Boulder Canyon Ratings vs Clear Creek Canyon Ratings

What's your take on the ratings in Boulder Canyon vs CCC? I've spent a lot of time in Boulder Canyon and I'm just starting to explore CCC. I know the Boulder Canyon ratings are generally consider a bit soft but what's the take on CCC?

My prediction: this forum will explode, and I will be lurking with great interest.

This debate will go on and on, but my personal take on it is that the two areas are so much different that it's too hard to compare whose soft and whose hard. I think the sport climbing that I've been on in Boulder Canyon tends to be more, or less bolted boulder problems so if that's your strength with all of the accessible bouldering in the Front Range then it may feel soft to someone, and harder to others.

I'm sure you're going to hear, "If this was in Rifle...", or "if this was in Eldo..." Those are my favorite comments. Yeah well if the ratings in Eldo, or Rifle were anything like Seneca Rocks, the New River Gorge in WV, or pretty much any area of Wyoming most people would re-evaluate their climbing resume altogether.

Both areas are too accessible to after work climbing that people will always argue the grades. I've rarely heard anyone at the New argue grades unless it was whether, or not Apollo Reed is 13a vs 12d which is just stupid to begin with. It's a 1/4 of a number grade. It's a popular route so it sees the most traffic. If you think CCC is soft go head over to the Primo Wall where things tend to be a little more sustained than some of the other areas.

For a laugh read the comments on climbs in CCC like: Ten Digit Dialing, Finger Prince, or Reefer Madness. The two areas BC and CCC aren't as sustained as Rifle so it tends to be easier to work a single hard move after work versus a long series of moderate moves on the weekend.

I'm just stoked that the two areas are so close to where I live. Coming from NC where it's weekend climbing only it's rad to be around so much rock just 10-20 mins away. So I'll refrain from commenting any further about whether climbs like Reefer Madness are 11b vs 11a. It's a super rad climb and that's all that matters anyways.

both severely overrated and ego stoking.

i love em both very much. until i go somewhere else and my climbing is downgraded 2 full numbers. i agree w jarthur that we're spoiled to have such fast and easy access to great areas

John Langston wrote:I find them both to be outrageously sandbagged.

i didnt think you climbed in clear creek, john?!
:)

michael.repsher wrote: what's the take on CCC?

fun.

All I know is that every time I get a little happy that I finally sent my project, I look on MP to find everyone thinks my project is horribly soft.

John Langston wrote: I've never actually been there. Is it near Boulder?

Golden actually.
mostly sport climbing, but there are also some stellar trad routes that might challenge even you.

Everything I've done has been pretty similar in rating to BoCan. I agree a lot of the harder climbs in BoCan seem to be a bit bouldery in nature.

Yeah, Darren, I haven't climbed much in Clear Creek but I'd like to get there more. How can I learn more about the area?

CCC is softer than Boulder Canyon overall, I think. But CCC can be very inconsistent. Some of the older CCC routes live up to the rating, some of them are ridiculously inflated.

John Langston wrote: For serious??!! I find just the opposite to be true. (Well, I'd find the opposite to be true if I actually climbed. You see, I am so hated by everyone that in order to preserve everyone's enjoyment I stay home and do 17 pullups on the door frame every thursday evening thus enabling me to properly spray and avoid both crowds and sunlight.)

That is probably because you are focusing on routes above 5.11 much more than me. I will say that I think in CCC, once you get into the 5.12 range, there seems to be much more alignment between the rating and the perceived difficulty. Maybe my opinion would flip if I were a consistent 5.12 climber.

Also, I have not gone to the "sport park" in Boulder Canyon which seems like it is a source of great controversy.

John Langston wrote: Sounds nice, is there a resource available that would help me to choose the routes I'd like to climb and then find them?

waaaaaaiit a minute.... youre being a smart ass, arent you!?

ok. so was i.

Hey Darren, not everyone gets the joke. C'mon, you're missing an opportunity here.

sharpendbooks.com/prod.php?…

Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: That is probably because you are focusing on routes above 5.11 much more than me. I will say that I think in CCC, once you get into the 5.12 range, there seems to be much more alignment between the rating and the perceived difficulty. Maybe my opinion would flip if I were a consistent 5.12 climber. Also, I have not gone to the "sport park" in Boulder Canyon which seems like it is a source of great controversy.

this gets to the real issue to any forum that has the word "Ratings" in it, regardless of which battlefield. do a search for yourself, and all this stuff has been regurgitated in some form.

suppose a "5.9" climber from BC, Eldo, CCC, where ever, goes to another area, they can compare areas for themselves, or have a reasonable agreement between another "5.9" climber, in a small window around their ability. same goes for a "5.10" climber, or any level for that matter. i guess my point is, is that a "5.9" climber will have a hard time telling the difference between a 5.11b and 5.11d anywhere.

same goes for a "5.13" climber trying to tell the difference between a 9, 10b, 10d, or even 5.11d. however, would be a little easier if they draw on their histories and experience.

i actuallly agree with Langston on this little bit: "ratings are usually close enough to tell me whether I can pull off the ground"

Shawn Mitchell wrote:Hey Darren, not everyone gets the joke. C'mon, you're missing an opportunity here.

thanks, Shawn.
:)

jarthur wrote:it's too hard to compare whose soft and whose hard...

Uh, not really. MP ladies, care to comment?

*** wrote: Uh, not really. MP ladies, care to comment?

The MP "Ladies" would never tell. But the climber girls...

On behalf of the MP Senior division, I've sorta noticed that before 40, the climbers are hard and the ratings can, on occasion, be soft. After 40, that trend starts to invert.

Just makes good sends even better!

i haven't climbed much at CCC since the mid 90's, so I can't really comment too much about that locale. i have climbed some in BC the last few years and the main thing that i notice is that there is a HUGE difference in grading between the older routes and new routes. the older routes, particularly 5.9 and 5.10 crack routes at castle rock and bell buttress are much stiffer than the newer routes.

in my case, i crack climb about 90% of the time, so i should be a lot more dialed at that style. at BC i can consistently climb 2 letter grades to 1 number grade harder on the face routes. also, the newer trad routes are much easier.

grades are subjective, of course, but there is definitely a huge difference among areas. a pretty good indicator of soft grading is when you travel to a new area and can easily and consistently onsite a number grade harder than you do on your own turf (where you should be dialed in and have the advantage). while inflated grading is great for the ego, it kind of ends up working out poorly in the big picture. if your home turf is soft, you end up with an overestimation of your abilities. you get people trying to do the casual route on the diamond and falling on the 5.7 traverse, taking 3 hours per pitch, and creating a clusterfuck.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: On behalf of the MP Senior division

Hey, how do I join? Oh crap, I'm already there. Where the heck are my glasses?

Bob D'Antonio wrote:I think a lot people on this site are younger or haven't been climbing that long enough to understand the compression of grades that happened in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. Beware of older routes (ie...Cosmosis, Jackson Wall Direct, Gorilla's Delight) that are rated 5.9+ or 5.10+...people back then were afraid or not willing to rate routes in the higher grades due to the fact that they had to be way, way harder than the standard at that time.

I would agree fully with this. I am one of the younger climbers and didn't start to understand this until recently.

I think the sport climbing grades in CCC and BC are quite linear (ie, something rated 5.11a is harder than a 5.10d is harder than a 5.9+). As long as that is true, who cares what the number actually says? I derive enjoyment in part from improving myself and a linear system allows one to do that. Every area I have been across the country has felt like it's graded a little differently, but as long as the ratings are consistent within the area, I don't see a problem. It's prudent to drop a couple grades off your normal level when first visiting a new area anyway to get a feel for the ratings, climbing style, etc.