The Great Grade Debate

On Sunday 1st March the Great Grade Debate took place at the Sheffield Adventure Film Festival (ShAFF). For an hour and half the nations grades were debated enthusiastically from a multitude of different angles whilst Nick Colton of the BMC supervised. The Climb Magazine Web Editor was there.

Why was this debate necessary? Matt Heason who organised the event had this to say on the ShaFF website

“In light of the recent spate of super hard trad climbing ascents in the UK we've decided to hold a 'Question Time' style debate at ShAFF to discuss the unique British Grading system. To some it's the perfect system, explaining more about a route than any other, but to others, especially when it comes to higher end grades, it clouds things and causes confusion. Should cutting-edge ascencionists be grading for the hypothetical on-sight at the same time as having the said ascent videoed and thereby rendering the pure on-sight impossible to any viewers? Does a climber's 'experience' on a route affect its grade? Just how responsible are the media and sponsors when it comes to the rush of reporting a major new route, and what effect have internet forums had on their moderation?”

                                                                                                                                                              Steve McClure

                                                                                                                                               One of the seven panel members

It was hard to know what to take away from the Great Grade Debate at first. As everyone left the Showroom Cinema their minds struggled to cope with everything that had been said over an hour and a half. Brains boiled with terms like redpointing, headpointing, padless and highball. Heads swam with the possibility of throwing out 'E' grades and adopting French grades (heaven forbid), or keeping them, or keeping half of them. If you asked anyone to elaborate on something they remembered about The Debate they tended to look around for an escape. When people did answer you got inadequate mumbles about how, ‘I don’t climb hard enough for it to matter to me’ or ‘I didn’t really understand that bit’. However if you pushed anyone to say exactly what they’d learnt from the whole thing, they tended to say something like, ‘eer, I don’t know. Grades aren’t that important’.

This initial feeling immediately after The Debate was probably misleading. Now, with some perspective on The Great Grade Debate we can step back a little and say of course grades are important – just not that important.

From the debate it was apparent that many of the perceived problems with the British Traditional Grading system were thought to be at the top of it, E6 and above or E8 and above. Some cited the necessity of using other nation’s grades to augment the British, thereby effectively negating the British in the first place. Others pointed out that the British Technical grade simply needed to evolve to avoid this negation. Some of the debate revolved around the difficulty of grading new routes that were cutting edge or dangerous. Apparently concluding that it didn’t matter, really, what people gave them as it would all be evened out by consensus in the end anyway. The way pads are used was mentioned regarding what they do to the ‘E’ grade of a route. No understanding was reached on this. However someone did point out that using the quantity of pads that required two trips to the car was clearly unsporting.

Many other facets of grading were debated enthusiastically. To list them all here would be beyond the scope of this article. The whole debate was filmed and hopefully will be available through UKC or The BMC in the future. The panel were excellent at answering people’s questions in a concise manner. The Debate was steered well through the issues by Nick Colton of The BMC. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of The Debate arose without a specific question to lead into it and without being on the debate agenda. It concerned the importance of grades to different members of the panel. Several of the panel were keen to highlight that grades were far from being the most important part of their climbing. Most of the panel seemed in some way frustrated that they had to get bogged down in them at all. The aggressive nature of the British ‘scene’ or the climbing media were cited as possible reasons for our getting caught up in grades. Others pointed out that in our highly subjective sport, it could be considered inevitable. Climbing is so intangible, so different for each person, so unquantifiable.

So how much do grades matter? Is there a serious crisis of confidence in the British grading system? It did not appear so. Debate is healthy and there was debate. However there weren’t that many people present and this perhaps says it all. Grades are not why most people climb.

The overall impression from The Great Grade Debate was that grades are a curious and essential fact of climbing, not to be taken too seriously.

The panel on the day consisted of:

Dave Birkett
Ben Bransby
Nick Colton (Chair)
John Dunne
Steve McClure
James Pearson
Nic Sellars
John Arran (not present but pre recorded some thoughts)

Credit must go to all those who took part and to Heason Events, The BMC and UKC for helping organise the debate. Not a harsh word was said throughout the whole event and not a voice was raised in anger.

For more information on The Great Grade Debate visit

Heason Events

UK Climbing

The British Mountaineering Council

Back to home page >>