Mt. Lemmon Sandbags and Sandbags that should have an R or X.

Ian Cavanaugh wrote:I must say this is a pretty ridiculous post. Most of these routes are being up graded by half a grade. What is the big deal? maybe you should all just leave the grades as they are and climb harder. Just a thought. I mean are these routes really that sandbagged, a letter or two is not a bad sandbag, or are they true to grade and people just havent spent much time climbing in other areas around the country/world. I know personally I would rather climb in an area know for hard ratings rather than soft ones. Besides when you finally do step out side of your home town and go and climb at some world class areas, you will be more ready and will not be so disappointed that all the climbs there are so "hard" or "sandbagged". Its just a number, dont worry about the plus or minus at the end of the grade and just climb.

Hey Ian,

Part of the reason for this post is for gathering info for the guidebook. It's pretty important, I think, to have that information right for out-of-towners.

Ian Cavanaugh wrote:maybe you should all just leave the grades as they are and climb harder. Just a thought. I mean are these routes really that sandbagged, a letter or two is not a bad sandbag, or are they true to grade and people just havent spent much time climbing in other areas around the country/world.

Most of the guys who posted climb 5.12 and some of them have climbed 5.12 trad from here to Europe and Asia. But I guess 12 isn't that hard for you.

The main reason I asked the question, is that we just had someone deck and get seriously injured on an old school moderate. This was par for the course years ago when I started climbing in 1975, but times have changed. A couple of letter grades might not be a big deal for a badass such as yourself but for beginners it can matter.

As I said I am not looking to quibble over a letter or two but I would like to know which routes people think are sandbagged so I can put that information into the next guide to the area. In the last guide I warned people that many of the older routes have scary unprotected sections if they were significantly easier than the hardest sections of the route. These days they might get an R but in the past they didn't. My thinking is that I will have the same standard on all routes.

As always (haha) I agree with Baker. Good judgement is what it is about.

In terms of protecting beginners, the runouts on the easy stuff at Hairpin Left Hand wall are ill-advised.

The 5.7s or 8s that have a 12-15 foot runout on 5.5-5.6 ground, there are at least two.

Whoever left their quickdraw there at the last bolt before the runout, PM me and identify it and you can have it back.

edit: besides the main lefthand wall, there was a bolted 5.8 up around the corner past the 5.10s, with a big runout on the easier ground and super crappy fall potential

also, one of Scott's 5.10s on Obscure wall, big runout near the top w ledge fall potential ( i posted under that route)

also, some of the climbs in the new area Ben put up to the left of Gumby Wall, (Beetle Bailey wall or something?) ie 5.8 climbs and runout where it's 5.6 to the anchors

All this is FYI, I believe in general on sport routes it's easier to figure this stuff out before u commit to it and safer in general.

Also, one area to look at to highlight in the next guidebook is which routes are mixed, I know there was a deck at Prison Camp because of someone not knowing this, even though it was in the book. Not sure how much easier to make it than how you had it, but also just FYI.

More comments from Mr. Cavanaugh:

Regarding some climb he did.
"Last time i was out there i pulled off the jug after the crux, making the route about a letter grade harder. what that grade is exactly ill let you know when i actually get it clean."

If a letter doesn't matter why mention it?

This was attached to some photo of a project.
"there is now a bolt on the face. this dramatically decreases the runout, bad fall and the face crux move. it can be clipped easily once on the ledge." Seems like he is trying to be helpful to others by giving them more information.

Those of us who need to climb harder and get out of our own back yards should do as he does. Oh wait, that is what we are doing.

Don't take this personally Ian. My real goal here is to get Jbaker to blow coffee out his nose and on to his keyboard.

I didn't say HE said he was a 5.12 climber, I've watched him send 5.12 several times, so I called him a 5.12 climber..

For a newer climber whose strength is power or power-endurance, it would not be uncommon to try to overpower that move instead of figuring out the balance and footwork aspect first.

One fall and a little more patience and he sent next go

I am not sure if you are including Milagrosa in with Mt Lemmon, but I think Valentine Arete is not 5.8. I think more like 5.9. Some of those holds have gotten a little polished.

I think Yurt Monkey could use an R if it stays listed as just a bolted climb. I know you can use some gear to avoid that though.

I have to disagree about the routes on Barnum. The only routes that are runout (if you only have draws with you) are the MIXED routes of which there are 3. The pure sport routes are fine, some of the routes are a little long (10') between bolts but they are that way the whole way up and you can see all the bolts from the ground so you know exactly what you are getting into.

Jbak... leaving this thread behind...crank up the volume

youtube.com/watch?v=ArjBH2e…

Eric, I dont take anything personal. I like that you went through my profile and actually looked to see who I am and what I have done. Yes I believe that accurate rates are important, but I also believe in preserving the past. Many of the routes in Montana and the areas I have climbed were set in a period where sandbagging was common practice. Scary run outs and marginal gear were just part of the game. A few years ago two different guide books came out at about the same time for the bozeman area and were vastly different. While the majority of the routes held the same grades, many were different. While I understand that people will always have different options about grades, I feel no matter what is published they should always be taken with a grain of salt. Another thing that both guide books did was kept the original sandbag ratings on some of the most classic routes. They did both mention the severe sandbagging and one hinted at there actual grades. I think this is a good way to both pay homage to the past while also giving a fair warning to those looking to climb these classics. Good luck with the the new guide book.

"Desire" is not sandbagged (at most could be closer to 10+ than 10? not sure) but should have an R in the next guidebook

Ian Cavanaugh wrote:Eric, I dont take anything personal. I like that you went through my profile and actually looked to see who I am and what I have done. Yes I believe that accurate rates are important, but I also believe in preserving the past. Many of the routes in Montana and the areas I have climbed were set in a period where sandbagging was common practice. Scary run outs and marginal gear were just part of the game. A few years ago two different guide books came out at about the same time for the bozeman area and were vastly different. While the majority of the routes held the same grades, many were different. While I understand that people will always have different options about grades, I feel no matter what is published they should always be taken with a grain of salt. Another thing that both guide books did was kept the original sandbag ratings on some of the most classic routes. They did both mention the severe sandbagging and one hinted at there actual grades. I think this is a good way to both pay homage to the past while also giving a fair warning to those looking to climb these classics. Good luck with the the new guide book.

This is something that I feel individual guidebook authors are free to decide on. I don't mind climbing with little or no beta, but if I buy a guidebook I appreciate having accurate information. Just my two cents.

i think that 5.9+ just shouldnt exist, if its harder than 5.9 just call it 5.10, and being from out of town i would appreciate a PG-13 rated route because it helps you get a vague idea of how tricky gear placements are going to be on a route. good luck with the guidebook

No way, 5.9+ is legitimate out here. Factor in the history of the mountain.

I feel like a lot of people are focusing on the wrong things regarding to grades. Climbing is supposed to be fun, and adventurous. If every little thing is spelled out, then I feel like something is being taken away from the experience of climbing. Not trying to sound like an a-hole, but if you want climbing to be totally spelled out and controlled, then stay in the gym (but I've also heard that the RandR routes are sandbagged too). If you're cool with adapting to the environment and specific crag you are at, then go outside.

I agree that some areas and routes are sandbagged, but I also know of other areas on the mountain where it's the opposite. Again, this is the area you are climbing in, take it or leave it.

As for pg-13, if you've never lead any type of trad route on mt. lemmon, then they are all gonna feel a little spicy. I feel it’s the nature of the rock out here. R and X ratings are good, and I haven’t found anything that I would disagree with in the current guide book so far. But if I do, I'll post up.

I think a better issue would be which routes have good bolts/hardware, and which still have the ol' death leaper hangers on a rusted 1/4" button head placed in the seventies.

I feel like these internet forums are the venue for commenting on the grades that the FA's attributed to the climbs.

Be well out there.

Brent Silvester wrote:No way, 5.9+ is legitimate out here. Factor in the history of the mountain. I feel like a lot of people are focusing on the wrong things regarding to grades. Climbing is supposed to be fun, and adventurous. If every little thing is spelled out, then I feel like something is being taken away from the experience of climbing. Not trying to sound like an a-hole, but if you want climbing to be totally spelled out and controlled, then stay in the gym (but I've also heard that the RandR routes are sandbagged too). If you're cool with adapting to the environment and specific crag you are at, then go outside. I agree that some areas and routes are sandbagged, but I also know of other areas on the mountain where it's the opposite. Again, this is the area you are climbing in, take it or leave it. As for pg-13, if you've never lead any type of trad route on mt. lemmon, then they are all gonna feel a little spicy. I feel it’s the nature of the rock out here. R and X ratings are good, and I haven’t found anything that I would disagree with in the current guide book so far. But if I do, I'll post up. I think a better issue would be which routes have good bolts/hardware, and which still have the ol' death leaper hangers on a rusted 1/4" button head placed in the seventies. I feel like these internet forums are the venue for commenting on the grades that the FA's attributed to the climbs. Be well out there.

+1

Climbing is inherently dangerous, Right? So then by that definition every climb in the guide book should be X. Maybe give a little more info on the area pages so people can get an idea what certain crags are like. In the end it is your guidebook and you should put what your general idea is. The cover does not say "By Eric Rhicard and community".

No way, 5.9+ is legitimate out here. Factor in the history of the mountain. I feel like a lot of people are focusing on the wrong things regarding to grades. Climbing is supposed to be fun, and adventurous. If every little thing is spelled out, then I feel like something is being taken away from the experience of climbing. Not trying to sound like an a-hole, but if you want climbing to be totally spelled out and controlled, then stay in the gym (but I've also heard that the RandR routes are sandbagged too). If you're cool with adapting to the environment and specific crag you are at, then go outside. I agree that some areas and routes are sandbagged, but I also know of other areas on the mountain where it's the opposite. Again, this is the area you are climbing in, take it or leave it. As for pg-13, if you've never lead any type of trad route on mt. lemmon, then they are all gonna feel a little spicy. I feel it’s the nature of the rock out here. R and X ratings are good,
and I haven’t found anything that I would disagree with in the current guide book so far. But if I do, I'll post up. I think a better issue would be which routes have good bolts/hardware, and which still have the ol' death leaper hangers on a rusted 1/4" button head placed in the seventies. I feel like these internet forums are the venue for commenting on the grades that the FA's attributed to the climbs. Be well out there.

i like what you say about good or bad hardware thats very valuable. i really havent climbed much trad but can respect the fact that the grades dont transfer to sport, i have onsighted 12a sport routes and would still say that crescent moon, a 5.7 offwidth at the new was the most difficult 80 feet of my life because of how difficult it was to keep my cool under the circumstances i was climbing under. so maybe 9+ is legitamate, but no matter how much detail you give a routes grade you cant really spell out what the climb will be like so pg-13, R, and X should all be given to a route that deserves it, and should be done so through the perspective of the local style.
and thats just my 2 cents, not trying to say its wrong to use 5.9+ to describe a route, just that i wouldnt do it

I agree about the hardware comment, however, if you put in a guide book "had 1/4"ers and leeper hangers" then someone goes and upgrades the hardware then the book will still say 1/4"... until the next guide comes out, in this case the last one was published in 2000, so 11 years and counting. BTW STLII is an awesome guidebook, I have total confidence Eric will do an awesome job on STLIII.

+1 for Admiral Throckmorton, 5.9, (it seems to give a lot of people (always women) problems). Reuben Hair Shift, 5.9, The Standard Rt. on the Pharaoh, 5.8, (only did it once). There's another dozen of the old school routes that could easily be upgraded by half a grade (Toy Roof, Jump for Joyce (I vaguely remember a dyno on this route!), Stems and Seeds...), but probably even more of some of the modern routes that could be downgraded, (I'm referring to routes that are newer than SQII, but seem to have mtn. proj. consensus grades that are way soft i.e. a lot of stuff at Tall Wall, Boot Hill.)

The reality here is, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. I have a hard time judging what the grade of a route is. I base a lot of my opinion on watching other people struggle. Occasionally, I think I can recognize some inconsistencies in grades, but even then I'm not sure. A lot of people say Valentine's Arete is harder than 5.8, but I think some of the older 5.8's on Mt. Lemmon feel harder, so I really don't know. If there were a couple of routes where we say, 'this is the standard for the grade,' then I might have a slight chance of being right.

Even though you didn't ask for it, there are a lot of routes where a PG-13 warning might prevent future accidents. I think that list would contain a few hundred routes, even including sporty routes like Chihuahua Power. (PG-13 seems to be less controversial than assigning an R, and seems more appropriate for routes like Nancy's crack where the injury is probably/maybe not going to be a broken bone)

Also, the routes in SQII that say 'good route for a first time leader' always seem to be really difficult routes for a first time leader. I always suggest the 5.6 at Chesapeake as a good first gear route and most people's first sport route is the 5.4 at Munch land.

(I came back and made several edits here, maybe more to come)

I appreciate all the input. I am not a big fan of PG-13. Climbing is dangerous. I like that there is danger (hard to tell the way I bolt most stuff these days) and that you have to make a choice before you climb on. You have to ask yourself if you can do the move without falling especially on easier routes. If you get to a climb and it looks dangerous back off until you are sure you can do it. Climb more develop the physical and mental skills necessary to climb it.

As you said Steve there are hundreds of routes that could get a PG-13. Pretty much every route. Heck I know of two people who have broken a foot hiking to go climbing.

As I said before I am not really interested in routes that are not two or more letters off.