SummitPost.org

I can see an argument that class 4 is easier to climb than class 3. The rock tends to be more consistent and there's less traffic than on class 3 routes, hence less detritus. But class 4 exposure is very hard for many people, prohibitive for some. I've usually been able to deal with exposure--enjoy it in fact--but my partners are mostly more sensible than I am, and lugging a rope and other gear into the backcountry is too much work for my kind of peak-bagging (typically multiday trips seeking solitude). Unless there is someone else to deal with the rope, class 3 routes are plentiful enough.

jesu, joy of man's desiring wrote:Jesus fucking christ...Wtf? Is this for real?

Asking/talking/complaining/arguing/bitching about ratings in both rock climbing and mountaineering contexts is nothing new.

asmrz wrote:I gave you at least three examples of Sierra routes that are rated class 3 in in the High Sierra Guide by Secor. Those that I listed have moves much harder than class 3 and none of them can be by-passed. They are not the only ones, but we could debate this for ever. What have I not responded to? Please ask the question some other way and I will try to respond. I really don't understand what you are asking. You can PM me if you want to explain this more...

tbaranski wrote that instead of giving examples of class 3 routes with class five elements you give us examples of The guide book to High Sierra ratings with which you disagree. And apparently based on your feedback the summitpost rating of one route was changed from class 4 to class 5.2-5.6.

asmrz wrote:BTW Simkin, this is what Steve Larson, a very experienced climber and mountaineer says on the Summitpost page you mentioned, about the North Pal route in question

"On the right (west) side of the notch there is a steep wall with a crack/chimney system. Opinions differ on the difficulty of this section. Estimates range from Class 4 (old school) to 5.6 (grade inflation?). One thing is for sure, it will feel harder in mountaineering boots, and even harder if wet. Plan accordingly."

In a wonderful , even handed language, Steve tells you exactly what to expect.


If you read The guide book to High Sierra (any edition), the route is rated class 4.

Go do it and report on it for us. You'll find fifth class terrain on that section of the route. You don't need to trust me on this...

Yes, but the official summitpost rating of the route is 5.2-5.6, probably based on your feedback. However from the description which you quote I don't believe it can be 5.6 since "it will feel harder in mountaineering boots" that is it is doable in mountaineering boots. I can't think of any 5.6 route doable in snowboots. 5.1 may be, but not 5.6.

Finally, I was doing nothing more with regard to summitpost rating what you did with The guide book to High Sierra ratings: questioned them. So why your comments should be heeded and my ignored? Because you belong to climber master race?

Over several years I have found asmrz (Alois') additions and commentary on Summitpost to be helpful, accurate, and informative while I find Simkin to be just argumentative with little value to Summitpost readers. There will be no reply from me to his abuse.

jesu, joy of man's desiring wrote:Jesus fucking christ...Wtf? Is this for real?

Seriously. WTF?!

I have been on Summitpost for 10 years now and when asmrz speaks about the Sierra one should take it as the words of god. Who the hell are all these other yahoos?

There's no value in ad hominem comments. We're all capable of forming our own opinions.

There is no measurable difference between two identical routes, one of which is "a 3rd class route that has a 5th class move" and the other which is "a 5th class route that has the wrong rating". The difference is a matter of perspective. In the former view one accepts that the system is imperfect and inconsistencies are to be expected. In the latter view one is hoping for a day in the future when all ratings are "correct" and everyone is in agreement.

The problem with the latter view is that it's not the current state; it's never been the current state. It's unachievable both in practice and in principle.

This can easily be cured by a simpler rating system:
Class 1 - achievable
Class 2 - not achievable

Class 1 ratings are inviolable
Class 2 ratings are subject to change

Thusly, the North Face of Ritter is Class 1 by several variations.
I should write a guidebook.

Bob,
I like it but I would argue for a 3-tier rating system:
1) Stuff I can lead
2) Stuff I can climb but not lead
3) Stuff I can't climb.
Cheers,
Romain

Damn, I had to look up inviolable.

Aid climbing ratings have to be the worst in terms of inconsistency. Partly this is because the routes change so quickly, but that's not the whole story. Back in the early 90s the ratings were re-jiggered as "new wave ratings", supposedly to bring order to the chaos. But these weren't applied across the board. And in any event the ratings once again fell victim to the same issues.

Further in the past a simpler rating scheme, akin to what Bob has jokingly proposed, was offered in jest by Jim Bridwell:

NBD (no big deal)
NTB (not too bad)
PDH (pretty darn hard

and sometimes this is added:

DFU (don't fuck up)

But with all of its quirks, the A0-5 rating system is what is used. And it remains largely useful despite its inconsistencies. The reason? Sane people don't rely solely on the rating. They ask questions and get more details. The same is true for other types of climbing, mountaineering and outdoor adventures in general.

Bob Burd, all joking aside, you should write a guidebook. I know I would buy it. I have wasted far too much time you on your own website gawking at all the beautiful pictures you've posted and wondering how you've managed to accomplish what you have it. Sadly, I've concluded that the difference is mostly genetics.

StartingOver wrote:Bob Burd, all joking aside, you should write a guidebook. I know I would buy it. I have wasted far too much time you on your own website gawking at all the beautiful pictures you've posted and wondering how you've managed to accomplish what you have it. Sadly, I've concluded that the difference is mostly genetics.

I doubt it has anything to do with genetics.
Look at the things that take up your time and remove the non-essentials.
For me, I had work, family, hiking and writing guidebooks. Work and writing guidebooks didn't make the cut.

kevin trieu wrote: when asmrz speaks about the Sierra one should take it as the words of god.

Yes, this one.

kevin trieu wrote: Who the hell are all these other yahoos?

Come closer and you will learn. Closer, closer please.