Sierra climbing grades vs Gunks

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Golden State. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the California Climbing Partners forum.
User Avatar
kheegster

 
Posts: 487
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:29 pm
Thanked: 6 times in 2 posts

Sierra climbing grades vs Gunks

by kheegster » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:10 am

OK, I basically asked the same question last time about Yosemite vs Gunks and I've learned first-hand that they really can't be compared. But the climbing in the Sierras are supposed to be more face-climbing so presumably it's easier to compare the climbing grades.

So: can I, a 5.7 Gunks leader, hop on a Sierra 5.7 without getting spanked?

User Avatar
mvs

 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 7:44 pm
Thanked: 307 times in 123 posts

by mvs » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:47 am

Yes you can. I always heard that western state ratings were a bit softer than the Gunks. As long as you feel comfortable with hand, finger and foot jamming, and are able to place gear from such jams, 5.7 should be fine. 5.9 is another matter though, both for cracks and slabs!

no avatar
axisofevil

 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:50 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by axisofevil » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:57 pm

As an old gunkie, I'd say a gunks 5.7 is generally harder. But I did get spanked my first trip to JT, as I was really unfamiliar with friction and runouts.

And I'd have to disagree about the 5.9's being any different - there were some bad ass Henry Barber routes in the gunks that were very pumpy. Many of those were put up when you'd really have to justify a 5.10 rating.

User Avatar
EManBevHills

 
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:55 pm
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post

by EManBevHills » Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:06 am

Exposure and altitude are the differing elements in the equation -- even if the moves are similar in technical difficulty.

But just like ski areas state in their legalese on trail maps, most grading is relative to the area.

FWIW, I think it's easier to get off-route in the Sierra -- and the "Thank God" Buckets are scarcer. Then, too, the commute to the crag generally requires more commitment...

User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Re: Sierra climbing grades vs Gunks

by Guyzo » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:29 pm

kheegster wrote:OK, I basically asked the same question last time about Yosemite vs Gunks and I've learned first-hand that they really can't be compared. But the climbing in the Sierras are supposed to be more face-climbing so presumably it's easier to compare the climbing grades.

So: can I, a 5.7 Gunks leader, hop on a Sierra 5.7 without getting spanked?


It depends..... on you

:wink:

GK

no avatar
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

by The Chief » Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:45 pm

Get on a Clevenger, Harrington, Higgins, Kamps or Laeger Sierra 5.8+, and find out for yourself.

You may just want to go back to the Gunks for some more rock time.

Remember, route ratings really have no meaning when you are up there as they are all relative to the style of the day that they were put up.

Something for all to ponder before getting on any route.

PS: It has been said by many "old skoolers" that one best be a solid modern 5.10 climber to get on any of the above's 5.8+'s. I would seriously take that advice to the bank.

User Avatar
x15x15

 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 4:48 pm
Thanked: 25 times in 18 posts

by x15x15 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:05 pm

so, 5.8+ is really 5.10. that must mean 5.10- is easier than 5.8+... but i digress...

no avatar
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

by The Chief » Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:15 pm

x15x15 wrote:so, 5.8+ is really 5.10. that must mean 5.10- is easier than 5.8+... but i digress...

Pitch 7 on the DNB of Merriam was originally rated 5.9+ by both Vern and Bob after the FA. After several ensuing ascents and 20 some years later, they both gave in to it's original rating being upgraded to .... .10b


There are many other upgrading examples such as the one above throughout the Sierra. Many of Alan Bartlett lines have been upgraded from the original proverbial 5.9+ to well into the .10's as well. Some of those are still questioned as low. Mithral Dihedral being one of em.

User Avatar
x15x15

 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 4:48 pm
Thanked: 25 times in 18 posts

by x15x15 » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:24 pm

The Chief wrote:
x15x15 wrote:so, 5.8+ is really 5.10. that must mean 5.10- is easier than 5.8+... but i digress...

Pitch 7 on the DNB of Merriam was originally rated 5.9+ by both Vern and Bob after the FA. After several ensuing ascents and 20 some years later, they both gave in to it's original rating being upgraded to .... .10b


There are many other upgrading examples such as the one above throughout the Sierra. Many of Alan Bartlett lines have been upgraded from the original proverbial 5.9+ to well into the .10's as well. Some of those are still questioned as low. Mithral Dihedral being one of em.


i am just "chain yanking" on this silly topic. but if you wanna get serious, some of that high sierra 4th class is pretty effing hard!!!

no avatar
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

by The Chief » Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:41 pm

x15x15 wrote:... but if you wanna get serious, some of that high sierra 4th class is pretty effing hard!!!


I enjoy watching the noobs head onto some of those Clyde 4th class gigs thinking they will be a walk in the park.....

Image

User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

by Guyzo » Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:53 pm

x15x15 wrote:
The Chief wrote:so, 5.8+ is really 5.10. that must mean 5.10- is easier than 5.8+... but i digress...



i am just "chain yanking" on this silly topic. but if you wanna get serious, some of that high sierra 4th class is pretty effing hard!!!



seriously now..... if you lead 5.7 in the gunks you will be fine in the sierra on older 5.7s.

on any old climb that has a "+" or a "d" in it's rating I would be cautious. That means they couldn't really tell how hard it was...... it's sort of a push.

the system goes like this.... 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.10a, 5.9+, 5.10b, 5.10c, 5.11, 5.11a, 5.10d, 5.11b, 5.11c, 5.12, 5.12a, 5.12b, 5.11d, 5.12c ...... and on and on....

I find the best gauge to use in determining how hard a climb might be is to know who did it first and assigned the rating.

If it was John Bachar, you had better bring your guns because you will be in for a surprise :wink: ..... but I think John gets it right.

User Avatar
ksolem

 
Posts: 5724
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:25 pm
Thanked: 17 times in 13 posts

by ksolem » Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:32 pm

I've never done a 5.7 anywhere in California which could be compared to certain Gunks classics in terms of difficulty. "Drunkards Delight," "Classic," and "Cascading Crystal Caleidascope" come to mind.

What you will encounter in the Sierra are alpine challenges like sneaking through sections of loose rock (The Chief mentioned Merriam Peak,) routefinding, approach logistics etc.

Anyway I'm sure there are exceptions but as a rule 5.7 in the Gunks will be steeper and more athletic than the same grade out here.

User Avatar
x15x15

 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 4:48 pm
Thanked: 25 times in 18 posts

by x15x15 » Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:26 pm

sooo, it seems the general consensus is....

a gunk's 5.7 climber will have bigger guns, but MAY still get spanked on a sierra 5.7... dang, i thought the internet was supposed to make climbing easy!

User Avatar
Tom Fralich

 
Posts: 761
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 9:13 pm
Thanked: 16 times in 7 posts

by Tom Fralich » Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:16 pm

You should have no trouble with the "classic" Sierra 5.7's...i.e. the routes in Supertopo. Beware of Temple Crag though, as the rock quality adds a certain spice. You should definitely get on East Buttress of Whitney and think about North Ridge of Bear Creek Spire (rated 5.8, but mostly easier and the 5.8 is well protected). Charlotte Dome is also excellent and rated 5.8, but if you can lead 5.7's in the Gunks ON SIGHT, you'll be fine (same story with Clyde Minarete w/o the direct start).

User Avatar
Sierra Ledge Rat

 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:14 am
Thanked: 387 times in 251 posts

by Sierra Ledge Rat » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 pm

The Chief wrote:Get on a Clevenger, Harrington, Higgins, Kamps or Laeger Sierra 5.8+, and find out for yourself.


Or a Norman Clyde class 4!

Next

Return to California

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron