mattp

They work for me!

Mike- Do you have any stats or perhaps a general impression as the the relative success rates of parties that go for the "traditional" 2-day itinerary as compared to, say, a 3-day plan? How 'bout the 1-day'ers?

Coming down from Mt. Hardy, I don't think you'll hit Swamp Creek but, as I said, veer right (west) down low and end up in a small drainage that runs of the center of Hardy's S. Face (rather than Swamp Creek). You could go up that way, too, but you may or may not find it right off.

(1) Mt. Hardy is pretty good. It must be about a 3,000 foot run, south facing, and it is moderate in steepness but steep enough to really rip. I believe you park at "Swamp Creek," and head into the woods and stay generally up and left to treeline, with some crawling over logs. For some reason, we started on the right side of the stream and quickly crossed over left. The upper slopes lead pretty much directly to the summit, with about 50 feet of step-kicking. You may want to bear sligthly right (westward) for the lower part of the descent and come out about a mile down the road from where you start. But it's probably easier to find it the way I describe here. (2) A classic highway 20 tour is Silver Star Mountain. If the snow is consolidated on N. Slopes, I'd recommend going up Burgundy Col, for 3000 feet of kicking steps. Then drop onto the glacier and ski up right to it's head. The run down is great, and the bowl into Silver Star Creek is good too. You'll find it nasty going out Silver Star Creek but it isn't far. You end up 5 miles down the road. This is a fairly full day for most parties, but not at all unreasonable if you are experienced and even reasonably fit. I'm not sure this would be a good tour for the snowboarder, because there may be too much flats involved, but it is a scenic ski tour with one of the areas highest peaks involved if you can scramble class 3 rock with snow on it in your ski boots. (3) The broad gully directly above the hairpin below S. Early Winter Spire is a great run, right next to the road. It's a good, straight up - straight down shot, and may have a staircase of foot steps already in place. If you have extra energy, you can drop into Copper Creek on the other side of the little peaklet above and left at the top of the gully. If you do this, then climb out the end of Copper Creek to get back into creek leading down to the hairpin, you'll have done the "Birthday Tour," one of the areas more famous day trips. (4) The South Slope of Cutthroat is another roadside run that is quite nice. There's usually a wide spot where you can park and look directly accross at it. If the lower slopes are not bare, it is a good and straight forward trip. ...

This is something I hadn't considered before, but I think it's quite true. With gyms and competitions and training regimens and magazines and X-games and generally more mainstreaming of the sport, people who are athletic and gymniastically inclined are indeed more likely to find their way to the crags. This is almost certainly one of the reasons for some of the expansion of the technical high end. ---- I think we are all in some measure of agreement that performance standards have greatly increased with the advent of gym and sport climbing. One question that occurs to me is how does this affect climber's longevity with the sport? It seems to me that with this emphasis on how hard we can climb we are likely to see people drop out of climbing sooner when they decide they can't keep up with their peers or are past their peak or something. If you look at climbers of today who have been climbing for 30, 40, 50 years, some of them were once and maybe still are "gifted," but many are just normal average climbers who still find it fun.

I hope you're back in time for this year's cc.com spring picnic 'cause you're this year's poster girl!

Posturing, name-dropping, and elitism are not new to high perforance rock climbing.

I was referring to Dave Morales. A guy who got into climbing in a big way, real fast, and was climbing 5.13 within little more than two years - if that. An enthusiastic climber who could pull down not only the sport and trad climb, but ice as well. I never heard of Dave's spending much time in the rock gym, but he definitely had the focus and discipline that Dru talked about. And he'd climb with a bumbler like myself and have a good day doing that, too.

Most of the spray lords are not high performance rock climbers. Those guys are generally happy climbing, and don't seek to spray about it. One of the best climbers in the state, who has now taken up kayaking and is probably kicking some butt in that area too, is a guy most of us have never heard of.

Tex- Do you suppose that is why he's hanging 20 feet below his bolt?

Tim's got a point, though. "Performance" thread

In a thread about what I termed a "truly moderate" climb, TimL brought the "modern" perspective to the discussion and said: "wake up people, 5.10 is moderate." He's right. In today's world, 5.10 IS considered moderate. The drive toward performance rock climbing has changed many many things about the sport. There's always been competition involved and folks have worked at gaining strength and technique as long as there has been rock climbing but, back in olden times, most of us climbed at crags so we could gain skills for the mountains, John Gill was just about the only American climber who worked out so he could do one-arm pull ups or maybe even one-finger pull ups, and nobody admitted to "working a route" in order to make a "redpoint." Performance rock climbing. What do you like and dislike about it?

Those look like good hangers, Fern, and their relatively light weight is a plus. They are shiny stainless steel, though, and I'd rather see folks spring for powder-coated hangers 'cause paint doesn't adhere to stainless steel very well (better if you rough it up). A significant part of bolting controversies involves the visual impact and, for crag climbing, at least, I think we should do everything we can to reduce it. This includes not only limiting where you drill, but doing things like using powder coated hangers and setting top anchors or rappel stations that won't gather wads of sling.

I'd have to say that I agree with JoshK and DBerdinka too. Recreational snowmobilng is an abomination, to be sure. However, I'm just noting that they ARE limited to one side of one glaciated mountain in the entire state, and that in fact we climbers are not necessarily more environmentally oriented. Yes, our hiking boots do not tear up the meadows as badly as a snowmobile tread - but some of us think nothing of destroying vegetation that gets in our way, moving boulders and cutting down trees to make staging areas or "landing zones," littering red bull cans and tape and chalk all over the place, and driving a thousand miles in some gas guzzling menace just to tick one of the routes in Fifty Classic Climbs. Our sport does do less damage to the environment and may even be less impactful both on other users and the environment than snowmobiling, horespacking, hunting and fishing, but we are not without our own impacts.

Best Troll: Sweet Granite in Renton Best Avatar: I always kind of liked "Smokey McPot." Thinker's avatar pic was awesome. Best Thread? There's been too many to count. Cavey and GlasgowKiss get my vote for best comeback from the banned. Both of them retain some of their original "flavor" but they are playing ball now rather than simply throwing bombs.

Nope. The goldline rope didn't break ("goldline" looked like hemp, but it was made of nylon; you couldn't smoke it). I fell about 15 or 20 feet of "Strictly from Nowhere" (I think it's 5.6), shook myself off, and went back up to finish the pitch. My first "Alpine" climb, too, was bigger than what most people would undertake for their first climb these days: the Soutwest Ridge on the Grand, which I think is a grade III but certainly a long grade II. I had probably not led more than six pitches total before I went there and swung leads up it. Crusty old guys will tell you that kids these days are a bunch of wimps, but I just think times have changed and its a different orientation. We didn't used to think you had to climb at least 5.11 to consider yourself a decent climber, either. High performance is in, and "adventure" is somewhat out. Part of the difference is that most of us "back in the day" got into climbing with a backpacking background, and it grew as an extension of mountain exploration rather than an extension of gym climbing.

For most new climbers these days, ChucK, I AM saying that any climb that requires gear placement skills and particularly one that requires you to read ten books by John Long in order to "build a belay" is not a novice climb. "Back in the day," I undertook my first lead ever on a 5.6 ovehang in the Gunks and I fell off it. But that's not how people do it these days. I bet most new modern climbers' feelings about Midway is more like those who have, in this vary thread, said that the pro on Midway is a little sketchy and it is not one for the beginning leader. (As I indicated, I slightly disagree about that but ...) Call it whatever you want. If you want to describe it as a "novice" climb that is fine by me. I think it is indeed a perfect climb to take a novice on -- to show them what REAL rock climbing is all about.

We have this rant about snowmobiles on Mount Baker every year on this bulletin board. In my view, you should simply go somewhere else if snowmobilers really offend you all that much. That pie-shaped slice of Mount Baker is the only glaciated alpine area in the State where they are allowed to go. Occasionally one of them violates the boundary and rides to the true summit or over on the Coleman, but I bet you'll never see them on the Boulder Glacier or any one of the other dozen glaciers on the mountain. And then there are about 500 other glaciated peaks in the state. Yes, they are noisy and smelly machines. The guys who I've met and talked to on the Easton Glacier, though, are not a bunch of beer-swilling metal heads; they are much closer to us mountain climbers than some of you realize. And most of them try to show some consideration for skiers and climbers who may be on the mountain at the same time. How many of you better-than-them ski mountaineers will show any consideration for them?

In today's world, Midway is not usually considered a "beginner's climb," Chuck. It has three pitches and you gotta use gear. However, coming from a gym and sport-climbing performance mentality, I hear lots of people calling 5.10 moderate. In my book, 5.10, even in the gym, is not "truly moderate." 5.10 cracks can rip up my hands and 5.10 crimpers on some sport climb can tear tendons. The hard men will call me a chump with poor technique, but I just don't call that "truly moderate."

To test your snow anchors, simply find a place where you have a steep slope with a flat area beneath it. Set your anchor on the steeps, and stand below and jump and down, pulling on your rope. Sometimes, an anchor that looks like garbage can hold four people pulling and jumping as hard as they can; in wet unconsnolidated mush, the best anchor you can muster will pull right out.

Good choice! That Kill da Wabbit pitch is my favorite one up there.

The first pitch protects just fine if you have one or preferably two #4 Camelots on your rack, but you are right that Midway should not be taken lightly by an inexperienced leader. There are lots of polished, flaring cracks and someone who doesn't know good pro from bad would definitely be at risk. Having said that, I don't think there is a place on the route that you can't plug in every three feet if you want to (maybe the last 30 feet of 5.1).

Michael had made a grant total of two or three trips to the gym before this climb. That's it. Both of them appeared to enjoy it, and we had a pretty good day!

Snugtop, her friend Michael, and I climbed Midway yesterday. In my view, it is the best truly moderate rock climb in the State. Midway has great exposure, comfortable belay ledges, good pro without bolts, and varied climbing. The rock is great, and the exposure on the last pitch is impossible to beat! I believe the route may have been incorrectly depicted in five or more successive guidebooks. Fred made the first ascent in ‘47 or ‘48, and he can't really remember how they went but I'm starting to think they probably climbed straight up after the famous step-across and then traversed right into the chimney corner system above the narrow slot that the guidebooks direct you through. The "standard" Midway route is technically easier, but that slot sucks and the higher traverse is definitely the way to go. Most parties climb it via this higher traverse. I think that Brooks/Carlstad may have been incorrect in the first place, and that their "error" may have been faithfully reproduced by Brooks/Whitelaw, Smoot, Smoot, and two successive books from Kramer. Does anybody have any info on this?

The Nickerson is right accross the street from the Mortuary. You can't miss it.