asmrz wrote:It really depends on who does the rating. Some of us find things harder and harder every year. Ratings stay the same, we don't.
3rd class route in the Sierra can indeed have a move or two of 5.6. That is given...If we don't accept that, most old routes on Sierra Peaks would have to be upgraded to crazy numbers.
Those early Sierra Pioneers did not pay attention to a harder move or two. If the route had 1,000' of third and few, widely spaced moves of 5th, it was still called third, and should be.

It works the other way too sometimes. A route with no move harder than class 3 might be rated class 4 if it is very sustained. For that matter, the whole notion of class 4 is extremely difficult to pin down (pun intended).

It's not necessarily logical, it's just how it is.

Simkin wrote:It is obviously not 5.6.

You were there so you're biased. That second Ritter photo looks like it's overhanging and that you're about to do a 5.9 mantel.

Simkin wrote:Here is my video of...

LOL. I've already watched more than my share of your blue sleeved hand puppet shows, thanks.

I see it as a narrowing of options. C3 means many available choices of route. C4 many less. C5 and the route demands a more or less precise sequence of movements. Thus it makes little sense to say a C3 route requires a 5.6 move, since, if it's C3, there's always more than one way.

Bob, the question of ratings has been written about extensively, mostly in the context of fifth class climbing. The hardest move theory, the one that you and many of us were originally taught, simply doesn't hold. A subjective assessment of the overall difficulty frequently prevails over the narrow concept of a measure of peak difficulty. Suppose you climbed a thousand foot class 2 route with one short 5.2 boulder move that had zero consequences if you fell: What would you rate it?

Safety is not why routes are given difficulty ratings. A class 3 route can be way more dangerous than a 5.11 route. Often they are. Trying to shoehorn a long mountain route into a single number ultimately distills away so many of the details that only a fool would trust their safety to that single number.

When I think of the North Face what my mind focuses on is the rock quality. That's where both the difficulty and the danger really lie and the rating says absolutely nothing about it.

You need to go back to the pioneering climbs in the Sierra. The guys who did those first ascents had skills. They were technical climbers. So a short harder section on otherwise easier terrain did not affect their assessment of the complete route. We see this at Tahquitz on the "easy' routes and on myriad of so called 3rd and 4th, and even easy 5th class routes in the Sierra. Yes, most (or at least some) of these cruxes can be by-passed if you carefully search for easier way. Most people just scramble over it and don't spend any time thinking about it.

I like what "JD" says about this above.

I would hesitantly mention, that the admonition of "old" climbers, to learn how to rock climb, before you ever set foot into the mountains, is at the root of these easy climbs rating "problems". Being able to safely scramble over something that feels harder than the rating of the overall climb is just "normal" experience in mountainous terrain.

Simkin? Reminds me of this:

https://youtu.be/YQ7Tak6fK9w?t=3m40s

bobpickering wrote:JD, I must disagree. The idea of rating a climb according to its hardest move isn’t a theory, it what the rating means (or at least used to mean).

You are old-fashioned. While JD is a 21-st century climber. Just like Kurt Hinterbichler is a 21st century artist.

I could post dozen of climbs in the Sierra rated class 3, 4 or easy 5th, which have moves much harder than the overall rating. Everyone on this Post, knows a few of them. But that would just widen the debate. Is that move really harder than its rating or is it me? Was your experience on that move different from mine? Was I scared to death by something that you just scrambled over?

Is that what we are debating here?

Overall rating matching every move, exposure, quality of rock and our distinct ability or lack of, etc. exists very rarely in the mountains.

Again, those who pioneered the "easy" routes in the Sierra, were technical climbers. Comparing their ratings to today's need for another all-inclusive rating system (for non-technical scramblers and hikers) serves no purpose.

Bob, in my 45 years of climbing in the Sierra, I have found many underrated climbs but only a few clearly overrated. And on a few climbs, I was guilty of miss rating them myself ( One that Almost got away, Third Pillar of Dana, for example). Ratings are highly subjective. That is the message we should try to convey.

Bob, the questions in your previous post are attempts at drawing precise lines around the issue. If you could point to an indisputable, authoritative and universally accepted set of rules about how routes are rated then there would be no need for those questions. We could just look it up.

That's why I called it a theory; it isn't codified like law. In practice one finds routes intentionally rated both harder and easier than the hardest single move. There are numerous examples but I offered a hypothetical 1000 foot climb because I didn't want to get sidetracked discussing actual routes.

Even with your vast climbing experience I'm not surprised that you say you have never encountered even one route with a move harder than its rating. Since you staunchly believe in the hardest move theory such a route is impossible by definition. It would instead be "underrated". So in that sense it's a matter of interpretation.

As an aside, fifth class boulder moves with no consequences are actually very common. There's a whole sport based on that.

asmrz wrote:It really depends on who does the rating. Some of us find things harder and harder every year. Ratings stay the same, we don't.

I climbed this very year, besides Ritter, Clyde Minaret and Mt. Whitney Mountaineers route. And Mt. Williamson just a year before.

Ritter classic chute is a lot more more difficult than Whitney and Williamson, which are rated class 3 and just as difficult as Clyde Minaret, which is rated class 4.

asmrz wrote:3rd class route in the Sierra can indeed have a move or two of 5.6.

It is not a move or two. As I rote before, it is sustained 12 vertical feet of class 4. You can get killed there.

Simkin wrote:It is not a move or two. As I rote before, it is sustained 12 vertical feet of class 4. You can get killed there.

I suspect this may be a matter of drought conditions making the route tougher. Earlier in the season and in most years, this 12-foot section is probably still covered in snow/ice. This photo from Sep 22, 2002 shows old snow covering your class 4 section:

Bob Burd wrote:

Simkin wrote:It is not a move or two. As I rote before, it is sustained 12 vertical feet of class 4. You can get killed there.

I suspect this may be a matter of drought conditions making the route tougher.

Likely. Getting from the glacier to the face on Middle Pal was definitely trickier this year than back in 2008 (?), thanks to there being quite a bit less glacier and more exposed, gritty steep stuff. I'd still call it class 3, but like snow and ice routes everywhere, you have to adjust for global warming when reading the guidebook.

Bob Burd, that's like an anti-GoPro video still you posted. It makes Ritter look almost flat.

Simkin wrote:It is not a move or two. As I [w]rote before, it is sustained 12 vertical feet of class 4. You can get killed there.

Twelve feet isn't that high. You can die falling in your bathtub. The risk depends on more than just the distance of the fall.

But let's just say it really is class 4 in its current state.

If it's a seasonal variation then I would suspect most people would say the rating is still class 3. Otherwise you'd have to consider mid-winter conditions as well. If it's permanent then the route deserves an update to its rating. So which is it? Do we need an ensemble of GCM runs to decide if it's class 3 or 4?

Please advise.