Jump to content

Midway, Castle Rock


mattp

Recommended Posts

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?

 

42027a-med.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thumbs_up.gifAlright Snugtop the blue smurfette making another apperance at the crags. Matt Midway may be the best moderate in the state, but the first pitch should not be taken lightly by a new leader. I found it somewhat difficult to protect and the rock somewhat polished. The second pitch is a gas, just plain fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

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.

 

 

Don't have a clue about how the FA party did it but the 1965 Becky/Bjornstad guide describes going right to the bottom of the chimney as the normal route and the other possibilities as variations. I've always thought the funnest way to do P2 is to go more or less straight up to the big ledge, but I'm a bit of a fat boy & don't do well in tight places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Sling the chockstone thumbs_up.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midway is one of my most favorite routes around here. It's fuckin kick ass like many other climbs on the Castle formation. If only Saber had a better second pitch it would be in the same league as far as rating and climbing are concerned. I think I have done some variations to saber and stuff near it left and right but they aint as good as midway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's world, Midway is not usually considered a "beginner's climb," Chuck. It has three pitches and you gotta use gear. hellno3d.gif

 

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is twice now with the "truly moderate" label. If Midway is considered a moderate, then what do you guys consider a beginner/novice climb?

 

Well, there are people on this board who consider Outer Space a good beginner climb.

 

Not me, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying 5.10 is not moderate (I agree with that) does not imply that 5.6 is moderate.

 

There's a big gap between 5.10 and 5.6. My view of "moderate" is somewhere strictly within that range.

 

Are you saying that if a route relies on self-placed pro it is automatically excluded from the novice category?

 

Your description (3 pitches, gear) basically makes every climb at the Gunks at least a moderate. Are there no novice climbs at the Gunks? Where does a novice do his/her first lead at the Gunks? I think our first lead at the Gunks was "Baby", 5.3 at the Gunks, probably 5.6 out here in the West. tongue.gif

Edited by chucK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...