guide book ratings and route?

I was just wondering if anyone could explain why two different guide books would have different ratings and show different routes of the same climb. I have one guide book from wolverine publishing, the other from K. Daniels associates. same climb "Right On" different rating and route.

jon sherwood wrote:I was just wondering if anyone could explain why two different guide books would have different ratings and show different routes of the same climb. I have one guide book from wolverine publishing, the other from K. Daniels associates. same climb "Right On" different rating and route.

Because ratings are subjective not set in stone (pun).

Thanks it is a well established route in joshua tree.
I was just wondering.

Even guidebook authors are fallible?

Well if they're showing different routes, it's a not a stretch to imagine that they aren't rated the same. I can think of lots of example like this. e.g. "Climb up to the pair of vertical cracks. Climb either one - the left one being slightly harder..." or "Climb to the roof. Exit left or right (easier)..."

Different grades could be due to the route changing (holds break, become more polished, etc). Or due to consensus changing (5.8 today means something different than it used to).

Different routes is odd, but maybe there are many variations and the author picked one?

As to the climb in question, isn't it 5.5? I think most people would have trouble differentiating 5.5 from 5.6 or 5.4 or whatever (no spray).

Ryan Watts wrote:Different grades could be due to the route changing (holds break, become more polished, etc). Or due to consensus changing (5.8 today means something different than it used to). Different routes is odd, but maybe there are many variations and the author picked one? As to the climb in question, isn't it 5.5? I think most people would have trouble differentiating 5.5 from 5.6 or 5.4 or whatever (no spray).

Yeah that makes sense I thought it was a little rough at the last pitch for 5.5, The climb came out of a nice sheltered crack onto an open face for the last 20-30' of the 350' climb. the other guide book I just got shows a little easier line at the top.

now I figure I will check more than one book ahead of time to see what my options are.

Guidebook authors differing on climb ratings is common. Just compare Gunks guidebooks by Swain and Williams. They are close but differ slightly on many climbs. Then there is a Gunks guidebook written by some non-local who dumbed-up the grades to sport climb grades that differ considerably from the established grades.

Brian wrote:Guidebook authors differing on climb ratings is common. Just compare Gunks guidebooks by Swain and Williams. They are close but differ slightly on many climbs. Then there is a Gunks guidebook written by some non-local who dumbed-up the grades to sport climb grades that differ considerably from the established grades.

Or you could say the non-local put out a book that would make sense to an out of towner since the other books suck on such a grand scale, especially if you are used to good guidebooks.

Read the MP comments for Right On - it gets good towards the end.
mountainproject.com/v/right…
After re-doing this route the other weekend, I agree with my original 5.7 PG13 rating. Or 5.6+ ;)

That's funny, it's a good thing I did'nt read that beforehand I might have never done this climb. Seeing how it was only like my fourth trip climbing ever.

MJMobes wrote: Or you could say the non-local put out a book that would make sense to an out of towner since the other books suck on such a grand scale, especially if you are used to good guidebooks.

Yup - revisionist history makes us all feel better about ourselves doesn't it?

MJMobes wrote: Or you could say the non-local put out a book that would make sense to an out of towner since the other books suck on such a grand scale, especially if you are used to good guidebooks.

I don't really care that they changed the grades, but they did it in such an inconsistent fashion that grades are pretty much useless in that book.

Ryan Nevius wrote:Even guidebook authors are fallible?

This one.

And, it isn't always clear exactly where every route goes. The author of one book might have talked to different people than the other to get the details on the line. They might have a different idea of how hard/easy it is, too.

On a sport climb it is generally pretty easy -- where the bolts go, that's where the route goes.

On a gear (trad) climb, not so much. And if there are discontinuous features, or limited features, even harder. And, as routes get longer, or part of the route goes out of sight, even harder.

Eric Engberg wrote: Yup - revisionist history makes us all feel better about ourselves doesn't it?

JohnWesely wrote: I don't really care that they changed the grades, but they did it in such an inconsistent fashion that grades are pretty much useless in that book.

I like sandbagging people more than most folks do, it still doesnt change the fact that the Dick books and Swains book all suck as far as guide books go. Sure they have names and ratings but using the books to actually get to the base of the climbs with leaves on the trees is not easy if you arent familiar with the place and the new book seemed way better for just that(I dont own it, Swain only). If I want to go to a place and spend more time looking for specific climbs than climbing I'll just use Mtn Project!

Eric Engberg wrote: Yup - revisionist history makes us all feel better about ourselves doesn't it?

Yeah...I love it. In another 20 years I'll be in a walker but climbing 5.13 with grade inflation.