sjarelkwint wrote:How difficult is Matterhorn? Easiest way up? ... class 4 ...

there's only one answer : go there and give a look

http://www.summitpost.org/route/159962/H-rnligrat.html

http://www.summitpost.org/fact-sheet/17 ... facts.html

http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.p ... _id=172495

Oops - double post

Over 600 people have died on the Matterhorn! The Hörnligrat is not easy.

Report from Matterhorn: http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/3 ... 4478m.html

Its an AD+ I think, so hardly an easy undertaking, but shouldn't be amazingly difficult for experienced climbers. I imagine you need to be good with exposure and pretty decent on rock and ice.

sjarelkwint wrote:yeah but i think the bitch is way too hard to be cracked by me!

Then don't climb it.

I think this quote says it all:

"At AD- with pitches of III- and very sustained climbing of II over a climbing distance of some 1,700 m.(5,575 ft.) and a vertical rise of 1,200 m.(3,940 ft.) above the hut, the Hörnligrat is one of the most difficult "ordinary" routes on any of the Alpine 4000 meter peaks. In poor conditions the climbing rapidly becomes a very difficult and dangerous proposition."

There isn't any single move on the route that an experienced climber would consider hard. But the length of the route, route finding and exposure add up to a long day. The decent can take as long or longer than the climb. If you and your partner have your game really dialed in, you'll be fine. Any doubts, look into hiring a local guide in Zermatt.

Much of it very exposed class 3 and 4, but from the Solvay hut up it is lower fifth and upper fourth. The original route went out in to the north face, but the loose rock made that way too dangerous, so it was routed more onto the ridge, but the climbing there is mid fifth class - ergo the cables. Depending on snow line, much of the route may have to be done in crampons (we put crampons on midway through the cables).

It is a really long exposed climb. You need to be able to climb much of the class 3 and 4 stuff on the lower part unroped and move fairly quickly to get it all done in one day. Figure 13 hours round trip if not with a guide. There is almost always a bottleneck in the cables area, which eats time. The descent requires great care and takes almost as long as the ascent.

I did the Matterhorn 2 summers back. Definitely ranges from class 3 to low 5. I did it guided, and would recommend it no other way. As pointed out above, unguided you're looking at maybe 12-13 hours. Guided, I did it in 6. And the guide in no way was pulling me up the thing, but knowing the route in the dark, and telling me I could never stop really sped things along. And that was good, because we got down in 6 hours as the weather was closing in for the afternoon (think Colorado Rockies afternoons).

I should note, I say I would only do it guided, but I am not really a fan of guided climbing. It's the only mountain I've used a guide on. Not planning to use guides for Aconcagua next year. This is just a mountain with crazy route finding that should be done quickly. The 12-hour approach would be very doable, but I actually saw people on the route that had spent the night. Personlly I'll save the alpine bivys for the long routes!

I don't have many pics (moving too fast), but I can give more detailed info if you're curious. Or the name of a good guide, if you want to contact him.

rockymtnclimber wrote:I did it guided, and would recommend it no other way.

Assuming you can always go faster with a guide, why not always use one? That's your logic and it's fine if your raison d'etre is being able to say you "climbed" the Matternhorn or whatever.

For some of us, how we climb something or fail to is more important. The challenges of route finding, the fact that it might take us 12 hours instead of six, or that we might not even summit--all of that is integral to the fact that we embrace the experience on our own terms.

Of course, some climbers would never be caught dead on a route like this just because of the type of people it attracts. Crowds, guides and gumbies are antithetical to why some of us go into the hills. Nothing wrong with popular dog routes or going guided (if that's your thing), please just acknowledge it's not the only way to do things.

MichaelJ:

Of course, it's not the only way. As I said, it's the only climb I've done guided, and the only one I have any plans of doing guided. I think I feel pretty much the same as you about guided climbing. I single out the Hornligrat route as prime real estate for a guide for a number of reasons (the crazy route finding, the hundreds of people up and down it with guides - who will walk right over and around anyone not with a guide, and the fact that if you're doing the Matterhorn by that route, you probably are doing it to say you did it). I thought the north face and the NW ridge of the Matterhorn had very intriguing lines, and if I was going for pure mountaineering, that would be my choice. That would get you away from the crowds!

Mountaineering is a whole different animal in Europe. The idea of amateurs (as we all would be called, if not guides) tackling those mountains alone is largely a foreign concept. While I prefer the independent style and mentality, I just thought I'd offer that I had an incredible experience with a guide (despite being very reluctant to try it beforehand).

Why worry? Some use guides on the hills, some don't. It takes all kinds - that's the beauty of it - there's no point in getting caught up in 'philosphy of climbing' bull....