West Coast vs East Coast ratings

[Adrian MacNair]

I don't want to start a shit-storm argument here or anything, and actually
I'm half expecting to "get told" on this one, but here goes:

I'm headed to North Conway in a few days, a place I've been dreaming of
since Paulina (last-name unpronounceable) kindly introduced it to me in
2001. Buoyed by my success on some 5.10's and even a short 5.11a last
September in Squamish, I have drooled over some proud lines in the guidebook
that I would like to attempt. While casually conversing my plans to a guy at
my local crag, however, he insisted that the West Coast ratings are "soft",
and that I could be in for a big surprise. He gave the following
explanation:

The East Coast climbs like NH, the Daks, and the Gunks were pioneered in an
era when old school ratings were used, and 5.10's very given out very
sparingly, even as testpieces of the era. In contrast, the route development
out West is fairly recent and is subject to kinder and more gentle new skool
ratings.

Not that this has me too worried, since I'll take it very slow and see where
it goes, but I was wondering if people agree with this dude. I was hoping to
do "Lichen Delight", a 5.11a 3 star route on Cathedral, but if it's the
equivalent of a Squamish 5.11b/c, maybe I'd give it a pass.

[Dingus Milktoast]

Post by Adrian MacNair
The East Coast climbs like NH, the Daks, and the Gunks were pioneered in an
era when old school ratings were used, and 5.10's very given out very
sparingly, even as testpieces of the era. In contrast, the route development
out West is fairly recent and is subject to kinder and more gentle new skool
ratings.

Ratings vary, area to area, etc. Since the term 5.10 was invented 'out
west', as was the entire 5th class climbing scale, your friend's explanation
falls misses the mark somewhat, but I reckon he's right about purposely
sandbagging.

It's not that west coast ratings are soft or new. Open Book, the first
acknowledged 5.9 in the country, was freed in the early 50's by RR. It's
that in many east coast (and other) areas, a combination of competitive sand
bagging and a lack of understanding as to the cutting edge of the rating
system, many old school climbs were simply misrated. And tradition holds
that many of these mistakes will stay that way.

I found the Gunks to be consistently sand bagged when compared to other
places I've been. I chalked it up to the insecurities of the leading Gunks
climbers, hehe, rather than my lack of proficiency at overhangs and
horizontal bands of rock.

Burl said the Daks ratings were stiff. So there is probably something to it.

DMT

[Chris SG]

Post by Dingus Milktoast
It's not that west coast ratings are soft or new. Open Book, the first
acknowledged 5.9 in the country, was freed in the early 50's by RR. It's
that in many east coast (and other) areas, a combination of competitive sand
bagging and a lack of understanding as to the cutting edge of the rating
system, many old school climbs were simply misrated.

My take on it was that it was a healthy dose of inferiority complex.
Like: there's no way this could be 5.10, this is freaking Conneticut!

Post by Dingus Milktoast
I found the Gunks to be consistently sand bagged when compared to other
places I've been. I chalked it up to the insecurities of the leading Gunks
climbers, hehe, rather than my lack of proficiency at overhangs and
horizontal bands of rock.

Hmmm... I thought that the first few times. Now I think the Gunks are
soft. Need a jug? Reach up. Can't figure out the sequence? Reach for the
jug. Can't get pro? Just pull on the jug until the next horizontal
crack. Once you figure it out, and especially in this day and age of
steep juggy gyms, the Gunks loses alot of its edge.

Post by Dingus Milktoast
Burl said the Daks ratings were stiff. So there is probably something to it.

Yup. Adirondacks are stiff.

[loosa]

Adrian:

Like everything else It DependsT. You have to figure out if it is a new
skool or old skool rating. In many cases the line blurs and new old skool is
actually harder than old new skool. Another critical factor is whether the
FA was done on a weekend or weekday. You will find most weekend routes are
MUCH stiffer than those established on weekdays (many theories on this).
Also, what time of the year was the route established? Big differences
between Spring and Fall FA's. The last critical component is the type of
rock you're climbing. Rather than spell it all out, I leave it up to you to
figure this out for yourself. Besides that's half the fun.

Also, as everybody knows the protection is MUCH better out West! Especially
compared to that shit pile you call the Niagara Escarpment.

Hope it helps.

[Mike Garrison]

Post by loosa
Also, as everybody knows the protection is MUCH better out West!

You know, the West is a big place. I've climbed on a lot of
rock out here which is looser and more fractured than the
definition of a "war of liberation".

-Mike

[Chris SG]

Post by Mike Garrison

Post by loosa
Also, as everybody knows the protection is MUCH better out West!

You know, the West is a big place. I've climbed on a lot of
rock out here which is looser and more fractured than the
definition of a "war of liberation".
-Mike

Yeah, like the very best rock in the Canadian Rockies, which makes kitty
litter look good.

[Julie]

I've heard an awful lot of variations on the theme, of why one area &/
region is 'soft' or 'hard' compared to others. Personally - I think it
has a lot more to do with the climbers, than the areas. I'm just more
comfortable in some areas and on some types of routes and rock than
others, and I think the biggest factor is *me* - my head, my strengths,
my weaknesses.

Squamish and Conway are similar granite, from what I understand, so the
climbing styles may be fairly similar. But I'm sure you know well
enough by now - start easy, get the feel, go from there.

Have a good trip-
JSH

[Clint Cummins]

It's true that during the 1970s, some of the East Coast areas
(Gunks, Seneca Rocks) had some rather low ratings compared to
some average areas in the West. Some examples would be:
Gunks:
Inverted Layback 5.8
Low Exposure 5.10-
Mellow Yellow 5.10-
Seneca Rocks:
West Pole 5.6
But this has mostly been corrected in subsequent guidebooks.

Perhaps Connecticut continues the underrated East Coast pattern,
with routes like Dol Guldur 5.11- rated more like 5.11d, according
to one of my friends. However, the Connecticut rating system
rates the "easiest known way" to do a climb, rather than the
standard "way likely to be used by an onsight leader" method.

You might find it entertaining to know that Squamish had possibly
the most underrated climbs on the continent in the 60s.
According to the 1967 Glen Woodsworth guide:
"Experience has shown, though, that a Class 5 climb would be
rated about one or two decimals higher in Yosemite than it would
be at Squamish." Examples from the 1967 guide:
Slab Alley 5.6 [5.9 in Jim Campbell guide]
Diedre Route 5.4 [5.8]
Sickle Route 5.5 [5.9]
Snake Route 5.6 [5.9]
... you get the idea ....
As in the East Coast areas, this has been corrected in subsequent
guides.

As Julie said, just start conservative on the more moderate classics,
and then move up the scale until you find the right challenge!

Clint Cummins

[A. Cairns]

Post by Clint Cummins
It's true that during the 1970s, some of the East Coast areas
(Gunks, Seneca Rocks) had some rather low ratings compared to
Inverted Layback 5.8
Low Exposure 5.10-
Mellow Yellow 5.10-
West Pole 5.6
But this has mostly been corrected in subsequent guidebooks.
Perhaps Connecticut continues the underrated East Coast pattern,
with routes like Dol Guldur 5.11- rated more like 5.11d, according
to one of my friends. However, the Connecticut rating system
rates the "easiest known way" to do a climb, rather than the
standard "way likely to be used by an onsight leader" method.
You might find it entertaining to know that Squamish had possibly
the most underrated climbs on the continent in the 60s.
"Experience has shown, though, that a Class 5 climb would be
rated about one or two decimals higher in Yosemite than it would
Slab Alley 5.6 [5.9 in Jim Campbell guide]
Diedre Route 5.4 [5.8]
Sickle Route 5.5 [5.9]
Snake Route 5.6 [5.9]
... you get the idea ....
As in the East Coast areas, this has been corrected in subsequent
guides.
As Julie said, just start conservative on the more moderate classics,
and then move up the scale until you find the right challenge!
Clint Cummins

Yea Gunks!

Yea Squamish!

Go Devils Lake!

Adrian, pay more attention to how long the hard part is, what type of
climbing, and how good the gear and safe the fall. BE CAREFUL!

Andy Cairns

[Chris SG]

Heya,

This topic is always a lively one. Here's my two cents.

First, Squish is soft. Go pretty much anywhere from Squamish and it will
seem stiff, with the exception of Skaha, where even a lazy fatass like
me can lead 5.11. Of course it depends whether you're climbing sport or
trad. Fresg from your ascent of Squamish Buttress, you jump on a 5.10
trad route on Yamnuska and you'll soil your panties. But the sport
routes in the Cdn Rockies are soft(ish).

I found it amusing that someone posted that old Squish ratings were
sandbagged, as compared to, say, Yosemite. Well, they've been inflated
since! Its definetly the first place I trad led 5.10, at a time when 5.8
in New Hampshire was an iffy proposition. Yosemite, especially the wide
cracks feels pretty honest to me, and often humbling (cf. Reed's
Pinnacle Direct).

OK, but what about the East?

Eastern ratings are supposed to be stiffer. Since this is where I climb,
and learned to climb, I think they're "about right" and am dissapointed
when new editions of guidebooks go on an upgrade binge. This is poor,
since if we can't have the big rocks and the alpine, can't we at least
administer a light spanking to our visiting Western friends?

For climbs less than 5.11, climbs are probably one or two letters or a
plus stiffer than Squamish (which is soft, remember!!). I think that
things probably even out after that, but I don't consistently climb at
that level (not trad anyways!) so who knows?.

Between Eastern areas: the Adirondacks and Conneticut are stiff. The
Gunks are actually a bit soft - but only after you get used to the
climbing. Most first time visitors coming from granite disagree
vehemently. However, if you're coming from steep limestone or quartzite,
it won't seem that bad. Quebec is slightly soft. Small areas in
Massachusetts are ridiculously undergraded. Rumney is laughably soft.

All this with respect to North Conway. Your mileage may vary.

Whatever, give Lichen Delight a try and if you make it, be sure to say
loudly that it would be a 5.10b/c in Squamish!


Cheers,
Christopher

Post by Adrian MacNair
I don't want to start a shit-storm argument here or anything, and actually
I'm headed to North Conway in a few days, a place I've been dreaming of
since Paulina (last-name unpronounceable) kindly introduced it to me in
2001. Buoyed by my success on some 5.10's and even a short 5.11a last
September in Squamish, I have drooled over some proud lines in the guidebook
that I would like to attempt. While casually conversing my plans to a guy at
my local crag, however, he insisted that the West Coast ratings are "soft",
and that I could be in for a big surprise. He gave the following
The East Coast climbs like NH, the Daks, and the Gunks were pioneered in an
era when old school ratings were used, and 5.10's very given out very
sparingly, even as testpieces of the era. In contrast, the route development
out West is fairly recent and is subject to kinder and more gentle new skool
ratings.
Not that this has me too worried, since I'll take it very slow and see where
it goes, but I was wondering if people agree with this dude. I was hoping to
do "Lichen Delight", a 5.11a 3 star route on Cathedral, but if it's the
equivalent of a Squamish 5.11b/c, maybe I'd give it a pass.

[Fiona Always]

The Gunks are actually a bit soft

If you have climbed steep sport routes, The Gunks rtings are far from
"Stiff."
From my limited experience, the difficulty in the Gunks seems to
depend on how far you have to lock off to reach the next horizontal
hold. In times past, most face climbing in the west was on slabby rock
and people got pumped out on the steeper (but hardly "Steep" by
today's definitions) Gunks rock; hardly the case anymore.

The more places you climb, the more ratings will not seem stiff at new
areas, cause you will have a varied bag of tricks to draw from.

[John Sindell]

Adrian MacNair <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

It's all a conspiracy to keep BURT BRONSON away from the East coast.
With all those low ratings, there's no reason for a SERIOUS CLIMBER to
ever venture East.

[Julie]

Post by John Sindell
It's all a conspiracy to keep BURT BRONSON away from the East coast.
With all those low ratings, there's no reason for a SERIOUS CLIMBER
to ever venture East.

Uh-oh. I'm packing for a Gunks trip. Does this mean I should leave my
thong at home?

;)

JSH

[ChrisSG]

It is traditional to climb Shockley's Ceiling naked. You can leave the thong
at home.

Post by Julie

Post by John Sindell
It's all a conspiracy to keep BURT BRONSON away from the East coast.
With all those low ratings, there's no reason for a SERIOUS CLIMBER
to ever venture East.

Uh-oh. I'm packing for a Gunks trip. Does this mean I should leave my
thong at home?
;)
JSH

[Chiloe]

Post by Adrian MacNair
Not that this has me too worried, since I'll take it very slow and see where
it goes, but I was wondering if people agree with this dude. I was hoping to
do "Lichen Delight", a 5.11a 3 star route on Cathedral, but if it's the
equivalent of a Squamish 5.11b/c, maybe I'd give it a pass.

There are some tough 5.11s on Cathedral, but Lichen Delight is
not one of them. It's not hard for the grade -- some 5.10
hands in the midsection, then a rest before you go for it on
the top third. Easy protection before the crux; once started,
it's kind of a tradeoff between the energy you spend placing
gear, and the peace of mind it brings. The crack in this
section widens from fingers to hands; it's the in-between
part that's tricky. If you rest on gear, it drops 1 or 2
number grades.

Incidentally, there's a nice middling-5.10 variation, Lichen
It A Lot, that shares the first 2/3 of the pitch -- you can
decide which to do after you see both up close.

More generally, I don't believe that North Conway grades,
especially on the trade routes, are systematically easy or
hard compared with other mainstream trad areas. The local
activists have been well-traveled folks. But try out some
of the 5.9-5.10 trade routes first, and you'll soon know how
they feel to you.

[Guido]

Post by Chiloe

Post by Adrian MacNair
Not that this has me too worried, since I'll take it very slow and see where
it goes, but I was wondering if people agree with this dude. I was hoping to
do "Lichen Delight", a 5.11a 3 star route on Cathedral, but if it's the
equivalent of a Squamish 5.11b/c, maybe I'd give it a pass.

There are some tough 5.11s on Cathedral, but Lichen Delight is
not one of them. It's not hard for the grade -- some 5.10
hands in the midsection, then a rest before you go for it on
the top third. Easy protection before the crux; once started,
it's kind of a tradeoff between the energy you spend placing
gear, and the peace of mind it brings. The crack in this
section widens from fingers to hands; it's the in-between
part that's tricky. If you rest on gear, it drops 1 or 2
number grades.
Incidentally, there's a nice middling-5.10 variation, Lichen
It A Lot, that shares the first 2/3 of the pitch -- you can
decide which to do after you see both up close.
More generally, I don't believe that North Conway grades,
especially on the trade routes, are systematically easy or
hard compared with other mainstream trad areas. The local
activists have been well-traveled folks. But try out some
of the 5.9-5.10 trade routes first, and you'll soon know how
they feel to you.

"Lichen it a lot" is an unnoted classic on Cathedral with lots of body
language and cool positioning. As for Lichen Delight, Adrian, you'll need
your "off finger" technique on vertical rock. Some folks belay in the
small corner below that crux.

Like several popular routes on Cathedral, placing gear during the crux
sections is, well, challenging. Locals who have wired a route will first
reach to place, and then waste little time getting through to a real lock.

Sample the Barber wall (top Left) on Cathedral to zero in on NH granite
ratings. It's a great place to zero in any rope gun. Crank Nutcracker,
Chicken Delight and Leighton's and you judge your finger, hand and fist
readiness for stiffer Cathedral cracks.

G

[Chiloe]

Post by Guido
Sample the Barber wall (top Left) on Cathedral to zero in on NH granite
ratings. It's a great place to zero in any rope gun. Crank Nutcracker,
Chicken Delight and Leighton's and you judge your finger, hand and fist
readiness for stiffer Cathedral cracks.

Good advice, this is indeed a Barber-cracks training area. Also
excellent are Nomad Crack (5.10 something, only hard at the start
but somehow intimidating in that old-school kind of way) and
Retaliation (5.9, just one big pitch plus some easy stuff, but
exposed and a fine adventure to lead). All are well protected,
but as on Lichen Delight, you sometimes have to work for it.

[Kevin Thorley]

Adrian,
First of all, I'll be in N. Conway this weekend. There is a
slideshow saturday night with Ed Webster and Henry Barber. I know at
least Ed Webster should be a name familiar to climbers on both coasts.
Anyways, should be fun.. at the Cranmore PUb at 6:30

As for ratings, after doing a few climbs out west (Tetons, City of
Rocks, Devil's Tower), I left with the impression that East Coast
grades are stiffer. Though I think it depends where you climb. The
Gunks are definitley very tough for the grade. Its a combination of
being old school routes and incredible exposure even on easy lines.
The 8's and 9's I've climbed in N. Conway are relatively recent routes
and not quite as sandbagged. And Rumney is, in my opinion, easy for
the grades. Then again, I've only led up to 5.9 there. The one thing
I've heard from local climbers is to beware anything labeled "5.9+" in
N. Conway :)

Hope you enjoy the trip! If you want to try and meet up, drop me an
email.

Kevin

[Geoff Jennings]

It's been a few years since I've climbed on the east coats, but I remember
the ratings seeming stiff, off course, when I moved to CA, I thought the
ratings were stiff. I think Texas is soft.

I think ALLOT of it is that wherever you climb alot, you get good at that,
and if you travel (Yosemite vs Gunks ) the different styles make things feel
hard. That accoutns for alot, and then there is the sport vs trad thing.
Etc eTc.

Geoff

[Alex Chiang]

Post by Geoff Jennings
I think Texas is soft.

Reimers, yes. E-Rock, no.

I've only bouldered at Hueco, so I have no idea how the routes
are graded there...

/Alex, no longer in purgatory

[Geoff Jennings]

Post by Alex Chiang
Reimers, yes. E-Rock, no.

I dunno. I'd been climbing allot of the 5.9 cracks at Erock, moved out
here, and 5.9's in the Valley felt wicked hard. Of course, some of that is
probably due to the length....

There are far worse places than Texas to live if you're a climber. Far
better too, but definitely far worse....

Gives me an idea for a new thread....

Geoff

[Hal Murray]

Post by Alex Chiang
I've only bouldered at Hueco, so I have no idea how the routes
are graded there...

V0-, V0, V0+, V1-, V1, ...

[Frederick 'Fritz' Weihe]

Post by Adrian MacNair
Buoyed by my success on some 5.10's and even a short 5.11a last
September in Squamish, I have drooled over some proud lines in the guidebook
that I would like to attempt. While casually conversing my plans to a guy at
my local crag, however, he insisted that the West Coast ratings are "soft",
and that I could be in for a big surprise. He gave the following

Just one opinion/data point: I spent 10 days climbing in squamish and
loved it. But it was the softest grading I have ever seen. Don't
assume that a squamish 5.10 has prepared you for a similar grade
elsewhere.

I think there are lots of stiffly graded areas in the east for various
historical reasons, but squamish ratings are lite, even for the west.
Get used to the local grades before you rack up for that east coast
granite.

just one opinion,

faw

[Christian :?]

"Adrian MacNair" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<PMEeb.178805$***@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...

<snip>

Dooood,

Yo, it's like crips and bloods... can you hang, dog?

And DMT, the YDS might be a misnomer and might still have been a cali
invention, but, the climbing, not the grades matter. And the real
"EEEast Side Yo" was climbing harder before it ever became an issue to
number dat shit.

Adrian. You will get spanked. Fear deeply.
But, if you are hard, then do the Prow, Solo, Yo.

Cheers,
Christian :?)

[Ed Hartouni]

I have climbed around N.America a bit over the years:

Tahquitz Rock in the early 70's
Yosemite Valley in the early 70's and in the 90's
Tuolumne Meadows at various times in the 70's and 80's and in the 90's
the `Gunks in the mid 70's to mid 90's
Whitehorse, Cathedral and Cannon in the 70's and 80's
Ragged Mountain (Connecticut) at various times
Devil's Lake a couple of times
Tetons, a couple of times
Bugaboos, a couple of times
Sierra Nevada (east side, and high)
Wind River mountains, cirque of the towers, a couple of times

these are mostly rock climbing areas... the subject of this thread. I've also
done a lot of "mountaineering" in other areas not relevant to this thread.

Ratings of climbs change as more people climb them... this is especially true of old climbs.
When I started, 5.10's were hard and relatively few people actually did them. Over the years
many the climbs have been reevaluated because they are compared with other, similar climbs.

In a few places, and on a few climbs in many places, there is a tradition of respecting the
FA rating. This is absurd, but many traditions are. I can think of a lot of very difficult
Valley climbs rated 5.9 which should really be rated harder, usually 5.10abcd but for the
"traditional" assignment. Another thread to rc can poll everyone about what climbs are
"sandbags" and where; a usually lively subject of discussion here.

Even with the best uniformity, not all climbs at a particular grade are comparable. How
to compare "Church Bowl Chimney" at 5.6 to "After Six" also at 5.6 in the Valley, with "High
Exposure" in the 'Gunks to "Great White Book", "Hot Crossed Buns", "Cathedral Peak" in
Tuolumne? They are very different climbs: chimney, crack/face, steep face, offwidth,
friction/face, etc... It might seem like the climbs are "sandbagged" in one area if you are
coming from another area with very different types of climbs. It's hard to train for Yosemite
by climbing at Devil's Lake.

What I notice first is the difference of the rock. I like granite best, but not all granite
is not the same. Climbing at Ragged for the first time I was stymied by the surface texture,
the "logic" of the features (crackless corners, or entire lack of cracks), edge orientation,
scale. I remember trying to do various climbs, being confused, but then figuring it out. The
ratings seemed in another universe compared with the `Gunks.

The cliffs at Devil's Lake are reported to have been created "before the invention of
friction". The rock is very different from other places I have climbed. Climb the
"Right Side of Footstool" in the Valley (at 5.4, the very first climb I did in the Valley).
It is one very slick climb, and I mean low coefficient of friction! I repeated it on the
30th anniversary and was annoyed at the attention I had to pay even though I am climbing
harder now than then. The lack of friction is similar between these locals, most of the rest
of the climbing has no relationship.

After all these years it is my experience that when you go to a new area, get used to the rock,
grades, route finding, descents, approaches, etc. I usually climb stuff easier then my limit
just to get a feel for a place. There are usually a lot of classic climbs at all grades,
you're initial outing might not be ticking your "big number" list, but you'll be having fun
climbing great climbs, and learning what you need to push it... then again, who said that
climbing is about the numbers anyway? I prefer to go to one place and climb a lot, than to try
to go to a lot of different places climbing a few things. Take your time, and have fun.

The statement in Steve Roper's 1971 "Climber's Guide to Yosemite Valley" that "no rating
system yet devised solves the myriad problems of rating a rock climb, nor has any system
satisfied all climbers of even one area" is probably still true today. What we have is a
subjective system where comparable climbs are equally rated. In a rather telling statement in
Roper's guide he explains his reason for including the UIAA rating system, "it is entirely
possible that the climbing populace of America will revolt and cast off the Decimal System
forever"; this, apparently, didn't happen.

[A. Cairns]

Ed Hartouni wrote:


<grades vs areas>

Post by Ed Hartouni
It's hard to train for Yosemite
by climbing at Devil's Lake.

Aha! I knew there was something.

Post by Ed Hartouni
After all these years it is my experience that when you go to a new area,

After all these years, when I go to a new area, I *still* get on some hard scary MFing route. The
taste of gunpowder returns.

Some guides use a skull and crossbones system 1 to 3 in addition to the more common star ratings.

Andy Cairns

[Chiloe]

Post by A. Cairns
Some guides use a skull and crossbones system 1 to 3 in
addition to the more common star ratings.

There's some iconic charm to the Rockfax guidebooks with their
little pictures of a fluttering heart (=R rating), a cocked
revolver (=X), falling rocks, and 0 to 3 stars or a bag of
shit next to each route description.

Repentence, the North Conway guide's only 4-star route, also
earns a cocked revolver, falling rocks AND a bag of shit.
Clearly a must-do for some of us. Once.

[Guido]

Post by Chiloe
Repentence, the North Conway guide's only 4-star route, also
earns a cocked revolver, falling rocks AND a bag of shit.
Clearly a must-do for some of us. Once.

Some climbs are best when served frozen.

G

[Julie]

Post by Guido

Post by Chiloe
Repentence, the North Conway guide's only 4-star route, also
earns a cocked revolver, falling rocks AND a bag of shit.
Clearly a must-do for some of us. Once.

Some climbs are best when served frozen.

Amen. Best of 2003!

JSH, pun intended