johndavidjr Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 This is guaranteed to irritate and create flames. So in a sense, am merely a troll asking for abuse but... In the Shawangunks, I've climbed a fair number of .7s and a few .8s. Irritatingly hard stuff. (Actually my routine leads have been in pitiful .3-.4 range, which one can do on a craig but maybe not wisely in mountains.) Guidebooks call N.ridge Stuart (easy version) a .7 and W. ridge Forbidden a .4, both of which I've followed and would rate them maybe .3 and .0 by Gunks standards. I dimly remember "Beckey Route" on LB is maybe a .4 by Gunks rating, and is officially a .6. Reasonably well-accomplished and athletic climbers find these distinctions trivial, yet they are made. My guess is ratings in Washington guidebooks are wildly imprecise, often, compared with intensively climbed Gunks. Maybe this is most true at the low end of difficulty, but I certainly wouldn't know. Whole class 2-4 thing (unknown in Gunks) seems hopelessly sandbagged and nearly meaningless. (Some ambitious and well-meaning hikers might be killed by misreading a "class two" WA guidebook rating.) I have zero confidence that I understand the published class 5 ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbcbd Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Well intentioned but over-discussed. Ratings vary depending on the area and the FA party. Any OG climbing area will have sandbagged ratings because of the ol' 5.9 limit. One thing is for sure... keep climbing at the Gunks and then head somewhere with splitter crack climbing and you will find yourself getting spanked. Gunks is good practice for face and roofs... and some running out. Bottom line, just get out there, experience different venues, get to know the local grading, and learn to move well on as much different terrain as possible. Forget grades... learn to look at a line and sense if it goes or not - for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken4ord Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 It is not just Washington that has rating all over the place. Hell if you head up north in NY and go to the Dacks the ratings seem way softer than the Gunks. Even at any crag there are easy climb 5.11's and sandbagged 8's. It all depends on who sent the line, when it was sent and the type of climbing. Rock climbing rating are subjective at best. It just part of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ...and you are comparing alpine to crag climbing. Alpine climbs are usually not as sustained, especially at those grades. The "easy" way up the North Ridge of Stuart was originally rated 5.4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainsloth Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 know your range at a crag and climb under it in the alpine. Ratings are guidelines not set in stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelawgoddess Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 It all depends on who sent the line, when it was sent and the type of climbing. Rock climbing rating are subjective at best. It just part of the game. Well put. The ratings system is not a standardized measurement by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimL Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 It depends on the rock, the area, the temperature, when the route was put up, your skillz, experience and your cojones.... Basically, don't noodle about it too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Arguing about grades is like running in the Special Olympics ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldiente Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I prefer calling any of that stuff low 5th class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I give this thread a D+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeoman Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Jeff Benowitz says ratings are for hotels What does OG mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah I fully understand difference between alpine vs. cragging. I really do. "Class 2-4" is wildly sandbagged in my view, in NW guidebooks, probably killing many a poor little boy scout foolish enough to take generic definitions at face value. But when for example somebody rates a new route in NCascades 5.9, should I interpret this as 5.4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 If your belayer is belaying from inside a Walmart tarp tent, then all climbs will be at least a full grade easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scion Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 But when for example somebody rates a new route in NCascades 5.9, should I interpret this as 5.4? It really depends on the route and the FAer. Some are prone to inflation whereas others are prone to sandbagging. If an alpine route were rated at 5.9, I would be prepared for 5.5-5.10b climbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Yeah I fully understand difference between alpine vs. cragging. I really do. "Class 2-4" is wildly sandbagged in my view, in NW guidebooks, probably killing many a poor little boy scout foolish enough to take generic definitions at face value. But when for example somebody rates a new route in NCascades 5.9, should I interpret this as 5.4? Yes. Do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scion Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Yes. Do that. As a matter of fact, if you enter "5.9" in babelfish and select Gunks->PNW translation, it spits out "5.4". So I take back what I said before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Yes. Do that. As a matter of fact, if you enter "5.9" in babelfish and select Gunks->PNW translation, it spits out "5.4". So I take back what I said before. Hell with all his hardcore 'Gunks training he could probably hop right on Liberty Crack. Babelfish says it's only a 5.11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Why use a $200 climbing store rope for these Gunks 5.4s? Since they are only 5.4, you can save $175 by using a $25 boat rope from Wal-mart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quarryographer Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Lately I've become a fan of three grades, 5.easy, 5.hard, and 5.stupid...amazingly it's been working very well...for me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 lately, everything is 5.scary to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaoleung Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I vote stay at home and watch the Bachelorette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted July 24, 2009 Author Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yeah, I do find climbing is scary. And having only climbed a couple of dozen routes in Washington, will not really know answer to question. OBVIOUSLY never from you guys. One can but guess why not.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 This is guaranteed to irritate and create flames. So in a sense, am merely a troll asking for abuse but... You cannot start the OP with this sentence and then seriously complain about the responses given, can you? But there are some good responses here - the Gunks are notoriously graded stiff (some say sandbag). Also, someone mentioned that softer grades can also be found closer to the Gunks than the Cascades (in the 'Daks). And still a third commenter pointed out that comparing the Gunks to the whole Cascades is a little misleading - I agree and think your comparison should be limited to Index or Icicle Creek. Finally since you said in your last post: And having only climbed a couple of dozen routes in Washington, will not really know answer to question. Its hard to really make an accurate comparison without a little more experience than that - especially if your route experience in the Cascades has been the high alpine. Come on back sometime and try to get a bit more cragging in, then tell us what you think. Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted July 24, 2009 Author Share Posted July 24, 2009 Yeah it's all alpine. Your answer is fair and isolates a few other reasonable responses from the flames and whatever else one might call drivel and nonesense........ But question was what YOU think, since what I think isn't relevant... Sounds like you're saying trim the grades a bit, at least relative to Gunks.......BUT I DON'T KNOW...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Actually, since the closest I've been to the Gunks is LaGuardia in transit, I really doubt that what I think is very relevant... And I think that's the case with most cc.com members - does anyone have experience at the Gunks? Based on reputation alone, I would expect a 5.8 at the Gunks to be a bit harder than a 5.8 at Index. Does that work for you? 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.