Hello all!

My girlfriend and I are new to the world of mountaineering, but incredibly excited to learn. We've signed up for a few classes this winter on snow camping, glacier travel, and ice axe/crampon use, and we're hoping to test our mettle this spring and summer on a couple of snow-covered mountains in California, hopefully culminating in a guided climb of Shasta in the summer.

However, while she is also a very capable rock climber, I am a complete novice. I do a small amount of bouldering maybe once every couple of weeks, but the best I can manage at the moment is a V2. If our primary interest is in alpine climbing and glaciated peaks like Rainier, Baker, Denali (in a number of years of course), what level of rock climbing should I be comfortable with? I know some proficiency will be important on certain peaks that require ascending through a rock chute or two, but what do those typically rate at?

Also, is there any roughly-accurate way to translate the bouldering V-scale to YDS? The only nearby rock gym is a bouldering gym, and as a result I haven't done any regular climbing in years. I've read that a V2 is about a 5.8-5.10, but that seems way too high, considering some of the 5.10 routes I've seen outside of the gym.

One final question that is purely for my own curiosity (and may sound ridiculous to a seasoned climber, I have no idea)-- what is does the Hillary Step rate at on the YDS?

Thanks!

If you can climb 5.8, you can get up the standard routes of 97% of the world's mountains... master the other skills you mentioned and you'll be fine. I'd add maybe learn to climb ice, and learn to climb comfortably in boots. Rock shoes are one thing and mountaineering boots with crampons are another...

No rock climbing on Rainier, Denali, Everest, etc btw (standard routes)...

And I heard Conrad Anker said in his super humble way that the Step was 5-easy, but at altitude he gave it a 5.9... I'm probably not getting that story right, so don't hold me to it... but that's only if you were to free/lead climb the thing...

Hillary Step depends on the level of snow. I dont know why everyone goes on about the Hillary Step, the rock band beneath the South Summit was much harder.

I would not worry at all about the difficulty, particularly V scale, so much as being proficient with all of the techniques of multi-pitch traditional climbing; building anchors, rappelling, belaying, leading, following, etc. These skills are directly transferable to mountaineering.

I agree with ExcitableBoy and Fletch. I rock climb primarily to stay current on rope skills, anchors, etc. for mountaineering pursuits. You'll get strange looks in the gym climbing in boots but it will make you a better climber.

I agree with all the above. Rock climbing is great fun in its own right, but it's not needed for the sorts of peaks you're looking at. It's a huge confidence boost for those times when you're in a steep and exposed spot, and the rope skills are invaluable. That goes double for ice technique. Note that crevasse rescue, while including some skills transferable from climbing, is its own discipline that should be practiced regularly.

Besides boots and crampons, look to see if you can practice climbing with a pack on.

Not too long go Anker made a film ("the second step") documenting his attempt to recreate Mallory & Irvine's fateful climb. He recruited hotshot young climber Leo Houlding to play Irvine to his Mallory. The crux was the Second Step - these days there's a permanent ladder there, but Anker removed it for the film. My point is, the film played up the angle that the difficulty of the step creates doubt about whether Mallory & Irvine actually reached the summit. But if it's so hard, why did Anker end up leading this part of the climb himself rather than deferring to his much technically stronger climbing partner? I got the chance to ask him this at a screening, and his response boiled down to "technical climbing and high-altitude climbing are two very different things."

Also, is there any roughly-accurate way to translate the bouldering V-scale to YDS? The only nearby rock gym is a bouldering gym, and as a result I haven't done any regular climbing in years. I've read that a V2 is about a 5.8-5.10, but that seems way too high, considering some of the 5.10 routes I've seen outside of the gym.

Replying to this part separately as it's a whole other kettle of fish.

If you look online you'll see that V1 is supposed to be around 5.10, V4 is around 5.12, etc. In practice you can throw that out the window. For years my working definition of 5.10 was "I see how the moves are supposed to go but I have no hope of doing more than three moves in a row without falling", though I could generally climb V2 on sight and reliably get up V3 after just a few falls. As with any type of climbing, it's also subjective and dependent on the style of the climb - some are overhung, some are balancy, some are slabby, some are crimpy, some require flexibility, some require creative positioning...

I've recently started climbing regularly after a hiatus and I'm starting to think of myself as a legit 5.10 climber, partly thanks to lots of bouldering focusing on my particular weakness: balance. I'm starting to see hard climbs as a series of bouldering problems, and seeing more skill transfer than before. Maybe at the higher levels the two rating systems are more easily comparable.

"If you can climb 5.8, you can get up the standard routes of 97% of the world's mountains."

This is mostly false.

If you can solo iced-up 5.8 terrain for 18 hours straight while wearing a blindfold on zero sleep, THEN you can get up 97 percent of the world's mountains, maybe (how would I know?!?).


An ability to top-rope or follow a 5.8 pitch would be useful, but in itself not predictive of anything.

A well-protected 5.8 of a few pitches on a sunny little crag is absolutely different from many alpine circumstances where pro may be non-existent and the route highly uncertain.

Also, snow and ice require much more nerve and an almost entirely different skill set, and alpine "class 4" sometimes covers suicidal stuff.

If you can solo iced-up 5.8 terrain for 18 hours straight while wearing a blindfold on zero sleep

So which standard routes on mountains are you referring to?..and whats with the blindfold?

So which standard routes on mountains are you referring to?..and whats with the blindfold?

Apparently Connecticut has some bad-ass mountains that we're not aware of.

Dan Cauthorn, who is best know for opening the first indoor rock climbing club in North America (Vertical Club in Seattle), explained it thusly:

"You climb 5.12 in the gym so you can climb 5.10 at the crags so you can climb 5.8 in the mountains."

For the OP

I think it is very important for anyone new to rock climbing and mountains, to be proficient in all of the disciplines needed for the activities. Learn your climbing knots, blindfolded if you really want to know them. Learn how to place bombproof anchors, learn how to place and remove rock protection. Learn how to move over rock and place running belays. Learn how to coil rope in all the different ways that are used in mountaineering. Learn how to walk up snow slopes with and without crampons. Learn how to self belay with ice axe only. Learn how to climb lower angle ice slopes (up to 45-50 degrees) without roping up. Learn crevasse rescue techniques. Learn a bit about weather patterns. Practice speed and efficiency of movement in the mountains.

Pure YDS numbers mean much less than being fast, efficient climber, someone who does not slow down his/her partner.

Learn how to be comfortable in the backcountry. Make sure map and compass readings are second nature to you. There are probably several things I forgot, but train for mountains, especially if you are young and have big plans for your future.

Once you master these things, your confidence will increase ten fold and the possibilities become endless.One more thing, if you don't live near mountains but really want to spend your life climbing and mountaineering, move to or near the mountains..

sewardj wrote:"If you can climb 5.8, you can get up the standard routes of 97% of the world's mountains."

This is mostly false.

If you can solo iced-up 5.8 terrain for 18 hours straight while wearing a blindfold on zero sleep, THEN you can get up 97 percent of the world's mountains, maybe (how would I know?!?).


An ability to top-rope or follow a 5.8 pitch would be useful, but in itself not predictive of anything.

A well-protected 5.8 of a few pitches on a sunny little crag is absolutely different from many alpine circumstances where pro may be non-existent and the route highly uncertain.

Also, snow and ice require much more nerve and an almost entirely different skill set, and alpine "class 4" sometimes covers suicidal stuff.

What you are describing would not be the standard route up many mountains. Being able to climb a 5.8 is very helpful in mountaineering. I think it is safe to say that the OP poster would not be doing any mountains with routes of difficulty as you have described. What mountains in CA are thinking about?