Peter_Puget Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 seems to me the area you start climbing always has the correct ratings and every other area you visit is either hard or soft for the grade. or both at once like at j-tree where the 5.9s on shorter wall are easier than the 5.7s on DQ wall never did figure out what up with that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 If I had to say where I find the ratings to be most accurate it would be in the Icicle. The 8's 9's and 10's anyway. Trundle dome, classic crack, givlers, etc...I think it has to do with when the routes were put up. [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Charlie ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Dru and Charlie both make really good points. I think three or four things determine how an areas ratings compare. 1. Era when most of the routes were established (climbing some pre-1970 5.9s will confirm this one)2. The type of climbing as compared to your "home area". I learned on the steep, short, sandpaper friction of southeastern sandstone with positive crimpers and open handed slopers...my first tangles with smeary granite slabs were desperate, likewise with basalt stem-jobs and endless parallel desert cracks. 3. The nature of the routes (sport/trad/mixed). Most folks would agree that a 5.8 Valley crack is likely to feel harder than a 5.8 Vantage clip-up. 4. The strengths of the local climbers. A load of well traveled locals seems to help zero in on a proper grading. I've been on stuff that kicked my ass and then romped up something rated much harder simply because I wasn't good at the style required. If I'd been putting it up as a FA, I'd undoubtely have rated it harder than it should have been. That being said, I think it's a no-brainer as to where the best ratings are. Two places: A. Wherever you're lucky enough to be climbing at the time B. YDS = Yosemite Decimal System, enough said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 The ratings are only right when I say they are. Damnation Crack, and Godzilla are 5.8 and so is Outer Space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 So Cavey, How many times did you climb Damnation before it went from 5.9 to 5.8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Once If Ed Cooper and T.M. Herbert say it is 5.8 then so be it Also some other climbs in mind. Princely Ambitions 5.8 as well as Mambo Jambo, the chimney on Town Crier, Inca Roads. Oh yeah and that chimney on the south face of Prusik (Beckey) is 5.7 too. You know the one that has no pro in it The last 15 foot thin hands pitch is 5.8 too. Great rock climbs! [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Cpt.Caveman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Fair enough, originally given 5.8 I might be confused, but I'd swear I've seen that given 5.9 somewhere. There's really only five or six ratings anyway: 5.easy, 5.hard, 5.awkward, 5.fun, 5.dirty, 5.scary.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 It seems to me that Smith Rocks has the most consistent ratings of any place I've ever climbed. Of course, ratings are ridiculously subjective, (which everyone has hashed over endlessly) but Smith seems the most bang-on. Maybe 'cause all the climbing is somewhat similar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by willstrickland: Fair enough, originally given 5.8 I might be confused, but I'd swear I've seen that given 5.9 somewhere. There's really only five or six ratings anyway: 5.easy, 5.hard, 5.awkward, 5.fun, 5.dirty, 5.scary.... To be truthfull it really is 5.9 if you asked my opinion. I was just bsing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Why not settle on 5.8+/5.9- ? Then EVERYONE is happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 I was just bsing about my entire list there SC. But if you wanted to rate it that then so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Some grades are harder than others (sounds like a U2 song line ). Case in point, when 5.12 was the upper limit of the YDS a lot of routes that would get rated 5.12 today got rated 11+. For instance the last pitch of Daily Planet (crux, 12b) was given 11+ by Perry Beckham, as was the first pitch of u wall (12a today) by Hamish Frasert and im certain there are more well known examples in washington. these days when everybody wants to pad their resume looks like its going the other way, 'grading for the onsight' and soft grades in general. funny at squamish, mclane keeps bumping things up a grade, lots of soft grades now. when howie richardson took over the skaha guidebook he bumped a lot of 10as down to 5.9s and a lot of 11as diown to 10ds and so on and now the grades seem spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 A truthful response now (I will try anyways ) Index and Tieton seem to be pretty much right on most of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Yes yes, Peter Puget, you must drop the gorge entirely out. Else the ratings become a mess. The gorge is hard, eh? It has it's own aesthetics and protocols; really an entirely different area, hardly having any basis for mention in the same breath as Smith Rocks. But lovely! My original comment only took into account the "other" Smith! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 It's all 5.8 until you fall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plexus Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Get off the numbers kick! Just because a climb is a 5.8 doesn't mean it's going to climb like any other 5.8. Just use them as guides. Plus I have yet to ever climb at a place, and sometimes even the same wall, that the grading is consistent. It's done by people so it's never going to be the same. One of the most difficult climb I ever did was a two-pitch mossfest 5.5 at Mount Erie with sketchy pro, long runouts and thorny rosebushes. It was rated in the 70s so obviously the top-end has changed and so have the ratings. I've gone to many an undeveloped wall or gone around without a guidebook and done OK. The biggest thing I look for in beta is not nec. the difficulty but the pro placements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by plexus: One of the most difficult climb I ever did was a two-pitch mossfest 5.5 at Mount Erie with sketchy pro, long runouts and thorny rosebushes. It was rated in the 70s so obviously the top-end has changed and so have the ratings. Dirt is hard! As I mentioned before..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: Dirt is hard! As I mentioned before..... Until it is frozen up then it is M2!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plexus Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 But dirt keeps the Lycra-cladded hoards away. Begone you foul sport climbers!!! Off to Exit 38 with you!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 quote: Originally posted by plexus: But dirt keeps the Lycra-cladded hoards away. Begone you foul sport climbers!!! Off to Exit 38 with you!!! Hear that Dru?! You are not welcome at Mt Erie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 I can't find Mt Eerie anyways anybody got GPS coordinates for that crag? Maybe its like the Bermuda triangle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.