Who should you believe?

[hakioawa]

So I've been trolling around the archives of CC looking for route beta on Burgundy Spire. I'm a bit of a newbie so I can use all the help I can get. And an interesting thing occured to me. Why the hell should I believe anything anyone here says!

Now its obvious there are some good climbers here. I've met a few on summit of various peaks (How did you like the cake on Shuksan Matt?). But it seems like there is some really confilcting route beta. One message says somthing like "3 easy pitches up to 5.8" and another says "6 pitches of honest 5.8". One says soemthing like "start early, the approach is a ball buster". Another "a short approach". It seems like most people offering opinions have never climbed the route in question.

So the question is. Who is to be believed? I think anyone who writes a long detailed TR has good info, but you still don't know what kind of climber they are. Thoughts?

[jblakley]

Beta is a personal interpretation. There are usually a few different ways to climb a given route so one person may say did it in three pitches with a 50m rope where someone with a 70m rope could do it in 2. There are so many variables that beta should only be viewed as approximation and not an absolute.

For instance I did Burgundy Spire a few years ago and at this point my beta would be very general because I have forgotten so much of it. I would lower your expectations and get beta from numerous resources.

[mattp]

Hakiowa -

Just as in any conversation, this site contains plenty of meaningless or misleading information but I have not yet observed anybody to lie about the beta they offer. It IS a matter of personal experience and the same outing may be a lark one day, and an epic the next.

You suggest that there must be something wrong with the beta when one post declares the hike to Burgundy a short approach, and another declares it a ball buster, or when one message says the N. Face climb is "3 easy pitches up to 5.8" and another says "6 pitches of honest 5.8". I know that these kinds of discrepancies can drive you crazy when you are trying to anticipate every detail of a proposed climb, but my advice is to use your own judgment as to whether or not you think you are up for such a climb, and then not to worry about the specific "beta." In this case, you can look at a topo map and you will see that the approach to the col is something like two miles, with something like 3,000 feet of elevation gain. In fact, that is a short approach that is a real ball buster, so both posts were correct. But more important would be whether the posts indicate it has a lot of brush crawling (it does not) or loose scree (there is some), and you can then judge from your own past experience whether or not you will likely complete that approach with time and energy for a rock climb. Similarly, whether it is 3 pitches or 6 is probably not all that significant, and certainly the difference between "easy" and "honest" 5.8 is not very great. Where prior posts have indicated "the approach to the col up the gully is straight forward" or "the gully is a death trap and one should climb two troughs to the left," you are going to have to go up there and use your own judgment anyway.

My advice is not to pay too much attention to the nuances of any particular beta unless you really think the person offering that information is not only knowledgeable but also that they are offering that advice with an understanding of what your abilities and inclinations are. Otherwise, take it for what it is - information that may or may not turn out to be useful or even accurate - and then form your own conclusion.

Mattp

 

[philfort]

My beta (which you may have already gleaned off my website): A pitch or two of solid 4th and low 5th, then some nice sandy ledges, then one and a half pitches of 5.8, although the 5.8 is in chunks, not sustained. I followed it and found sections of it a bit desparate, but not too bad (but I'm not a very good rock climber - and it was friggin cold). Then we traversed right and slightly down on ledges, then we started up what might have been the final pitch, or maybe there's a little more. We weren't really sure where to go, and then a snow squall moved in, coating the slabs, so we bailed. Overall, the route doesn't seem very committing (I think it's a grade II or II+ or something?) - but then again, we didn't do the final pitch (or two?).

There's definitely not 6 pitches of 5.8. Probably more like 6 pitches in all, 3 of which are 5.8. It seemed less intimidating than it sounds from the Beckey guide.

If you keep on the trail, the approach to the col isn't too long (3 hours?). I found the sand and scree slope heading up to the col to be pretty sketchy though. However, I was also up there 4 or 5 years ago when I was all new at this and trying to climb silver star, when the scree was covered by a couple inches of snow, and I found it very mellow. Kind of weird.

But don't believe anything I say.

 

[Beck]

Look to the master himself, Beckey, for fine examples of route candy made of sacharine dreams-

"Some exposed scrambling"

"destined to become a classic"

"moderately loose rock"

"8 hours"

 

I believe beta to be only a guideline to help you decide, not the map you choose to get to the top.

[Lambone]

Hikerwa,

It's not called lieing, it's sandbagging. And sandbagging is ok.

Take everything on the interenet with a grain of salt and you won't be disappointed by reality!

[hikerwa]

that's not hikerwa, I'm Hikerwa!

goddammit!!!

[Kyle]

Another Beckey classic- "good bivy", usually means a wet sloping stance that a buzzard couldn't roost on.

I say don't believe anyone- take all beta you get with a big grain of salt. Gather up all the info you can on a route from guidebooks, websites, and friends, put together a general picture of the climb in your mind, and go give it your best shot. Then come back here & post a TR

[David_Parker]

We're all liars and the Cascades are really in Nevada.

As far as Burgandy, I smoke dope so the approach was a piece of cake. The first pitches we simul-climbed so I can argue it was one big long one. After the sandy ledges there are lots of options and route finding becomes more difficult. Due to traversing, it's hard to count what is a pitch and what is a belay move.

Shall we tell you the ending of all the movies you want to rent too?

[slaphappy]

Did the route this past Mon. with a bud. Here's my take...

Approach- short but grueling, some steep annoying gravel. 4 hours to Col.

Bivy- excellent;snow patch for water

Route- about 6 pitches (depending on comfort level) with some easy scrambling. Rock quality was disappointing for a "classic". Beware of other party inflicted rock fall. A few moves of 5.8 on pitch 4ish, mostly 5.6. If in doubt, head right! Last 2 pitches better rock quality, lots of 5.7. 3 1/2 hours to summit.

Descent- We used double 9's, could have used a single rope. Beware of "rope eating flakes"! 1/2 hour to base.

Back to car in 2 hours, same annoying gravel.

All in all a good outing. Have fun!

 

[hakioawa]

Wow. First time I've been flamed here!

I'm not claiming anyone is lying. And I've got no problems with surprises. I guess my post was really more an observation that everyone should take the beta here with a grain of salt. I have not been climbing too long and so I shouldn't be giving anyone advice. If I did I'm sure I'd claim everything is much harder then it is!

I guess I'd just like to know that when someone gives route beta they call out if they have actually done the route. Better yet if they have been climbing for 2 months or 20 years.

[jblakley]

You were not being flamed. You wanted feedback and you got it. I suggest to anybody that is new to anything to have an open mind and keep the ego locked in the closet. There is no template for beta. Unless you're in the Mountaineers. I think they have a form or something for that. Probably the "Beta 10.2 - Cascades" form or something like that..lol. All beta given is accurate to the person giving it. And I think it's ridiculous for everyone giving beta to qualify their experience and ability. That said go out and have a good weekend!

[therock]

I agree with you blakely. Read everything you can find, go online, talk to friends that may have done the route previous, but don't expect our ss#'s and references to qualify our spewage. We all are totally reliable; know why that is? Cause I just said so. lol

[michaeljosephnozel]

All in all, if one uses the descriptions and beta contained herein, there is much useful information exchanged. However, like damned near everything else, it is subjective.

One man may find a particular woman incredibly desirable, while another may find her filthy, gaudy, and without any redeeming qualities. Who is to stay one is correct, and one incorrect? Each believes himself to be correct--and, to a certain extent, is.

Knowing the vast differences in the ways people perceive the world, and the infinite details within, one can truly maximize the utility of this website and its information.

It is all subjective, so. . .as has been previously postulated. . .take everything with a grain or two of salt.

 

[Kyle]

Looks like we all agree on the importance of the traditional grains of salt. But maybe salt's getting outdated- eg you could take beta with a grain of Ecstacy "your beta sucks... but I love you man!" Or a grain of Prozac- "it's all good". Or better yet a grain of volcanic grit, cause you're going to eat some of that no matter where you go anyway.

[Matt]

Hakioawa--

Thanks for the Birthday cake on top of Shuksan! It's a small world, isn't it?

If you need a partner for Burgundy Spire drop me a line.

[Mr._Blister]

Prozac isn't that good, really. Rather than "it's all good," it's more like "I guess this situation isn't THAT bad; not as bad as I would have thought before going on the Big P, anyway."

How's that for a scientific analysis.

[Matt]

Oops.

[This message has been edited by Matt (edited 08-30-2001).]