markwebster Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm wondering if the valley ratings are sandbag ratings, or have we just overated the difficulty of climbs in Leavenworth and Smith. My 21 year old son and I just returned from a week in the valley. Granted, I am rusty at crack climbing, haven't done much of it in months. Exit 38 and 32 (snoqualmie pass) are so convenient, light packs, no friends and stoppers to carry. I thought that a confident 10a ability on bolts would allow me to jump on at least 5.8 cracks in Yosemite. Not so! The last route we did was called Bishop's Terrace, 5.8, in the Church Bowl area between Awanee and Yosemite Village. It was one long 60 meter pitch, though we broke it up into 2. The last 50 feet is 20 feet of 3 to 4 inch fist jams leading to a dead vertical hand crack. I lead karate (10a smith) this spring, and I thought it was easier than this bishops terrace 5.8. Am I just an old, rusty has been, or are the ratings in the valley skewed? One thing I'm sure of, next time I go down there, I'll climb nothing but cracks for few weeks. Bolt climbing ability is useless in the valley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 No, its 5.8. What a classic climb, I loved it when I climbed it 2 years ago. I thought it was for sure 5.8 by yosi standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Isn't it called the Yosemite Decimal System? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't think the Valley ratings are skewed, I think they are accurate. I personally think the ratings in the NW are soft, (with the exception of Index) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Usually you are my archenemy. but this time I will have to agree with you! About the NW and index. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt45 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Yosemite cracks tend to be on steep, smooth rock with few face-holds, and often vary in size within a single pitch from fingers to offwidth. So I think routes there can demand a wider range of techniques than are typically required within a single pitch at local granite crack-climbing areas like Leavenworth, Squamish or Index. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 whaddabout beacon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Go climb at Castle Rock. The ratings there can be quite stiff for Washington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Yosemite cracks tend to be on steep, smooth rock with few face-holds, and often vary in size within a single pitch from fingers to offwidth. So I think routes there can demand a wider range of techniques than are typically required within a single pitch at local granite crack-climbing areas like Leavenworth, Squamish or Index. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fheimerd Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I was climbing easy 10's at beacon and then I went to yosemite. 5.7 squeeze chimney still gives me nightmares. I think it's mostly technique/comfidence that makes new places seem harder then they actually are. That said Yosemite scared me...I can;t wait to go back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlympicMtnBoy Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Bishop's Terrace is an awesome climb, but I'd still call it 5.8. I do remember up at the top it was pretty much a "you must jam" spot. We don't really have that many of those in the NW on easier climbs, there is usually a face hold or something you can get to and get away with sloppy jamming technique, so it'd seem harder if you've been doing that for a while and get used to it. I think the ratings down there were pretty on though, although e-38 and vantage have a lot of notoriously soft graded stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mneagle Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 When I lead the second pitch of Bishop's Terrace I was told by a Valley savy fellow that it is considered "The 5.8 of the Valley" that others should be compared to. It was strenuous but I still think The Lizard at Index is way harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 better question might be does a 5.10 face climb = 5.8 crack climb? And from what I've seen, trying to face climb a crack seems to increase the difficulty by about 2 or 3 grades so yeah, that's probably about right. (had a chance to watch a couple burgeoning crack climbers who typically follow/gym-climb at 10b/10c but get shutdown at about 5.8+/5.9 when they have to actually climb a crack directly. They both lead at their upper limit about 5.8 cracks on gear, and 10a sport at (Vantage, Smith, etc maybe a wee bit harder at E38) Whether a 5.8 NW crack = 5.8 Yos crack is a different question and as i've never been blessed enough to climb in Yos i have no idea what so ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 whaddabout beacon What about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 It's the reverse for me, I climber higher grades in the valley. Consistantly. Sometimes I think NW climbs tend to be rated easier than they are. I think Karate is signifigantly harder than Bishops. Karate is harder than Peruvian Flake or Son of Sam too, both Valley 10as for instance. This is one of the "your results will vary" things I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrgo Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 5.7 yosemite squeeze is going to feel much tougher then 10 crack for most people. Chimneys, squeezes, and off-widths require a far different skill set than most climbers develop. In general though I don't feel Yosemite has harder ratings than the NW. It all breaks down to the skills you have developed. If you climb a lot at Squamish you have probably developed techniques specific to slabby climbing. I climb easy 11 at Beacon, but then I've onsighted mid 11 at Indian Creek. I believe its simply because I've developed the skills which help me more at one area than another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric8 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 you can't compare two totally different styles of climbing when comparing grades. Additionally what the hell is nw 5.10? Every area is grade differently. Climb more bitch about grades less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think Karate is signifigantly harder than Bishops. Karate is harder than Peruvian Flake or Son of Sam too, both Valley 10as for instance. Bill you’ve picked two of the most notoriously over rated 5.10as in the Valley. In some guides Peruvian Flake is rated 5.9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I second the "must jam" theory. Classic Crack (5.8+) in leavenworth absolutely killed me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I watched a guy who climbs in the valley a whole lot, climb Karate crack, cruze it and lower off and say " that would be 5.9 in the valley". Where am i going with this ????........dont know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 All right, how many folks have climbed Classic Crack at Broughton Bluff in Portland? what is that rated? I would say easy 5.9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_forester Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 well, to quote ali g...you say tomato, I say potato...I'd call it C1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyree Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Mark, if you want NW grades that are consistent with the valley you need to climb at Index. Then the valley ratings will seem right on or easier than Index. Another thing to consider is the climbs in the valley are older than the climbs up here, especially the lower moderate grades ie 5.7-5.9. These were rated when the hardest climbs in the world were 5.10. Some of the scariest/hardest pitches I've climbed were valley 7,8,&9's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't think the Valley ratings are skewed, I think they are accurate. I personally think the ratings in the NW are soft, (with the exception of Index) right-O... by definition, the valley is the STANDARD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 right-O... by definition, the valley is the STANDARD... Everyone disses Tahquitz 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.