Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chief
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 02:31pm PT
|
Can't say it was a sandbag but Entrance Exam made New Dimensions feel like a frivolous lark.
|
|
rick d
climber
ol pueblo, az
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
|
my vote is for "time machine" on the 9 o'clock wall.
reed's was nothing when I did it
(granite mountain honed, carderock and seneca trained)
|
|
davidji
Social climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 05:52pm PT
|
Doesn't Reeds have a crack inside the crack that you you can reach for? I remember reading something like that (P.Livesy?) There's a seam on the 5.10a 3rd pitch--the pitch that takes you to the top of the pinnacle. But that pitch seems to get ignored.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 07:57pm PT
|
Kevin, do you have a story about Sacherer/Fredericks??
C'mon now, write it up!
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 08:13pm PT
|
Not I.
But I've been shut down a few times....Does that count?
|
|
bob
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010 - 11:30pm PT
|
Karl said, "Sometimes I think it's a lame ego game and a dangerous (mis)contribution to the community."
To a community that relies way too much on ratings and guidebooks. Spoon fed climbers who don't want to think for themselves even though they are putting themselves in a life threatening situation every time they go out no matter how dangerous(or not) the protection, etc is. Climbing is dangerous. Says so everywhere and inside, I believe we all know this. There really isn't any sandbagging because its all relative. I use the term a ton and probably won't stop, but I just have trouble with people blaming others because they put up a supposed sandbagged route. Like its the FA's fault that person got there asses handed to them because they chose to just go on rating or whatever. Own up and look at what you climb, or if one lacks that ability, work on it and be a safer climber around the rest of us.
With that said, did anyone think that the 5.8 on Good Book is some hard climbing for the grade?
Bob Jensen
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 01:12am PT
|
Cheers to you Bob..the route starts here and goes up.....that's climbing.
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
Aw, Pshaw, you wouldn't even understand....
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 01:16am PT
|
Best topo I'ved ever seen....stolen from the TacoStand.
|
|
mongrel
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 01:35am PT
|
No, I didn't think the 5.8 bit on Good Book was too bad (exciting though!) - but that was because my partner, who had done the route before, tried to convince me I would dust off the 11b variation (he called it 10d) no problem. After going up and down a few times trying it and clipping one or both pitons, and wisely opting out, the 5.8 didn't seem hard at all! Nah, there's no such thing as sandbagging in the Valley...but it's best to just STFU and climb, which is the best revenge whenever you are truly sandbagged.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 03:02am PT
|
Karl said, "Sometimes I think it's a lame ego game and a dangerous (mis)contribution to the community."
Bob said
To a community that relies way too much on ratings and guidebooks. Spoon fed climbers who don't want to think for themselves even though they are putting themselves in a life threatening situation every time they go out no matter how dangerous(or not) the protection, etc is. Climbing is dangerous. Says so everywhere and inside, I believe we all know this. There really isn't any sandbagging because its all relative. I use the term a ton and probably won't stop, but I just have trouble with people blaming others because they put up a supposed sandbagged route. Like its the FA's fault that person got there asses handed to them because they chose to just go on rating or whatever. Own up and look at what you climb, or if one lacks that ability, work on it and be a safer climber around the rest of us.
With that said, did anyone think that the 5.8 on Good Book is some hard climbing for the grade?
Bob Jensen
To answer the last question first, The good book can feel tough, and is hard for 5.8, but it's funny.... I've free soloed it after already rope/free soloing the North East Buttress of Higher the same day and I'm not a big stud by any standards, and then I've gone back and had to aid parts of the good book cause went slightly the wrong way, and have felt "in between" on the thing too, feeling "this is tough for the grade."
To address you point about sandbagging. It's one thing to not grade a route or offer a fair honest assessment, however relative about the dangers and difficulties of a route, it's another to knowlingly downplay the dangers and difficulty of a route with the intent to induce climbers to go up and epic, sh#t their pants, or think of the sandbaggers in awed and heroic terms. That's like giving a guy a hit of acid, and telling him it aspirin, which will ease his headache for the long drive home.
Peace
Karl
Edit: Opps, I meant Braille Book! Can't remember 5.8 on the Good Book. That sandbag might have been fixed in recent books.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 04:26am PT
|
So many thoughts about sandbagging . . .
I agree with Kevin about Slack Left - it's super slippery and BITD had no pro to speak of. Right side of Bongs Away (or it is Absolutely Free) also used to be pretty much unprotected going off the belay on the hard pitch.
Right Side of the Hourglass is also grim for 10a, and so is Despair.
Right Side of Henley Quits used to be 5.9 which was just stupid - and I have big hands. I always thought Vanishing Point and Independence Center were pretty hard for 10d. Weird sizes.
I remember when I first did Sentinel West Face the first time the first Dog Leg crack was rated 5.8 on my topo and I only brought a couple nuts for the belay and ended up running out the whole pitch and Kim Schmitz was down at the belay thinking we were going to die and I felt okay but the pitch felt like soling a 10a out at Josh.
I always thought Chopper Flake was quite the 10c. Same with English Breakfast Crack. Does anyone ever do those routes?
And that old friction route on the Apron called Flakey Foont. In the old EBs that was no 5.9. Neither was all that stuff around Luicifer's Ledge.
But wait, there's more . . .
JL
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 05:26am PT
|
Sacherer-Fredericks:
> Not much to tell - Chappy and I went up there and got shut down on some supposedly easy 5.10.
>
> Our excuse was we didn't have a hammer and pins, I believe. Sacherer was famous for going for it.
It's rated 5.10c in the guidebook, and apparently it is one of the few routes Sacherer originally rated 5.10 instead of 5.9 (most all the 5.9s are rated 5.10 in the current guidebook).
When I did it with Erik Strom, we had a hammer and replaced the belay bolts below the crux. Then we found out the hammer was useful for resetting fixed pins on the start of the crux pitch. In the process, a loose flake came off in Erik's hand, and he had to carefully toss it over left to avoid hitting Melissa and J at the base! Shortly after there was a loose-appearing flake, directly above the belayer. Erik managed to make the moves without pulling very hard on it.
Over the little bulge, the crack diagonalled left, with one section where Erik had to climb through some hardish moves before getting pro.
Then once the crack straightened up at a little bush is where the crack gets rather thin/blank. We thought it was low 5.11 there.
3rd time's a charm?
1. 1987 with Jim Lutz. After I barely led to the belay below the crux,
we witnessed a double fatality (people whose belay anchor failed on the East Buttress). We rapped off.
2. 5/2003: First try with Erik
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eclint/rep/035ycook.txt
3. 6/2003: Return with Erik
http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eclint/rep/036ysacf.txt
|
|
bob
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 08:25am PT
|
You soloed that thing Karl! Jeez. How did you get down? Climb? Whoa. I did the Good Book in 97. I learned to climb at Granite Mountain in AZ and I remember smiling the whole way, but felt it was hard, or maybe its just so out there.............long time ago for me.
I agree with you (if I processed what you wrote correctly. Coffee just kicking in) that outright sandbagging with the intent to fuggle people or to simply put them in danger is fuggled if an FA is going to write up a description.
The route I did in Tuolumne on Lembert Dome aptly named "Sandbag" and rated 10b is a play on the whole thing. If one looks at the topo he/she will see an (11b), though smaller than the 10b after the name and rating. Seems to me that the name might just give it away outright.
Truth be told, I usually have no idea how hard a climb is, especially if I put it up. I've never really worked anything that hard, so if it seems really hard for me I just give it an 11+. I feel that plus signs with ratings give fair warning that the route is probably way harder than the grade given for the majority of people. I have that opinion through 19 years of climbing.
Is it the FA's duty to realize that some folks might not quite get that yet or is it OK to just let them figure it out for themselves? I'm not really sure.
As far as the danger rating I have always put the appropriate letter after the rating if its needed. R or X.
I still have this internal knot in my head that just yells, "C'mon people, just cover your own ass and climb with your own judgement regardless of what you read about it. With every topo comes a bit of the personality of the FA climber or team, or at least a bit of their personality from that day or from the time they drew up the topo."
I know many a road map has sent me off in the wrong direction just because I failed to keep my mind open for the possibility that it (the map) was wrong. I just blindly take its info and expect the perfect outcome. Pretty stupid on my part. At least that's sure how I feel about it when I find myself down some road way off track just because I turned my brain off and put it in someone's hands who produced a map. Boy do I feel like an idiot when that happens.........and it still does occasionally.
Topos/route descriptions are like any writing in my opinion. There are so many authors and people with ideas/opinions to put on paper that I feel they have to be taken with a grain of salt, or at least viewed with a big open mind as to how imperfect/ outright wrong these things may be. (topos or writings)
I'm fully blabbering now. I thought of deleting, but I'm throwing it out to be torn apart.
Have a rockin day y'all!!!!!!!!
Bob Jensen
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 08:45am PT
|
Hey Kevin,
Regarding your comment on tunneling behind the Reed's 2nd pitch, there is no room for a headlamp. In any case you can see the faint outlines of the chockstones from below on the reflected light coming in from the sides. I think I could turn my head in all sections. I don't think you would want to trail a rope.
Isn't the Good Book the right side of the Folly with a 10d rating? Is this a running joke that it is 5.8?
|
|
bob
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 08:59am PT
|
Just speaking of the 3rd? pitch as 5.8. That's what I've been talking about.
Bob J.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 10:08am PT
|
Clint, I just don't understand your experiences on Sacherer-Fredericks... I thought that route was highly over-rated, and that it gave up the ghost pretty much after the pseudo-hand traverse.... I have done it twice back in 71 and 74. But that was with pins. Cool route though and not well-traveled by the way.
Anyway, for me the big Valley sandbag has always been that Peter Pan was originally rated 5.8 in the Roper/Red guide and then 5.9 in the Roper/Green guide. And then in a class by itself, 5.9+ in the Reid guide---I am thinking it was the only "+"-something in that book because of the basic quandry that the crux presents. Because you have such a tremendous hold at the crux flake, it is hard to rate it any harder than 5.9 but I have seen a number of leaders there mill about for many minutes with the kooky-assed moves there. And just in general, P/P is a really stout 5.9 lead what with the smooth steep off-sized crack below and then the very considerable 5.8 S-chimney above the crux. The chimney sometimes defeats climbers who were able to do the crux, by the way. Molly Higgins failed there actually, truth be told. It is one of the harder S-chimneys I have ever seen--- absolutely the wrong, narrowest version of an S and actually is best done by feet-stacking unless you have size 16 shoes. That lead is also quite long, well over 120 feet, I believe.
I have done that route at least 6 times now, starting in 1965. I think it is one of the great short routes in granite anywhere. I remember when I was at my peak, doing the crux by a nearly invisible stemming combination on and to the left of the flake, completely avoiding the "hoof-in-mouth" move of the crux--- and it was really easy but insecure and quite hard to formulate. Then the next two times I was not able to remember the moves nor mobilize my lard-ass to leave the crack and be that open-stanced with stems, preferring to hug and grunt over the obstacle. Ignominious, I know, but if you don't live to climb, climbing becomes way way hard.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 11:11am PT
|
Peter, your comments about Peter Pan point out the difficulty of rating hard moves that are secure. It always seemed hard to me, but when I guided it all of my clients were able to do it. The crack getting to the crux always posed more issues than the crux or the squeeze above.
At the Sacherer Remembrace, Doug (Flanders) told me that he had done the Sacherer Fredericks. I got the impression that he thought it is was a good route and not too desperate--more along the lines that you remember Peter (I never made it over there to try it). He did say that there is a pitch on the route that is not on the topo. (I wonder how that happens--seems like a lot of work to add a pitch to an established route.)
Bob, it is not clear to me which section on "Good Book" is the 3rd pitch; nor the circumstances of free-soloing a middle pitch as Karl describes. In the Meyers Reid guide, the route has six pitches, two below the base of the corner, and three above. All are rated 5.9 or harder. There is one section, the wild traverse out under the skinny flake and then back along its top into the corner that is rated 5.8. Above that is a 10b rated hand crack and then a 5.9 o.w. to the top. I ran those pitches above the long corner together on an early ascent. The team I climbed with--there were about six of us with me standing in as the old-dude--3rd classed up to the base of the long corner. Talk about a sandbag: I insisted on a rope. Kauk led the long corner effortlessly. I followed while a hush descended on the youngsters on Security Ledge, watching to see if old-dude could actually climb. Another sandbag. It was hard to climb and even harder to make it look easy.
|
|
martygarrison
Trad climber
The Great North these days......
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 11:14am PT
|
Largo, agree with you on west face of sentinel, I did the same thing, ran the whole thing out and my partner was pretty freaked down below. Not sure if it has been mentioned here but I always thought little wing was pretty tough for a "10c". I also thought the dnb had some really hard "5.9".
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 11:17am PT
|
Maybe Doug Flanders is remembering that the Sacherer-Fredericks has a "direct finish". It is described in Reid guide and is the preferable way of finishing, by the way. The original finish is just a cop-out. However that direct finish is not "a pitch" but 6 pitches, all 5.7 but for one at 5.9.
Again about Peter Pan, I agree the route has to be 5.9+ with the giant hold available. All told though it is one of the stouter 5.9’s. Think back 45 years or so when it was called 5.8. I was something like 16 or 17 years old, up there with my school friends, trying to bag another moderate route on the base of El Cap as proper training for the “real climbing” ---the grade sixes that were being put up above and elsewhere. And this 5.8 was rapidly becoming, foot by foot, the most significant lead of my young life up to that point. You see, we were just teenagers working with what Roper had described and actually were in a bit over our heads.
Back to Clint’s thoughts on S-F. I remember doing the pseudo-hand traverse partly by walking on it rather than hanging on the whole thing. I remember knocking in a bong or two at my feet also, there.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
|
As it turns out, the first ascent party of Fredericks and Schmitz (7/66) did NOT do it free, by their own admission too, to me directly. It was actually Bridwell and Klemens to do the FFA. The guides are wrong.
I came shortly after B & K. The trick on that crux pitch is to effing rest and resist getting into some kind of tunnel-vision rush-hour scene with it. Just below the hardest section, there is a NO HANDS rest that probably evades many leading it. You can't really understand it from below, looking up. It really is an incredible, odd-ball no hands rest. If you miss it, the climb would be surely 5.11-something/hideous. But if you can discipline yourself to rest there long enough--- it is a little unnerving though---after doing the first bunch of liebacks below, your experience will be considerably more pleasant as you mount yet another lieback--- the hardest one--- just above. Really great route and great name too. That was Fredericks' name, as I remember. His favorite tea back then. I always thought it was a much more interesting route than most of them down there and that, although much shorter, it began to approach New Dimensions in quality and character, although not fully.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!