mattp

I could be wrong, but I don't think the creek crossing is much of a problem this time of year. And this year, its probably less of an issue than normal.

I called the Kort Haus and they said they'd reserve the back area for us (whatever that is). I said we'd show up at 7:00 or perhaps 8:00. Anybody tried their alligator burger?

This may be out of date:

Right on. Where are the pictures??? Bring them to pubclub.

Fred is his own guy. I don't think he's interested this week and, besides, the Kort Haus is too lame for him and too far of a drive and it blows goats and its his turn to have pubclub in the Adamants.

You're more wacko than I thought!!! I'm glad you obey the laws, though. See you there .. at the KortHaus-I mean Alki-no I mean the KortHaus!

I agree, but it is comforting to get to know an area, and the guidebook, so you can dial in the climbing and interpret the book. That is why you can climb circles around lots of people at Index, Erik, but you'd probably have to go back to remedial climbing school if you hopped off the plane in NYC and hopped a cab for the Gunks (though your advice would apply very well there, because there are FANTASTIC climbs at every grade from 5.3 to 5.13).

I should add a footnote to Rod's comment about Jacob's Ladder: it is a "slab" climb as compared to World Wall I or something, but don't expect it to be like the climbs at Static Point. Five pitches of Jacob's ladder are over 60 degrees and you will probably want some edging shoes... web page

That's been tried before, Greg. After two days of arguing about how much smoke here or bad parking there or who's turn it is, and maybe an angry exchange of hostile pm's, I've been asked to call it. Why don't you?

Fox and Greg what are you arguing about? "I'm an idiot, no you are ... " Alex's list of "long moderates" is as good as anybody else's tick list, and as far as his description of Silent Running, I agree with him -- except that he fails to make any mention of the fact that there are a couple of 50 foot runouts (albeit, on easier terrain so I wouldn't say he is completely inaccurate to state that the route is well-protected). Greg is right, however, that Fox is not doing Dryad a favor where he looks at the Smoot guide and points out that "there is a two pitch 5.8 on the Comb." (I am only guessing that is what he did.) The good climbs on The Comb are all or pretty much all in the 5.10-5.11 range (there may be a good .12, too). The other "moderate" Fox mentions, Dreamer, is only 5.9 and it is very well-protected. But it also has a moderately taxing approach, it is moderately long, moderately complex, and the descent can be a moderate pain-in-the-ass. For comparison, it is a more demanding outing than Outer Space, which most moderate climbers think is NOT moderate.

Indeed, Dru. Some guidebook author's may prefer their own routes or ones their friends put up, some may deliberately overrate some climbs in order to help assure that their readers don't get in over their heads, or they may have an unusual taste for short and contrived climbs, or their information may tend to be out of date (these represent my views of certain Washington guidebook authors -- guess who). Whether interpreting a rating system or written commentary, you have to get to know a book and an area or talk to others who have already done so in order to be able to account for these kinds of bias.

I'm not sure guidebooks should always cater to people who cannot read or think for themselves. Yes, you will climb a lot of good routes by selecting only three-star routes without any noted fear factor, but you will also miss out on a lot of the excitement and exploration that climbing has to offer. These people that need everything to be rated and categorized will be way to focussed on the specific ratings, which can be subjective at best: rather than looking at a piece of rock and judging for theirself whether or not they think they like the looks of it, they tell themself a nice clean 5.9 arete must be too hard and they'll try the 5.8 crack nearby even though it is wet. And they'll never climb Mt. Rainier by any route other than DC, Emmons, Lib Ridge, or Ptarmigan (contrary to popular belief, there are at least 10 other good routes on the mountain).

It's been suggested many times before, Beck. However, lots of folks around here would rather have something to bitch about and a reason to call each other names than to try something sensible. It's entertaining and all, but it DOES keep attendance down because some people don't really think they have time to wade through all of that garbage. And for those of you who want to meet some of the local legends, a certain Mr. Beckey keeps asking me: do you know where the climbers are going to meet next week? All I can say is "no. "

I like the death heads -- they add excitement to the X-treme sport of reading a guidebook. I don't remember the classification information Viktor gives in the introduction, but I interpret them just like the PG/R/X system: one death head means it may be a little scary but probably not bad, two heads means it is probaby somewhat dangerous, and three means its completely nutty. In the "Lost Shoes" thread, we have been talking somewhat about a possible rating system for hazards on a route. In addition to the technical rating, some said there should be a "second tier" rating system that will tell you how dangerous a route is. That was, I said, what the death heads and the PG/R/X system are for (in the latter, PG was defined to be "scary," R indicated that there was injury potential associated with a leader fall, and X indicated there was death potential. Dru countered that this doesn't account for how good or bad the rock is, noting that he'd feel safer on lots of run-out climbs on good rock than some closely protected ones on choss. I don't think a rating system will completely address these issues. If you want the guidebook to tell you what you really want to know, wouldn't it be more informative to have a simple comment such as: excellent rock; runout loose rock; runout no pro dangerous thin flakes solid rock suspect nubbins shattered rock loose in places 1st pitch loose (to suggest that the rest of the route is better) or treacherous descent gully The death heads are cool, though. Climb a tripple skull route and you know for sure you're badass, even if it was only 5.6.

Scott- It sounds as if you have described two routes that are kind of contradictory. Where is the bad part, in your opinion, of the northbound I-5 commute? Northgate? County Line? South Everett? Thursday night is, I think, probably the worst night of the week for traffic. Give us the beta so we can think we'll be smarter than everyone else. That'd be some reason for hope.

Reno - Don't sweat it. If you have the gumption to hike all the way up there (I'm not saying it is all that desparate, but it is quite enough to separate the men from the boys), you'll do fine on the route. Seriously.

Dryad- Three O'Clock Rock is definitely the place to go for a first trip to Darrington. The climb, "Under the Board Walk," reported by Jim Nelson in Select Climbs II, is a good choice for a first climb at Darrington. It is rather trivial, though, and you'd probably want to do more than that if you head up there. For a second climb, GregW recommends a great Darrington 4-pitch outing. From the bottom of Boardwalk, climb/crawl up and right 50 yards to reach the start of "Till Broad Daylight," with a couple of button heads visible perhaps 20 feet and 30 feet off the ground. Take the first three pitches of Daylight, and then the last three pitches of "The Comb." The whole thing is 5.8 or 5.9, depending on how you do the linkup (the third "crux" of The Comb that is shown as 5.9 on my topo is really 5.8). This climb is both well-protected and clean. You can link pitches however you want, and we did it as 4 pitches on Saturday. The last two pitches are very diagonal; from the top of the climb, rappell the route called Tidbits. This is a good, moderate outing. Topo already linked above Another good moderate is the Big Tree route, the left-hand variant (5.7). Towards the top, where you see bolts heading up and right, follow them to the chains. Rappel from there - don't bother with the Big Tree itself. Silent Running is also a very good choice for a first climb up there, but a little harder (5.9+ unless you do the last pitch that was never part of the original climb, 5.10b). Silent Running has some stout runouts on it, though. North Buttress - slightly easier to hike to than South Buttress

Every time I go to Central Park (NY, NY):

One could do that, Fern. I don't think many would bother, though. I agree with those who say that not every 5.7 climb needs to be bolted for a 5.7 leader. There are, and in my opinion should be, 5.7 climbs that are bolted for a 5.5 leader, and 5.7 climbs that are bolted for a 5.9 leader. As far as the "two tiered" rating system, we already have it. It's not getting attention these days, because it is old school. It is the combination of the technical rating with the movie industry ratings, e.g. 5.9 R or whatever. The climb being discussed here sounds like it would be an "R" which means a fall could result in getting hurt (PG was merely scary but not dangerous, and X was for those climbs with a potential death-fall). Victor Kramer had his own comparable system with the death heads. If there is loose choss, that may make what would have been a 5.9 pg climb into a 5.9 R or even X, or it might warrant a death head in Victor's guide, but if there is an extraordinarly issue with a climb, whether it be bad rock, bogus anchors, great views or anything else, a simple footnote in the guidebook would be better than any rating system.

I'm sure that if you show up with your pad, it'll be all good. At $100.00 a pop, all you have to do is get away with it six times and you've broken even as compared to going to Vertical World.

The outside area at the Old Pequliar was nice, but it wouldn't be very easy to occupy a large table and talk inside that place - if the Tuesday we were there is the norm. 'Sposed to be cloudy and cool, and possibly rain tomorrow night.

Gregw - have you checked out the Rickshaw? If they didn't have Karaoke or something, it might be a good place for us -- and stubling distance from your pad. Maybe while you're waiting for the drier, you could go check it out for us.

The Zoo'd be good. Contrary to what someone wrote here, I don't think it was EVER smoky up there on that back loft on the three or four Tuesday nights that we've been there. Parking sucks, though. Schultzy's was great, and (again to be contrary) it was quite comfortable there both times we've been. We'd have to have a back-up plan for those that want to stay past 10:00 and there's always a lot of bitching when we go to the Big Time. The KortHaus sounds intriguing -- small dives can be fun.

Actually, Fox, I highly doubt the reason for that law was a concern for liability. The city did not build the rock and their responsibility would verly likely be zero if some idiot climbs on it and hurts themselves - its certainly much less of a risk than all kinds of hazardous situations all over town that do not have a specific statute. Much more likely is that at some point in the past, climbers made a nuisance of themselves and the neighbors didn't like it.

Just keep them away from the cliffs, is all I can say. I don't think they'll find that climbers are endangering the ice worms, and apparently there is no problem with the snaffle population, but if those guys go and find out that chossy moss-covered cliffs are an endangered habitat in Western Washington, they'll try to put us out of business!!!