Route inflation?

[Alpine_Tom]

Okay, so maybe this is sort of a naive question.

 

There are a lot of climbs that have gotten significantly easier since they were first done, due to improvements in pro, shoes, etc. But it seems like there is a subset of climbs that have gotten significantly HARDER since they were first done, because they've gotten to be classics, and are done by thousands of people a year, and the holds are polished.

Midway is probably the most well-known example. You can see it on Der Toof as well; you get five feet off the main line and the climb gets much easier because the rock still has some texture left. And certainly the 'easy' routes on the east slab of the Marymoor rock are all a grade or two harder than when it was first put up.

No doubt there are a hundred other examples at well-climbed spots like Smith or Index.

Is there any sort of consensus about up-grading a climb because of overuse?

[G-spotter]

Polish is just a requirement for good technique.

 

Just like having bad technique doesn't let you claim a 5.6 as a 5.9, polish does not increase the grade of a route.

[mattp]

I think few who have climbed the first pitch of Midway over the years would agree with Dru on this point. Ratings are generally thought to compare the relative difficulty of a climb, and not the relative difficulty of a climb in the state it was twenty years ago. I don't think the increased difficulty from having all the little nubbins and crystals flattened is really all that different from the breaking off of handholds -- it is just alteration on a different scale.

[catbirdseat]

The main cliff face on Midway is quite polished because that is the way most people face when they climb it. That is where the protection is. When you get to the crux, try turning around and facing the tower, climb it like the chimney it is. You will find all sorts of good friction for your feet. I find it much easier that way.

[RuMR]

i heard outerspace got uprated???

[G-spotter]

I think few who have climbed the first pitch of Midway over the years would agree with Dru on this point. Ratings are generally thought to compare the relative difficulty of a climb, and not the relative difficulty of a climb in the state it was twenty years ago. I don't think the increased difficulty from having all the little nubbins and crystals flattened is really all that different from the breaking off of handholds -- it is just alteration on a different scale.

 

Flying Circus is a hell of a lot more polished than it was when first freed in the 70s, (or even than it was when I first climbed it in 1991) but it's still 10a. You just have to be more precise with hand and foot placements.

[Cobra_Commander]

It continues to amaze me to see rock worn away by the sheer number of hands that have touched it!

 

Stuff at Smith seems to get upgraded if stuff wears off or something breaks off (and isn't glued back on ).

 

Not that Smith should be any kind of guiding beacon for climbing...

[fenderfour]

Angel at Castle Rock is the most polished climb I've ever been on. The foot hold down low looks like it's been through a rock tumbler. The crack is super slick, but perfect finger locks.

 

Climbs do get harder as the rock is polished. Friction is a huge part of climbing.

 

People complain that the grades at J-Tree are very stiff. Once I got used to trusting foot smears on steep faces, it wasn't terrible. The same moves at Leavenworth or Index would have spit me off.

[ken4ord]

Angel at Castle Rock is the most polished climb I've ever been on. The foot hold down low looks like it's been through a rock tumbler. The crack is super slick, but perfect finger locks.

 

 

Come out here and I can show you some routes that I have established that have only seen two ascents, but damn there are some sections so polished that they are just like glass. How is one to know if the route has always been that way or if it has gotten polished over time? I agree that Midway and Angel probably are polished from climbing, but who is to say how much they have changed? Then you take into consideration the improvement in gear and shoes then you are back at square one. No change. Also grades are subjective, they are there to give you a idea of the difficulty to expect. There is no way that all 5.10's can feel the same because we all have different strengths and weakness.

 

 

 

[Sherri]

Okay, so maybe this is sort of a naive question.

 

There are a lot of climbs that have gotten significantly easier since they were first done, due to improvements in pro, shoes, etc. But it seems like there is a subset of climbs that have gotten significantly HARDER since they were first done, because they've gotten to be classics, and are done by thousands of people a year, and the holds are polished.

Midway is probably the most well-known example. You can see it on Der Toof as well; you get five feet off the main line and the climb gets much easier because the rock still has some texture left. And certainly the 'easy' routes on the east slab of the Marymoor rock are all a grade or two harder than when it was first put up.

No doubt there are a hundred other examples at well-climbed spots like Smith or Index.

Is there any sort of consensus about up-grading a climb because of overuse?

 

Thanks for asking about this, Tom--I've wondered the same thing, as the numbers aren't always indicative of the climbs' comparative difficulty. Granted, I could be over-sensitive to these differences, being a fledgling trad leader and not wanting inadvertently to get onto something out of my tender range, but I have found it helpful to be aware of the context of the rating.

 

In Leavenworth, for example, I've noticed that many of the newer lines seem to be rated softer as compared to the ratings of "classics." (I don't know the date of the FA of R&D which is rated 5.6 as compared to Midway which is 5.5, but I find it a good example of this disparity.)

 

Routes which have become polished could certainly attribute to this perception, but I also suspected it had something to do with the style of the climbing found on those older lines. Routes requiring burlier moves like knee bars, chicken wings, or plastering your asscheeks against a greasy chimney wall can feel more daunting than ones which let you get away with less "old-school" technique.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2007 by Sherri

[Bill_Simpkins]

Midway doesn't seem polished as it seems greasy. It seems there is a light layer of skin oil on it. Maybe it just needs a good cleaning. Hot soapy water

 

Some of the cracks in Yosemite are so polished it's literally like glass inside. However, in cracks it's kind of nice because you have less stuff digging into the back of your hand.

 

[Sherri]

Midway doesn't seem polished as it seems greasy. It seems there is a light layer of skin oil on it. Maybe it just needs a good cleaning. Hot soapy water

 

 

Dirty rocks.

 

Guy I climb with refers to that grease as "fear oil." In that case, I think I've contributed my share to a few cracks around the place.

[fenderfour]

Midway doesn't seem polished as it seems greasy. It seems there is a light layer of skin oil on it. Maybe it just needs a good cleaning. Hot soapy water

 

Some of the cracks in Yosemite are so polished it's literally like glass inside. However, in cracks it's kind of nice because you have less stuff digging into the back of your hand.

 

A good cleaing is probably a good idea.

 

Is it ok to Rap clean, or should I do it exclusively on lead?

[plexus]

Flying Circus is a hell of a lot more polished than it was when first freed in the 70s, (or even than it was when I first climbed it in 1991) but it's still 10a. You just have to be more precise with hand and foot placements.

 

A big hell yes on that. There are a few climbs in Squamish that are a lot more shiny now. Same with Bastille Crack in Eldo. I've led it once and don't have to do it again. That gaston off the flake was scary stuff on that buffed stuff. Even Becky Route on Liberty Bell is a little "used" in places.