SummitPost.org

The Chief wrote:Guide Books are way OVER RATED!

They should be used as a reference "Guide" only.

They are NOT a/the bible.

They are solely opinions of the author.

In many cases, the author climbed less that 25% of the routes within the covers. They have little actual first hand knowledge of the routes.

That is a farse and the reason I say that GB's are to be used as a ref only.

Pretty broad brush, Chief. Depends on the book, seems.

Oh yeah, I totally agree with Kris's comment of "Fun".

This is my idea of fun and doing lots of it, solo. Not too many out their think my idea of fun coincides with theirs.



cp0915...

Did you climb every route that is in your GB?

The Chief wrote:cp0915...

Did you climb every route that is in your GB?

Yes. In both of them, actually.

cp0915 wrote:

The Chief wrote:cp0915...

Did you climb every route that is in your GB?

Yes. In both of them, actually.

I will vouch for that.

Chief, it's not really CP's style to put second-hand information in his books. And it's definitely not his style to lie about it. That I can guarantee; what he says is true. He climbed all those crazy peaks.

Day Hiker wrote:

cp0915 wrote:

The Chief wrote:cp0915...

Did you climb every route that is in your GB?

Yes. In both of them, actually.

I will vouch for that.

Chief, it's not really CP's style to put second-hand information in his books. And it's definitely not his style to lie about it. That I can guarantee; what he says is true. He climbed all those crazy peaks.

Thank you, sir. With a little help and companionship from people like you.

And for crying out loud, I even admit when I'm too chickenshit to finish a climb. I turned back on two attempts of The Sentinel, and told everyone about it in my Zion book.

cp0915 wrote:

The Chief wrote:cp0915...

Did you climb every route that is in your GB?

Yes. In both of them, actually.

I think maybe folks are talking about different ways of using a guidebook here? One way to use it is to obtain enough essential information to stay alive vs. using a guidebook to get so much detailed information that you can climb a route blindfolded because every hold, move and placement has been given. If I was going to climb in the Caucasus Russia/Georgia, I would want the beta on where the conflict region is so I don't fool around there and get shot. Likewise, if I was climbing in Alaska I would want some beta on the most likely place where the icefalls/seracs like to come down.

Then there's always the debate of people wanting more or less of an adventure. If you are are Peter Croft then you can just head towards the Incredible Hulk and starts climbing. If you are Joe Shmole like me then you probably want to know that the route he went up as an adventure could possibly kill you.

If you didn't know that you needed a 60m rope to rap Castleton Tower and you took a 50m, you are gonna be in a world of shit. Beta like that are helpful.

Indeed, Kevin. Hence my "broad brush" comment.

cp0915 wrote:And for crying out loud, I even admit when I'm too chickenshit to finish a climb. I turned back on two attempts of The Sentinel, and told everyone about it in my Zion book.

"The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Innocent" .....I saw somebody up there in red pants with a pinkish hue once.....

I'm never gonna live down those awful red pants.

Red climbing pants were all the rage among Euro climbers (at least in '08)!!

Now, do you honestly believe that the author of this GB climbed every route in his book....



I know for a fact he didn't. Many of the ratings and the bolt counts are off etc.

If the standard for a guidebook were that the author had to have done every climb in the book, there would not be very many guidebooks done. Especially for areas with a lot of routes.

We’ve all seen some excellent books by authors who did not do every route. But it is incumbent on a guidebook writer to have done a lot of the routes, know the area inside out, be a part of the local climbing community and to have access to good first hand information from other climbers. Information about any route in the book the author has not climbed should be vetted by climbers who have done it whom the author trusts.

And still, as Chief says, it’s a reference, not a Bible.

A guidebook should first and foremost do a good job of documenting the climbs, their grades, how to find them and the best way off, their history and any unusual characteristics the route might have in a general sense. For example: P2 needs a good selection of small wired stoppers. The specifics of how to do the route, i.e. “hidden holds inside crack,” or “yellow alien here,” should be left to the climbers to figure out. The best way to minimize errors in a guidebook is to avoid the temptation to provide too much information.

Had a very heated discussion last Sunday over the authenticity of the "Crux" location on a certain route with my partner for the day. He deemed it where the GB indicated where it was down low. I differed. He is 6 foot and I 5'6". My crux was towards the top of the route as I have found intermediate moves where he claimed his crux. He can stretch and grab the last hold where I can't. I must use a very thin side pull and then high step onto a dime size ledge with a follow through in order to gain that last hold.

It's all reference as to where the Anchors, Bolts, Rack Req and Aspect formations of the route are. Nothing more.

And please don't tell me where to place the gear and what technique to use in each locale....

The Chief wrote:In many cases, the author climbed less that 25% of the routes within the covers. They have little actual first hand knowledge of the routes.

This makes me appreciate Dick Williams Gunks Guides a whole lot more!

My boss always says:

"If it's on paper, it's out of date"