Best Newbie Climbs

[mtn_mouse]

Climb this

Mt. Constance, mazama route

Mt. Olympus

Cruiser

[Jason_Martin]

Beginner Climbs

[Gripped]

 

Ah... the mounties say

 

Good Newbie Climbs

[fenderfour]

The mounties say that the Emmons and the DC route are both 5/5 for "seriousness/strenuousness" I thought Glacier Peak(Sitkum Glacier route) was quite a bit nastier. More approach, more ice, more exposure, more choss... Just my 2 cents.

[Mr._Natural]

No one mentioned Kangaroo Temple north face. That is three pitches of easy climbing. The only caveats being that it has a lot of exposure in places and a huge almost free-hanging rappel from a sharp edge. If you are pretty sure your newbie is confident with exposure, that's a pretty good one.

 

I also liked the NW face.

[Dustin_B]

The mounties say that the Emmons and the DC route are both 5/5 for "seriousness/strenuousness" I thought Glacier Peak(Sitkum Glacier route) was quite a bit nastier. More approach, more ice, more exposure, more choss... Just my 2 cents.

 

Huh? The sitkum glacier is a cake walk. You are on a crevassed glacier for all of 1.5 hours or so. The approach to boulder basin is 7 miles, the approach to Camp Schurman is ~5 miles which includes crossing glacier. Yeah so the approach is slightly more milage but I'd bet on average that the approach to Schurman takes longer. More ice? where? More exposure? Are you serious? More choss? I agree on that one.

 

Okay, I get it, nice troll, I fell for it.

[Gripped]

The mounties say that the Emmons and the DC route are both 5/5 for "seriousness/strenuousness" I thought Glacier Peak(Sitkum Glacier route) was quite a bit nastier. More approach, more ice, more exposure, more choss... Just my 2 cents.

 

Serious: becuase of weather. If the weather is good, Emmons/DC is fairly moderate.

 

Strenuous: Depends on Altitude and how you adjust to it. Glacier has a lot more foot pounding, so I'd rate higher than Rainier too.

 

Really though, a given climb, on a given day ... Rainier in a white-out, with 50 mph winds, and slopes of solid ice in September... That mountain is going to get your attention.

[cluck]

That Mounties' link has a bunch of good basic climbs, but I consider a good "Basic Climb" different from a good "Newbie Climb."

 

For example - I think newbies would enjoy Shuksan (Sulphide Glacier), Sahale (Sahale Arm), Hood (S Slog), and Adams (S spur or Mazama Glacier). However, I don't think newbies would enjoy Little Tahoma, Rainier, or Shuksan via Fisher Chimneys.

 

Obviously, the experience of the newbies is a large factor.

[Dustin_B]

The mounties say that the Emmons and the DC route are both 5/5 for "seriousness/strenuousness" I thought Glacier Peak(Sitkum Glacier route) was quite a bit nastier. More approach, more ice, more exposure, more choss... Just my 2 cents.

 

Serious: becuase of weather. If the weather is good, Emmons/DC is fairly moderate.

 

Strenuous: Depends on Altitude and how you adjust to it. Glacier has a lot more foot pounding, so I'd rate higher than Rainier too.

 

Really though, a given climb, on a given day ... Rainier in a white-out, with 50 mph winds, and slopes of solid ice in September... That mountain is going to get your attention.

 

More foot pounding? Emmons route is two 5000 ft days in a row, at altitude. The summit day is orders of magnitude harder!! For me, Rainier is a lot more strenuous.

 

As for seriousnous? Well I'd sure as shit rather be stranded at the top of Glacier over Rainier. Or be descending in a white out on Glacier over Rainier. Or be in any situation on Glacier over Rainier. I definitely say that Rainier is more serious.

 

I've never been up the DC route, only Emmons but from what I've heard, the DC route has objective danger (ice fall, rock fall, etc). The sitkum has none. So again Rainier gets my vote for seriousness again.

 

I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.

[Dustin_B]

That Mounties' link has a bunch of good basic climbs, but I consider a good "Basic Climb" different from a good "Newbie Climb."

 

For example - I think newbies would enjoy Shuksan (Sulphide Glacier), Sahale (Sahale Arm), Hood (S Slog), and Adams (S spur or Mazama Glacier). However, I don't think newbies would enjoy Little Tahoma, Rainier, or Shuksan via Fisher Chimneys.

 

Obviously, the experience of the newbies is a large factor.

 

Those climbs in the link aren't necessarily meant to imply that they are 'good beginner climbs', only that they count as a beginner/basic climb towards a student's 'graduation'.

[Gripped]

More foot pounding? Emmons route is two 5000 ft days in a row, at altitude. The summit day is orders of magnitude harder!! For me, Rainier is a lot more strenuous.

 

As for seriousnous? Well I'd sure as shit rather be stranded at the top of Glacier over Rainier. Or be descending in a white out on Glacier over Rainier. Or be in any situation on Glacier over Rainier. I definitely say that Rainier is more serious.

 

I've never been up the DC route, only Emmons but from what I've heard, the DC route has objective danger (ice fall, rock fall, etc). The sitkum has none. So again Rainier gets my vote for seriousness again.

 

I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.

 

I definitely agree with you about Rainier being WAAAAY more serious. Without a doubt.

 

More strenuous?

 

Glacier: 8200' elevation. 22 miles round trip

Rainier(Emmons) 10,000' elevation. 15 miles round trip

 

mileage = foot pounding (which hurts me a lot more than elevation)

[Dru]

If you really want to introduce newbies to mountaineering why would you take them up a godawful volcano slog? I know that volcano slog bagging is the focus of all Washington mountaineering and that that might explain why people hiking up to Snow Lakes in July are seen carrying a dozen wands but if you want the newbies to actually enjoy themselves I would suggest you focus on some nice exposed ridges with some 4th-low 5th class roped climbing on quality rock and good views. Like maybe the South Arete of SEWS, the WR of Prussik Peak, something on Ingalls, the WR of N Twin Sister or similar.

[catbirdseat]

A lot of the desire to climb volcanoes is driven by the newbies themselves. They are the "charismatic megafauna" of mountains. After they've done one they know better.

[Gripped]

Dru - You're right.

CBS - You're right too. Mostly Newbies just want to climb Rainier, Baker, Adams and Hood, because they've seen them.

 

 

Hm. Prussik Peak? I haven't done it, though I've seen it. It's mostly class 4/5 with one 5.7 move, right?

[Dru]

its mostly damned easy, there is one "5.7" slab move right above a good gear placement and then the final pitch to the summit has a short crack section and chimney (good hex placements BTW). and you rappel off. there are lots of other good summits nearby if you would rather not rap off for first time climbers. but if you had climbed, say, Martian Diagonal at Peshastin as a warm up there should be no trouble.

[fredrogers]

No one has mentioned the Silver Star Glacier. Beautiful setting and a good hike with a nice scramble at the top.

[iain]

A lot of the desire to climb volcanoes is driven by the newbies themselves. They are the "charismatic megafauna" of mountains. After they've done one they know better.

BS. I still like them.

[chucK]

Did anybody mention the Brothers yet? If you live in Seattle, that one's got the "volcano" appeal that you're always seeing it. It's not technical at all but has a bit of exposure, plus a hike through the "Valley of the Silent Men" or something like that.

 

Fun ridge hike is Alta Mountain.

 

Gothic by Monte Cristo and Enchantment Peak are both good ones that are easy scrambling the whole way until short 20 feet of class 3 right at the summit.

 

A good possibility for a rock climb is a mutlipitch slab climb (if you're up to leading it). Trust your feet slab climbing is so easy when seconding, plus pretty hard to get hurt. Of course you really gotta trust the newbies belaying.

 

Taking a newbie on a traversing climb (Prusik) might be asking for trouble; i.e. falls are not safe. If the newbie freaked out on that part where you traverse South of that turret (right after the slab move), that would be a bad scene. Also, isn't there a hand-traverse start of the summit pitch?

 

North Ridge of Cutthroat would be good. There are good views to either side, but the ridge is quite wide so you'd never have to worry about the newbie falling off the side. That one might be a pain getting down though.

Edited March 3, 2004 by chucK

[Bug]

A lot of the desire to climb volcanoes is driven by the newbies themselves. They are the "charismatic megafauna" of mountains. After they've done one they know better.

BS. I still like them.

I guess I'm still a newbie.

[nattybumppo]

For the girlfriend or wife interested in trying climbing...How about Mt. Daniel? I know it's easier than most of what's being talked about here, but for a fine sense of newbie accomplishment, Daniel's summit is in a gorgeous position. A little snow/ice axe stuff, maybe a little rope stuff (go to the right of the east summit across the top of the Daniel glacier, step on a glacier, see some crevasses), some low angle scrambling, it's all good. Plus, a nice camp at Peggy's Pond. Go in the early fall and the there are very few people and no bugs.

[JoshK]

I'm not sure if anybody has mentioned it yet (I'm too lazy to read the thread), but some of the tatoosh coulior routes would be perfect beginner climbs...such as lane peak's the zipper or fly, etc.

[Alasdair]

I would recomend the rupal face.

[fern]

For the girlfriend or wife interested in trying climbing...How about Mt. Daniel? I know it's easier than most of what's being talked about here, but for a fine sense of newbie accomplishment, Daniel's summit is in a gorgeous position.

 

because if the newbie happens to be a wife or girlfriend they need an easy route that's even easier than easy?

[nattybumppo]

Relax Fern,

 

I've been married nine years and have a beautiful baby daughter--there's no intent to slight women here. I mention the wife/girlfriend only to highlight Daniel as a good choice for those who want a really nice trip to turn on their romantic partner to climbing. It's got a little of everything at a level of difficulty that's less likely to freak out either the wife/girlfriend OR the husband/boyfriend who's taking responsibility for the safety of someone he loves.

 

For example, while I might have been able to encourage my best friend up Ulrich's on his first climb with the occasional "Come on you pansy! It's not that steep! Quit yer bellyachin,'" the fact is, it is a little steep and there are a couple of places to get hurt. But his fear and fluctuating confidence, in addition to the ACTUAL hazards, didn't affect me like my wife's would, or can for that matter. The relationship between the more and less experienced climbers on a trip is complex; motivation, confidence, and fear flow back and forth in interesting ways. Love complicates it further.

 

Since the point is always to have a first good experience if at all possible, I don't think it should offend anyone to say that the same is true, only more so, when it's your wife. Besides, I happen to know that a few grizzled hard man veterans still wander their way up to Daniel once in awhile. I really meant that it's a nice spot, it's not bullshit taken on its own merits. It's not super-hard, or even hard, really, but it's no less rewarding if your objective is to stand in a really beautiful spot in the sky.

[fern]

Relax Fern

 

 

 

I'm just calling you out on the typical "dumb it down for the girlfriend" comment. I know exactly what you were getting at, and I respect your desire to keep your loved one safe and low stress. But today I am feeling feisty and I claim it's still a condescending way to describe a climb ... peace