Bold-Old school

Anything Herb and Jan Conn put up in the Needles. Hemp ropes around the waist, jeans, sneakers.

Anything at Palisade Head on Lake Superior. Yikes.

Ellingwood Chimney on the Bishop, Colorado's South Platte. He climbed up it, then back down 'cause there were no rappel anchors available. At one point, there's a chockstone I'm pretty sure he squeezed behind, because he was a small man.

Weissner Crack on Devils Tower. I totally screwed this one up, stuffing my right side in it and turning it to 5.Hard. Fritz put in one piton, well above the hard moves, and later damned himself for doing so.

Anymore, I just add a couple of number grades if it's an old route.

Here's another perspective for the "traditionalist hardmen" out there. You know, the guys who say "sport wankers" always grade their routes soft, sullying pristine cliffs with their bolts and chalk, etc.

They all love to preach from their Ivory Tower about how bolts "are for wimps" and for the gym climber to go "try that 5.4 at (insert Gunks, Seneca, Yosemite here) because they will get scared stupid.

I have to say, for just as many times as I've seen the 5.12 sport climber back off the 5.10 run out trad slab, I've seen the exact same situation reversed. Creek rats who onsight 12+ at Donnelly Canyon can't do 5.10 at Rifle. Or Eldo. Or anything that isn't their familiar style. If you're a 5.14 sport climber, Generic Crack (5.9) feels impossible. If you're a 5.13 crack climber, anything on pocketed limestone will feel hard.

Trad climbers like to have this "better than thou" philosophy because somehow, they view their ascent as more pure. Bad news for you fellas though; for the most part modern gear, guidebooks, and chalk make trad climbing no less bold than sport climbing. That being said, you can still make it bold, but all these trad climbers acting like sport climbing is so easy and only for wimps need to take a look in the mirror. The FA parties didn't have a guidebook, microcams, Vibram rubber, dynamic ropes, etc.

All this climber on climber hate. It's all just fun. Climbing is the most important thing in the world, except when it isn't.

TheBirdman wrote:Trad climbers like to have this "better than thou" philosophy because somehow, they view their ascent as more pure. Bad news for you fellas though; for the most part modern gear, guidebooks, and chalk make trad climbing no less bold than sport climbing. That being said, you can still make it bold, but all these trad climbers acting like sport climbing is so easy and only for wimps need to take a look in the mirror.

You can still walk up to a piece of rock with no beta and climb it with gear. With bolts marking the route, its kinda hard to get a true 'onsight'.

I see this thread is gaining legs... =)

TheBirdman wrote:...All this climber on climber hate. It's all just fun. Climbing is the most important thing in the world, except when it isn't.

Whoa there birdman, cut back on the caffeine. Nobody is spewing hate. I climb both trad and sport routes with about the same regularity. I'm just making an observation about grades in the two disciplines being different especially on old bold routes. Like you said, it is all just fun.

Matt N wrote:I see this thread is gaining legs... =)

If this were a Bill Simmons ESPN article he would have said something about, "...these are my readers..."

I saw the comments about sport vs. trad. That wasn't my point. There are lots of hard core dudes that can do it all. But there are also specialists that struggle on something new. Meh...big deal.
I was talking about average Joe Schmoe climber. Who really cares if Alex Honnald struggles to onsite some sketchy Yosemite death slab route (expect for maybe the FAer)? Those kinds climbers just need to dial the movement/beta and then they are smooth as silk no matter what they are doing.
But for the rest of us who do 99% of the actual climbing out there, there is OFTEN just something different and bolder about old school routes. Wide crack technique seems to almost be a lost art. Or was it that they were just ok with struggling more than we are? Put average joe climber in a pair of old RR's and how would it affect their abilities?
But again, the point of the original question was which old school routes have you done that you just have to tip you hat to the previous generation?
I thought of another one...I remember doing some nameless crack line I spotted in the Anzo Borrego desert (Cali). I struggled up wide cracks for a ways and was feeling seriously rad about myself. That is until I was grovelling under some huge roof trying to get to my left and spotted an old rusted ring piton slammed into a crack. I was thinking that it was mega hard and amazing...and clearly done years ago. Probably by some dude in old soft hiking boots, a big hat and nickers.

Christian "crisco" Burrell wrote: Wide crack technique seems to almost be a lost art.

Now that is something I can agree with you on. But let's add slab climbing to the mix as well. I think that it is super unfortunate that climbing ugly wide and scary slab are not in vogue any longer. I guess it is a bit of a lost art to be a good all arounder. Oh well, I guess it makes me that much happier because I don't have to compete for quiet time and space on the rock while nancy footing up some obscure runout classic in the Southern Sierra....ZL rule #32: Gotta enjoy the little things.

Anyway, back to the original discussion, let me add any route put up by Darrel Hensel (some of his stuff may be newly bolted, but his stuff surely climbs "old school"). Go to Whitney Portal and pick any one of his slabby rigs (which were FA'ed ground up no less). Wow, who knew that 12b slab could dish out such a critical beat down (and I climb me a lotta granite slab).

I find the low end grades in Eldo to be tough and have definitely been surprised on the Washington Irving 5.6; I forget the mantra just keep moving sometimes.

The other place that is SUPER bold is Quartz Mountain in Oklahoma. Some of the sport routes are insanely run out (I think a good number of them get R or X ratings). I felt the ratings were about right but the number of R or X was just amazing!

Everything at Needles. Holy crap! REAL grades, that mean something.

GLD wrote:Some of the sport routes are insanely run out (I think a good number of them get R or X ratings). I felt the ratings were about right but the number of R or X was just amazing!

I don't think "sport" means what you think it means.
Bolts ≠ Sport

Too many get hung up in the numbers game.

True enuf, Locker, but I can tell that many today are totally lost when it comes down to figguring out just what a rating system is ....
and how to use one.

One comes out of the GYM system, after climbing in a two dimention world, where you climb by the numbers, into a three dimentional world, where you climb the shape, it's no wonder they are lost.
They have already been taught that 5.9 is "easy".

oh-well to answer the OP..... in no order.

Pratts Crack, was once a 5.9 ....
Chingadera (sp) at Taquitz... was a 5.10 back in 65
Reeds Direct... 5.9
Entrance Exam.... 5.8

Just a few examples off the top of me head.

And YES- any Henny face climb- add about 2 points mim.

EDIT TO ADD: JMo.... you had a good time at the Needles?
Did you do "IGOR UNCHAINED" ..... Herb and Bob called that thing 5.7 when it was first done... true story!

rging wrote: and your point is?

My point was very clear, but since you require an explanation here goes. What are climbers more willing to do first? Climb a 5.10/5.11 above runout sketchy trad protection, or climb closer to their limit on a rap-bolted 5.12 with bolts every 5-ft? This is how Arno Ilgner makes money off books and clinics such as "The Rock Warriors Way" and "Falling and Committment." Unless you're the next Jason Kehl, or John Bacher most of us aren't comfortable climbing on sketchier terrain. Climbing in stressful situations causes us to tense up, overgrip, forget how to use our feet and not trust in our ability to do moves we've practiced 100's of times.

The result is we end up going to places with generously spaced bolts and we try to make the comparison to a poorly protected trad climb and we say silly stuff like, "This 5.11 would only be 5.9 in Eldo."

jarthur wrote: My point was very clear, but since you require an explanation here goes. What are climbers more willing to do first? Climb a 5.10/5.11 above runout sketchy trad protection, or climb closer to their limit on a rap-bolted 5.12 with bolts every 5-ft? This is how Arno Ilgner makes money off books and clinics such as "The Rock Warriors Way" and "Falling and Committment." Unless you're the next Jason Kehl, or John Bacher most of us aren't comfortable climbing on sketchier terrain. Climbing in stressful situations causes us to tense up, overgrip, forget how to use our feet and not trust in our ability to do moves we've practiced 100's of times. The result is we end up going to places with generously spaced bolts and we try to make the comparison to a poorly protected trad climb and we say silly stuff like, "This 5.11 would only be 5.9 in Eldo."

yep. that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Guy Keesee wrote: And YES- any Henny face climb- add about 2 points mim.

Ha!

Glad to hear you say that Guy. My friend Tom (who has been part of the CA climbing community since the pre-Friend days) simply laughed and said, "yeah, Henny Penny can climb!" when I told him that I lost some rubber on a hard Hensel slab route. Good to hear that others with historical perspective think his routes are solid at the grade.

flynn wrote:Anything Herb and Jan Conn put up in the Needles. Hemp ropes around the waist, jeans, sneakers.

Not anything, but certainly some of the things. And there are many routes there by other climbers that will not seem trivial to the modern climber in spite of better gear and sticky rubber.

A number of routes in the Needles were judged too bold by subsequent generations and have had bolts added to them. An interesting example of grade disparities can be seen on this site. Herb and Jan's route on the South Tower of Spire 4 was a 5.7 route when they climbed it in 1953 in tennis sneakers. 30 years later, after many ascents, it was still 5.7 in Paul Piana's guidebook. Now, 60 years after the sneaker ascent, the consensus grade on MP is 5.9.

rgold wrote: An interesting example of grade disparities can be seen on this site. Herb and Jan's route on the South Tower of Spire 4 was a 5.7 route when they climbed it in 1953 in tennis sneakers. 30 years later, after many ascents, it was still 5.7 in Paul Piana's guidebook. Now, 60 years after the sneaker ascent, the consensus grade on MP is 5.9.

the wussification of the modern climbing man ... and yes im one of them

;)

achey's 4+ hour FFA of Night

GLD wrote: The other place that is SUPER bold is Quartz Mountain in Oklahoma.

+1 on that.

I went there for the first time this past April and can't wait to get back out there!

bearbreeder wrote: the wussification of the modern climbing man

I didn't mean to suggest that. The "modern climbing man" is climbing six grades harder than the Conn's, and three grades harder than the two generations that followed them. When it comes to boldness, the "modern climbing man" has done things neither the Conn's nor the next two generations could have imagined, much less contemplated.

As for grades, I think perhaps people have lost track of the easy ones, that's all.

J. Albers wrote: Ha! Glad to hear you say that Guy. My friend Tom (who has been part of the CA climbing community since the pre-Friend days) simply laughed and said, "yeah, Henny Penny can climb!" when I told him that I lost some rubber on a hard Hensel slab route. Good to hear that others with historical perspective think his routes are solid at the grade.

I was always too much of a wuss to jump on his lines. They all look B-O-L-D!!! And these are not(as the original question was asking) "moderates" usually. But the point is still well said.

The dorsal fin of little cottonwood canyon.

It was bolted on lead some time in the 1960's. the FA's did it in RR's if ive got my sources right. The first pitch is almost certainly the scariest thing ill ever climb. As the route was lead bolted there is roughly a 25ft runout through a slab that looks like a mirror between the last bolt and a bolted anchor. After about 3 body lengths of 10d slab you reach two chicken heads that you have to mantel up onto in order to clip the anchors. I didnt know how to mantel very well when i got to those chicken heads, but i sure learned quick.

About 15-20ft above the bolt i felt a little crunch under my left foot. I froze knowing that one of a few microscopic footholds had just broken. I quickly shifted all the weight i could to my hands and right foot. As i lifted my left foot i watched the crumbs of the former foothold fall into runout space. I wanted to cry.

Had it been a sport route i probably would have just taken the fall. I wanted desperately to down climb but i knew i had no chance at reversing the slab moves, so i dug as deep as i could and cranked out the next 10ft, barely succeeding at a desperate grab for the chicken heads, the only feature in that empty sea of white granite.

We eventually reached an anchor still madd of lost arrows (though supplemented with a bolt if i remember right). We passes stuff that the fa's had hammered in to protect the cracks. Ive never felt more like i was following in a climbers footsteps than on that route, knowing that the original fa's hands had grabbed those same two chicken heads that i had, made the same desperate mantel that i had, and thanked the same god i had in gratitude for not taking a 40ft whipper. I knew that though i would never meet the Fa, we had shared an experience. We had both swam that same stretch of white granite ocean with the fear of falling circling in our heads like an ominous fin in the ocean.

The dorsal fin is my favorite climbing experience. I think about the feeling of digging deep on that climb sometimes when i dig deep to keep slogging through law school.
But i'd never lead it again.