Hiring a guide considered "weak"?

Let's not let this turn into yet another AMGA vs. Anti-AMGA thread. I think there have been plenty of places to make those arguments.

Rather, towards the OP, I would agree that the culture of being guided in the US generally seems to have a stigma associated with it. At least, as compared with other countries. American climbers seem to have less of a tolerance of being humble about their abilities/shortcomings and paying a guide to either teach them something or take them up a route of their choosing. We tend to be more self-driven and empowered. Which from my perspective can be both a good thing and a bad one.

Most people reading this may be competent enough to realize their own aspirations and limitations. So the feedback may be fairly biased.

People hire guides for all kinds of reasons. They should all be considered legit and valid.

Andy Hansen wrote: I feel that the information disseminated in this thread about the AMGA's regulatory standards are misconstrued and in some cases just plain wrong. I think Rob has outlined the AMGA's stance on guide certification, and where these guides operate, pretty well in his posts. The AMGA's website also clearly dictates guides' scope of practice as well.

fair enough.

I would add about certifications in general, that I would not hire someone solely based on their certifications. A certification proves that they passed a test. That's it. It's a good place to start, but definitely would not be the only thing I would consider.

Which sounds more week:

- Experienced climber hires a guide because they want to hire a guide

Or:

- Experienced climber doesn't hire a guide because of concerns about stigma

There is a stigma to hiring a guide, some people might look down on you, think less of you as a climber.

But I presume you don't go climbing to elevate other peoples opinion of yourself.

So hire a guide, they're great.

T Roper wrote:if you hire a guide hoping for a rope gun only to find they physically struggle on 5.9 and can't do 5.10. Do you ask for a discount?

If you want a guide to lead you up a 5.10, you better make that clear before you meet them. If anything I would suggest slightly escalating the level of difficulty you say you expect your guide to be able to lead.

Keep in mind that most guides do most of their work guiding people on rock much less than 5.9. So if they are successful, they do not get much time to stay in shape on 5.10 or 5.11 pitches.

I will guess that the majority of guides in Europe (outside elite centers like Chamonix) cannot on-sight lead 5.10a. And a substantial percentage of USA guides cannot either.
My understanding is that the AMGA does not require leading 5.10a to get certified.

Ken

Ken, the Euro rock standard is 7a (11d)
Here, to pass the AMGA Rock Exam the assignments are usually up to 11b/c cragging, and 10+/11- on longer routes.
On sighting 10a should be considered a pretty low-water mark for guiding rock.

I believe one of the routes the AMGA uses as a test route in Red Rocks is Mai Tai. That thing is certainly harder than 5.10a.

The few times I've climbed with a guide (usually hired by someone I'm with when we're new to an area) have been very high yield days on which I've picked up new tricks and learned an area much faster than I otherwise would have. Hiring a guide on the first day in a new area generally ends with the trip being more more productive than it otherwise would have been.

"I will guess that the majority of guides in Europe (outside elite centers like Chamonix) cannot on-sight lead 5.10a. And a substantial percentage of USA guides cannot either.
My understanding is that the AMGA does not require leading 5.10a to get certified."

I'll second Ryan's excellent suggestion that this not become an AMGA/non-AMGA thread...

Another poster mentioned discussing one's objective with a prospective guide BEFORE heading into the field--excellent advice. If you're looking to do the Walker Spur on the Grand Jorasses...well, s/he better know that before you lace up!

Ken--as for standards in the rock discipline. I can only talk about the AMGA process. As one progresses through the differing levels of rock certification (SPI, rock guide, advanced rock guide), the expected onsight ability (in terms of difficulty and complexity) increases. Advanced rock guide exams in Vegas usually tackle routes like Risky Business (10cR), Slot Machine (10b/cR, but some say 11a), Challenger (10d PG13), Jupiter (11c, they might let you hang or pull on gear), etc...and that's trailing two ropes and climbing with a backpack. That's at the advanced (IFMGA) rock-guide level.

So, to bring the discussion full circle: the higher the certification, the higher the difficulty standard, and the more complex the routes become on the exam. Sure, it's just "passing a test," but as the tests get harder, typically the candidates' skills get more refined.

You might be right that a substantial percentage of US guides can't onsight 5.10a...but you'd be dead wrong that a substantial percentage of AMGA-certified advanced rock guides (or IFMGA guides) can't onsight .10a. Why? Because they all had to do it on their rock exams. At least every one I've ever met.

I'm with you--exams don't count for everything. But they do count. Just like medical school, flight school, and passing the bar. Doesn't mean everything, but it's the baseline to get you into the game. At least it is in most every other risk-prone profession...just not mountain guiding in the US!

There are plenty of good non-certified guides in the US, but that seems to be changing and in a decade, I bet the landscape will be much, much different in terms of certification.

Ryan Huetter wrote: the Euro rock standard is 7a (11d) Here, to pass the AMGA Rock Exam the assignments are usually up to 11b/c cragging, and 10+/11- on longer routes. On sighting 10a should be considered a pretty low-water mark for guiding rock.

The IFMGA mountain guide minimum standards are 5a (5.8--5.9-) in boots and 6b (5.10d) in climbing shoes. ( ivbv.info/en/ifmga/instruct…)

The AMGA rock instructor standards require "confidence leading traditional and sport routes up to 5.9, at the time of the course." The examination ups the ante to 5.10a. ( amga.com/rock-guide/?ModPag…)

The AMGA rock guide standards require the same "confidence" up to 5.9 but add that you must have led at least 10 climbs 5.10a or harder (presumably not necessarily with "confidence.") ( amga.com/rock-guide/)

So leading 5.10a seems to be enough for any of the AMGA rock certifications, and 5.10d for the IFMGA.

rgold wrote: The IFMGA mountain guide minimum standards are 5a (5.8--5.9-) in boots and 6b (5.10d) in climbing shoes. ( ivbv.info/en/ifmga/instruct…) The AMGA rock instructor standards require "confidence leading traditional and sport routes up to 5.9, at the time of the course." The examination ups the ante to 5.10a. ( amga.com/rock-guide/?ModPag…) The AMGA rock guide standards require the same "confidence" up to 5.9 but add that you must have led at least 10 climbs 5.10a or harder (presumably not necessarily with "confidence.") ( amga.com/rock-guide/) So leading 5.10a seems to be enough for any of the AMGA rock certifications, and 5.10d for the IFMGA.

Rich, the AMGA Rock Guide standard is the IFMGA Rock standard, and that is 5.10+.

This is how stuff like this gets so muddled!

RGold--the standards you're reading are mixed between different certifications and entrance requirements.

Indeed, at the ROCK INSTRUCTOR level (what they now call "rock guide") the exam routes are up to Grade III and lower 5.10s. At the ROCK GUIDE (what they're now calling "advanced rock guide"--ugh, why change all this, AMGA?!), the exam standards is at least 10d and occasionally harder on bolts. This is the "IFMGA" level, meaning if a guide wants to get his/her pin or int'l cert, they'll have to pass this exam.

In the alpine discipline, yes, they make you do a route in boots (red Trangos and the sneaky guides get dot rubber put on the toe--awesome!), 5.8, then send 5.10a in rock shoes--but really the movement standard in the alpine is all about moving quickly on moderate terrain while short-roping and short-pitching.

Anyway--back to rock. As I wrote before, there are different standards at different levels--SPI, rock guide, and advanced rock guide (as Steve points out, the advanced rock guide is at the international/IFMGA level).

SPI, if memory serves is 5.6 leading, 5.8 toproping.
Rock Instructor (Rock Guide), Grade III, 5.10a/b
Rock Guide (Advanced Rock Guide/IFMGA), Grade IV, 5.10d or maybe easier 11s on bolts.

Steve and Ryan, both AMGA-certified advanced rock guides, will attest to having been examined at this standard. Haven't heard of exceptions. So no, 10a is NOT the minimum at the advanced/IFMGA level.

Just trying to clarify this, as there are so many rumors and so much confusion around the AMGA and its standards/examinations. Thanks man!

And back to the OP---hire whom you want. If you come to Boulder, hire SLevin--he's a sender, great guy, wrote a peerless guidebook for one of our areas, and most important, an awesome guy to spend a day climbing with!

RC

Rob, from this photo it appears you may be mixing up your terminology?

AMGA Rock Guide Progression

That's the first I've heard of being a "certified advanced rock guide." Just thought we called it "certified rock guide."

Information found on this page: amga.com/rock-guide/

From the information below that diagram, it appears they have done away completely with a mid-level certification *(formally the certified rock instructor). So, my understanding is now:

Rock Guide Course - 10 days
Advanced Rock Guide Course/Aspirant Exam - 10 days
Rock Guide Exam - 6 days

=

Certified Rock Guide

slevin wrote: Rich, the AMGA Rock Guide standard is the IFMGA Rock standard, and that is 5.10+.

I looked into the process of applying to take the Rock Guide course and they wanted a pretty detailed resume that included among other things at least 10 5.10a or harder trad leads.

The SPI also requires a climbing resume, but the requirements are less - I think it 5.8 or something. (I'm sure you can look up the exact details on their website).

I've got no axe to grind by the way, just reporting what I read on the relevant sites. It still seems that Ryan's statement that the euro standard corresponds to US 11d and the AMGA standards are at 11b/11c are off base.

On the issue of experienced climbers hiring guides, I agree with the sentiment, "who cares what anyone else thinks?" But Old Sag doesn't say explicitly that social pressure is what gives him pause--there is at least a suggestion that his doubts are internally generated.

I totally get it for folks who are traveling and have no partners. But personally, all the advantages of using a guide are precisely why I usually wouldn't want to do it.

All that "extra" stuff, the approaches, the descents, the route choices---the full complement of uncertainties---and the epics, screw-ups, and even the abysmal failures that sometimes come with that territory, is actually what I like about climbing. Yes, embracing those uncertainties will almost always be inefficient and may in some cases be more dangerous.

Every now and then you don't even get to the start of the climb until it is too late to begin. More often you're just late, and then you may be exposed to late afternoon weather (if you decide to carry on) and may have to face a descent in the dark or even a bivouac. Looking back, these are the things I remember. The climbs that went quickly smoothly, great fun as they were at the time, have almost faded from memory.

Let me be clear that I don't think of these preferences (or, if you wish, perversions) as being "stronger" than a "weaker" guided ascent. It is simply a matter of what the climbing experience is for me, and it is about a lot more than check mark in the margin of the guidebook. If, at heart, considerations like these are what are giving Old Sag pause, then the "weakness" formulation is a distraction. A guided climb is going to be a very different experience from an "un-guided" climb, whether or not the guide wants to take the risk of letting you lead. Just having someone who can respond to "when I get tired, you lead to the top" totally changes everything about the experience. I'm not saying one type of experience is better or worse than the other, but they are different, and each person will have to decide for themselves what it is they hope to get from their climbing days.

The AMGA changed its terminology last year...

so, Rock Instructor is now Rock Guide

Rock Guide is now Advanced Rock Guide....

Believe me, confusing, I'm still calling the Rock Guide Course the Rock Instructor...

Sorry for the confusion, all, but their website/materials will eventually reflect the newer terminology. For the record, too, the AMGA prefers calling an American IFMGA guide an "American Mountain Guide".

Confused?!

And Rgold, no stress, didn't think you have/had an ax to grind! Certainly NOT trying to play the Shell Answer Man and shut anybody down. I went thru the whole damn program and I still call the courses by their old names.

As for standards and grades. I have a few friends who went through the guide program in Courmayeur and met a couple guys who went thru in Chamonix. The Cham guys definitely get tested harder on rock (Ryan's 7a standard), even though the IFMGA says their standard is closer to our "10d". That said, the Cham guys are climbing on bolts....they don't do their rock exams, from what I've heard, on gear.

I watched Mike Arnold (an American IFMGA guide) examine on the first pitches of Risky Business in Vegas. While the technical crux (10c) is higher up, man, that first pitch of Risky could easily land you in the creek. The Euros wouldn't dig it! (Mike sent, by the way!)

I think RGold's summary of the differences/pros/cons of hiring a guide are spot on--to each his own. For some people with work/life/kids/little time, pushing one's limits/perfecting one's craft in the mtns might not be a priority or possibility...and no sweat! For others, like RGold, screwing up, learning from it, getting better is part of the journey--right on!

Woh, boys done with breakfast, cleaning bacon grease now.....send on, gang!

RC

+1 rgold.

That's exactly why I would not want a guide. My first time to RMNP, we didn't climb squat. We screwed up approaches and bailed. We screwed up descents and got hailed on. We hiked out in the dark, hungry and dehydrated. We left Colorado totally dejected. However, WE LEARNED A TON. We came back next summer and crushed three alpine objectives in good time and style. People keep talking about all the little tricks you learn climbing with a guide. That's great. But you also learn a lot from failure. Taking full responsibility for all aspects of the route, with a partner of similar ability, is how you truly gain self-reliance and confidence in the mountains. Until you are the strongest partner, your competence is largely theoretical.

Also, this...

"He specifies exactly what he wants to his guide, for example in the Verdon he told his guide: "I want to lead the classic 7a pitches 3-6, you carry the pack, and when I get tired, you lead to the top.""

This is pure ego. This person wants the tick under his belt, and he uses his credit card to make sure he gets it. This is "macho." It would be more humble to take on the route with an equal, sharing the work, risking failure, than simply hiring someone and ordering them to complete all the less glamorous parts of the climb, I.e everything except the classic leads.

"This is pure ego. This person wants the tick under his belt, and he uses his credit card to make sure he gets it. This is "macho." It would be more humble to take on the route with an equal, sharing the work, risking failure, than simply hiring someone and ordering them to complete all the less glamorous parts of the climb, I.e everything except the classic leads."

And that's pure judgment...which I think is what people are trying to steer the conversation away from. Is it "weak" to hire a guide? Why frame the discussion as weak or not?

As I said before, the mother of three kids, with barely any time to climb/train/travel---does she HAVE to focus on improving her game, becoming totally self sufficient? Maybe you think that's right FOR YOU, but everybody's life situation is different.

Great thing about climbing...as long as it's not wrecking the experience for others, practice it the way you want and enjoy. Forget what the internet experts say--me included (most of all!)....

I'm fine with other people hiring guides. Frankly, the life of a guide sounds super appealing. I'm glad people are willing to keep them in business. I'm just giving an alternative perspective to all the "guides are great" posts. Also, I am a father with a full time job. I still prefer learning self-reliance and building my skillset alongside my tick list.

Oh, and if anybody has run out of Ambien or wants to geek out on the AMGA process, you can check out an article in Climbing:

climbing.com/climber/the-gu…

Old Sag--go climbing, have fun, hire a guide or not. Enjoy! RC

Cool--C Archibald...right on.

Even if "all guides are great" (which ain't true!), another approach/perspective wouldn't change that. Every guide on the planet could be great AND the way you crush in the mtns can be equally valid....

And it seems like there are plenty of "guides suck" posts on MP!

Anyway, should we all do a crowd-funding effort and hire Old Sag a day with Steve House or something? That seems the logical end of this discussion!