There are probably more climber hours wasted on discussion of grades for routes than any other subject. Grading systems vary by continent, country and even by county. Take Yorkshire VS, for example. Either tha noz, or …
For sure, grading systems are useful, enabling some climbers to give themselves structure and an idea of whether they’re progressing, regressing or obsessing. One thing we can get from a grading system is to answer the following questions:
What kind of difficulty might the route present me with?
What capacity might I need to overcome those difficulties?
What margin will there be between that difficulty and capacity, and what might happen if the former exceeds the latter? Will I be slightly embarrassed, or will I die?
With that aim in mind, here’s a possible system to use which I’ve developed during my years of rock climbing. I picked up the first hints of it while big wall climbing in Yosemite but, as we shall see, the system can be applied elsewhere.
Four Different Grades
Essentially, there are four different grades and, crucially, mindsets with which these types of routes can be associated.
Casual – Pretty much what it says on the tin. Easy climbing, low consequence should you not be able to climb it. Our ability to get up this route isn’t really in question at all. So note that Casual is comparing our ability to the climb, and not anyone else’s. One climber’s Casual could be another climber’s:
Radical – could be wild moves, entailing a departure from the norm, but could equally refer to the terrain through which the climb goes. These two attributes often go together. Think steeply overhanging rock with big features such as tufas. Falls could be long but into free space, so intrinsically safe. But on multi pitch, there might be a situation where there’s no way to lower to the ground. Think Dolomites big walls or the Grande Grotte in Kalymnos. There will be psychological pressure but little physical risk of injury. This is not the case on terrain that is:
Funky – On Funky terrain, we have the unknown creeping in. Think loose rock, protection of debatable quality with serious consequences should those holds snap or the pro not stay in place. Blackchurch on the Culm coast of North Devon would be a perfect example, but short sections of Funkiness can be found on otherwise Casual routes. We’ll come to mixing and matching in a moment but, for now, let’s look at the final grade:
Gnarly – This final category is an interesting one, as while the grade is normally employed in its adjective form with a “y” at the end, a clue can be gained by looking at the noun and the verb, both written as gnarl.
Gnarl as a noun describes the climbing environment. Perhaps epitomised by full Scottish winter conditions (high winds, blowing snow, poor visibility, spindrift avalanches), it means it’s going to be hard work. There may well be sustained physical difficulty (as opposed to the short sharp difficulty of the Radical crux move) and very likely discomfort. There may well be fear of serious outcome in the event of difficulty exceeding our capacity, but unlike the objective risk of Funkiness, Gnarliness is subjective, dependent on our capacity to gnarl away, endure and continue.
Gnarly routes are my favourite. People who know me well will not be surprised. Think a good day out on Ben Nevis or 17 days on the north face of Cerro Kishtwar. We’re going to have to gnarl away at it.
(See footnote on Gnarling Away at the end of this piece)
Like other grading systems, we have subcategories within each grade.
Way – is an increase. So Way Radical is harder than just Radical, and the same goes for Funky and Gnarly. But note that Way Casual is easier.
Kinda – is a decrease. So Kinda Gnarly is a bit on that spectrum, but all manageable. Again, note that Kinda Casual means that it’s easy but you might want to pay attention.
Mixing Grades
Now here’s where it gets interesting. Routes can be in two different categories at the same time. For example:
Casual but Kinda Funky – technically easy climbing but the rock is dubious. Low angle ice climbing with water running behind it, say.
Way Rad and Kinda Gnarly – Imagine a huge line with wild features, difficult to retreat from with the odd bit of seepage from melting snow.
Note that Casual and Gnarly are mutually exclusive. If a route belongs in one of these categories, then by definition it can’t be in the other.
Mindset
So, if we have an idea of what the route entails, that should give us a clue of the mindset we need to be in when we embark on it. Much like the Structured Vigilance Model of avalanche risk assessment, we need to adopt an appropriate philosophical and psychological approach, both in preparation and when mid route. On a separate note, with some adaptation these grades can also be used for snow stability and related avalanche risk mitigation strategies.
The Bottom Line
To finish up, we can shortcut all this using a Binary Retrospective Grading System. This is really simple, and is used as widely apart as boulder problems and big mountain routes.
The first retrospective grade is
You can do it. And you’ve proved it by doing so. In this case the grade is Peecerpiss.
The alternative?
You can’t do it, despite trying. In this case the grade is Nails. As in hard as nails.
Whatever grade you’re climbing, have fun!
Footnote on Gnarling Away
Back in the mists of time, I climbed a great deal with Mal Duff. One of Scotland’s leading winter climbers and a consummate gnarler, we also went on an expedition to Annapurna III in Nepal, where we came up with an antithesis to the luxury Everest expeditions that were just starting to gain traction.
“Gnarlaway International Travel (or GIT, for short)
Leech infested jungles, endless moraines with monster packs, and avalanche prone snow slopes our speciality. Get away with Gnarlaway”
The concept never took off. Funny that….
