A New Rock Grading System?
The EBO Grading System for Rock Climbing
By Henry Gilbert
The Problem With Grades
Imagine this: A human discovers a rock. They like this rock. They find its shape appealing. As they study the intricacies of its formation they imagine what it might require of them to climb. Is it even possible? Perhaps. And so the process begins. They clean it to enhance the friction between the rock’s surface and their skin, they prepare a landing or install protection measures in case of a fall, they put on their sticky shoes and chalk their sweaty hands, and then they climb. They manoeuvre back and forth between the various indentations and protrusions, conforming their body to the unique positions that the rock demands, moving with as much fierce elegance as they can muster. Finally, by way of great effort, creativity, and persistence, they reach the top, triumphant. To identify this route to others they give it a name, and to surmise the great complexity and challenge of their ascent experience they are to choose… a single number. Does that really seem sufficient?
Climbing grades have always been an entirely subjective affair. Part of the reason for this is the variability in conditions of both weather and self that one might find themselves in while attempting and/or completing any given climb on any given day. Body morphology and style familiarity add still vastly more variability to the opinions of grade that might exist for any given route. With enough people to try a particular climb and offer their grade opinion, a consensus can be formed and a grade more or less agreed upon, but even so, this consensus number explains barely anything other than the vague sensation of difficulty that a selection of people have felt while climbing it. What any given grade really means for what to expect of a climb is anyone's guess.
The problem with these grades is that they exist to represent only the physical difficulty (i.e the required strength, fitness, precision, or control) of successfully ascending a route by using what is at least theoretically absolute efficiency; something that can usually only be done when one is familiar with the beta and has perhaps practiced the sequences numerous times. This information is of course interesting, but what the grade does not explain is anything about how committing, cryptic, or otherwise that the climb might be. This is unfortunate because the pure physical difficulty when ascending with perfect beta is potentially the least useful information that the grade could possibly provide to someone approaching the climb for the first time, and is it not the person approaching the climb for the first time to whom the grade provided is most significant? Someone who has already attempted or successfully ascended a given route is afforded the opportunity to form their own understanding of its difficulty relative to their own individual skill set; at which point the grade opinion of others loses some relevance. Meanwhile, someone who has never tried a climb and is curious of its difficulty is given only a single vague number that might only make sense once they have already succeeded in climbing it. Knowing how other climbers that have succeeded in ascending the rock have rated the physical difficulty of their ascent is obviously still of interest, but conventional grades (especially here in New Zealand or Australia) are hardly descriptive of what one might expect for their own attempts to come.
Furthermore, while the pure physical difficulty of a climb is certainly notable in tracking or proclaiming one’s accomplishments in their climbing, it is not always the most notable aspect of a given climb. Here lies another limitation of the systems we currently use. In isolation the number attached to a relatively easy climb might appear underwhelming, but when it is explained that a smeary V3 boulder problem traverses out over a death drop, it suddenly becomes much more interesting. Or instead, perhaps a grade 18/6a sport climb requires particularly bizarre movement to overcome, making it a worthy problem solving challenge despite the relatively low strength or fitness required. Though this could be explained in a supplementary description of the climb, it seems a shame that these additional elements of the experience are left completely unacknowledged by the proposed grade.
There is a safety issue with most current grading systems as well, particularly for beginner climbers. Someone who has never tried a given climb may have nothing but the established grade to work with in deciding if it is something they would like to try, potentially risking their safety or their gear should they discover it to be more challenging, frightening, or dangerous than they bargained for. For less experienced climbers the number attached to the climb might be the difference between their attempting it or not, while providing the least information possible, and this is not even to mention how remarkably cryptic and vague that the associated descriptions of what a climb entails often are. Some people may claim that there is more adventure in knowing nothing but the physical difficulty and what can be read from the ground, and that this is how it should remain. It could just as easily be argued however that this is a sore case of gatekeeping, and that many climbers would rather know what they are getting themselves into, especially if there is a risk of big falls or potential injury at play. If going in completely blind is an experience that you crave, then you could simply not take your guidebook to the crag. For those that would like to know what to expect, current grading systems are mostly insufficient for delivering that information.
It would of course be overkill for every route to have the beta and every other detail listed next to its name, as that would certainly take some of the fun out of it, but there could be a new way to grade climbs that provides the most helpful information at a glance to those approaching them for the first time and without giving too much away. What follows is a carefully considered proposal of what that could look like.
Please note: As a point of context for the assertions made of existing grading systems, please refer to this video explanation by Adam Ondra: https://youtu.be/tDB4b1w8ATc?si=7Sy9_p6Kou4XtAWV
The EBO System Explained
The EBO system is designed to represent the difficulty and experience of onsighting a climb, or at least attempting to clip the anchor or top out a boulder upon first impression and without any prior knowledge of its nuance. It takes strong inspiration from the ‘E’ grading system of British trad and the R-X suffixes of US grading in that it is designed to not only represent the physical difficulty of ascending, but also the general experience and risk in doing so as well. This author acknowledges that the name EBO (pronounced “ee-bo”) is a bit goofy, but this makes it fun to say and easy to remember, aiding its usability. This system is designed to be compatible with all rock climbing disciplines such as bouldering, sport, or trad.
This is a triple valuation system with each of three numbers representing an individual rating for three separate elements of the experience of attempting a climb for the first time. EBO is an acronym for each of these elements. They are: Exposure, Boldness, and Obscurity. Unlike physical difficulty grades, the ratings for each element are not open ended, but instead rated from 1-5. This system is imagined to be used in conjunction with existing french, ewbank, YSD, font, or hueco grades so as to also describe the pure physical difficulty of a well executed ascent.
This is an example of how the grade might be written:
Climb Name, 24/7a, EBO 213
Each of the three numbers correspond in order with each of the preceding letters and the elements that they represent. Here, the 2 represents the Exposure, the 1 represents the Boldness, and the 3 represents the Obscurity. What these ratings actually mean is outlined in the following sections.
As discussed above, it is the belief of this author that by introducing this additional grading system, far greater detail of the most interesting and/or important elements of the climbing experience may be conveyed to those to whom the grade of a climb is most relevant and significant (i.e. those approaching it for the first time).
Defining Each Element
Each 1-5 rating is designed to sit somewhere between two extremes of imaginable scenarios, with 1 being the least extreme imaginable, and 5 being the most extreme imaginable. It is expected that the average climb is likely to sit around a rating of 2 for each element. Once again, these ratings are designed to represent the experience that one might have upon first interaction with any given climb. Of course, the objective danger represented by the Boldness element will never change regardless of how many times a climb is rehearsed, but the elements of exposure and most certainly obscurity are subject to change within one's own experience of the route over time. Thus, when grading with the EBO system, values should be selected based on the expected experience of attempting to onsight the climb. Some imagination is therefore required when grading as this will likely be done retrospectively to the actual first attempt of the grader.
Exposure:
There is undeniably some subjectivity here, making this perhaps the most difficult element to define. This first rating is associated with factors that influence the sense of exposure felt during the climb. These factors might include airiness around the climber, hight or altitude of the climb, steepness of terrain, distance between protection, dynamicness or insecurity of movement, sparsity of holds, etc. As well, this element is not to be the likelihood of one feeling fear while climbing a given route, as this is far too variable from climber to climber, but instead should represent the sense of exposure as it exists on a spectrum irrespective of one's emotional reaction to it. Though the sensation of exposure often increases in conjunction with boldness, this is not always the case; hence the separation of the two ratings. It is of course possible to have a rather airy climb that is still objectively quite safe. Due to the inherent subjectivity of this element, the following are simple examples and not a strict guide for deciding on a number.
Examples:
1 - A well protected and featured chimney or dihedral in a sheltered gully that doesn’t go very high.
2 - A mostly undramatic climb that requires the odd insecure or dynamic movement at height, perhaps while above protection.
3 - A tall, airy boulder that requires insecure positioning.
4 - Steep, dynamic, runout, airy.
5 - A steep, runout arete that protrudes from a high altitude cliffside over an immense drop and featuring insecure movement between sparse features.
Boldness:
This describes the objective danger of falling in the most dangerous section of the climb irrespective of the physical difficulty or likelihood of falling in that section, as this will be dependent on the individual abilities of the climber. It is imagined that the separate physical difficulty rating will indicate to the climber their own likelihood of taking a fall, and their 6 understanding of the location of the crux will indicate the likelihood of them falling in the most dangerous section. What constitutes the most dangerous section will usually be associated with the degree of runout or ground-fall potential when climbing with a rope, and the distance from the landing when climbing without. This system assumes that the climber will use all available protection opportunities as they are established, and in the case of traditional protection, that they will place all gear appropriately.
Examples:
1 - A well protected climb where something would have to go seriously wrong for there to be any chance of injury.
2 - An uncontrolled fall could cause injury.
3 - A fall could cause significant injury.
4 - A fall could be survivable, but barely.
5 - A fall would result in certain death.
Obscurity:
There is naturally some subjectivity to this element as well, though perhaps less than that of exposure. This element describes the complexity/readability of the required movement. This rating does not necessarily represent the difficulty of the movement required, simply the difficulty of identifying the movement required when approaching the climb as if onsighting it. Importantly, this should be the obscurity relative to the physical difficulty grade. A V5, EBO XX3 would have especially complex and obscure movement for a V5, while a 9a, EBO XX1 would have obvious movement but likely be sustained with poor holds, hence the difficulty rating. It should be assumed as well that the climber is at least somewhat familiar with the given rock type. Once again, the following examples are only a guide, not a strict criteria for value selection.
Examples:
1 - An obvious hold ladder to the top, perhaps with multiple possible beta sequences.
2 - The best holds may be blind or are not always obvious with some sequential movement required.
3 - Sequential and complex or deceptive. Would be an impressive flash, let alone onsight.
4 - Sequential, complex, cryptic or deceptive, and requiring of unusual movement. Would be an astonishing onsight.
5 - A cryptic, esoteric sequence with deceptive holds that requires unusual or unique movement to surpass. Likely impossible to onsight, even if one is physically capable.
Further Discussion
If this grading system ever comes to see any real use, it is expected that climbers will likely select ratings conservatively, as they often have a tendency to do. This is another curious factor in climbing grading: Even though climbing (especially when first ascending) any given climb of a higher number value would likely incur greater bravado, the potential embarrassment of having a climb down graded by a future ascensionist tends to lead many climbers to err on the side of sandbagging-caution over being found to grade soft. As far as this author is aware, there have been very few ascents (and likely no actual onsights) of an EBO 555 climb. Even Alex Honnold’s free solo ascent of Freerider on El Capitan would likely incur a grade of EBO 553 at most relative to the grade of 5.13a/28, thinking of course specifically of the crux 'boulder problem'. Though this is only speculation, as this author has never climbed that route or even close to that grade. In any case, it is expected to be near impossible to actually onsight an Obscurity 4 or 5, as the movement would likely be too complex to even identify without first investigating and testing, let alone to execute on the first attempt. It is expected as well that a V1 could never incur an Obscurity rating of 3 or higher as the required movement of a V1 difficulty climb is simply too straightforward, even for a beginner. Of course, as with existing grades, there will inevitably be debate within this system as well, and consensus will still be needed to form any solid ratings.
Though of most use and significance to those approaching any given climb for the first time, this system need not necessarily cease all relevance to those returning to the same climb for repeat attempts, or to those with prior knowledge of the climb’s nuance. It is the belief of this author that this system offers a valuable and potentially motivating point of reference for projecting climbers as well. For example, a climber remaining within their current limit of physical difficulty grade could seek to push themselves in the mental side of their climbing by intentionally choosing to project a climb with a higher Exposure or Boldness rating than they have succeeded on before. As well, one might test their problem solving capabilities on a climb with a higher Obscurity rating by trying to figure out an appropriate sequence without any 3rd party input or beta assistance. Finding climbs that suit this progression criteria is far more challenging without associated identifying values. These criteria could lie waiting in any given route, but using only current grading systems how could one know unless they first find their way to it, perhaps only to discover that it isn’t what they were looking for. In general this system allows for better communication of climbing achievements that do not pertain only to the physical difficulty of the ascent. Achieving the top out of a V4 boulder doesn’t sound that impressive by itself, but topping out a V4, EBO 443 is quite a remarkable achievement indeed.
Finally, this system is most definitely not designed with the intention of reshaping the ways people engage with climbing to be any more focused on numbers than it already is. It is simply designed to make grading more useful, more descriptive, and in a way, more fun; especially to those for whom grades exist to be most relevant. It is acknowledged as well that this proposed new system in no way solves every problem with existing climbing grades, but is hopefully a step in the right direction.
Have thoughts about this? Start a discussion in the comments field below.