many aspects are the cause.

Conclusion : it is wise to define difficulty of the route after some count of repetitions to reach some objectiveness but still at the time it is relatively hard for us. Then the grade should be locked and should stand as standard base for next routes and grades. The grade is than somehow well defined as it reached some objectiveness in form of well defined biological context. It has then somehow reasonably included accumulation part of difficulty. The grade of the route should be defined by climbers who have good sensitivity in concrete part of grade scale, by those whose max is near concrete grade. That’s my opinion got from the practice.

(2) Almost all the transformation table is almost perfect and is the best I've seen on the internet :-) I'd just suggest change to last lines : 5.14.d American is equal to 9a French which is equal to 11 UIAA . That's my opinion supported by the literature and opinions of climbers published in the articles . It is not supported by my experience :-). I can personally help only to the grade of 10 UIAA (8b French). American 5.15a, French 9a+ , UIAA 11+ is usual agreement for the next scale degree , according to what I've read. American scaling therefore litle bit inflates in 5.14 grade. Actually it inflates probably since 5.11 :-) . 5.13 b is rather 8a French, my opinion . 5.12 b can be 8+ UIAA . Let others decide :-). But definitely, Action Directe is a standard , and it is 11 UIAA = 9a French = 5.14 d USA.

??

This is my suggestion :

--Actionjj (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC) In my experience climbing in the US and Australia, 5.11d is not 25, IME 5.11d is probably more around 23/24, and 25 is more around 5.12a/b. The 28's that I have been on, have been harder than the 5.12d's that I have been on, although not enough experience at that end to call it. Either way I think thecrag is a good reference - I've seen the grades change on this wiki article many times, I've never seen 5.11d suggested as 25 - I've not seen that on many grade conversion charts.

As per my comment above, I have reverted the main article in the EWBANK AUS grade range 24-29 to what it has been historically. I personally have experience climbing in that range across Australia, and the USA as per my comment above. The website thecrag.com - https://www.thecrag.com/en/article/grades has the best reference for grade comparisons on the EWBANK scale as it has the highest concentration of Australian climbers that have a breadth of experience comparing to the EWBANK AUS grading system to other scales from their international travels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.114.52 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Romanian alpine grades
Used a blog source for the history of the grade since, as far as I know, this info is only available in some not-available-online magazines I can't easily source and in mountaineering classes such as the one I've taken with the author of the blog (a local mountain guide). Please edit it out if it isn't appropriate.

Could also use someone who climbs harder than me going through the route examples and adding more relevant ones, for multiple areas - because of the imprecision and obfuscation of the scale one can't simply describe the features needed to qualify for each step, and I'm too much of a beginner to figure out what would be an standard route for various grade/area/route character combinations

~RV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.28.61 (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yosemite Decimal System Length of Route
I am planning on changing the "commitment grade section of this article and source the material. Currently I'm looking at Don Mellor's "Climbing in the Adirondacks" that lists the commitment grade/length of the route as:

I  A couple of hours

II Half a day

III Most of a day

IV A full day

V  Usually includes a bivoac

VI A true big-wall climb of several days

or from Freedom of the Hills

I  A short, easy climb near the road, with no avalanche hazard and a straight forward decent.

II A route of one or two pitches within short distance of rescue assistance, with very little objective harzard.

III A multi-pitch route at low elevation, or a one-pitch climb with an approach that takes an hour or so. The route requires from a few hours to a long day to complete. Descents may require building rappel anchors, and the route might be prone to avalanche.

IV A multi-pitch route at higher elevations; may require several hours approach on skis or foot. Subject to objective hazards; possibility with a hazardous descent.

V  A long climb in a remote setting, requiring all day to complete the climb itself. Requires many rappels off anchors for the descent. Sustained exposure to avalanche or other objective hazard.

VI A long ice climb in an alpine setting, with sustained technical climbing. Only elite climbers will complete it in a day. A difficult and involved approach and descent, with objective hazards ever-present, all in a remote area far from the road.

VII Everything a grade VI has, and more of it. Possibly requires days to approach the climb, and objective hazards render survival as a certain as a coin toss. Needless to say, difficult physically and mentally. -- William.climbing 18:20, 11 March 2014 (EST)

Deep-water grades
Need to update this for Deep-water grades (e.g. S1, S2, S3), which assess risk of injury from falls. 78.18.249.143 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)