Norman did it over a fifty times in boots.... probably more.

Re the Clyde photo, Isn't that the Milk Bottle?

Here's Underhill, last man down with storm about to have a go at them. Keds the preferred footwear. Glen Dawson's 1931 photo.(Previous shot is Clyde and Francis Farquhar on Milk Bottle.)

http://www.thehighsierra.org

Yup... the Milk Bottle. Used it as an example to show how the original dudes did it back in the day..

willytinawin wrote:It's only 10 feet tall and 5.8 boot climb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG9WOF7r_tQ

Willy,

Thanks for finding this and posting the link. I've seen this video a few times but I still enjoy watching it everytime. After He gets his right foot around that corner it goes pretty effortlessly. Very nicely done. (In the begining of the video, it does hurt my old-man's knees just watching him kneel on that ledge before he stands up. You can do a more traditional mantel move, pushing up off of your hands and go right to your feet, saving your knees.)

Although the "Milk-bottle" on Starlight is a more dramatic spire, in my humble opinion, it quite a bit easier than the summit block of T-bolt. You can read about about the Milk-bottle being done several ways. We did it in boots by holding the sharp fin on the south side, leaning to the west, and making a few lay-back steps until we could get up far enough to get our arms the upper part of the neck.

You couldn't have asked for a better day on the 'bolt than they had, clear blue sky, no wind, just perfect.

asmrz wrote:The summit block is 5.8 lead in boots, no pro needed. Why would you want to call it anything else?

asmrz, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the block be re-rated as C1! Certainly it goes at 5.8 or 5.9 depending on the side (perhaps with an "R"? as any fall would probably hurt you pretty badly). But since many people aid it (unless they TR it), I'm just pondering what that aid move should be described as.

Chief, chest-beating aside ("back in the day"), my question isn't what old timers like to say something is rated, but what the rating should fairly be called based on what the rating is defined as. e.g. frankly I think calling a 5.5-5.8 third class just because someone "third-classed" is B.S. and such routes deserve to be re-rated (as has happened to many routes in the Sierra) because such relativistic ratings are meaningless and misleading. To be clear, I'm not talking about the free climb rating on Thunderbolt though, and yes, grade creep needs to be kept in check, but only where it is truly grade creep rather than improper grading.

An aside to some other comments: The block is not an aid climb, granted, but many rock climbs have an aid rating attached for single move or short aid sections (e.g. A0 for pendulum & tension traverses, or pulling on a bolt or piton, until it is freed, then a new rating is shown beside the old one since the aiding is now "optional"). Many A0 ratings refer to some form of "French freeing". However, having aided the summit block, I can attest that lassoing it was much harder than placing gear on a C1 climb (for me at least!), and I can also attest that it is very difficult to get to the top in one pull. Many people tie loops in the rope ahead of time or prussic it, which technically falls more in line with more than a single move, but still in a very weak/blurry way.

I don't have a strong personal opinion about the C0 vs C1 rating, just pondering what the common means of ascent would commonly be rated. I've aided it and know what it entails, and hopefully someday I can be a good enough climber and gutsy enough to free it.

Thanks for the great historical photos, everyone! Great to reflect on how much harder the routes originally where in the equipment used back then. Has anyone seen the Starlight summit block photo with two guys standing on top, counterbalancing each other?

PellucidWombat wrote:..... my question isn't what old timers like to say something is rated, but what the rating should fairly be called based on what the rating is defined as. e.g. frankly I think calling a 5.5-5.8 third class just because someone "third-classed" is B.S. and such routes deserve to be re-rated (as has happened to many routes in the Sierra) because such relativistic ratings are meaningless and misleading. To be clear, I'm not talking about the free climb rating on Thunderbolt though, and yes, grade creep needs to be kept in check, but only where it is truly grade creep rather than improper grading.

Please cite any route within the Clyde Clan Sierra Classics that has in fact been officially "RE-RATED" because they were "MISLEADING" in any way shape or form. The only thing that has been misleading the past several years is the fact that today's climbers want to post higher ratings to older routes, especially many of the Clyde's Sierra Classics, in order to accommodate today's over blown rating numbers head games.

Just climb the damn thing with the rating that the boys back in the day gave it when they FA'd it.


PS: The 30 foot north chimney which leads to the summit via the SW Chute Route is much harder and frightening for many folks than is the Summit Monolith. It remains Class 3.

RickF wrote:

willytinawin wrote:It's only 10 feet tall and 5.8 boot climb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG9WOF7r_tQ

Willy,

Thanks for finding this and posting the link. I've seen this video a few times but I still enjoy watching it everytime. After He gets his right foot around that corner it goes pretty effortlessly. Very nicely done. (In the begining of the video, it does hurt my old-man's knees just watching him kneel on that ledge before he stands up. You can do a more traditional mantel move, pushing up off of your hands and go right to your feet, saving your knees.)

Although the "Milk-bottle" on Starlight is a more dramatic spire, in my humble opinion, it quite a bit easier than the summit block of T-bolt. You can read about about the Milk-bottle being done several ways. We did it in boots by holding the sharp fin on the south side, leaning to the west, and making a few lay-back steps until we could get up far enough to get our arms the upper part of the neck.

Milk Bottle is definitely much easier than T-Bolt block. I was belaying Glenn Gookin on TBolt in the video you see and I led the Milk Bottle when we got there. Glenn, Tom Bechtt and I did the traverse that day, from T-Bolt to Sill (started at South Lake and existed Glacier Lodge).

The Chief wrote:Please cite any route within the Clyde Clan Sierra Classics that has in fact been officially "RE-RATED" because they were "MISLEADING" in any way shape or form. The only thing that has been misleading the past several years is the fact that today's climbers want to post higher ratings to older routes, especially many of the Clyde's Sierra Classics, in order to accommodate today's over blown rating numbers head games.

Wasn't the East Face of Whitney originally rated 4th class? How about the Chimney variation of N Palisade from the U-Notch?

The Chief wrote:Just climb the damn thing with the rating that the boys back in the day gave it when they FA'd it.

What do you think the point of a rating system is? A pissing match of who can sandbag a route more? Frankly, I think ratings should be able to give one an indication of how much the route is within their abilities with the risks they're willing to take (e.g. R & X sub-ratings). Not that they are anything but perfect, but to resist updating a rating to what the standard/consensus is for that rating makes that information misleading to those seeking out the routes. If you're in the business of FA, then that puts you in a very different category than most people who do climbs these days.

PellucidWombat wrote:What do you think the point of a rating system is? A pissing match of who can sandbag a route more? Frankly, I think ratings should be able to give one an indication of how much the route is within their abilities with the risks they're willing to take (e.g. R & X sub-ratings). Not that they are anything but perfect, but to resist updating a rating to what the standard/consensus is for that rating makes that information misleading to those seeking out the routes. If you're in the business of FA, then that puts you in a very different category than most people who do climbs these days.

"Updating" ratings of classic climbs such as this one discounts the history of the climb and the context that it was put up in. It is important to respect the rating given by the first ascensionist. You are going to find older climbs that feel harder than their given rating, get over it. It's fun! There were fewer climbs and climbers to compare with back then. If it "felt" 5.8ish, then that is what they called it. If you find that a climb feels harder than it's given rating, then be proud that you were able to meet the standard set by the first ascensionist, and leave it alone to challenge the next climber. Furthermore, those seeking out routes in the mountains need to be prepared to climb at a higher level than the given rating of the route they are attempting. Conditions change, and there are always a number of ways to go when climbing in the mountains. It is rare that a route gets climbed in the same way each time it is ascended.

-Kellen

Edited for grammar.

I see this quickly entering the black hole of "off topic", but oh well

Kellendv, I like the way you put that.

One thought regarding that idea, though, is that what a given rating has come to mean has changed over time as climbing has become more mainstream and ratings standardized. Since it seems futile to argue that all new ratings should be adjusted to fit the old standards, for consistency wouldn't it make more sense for a new (and carefully considered) consensus on some of the old ratings by more recent ascentionists?

Besides, I have trouble seeing how increasing a rating from 4th to 5.8 means disrespect if 4th has come to mean something much easier/trivial than the FAs were thinking of. Wouldn't it actually be more respectful for the reported difficulty of the route to be maintained by upgrading the rating to how the modern system is defined? For example, I think a lot more people would admire seeing a FA record of a 5.9 ascent done in boots in the '30s than a 4th or 5th class ascent and view the route with much more respect if they are not personally familiar with its actual character.

PellucidWombat wrote:I see this quickly entering the black hole of "off topic", but oh well

Kellendv, I like the way you put that.

One thought regarding that idea, though, is that what a given rating has come to mean has changed over time as climbing has become more mainstream and ratings standardized. Since it seems futile to argue that all new ratings should be adjusted to fit the old standards, for consistency wouldn't it make more sense for a new (and carefully considered) consensus on some of the old ratings by more recent ascentionists?

Clearly, ratings have changed. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, it doesn't make more sense to "adjust" them, because that would be ignoring the whole point I just made about respecting the history and context that the climbs were put up in. Forget about consistency! That's the point! Old 5.8 and new 5.8 may not necessarily be the same! But we let it be because 1) people have been doing it since then with that rating, and 2) it's rude to tell the guys that did it first that they are wrong. The old guys set the standard, so isn't it more likely that the new guys are wrong?

PellucidWombat wrote:Besides, I have trouble seeing how increasing a rating from 4th to 5.8 means disrespect if 4th has come to mean something much easier/trivial than the FAs were thinking of. Wouldn't it actually be more respectful for the reported difficulty of the route to be maintained by upgrading the rating to how the modern system is defined? For example, I think a lot more people would admire seeing a FA record of a 5.9 ascent done in boots in the '30s than a 4th or 5th class ascent and view the route with much more respect if they are not personally familiar with its actual character.

I'm not sure how much 5.8 is actually rated fourth class. But regardless, no it wouldn't be more respectful to "upgrade." See my original post, and my point above. Anyways, how can we update a FA record? It's a historical record created by the person who did it, how can you just say, "oh that isn't what he meant, he meant to say it was 5.9. . . " It isn't our right to change it.

OT be damned!

Some of the DPS ratings are clearly at odds with the current views. I'm often glad to free-climb a class 4 section, and not realize till after that is has been reclassified 5.4 or 5.6. If I had known beforehand, I would have been scared!

The Chief wrote:5.8?????
More like 5.5-5.6 in LS Trango GTX's. 7 times in the past 3 years alone. A0 or C1 are a joke...C'mon!!!!!

I'm going to agree with the Chief on the is one. I'll qualify it by saying: I was on TR, had beta, and climbing shoes, but I thought it was easier that an 8.