Peter_Puget

Jon - I think Cavey was using poetic license when he said to bomb them below sea level. But my vote goes for blowing this entire thread up. It simply doesn't belong on a climbing site

Ah Gerg what a sly ad hominem (this word had its spelling corrected) attack: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you are so gung ho about having US troops involved, why not join the services?" Somehow it reminds me of the rap bolters are pussies argument. Taken seriously the only ones who can advocate the use of armed forces would be soldiers. Are you serious? Are you seriously saying that the US should not pick and choose the which international conflicts it should get involved with and to what degree? Are you really serious? Here a quick one: compare and contrast US vs, USSR aims in Afganistan and how the convergence or divergence of aims affects how the USSR experience should be viewed. Obviously you brought this up because you know something. Educate me please without delay I have a meeting to head off to. [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ] [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

Yikes Tom did you update an old SDS Vietnam War position paper? Apparently the bombing had some effect witness the Taliban’s recent change of fortune. I wonder if the US hadn’t intervened would England have been brought to its knees? Certainly a question but certainly a valid factor you conveniently left out. Certainly bombing had a positive impact from the (US perspective) in Vietnam (eg Ke San ((spelling)) And certainly you must know that! Certainly you know that this wasn’t the first terrorist attack on the US. In fact the press has repeatedly discussed previous feeble responses to previous attacks as emboldening old Osama and certainly you must know this. You also know that our bombing of Afghanistan is nowhere nearly as destructive as it could be, so why the hyperbole about killing everyone in Afghanistan? Whether you are for or against the war these falsehoods and exaggerations serve no purpose and are the perfect example of why these subjects should be not subject to debate here. It is even sadder when such a post is considered articulate and illuminating. No argument is being made. Hope this doesn't upset Cavey but he is pretty much right on this issue.

I agree with you CC and would even go so far as to say that 38/Si ratings in general are a bit on the light side. The main problem I see with that is that it gives people a false sense of what they can do. From the lack of responses adressing the original question, I am guessing that ratings seem to be a point of debate everywhere. The only difference between Si/38 and some other areas is that there seems to be an area wide bias applied to the routes at Si/38 rather than the more random assortment of errors found at most other areas.

Dru, wasn't Sunshine originally graded 11d? As far as the protection goes on Slipping Clutch my only memory is how sticky the shoes felt. I must have some sort of perception problem because there is no way I can accurately rate pitch from its base. For example: if I was placed at the base of ROTC, I couldn't tell you only from visual inspection if it was 11a or 12a. Here is an Icicle example: looking at the route Lazy Boy (to me at least) the bottom appeared harder than the top. When the bottom turned out to be harder than the guidebook indicates I assumed that the ratings were switched on the topo. Wrong assumption. There is also no way I could rate the Blind Faith pitch Wallstien mentioned or even Psychopath on Snow Creek Wall from their bases.

Cavey! Please! Serious replies only! Placing someone into their correct archetype is a difficult combination of both science and art. Only a fraud would attempt to do so over the internet. I must admit that the intent behind your allusion to the Pope is difficult for me to fully understand. Is it a compliment or a subtle insult?

Good question Cavey! The answer of course is a contingency. Are you a traditional trad climber? A neo-trad climber? A traditional sport climber? A steep sport climber? A reformed steep sport climber now traditional climber? A crosswalk table is currently under development which will be easily incorporated into all guidebooks enabling quick and easy rating decoding. Of course the software needed to perfectly determine your archetype will be available at a small charge as well. Details forthcoming!

Yes

Dru - Sad to hear Slipping Clutch is dirty. I climbed it when it was new and very clean. It was the first route on which I used Fires to climb and the new rubber (compared to EBs that is) was amazing. The OW is not thru a roof and does not resemble any of the OW you mention. The route arches to right and becomes almost an arm bar undercling. (as if that makes much sense)I guess there might be various way to climb it tho.

SC - How does Justice differ from Social Justice.

Wallstein - ROTC was done in the '70s I believe. It's a great climb but I do not think it is any where near 5.12. Haven't done the Left Side. I have done the thin crack pitches to the left of Kaukulator. Isn't one of those the section on Blind Faith you're referring to? They are all good climbs but I wouldnt agree that any are 5.12 tho. I could think of lots of other Yosemite examples. For instance: Tips. Here is one where perhaps cams arent quite as helpful: Torque Converter. Any way my point wasn't directed at any climb per se but rather a general statement regarding advances in technology changing the difficulty of routes.

Well when I started this thread I was hoping to get a sense of how people viewed ratings at various areas and wasn’t attempting to start a discussion on grade inflation. Many good points have been made and I thought I’d throw my two cents in quickly without elaboration and bring up one important yet I think neglected factor in grade inflation – improvements in technology Ratings gain their real meaning thru experience. Ratings are a means of communicating this experience to one another. I believe that any rating system over time will tend to suffer grade inflation and that changes in climbing styles, equipment and an increase in the participating population will tend to speed up this trend. This grade inflation does not occur equally over the entire sport and will occur in a staccato manner. This is entirely a matter of social relations and not one of marketing, although marketing can exacerbate the underlying phenomenon. Since technology hasn’t been discussed so far here are a couple of examples to illustrate. Sticky rubber – Clearly sticky rubber made many routes easier than they were using hard rubber. As local examples think of On the Verge at Index, any route at Static Point, Slipping Clutch at Squamish or finally RPM at Snow Creek Wall. With the exception of On the Verge none of these routes have been down rated to reflect the widespread use of sticky rubber. Use of Cams – As a sidebar I should note that some considered cams unethical at first. These definitely made climbing easier and less committing. While some may argue that difficulty of placing protection or commitment shouldn’t be reflected in the YDS rating it is obvious that it is impossible to eliminate the effects of these factors. Here are some local examples: Thin Fingers at Index and ROTC at Midnight. Again these routes weren’t down rated. Good examples at Yosemite would be Pinky Paralysis or Spiderman.

After reading my post its seems evident that I can't even write English. Actually I am here in Seattle but isn't there a poor Peter in a cemetery in Bath?

Plexus is right! The question isn't if a route is hard or light compared to the rating but rather what areas seem to have the most best ratings. That is to say: What areas have their route's ratings best reflected in their guidebook.

I seem to prefer the gorge to the rest of the park. Maybe because it's less crowded than the main area when I have been there. The ratings in the rest of the park while being consistent do seem to be a bit on the overrated side to me. Those in the gorge seem less consistent.

Dru - I agree with your assesment of Squamish. Back 20+ years ago I always thought the ratings were stiff now they seem much easier. I think consistency is hardest part of ratings. For example Red Nails is way harder than the first pitch of Daily Planet and it's a tiny route. Someone should rerate that guy!

SC - I agree with you as far as the Tuff at Smith goes and your right the climbing is remarkable similar on alot of the routes;however, the ratings seem inconsistant between the gorge and rest of the Park. I was going to post that my vote would go for the Pinnacles in CA which is kinda like Smith.

Seems like ratings are never right. Either too high or too low. People always seem to complain about them. This sad fact got me pondering where the best ratings were. Anyone have any locations to throw in the pot? What areas have the best ratings in a published guidebook?

The answer depends on exactly what kind of outdoor recreation you’re looking for. And what exactly the definition of “College Town” is. In general having lived in the south and having inlaws that force me to New England, I would never consider moving east for the recreation or living in general. Montana is a cool place as is Arizona but California is the place you want to be if ice isn’t tops on your list. So many schools. Lots of them good too! Oceans ,deserts, mountains, skiing, rock climbing - it has everything. Eg Cal Stat Univ @ Sac or UC Davis – Both are near skiing, year round rock climbing, spring skiing on Shasta or just fun hiking in the Sierra. Think of UC Riverside, Chico State, UC Santa Cruz, Humboldt is near lots of rivers if you’re into white water. Not to mention the tons of private schools. Darn it almost makes me wish I was going back to school!

There are two issues here being intertwined. Namely: 1) Access on private property. Property rights should be respected. If not merely in order to conform to the law, but also so as not to give climbers a bad name. This seems clear. 2) Bill Robbins actions. Do they help or hinder “climbers”. (also: are they truly what they purport to be on their face or are they fronts for a more self serving goal?) Taken on their face value his assertions are clearly of (and I am being charitable) indeterminate accuracy. Is the helpless old woman at a high risk of being sued? Who knows? From what I have read it appears as though she is at little risk. He “screams” and yells but provides no supporting documentation. I would ask him to give us examples of lawsuits and increases in premiums. Does she have risk due to hunters? Bikers? Hikers? Have they been using this area? What has she done to mitigate her risk? In short, the issue is complex and BR is spewing bullshit undercover of being a caring person. This is a guy who threatened to go to the DOW and try to stop bolting BECAUSE HIS CHOSSY CRACK ROUTES WEREN’T BEING REPORTED. Now assuming for the moment that he was acting altruistically, did his actions aid or hinder the cause of climbing? By telling this old woman spurious facts regarding her liability and (here is a guess) speaking badly of climbers in general he has helped to pollute the political environment. Think now what her neighbors might think when a “respectable” climber seeks permission to climb on their land. Doesn’t making an end run around the FCC Coalition reduce its stature in front of land owners and land managers? BR’s previous actions have caused LUCKY to stop participating in the FCCC thus his actions have kept people away from the very forum where they would have learned of the property issues. As a side bar I should confess that months ago I too was disgusted by his actions and decided against participating in the FCCC. Look at his postings on Rec.climbing regarding the Smoot guide. While not being a big fan of Washington Rock after reading his vitriolic attacks on Smoot, I compared the ratings of every climb in Smoot’s book to those in other guides. There were only a couple of significant differences. I ask that everyone do a google search read his comments and then do their own ratings comparison. I am sure you will agree that BR has a chip on his shoulder and that his actions do negatively impact our sport.

Thanks. Seems like the color choices available locally are fewer than they use to be.

Silly Question: Did you get much choice of collor?

I think Shot may be in the new Smoot guide topo. Its just not numbered on the topo or described in the text.

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all CC and I do not see where I said anything about LUCKY.

Now where have I heard this before? In the final analysis what the antibolters are saying is simply "I like" or "I want" or "I prefer". These preferences are no different than saying "I like green" or "I hate blue" What is frustrating is when people try to degrade other preferences through their use of words or use them as a means to justify or elevate their simple preference. For example, comments like "bolts enable to climb harder than they would without them." Hmmm such statements are in so self evident as to be meaningless except as a means to put "people in their place" ( BTW the same can be said for ropes) Climbing is a big sport with lots of fascinating parts some of which often appear mutually exclusive! Some only like climbing in the gym. Some like only 3rd/4th class scrambles. Others big wall nailing. People want and enjoy different things about climbing. One aspect is not more inherently noble than any other. Too often those who are "antibolting" loose track of this fact. Too often bolters ignore how their actions impact others. I ME MINE Thats the refrain! When such preferences are elevated to a moral plane, their advocates themselves become immoral.