R.J. Secor and the Rating System
|
I've done three 14'ers and two 13'ers since picking up The High Sierra: Peaks - Passes - Trails and I would say making sense of the rating system is impossible. |
|
Peter Croft has the East Ridge of Russell as Class 3, also. |
|
Seems accurate to me. I've never heard anyone I know, or read any account calling the East Ridge of Russell 5th class. You probably took a harder line than necessary? Most people who go up there have never rock climbed a day in their life. There is big exposure, but nothing technically hard. |
|
Here is how Glen Dawson described the rating scale: |
|
From my experience the routes are rated by their general level of difficulty, meaning that you many once or twice on a Class 3 route meet an impasse or one, two or a few moves of Class 5. Middle Palisade. East Face, is an example of this - I ran into at least one Class 5 section. |
|
It is the Book of Lies. |
|
if you stay right on the ridge on Russell it could be 5th, but by traversing on ledges below the ridge at times I found nothing harder than 3rd |
|
Ryan Huetter wrote:... Class 3: We brought a rope and pitons but didn't use either. Class 4: We brought a rope and pitons and used the rope but didn't place any pitons. Class 5: We brought a rope and pitons and used them both...Perfect example of why I brought this up in the first place. Generally, I don't carry gear on peaks, I try to find a route that I can solo with confidence. |
|
Part of the problem is that in California, the ratings 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 are hardly used at all at non-alpine crags. Compare with the NorthEast US (especially the Gunks) where 5.0 thru 5.3 are used for some popular routes, and climbers argue about whether some pitch should be 5.2 versus 5.3.
That's what so great about the Comments section and the Difficulty voting entry on the MP route description pages. For each individual climb, you can vote for your assessment of the rating, and in the Comments explain with specific details why you're right and one or two guidebooks or other MP participants are wrong. Ken |
|
FrankPS wrote:Also, as you know, ratings are very subjective. And deviating from the route by a few feet can change the rating substantially.Exactly. I don't fault Secor. He's just relying on the ratings provided to him if he has been unable to confirm the rating for himself. Also, a route is class 3 only if you find the class 3. If you take a more direct line, it could be fifth class. I think this probably is exacerbated by the fact that route finding is probably something of a lost art to many people who learned to climb inside or on sport routes. Finally, lots of that generation were fast and competent climbers, despite the ratings attached to their climbs. As someone mentioned a Norman Clyde class 3 could means lots of different things. My rule is that it could be anywhere between class 3 and 5.6. That generation didn't seem to get hung up on ratings. They just rolled with it. |
|
Fat Dad wrote: Exactly. I don't fault Secor.Nor did I. Fat Dad wrote: Also, a route is class 3 only if you find the class 3. If you take a more direct line, it could be fifth class.This I agree with and many times it's not the best line or (insert subjective term here) Fat Dad wrote:I think this probably is exacerbated by the fact that route finding is probably something of a lost art to many people who learned to climb inside or on sport routes.While I won't disagree with this as a general statement I will state that that is not an issue for me. I do not climb on plastic, and prefer trad. In fact I would say it is my old school upbringing that has me on the current wave I find myself ridding. I have been climbing for 21 years but only started peak bagging/mountaineering this August. All attempted summits achieved. Fat Dad wrote: Finally, lots of that generation were fast and competent climbers, despite the ratings attached to their climbs. As someone mentioned a Norman Clyde class 3 could means lots of different things. My rule is that it could be anywhere between class 3 and 5.6. That generation didn't seem to get hung up on ratings. They just rolled with it.This I 100% agree with. Only respect for those that have gone before me. In the end I really am just trying to make sure that soloing 3rd/4th class remains fun for me and doesn't get me killed. I have several "test pieces" under my belt now a feel very confident that I can "spice it up" on any 3rd-easy 5th. Cya out there! |
|
The YDS is deeply flawed - I think we can admit that. Grades should include an adjective describing the overall character of the route followed by a number for technical difficulty of it's hardest section/move. |
|
East Ridge of Russell is exposed in a few spots, but not 5th class. The rating system is approximate, take everything with a grain of salt. Also, your route finding is a huge factor. |
|
SirTobyThe3rd wrote:East Ridge of Russell is exposed in a few spots, but not 5th class...)Indeed it is 3rd class. There are some spicey options on it though. To me a 3rd class route is never going to have a "move" on in. I found several fun rather exposed "moves" on the ridge. I could see the third class was I just didnt take it as it was less fun and out of the way in several places. For the porpose of this topic a move is defined as anything besides scrambling i.e. layback, gaston, mantle etc. I wrote the post because i just did'nt see a big difference from routes that were 3rd and others that were easy 5th (5.4). My impression of Middle Pal for instance is that the 4th class on it was harder than the 5.4 pitch of Emerson. This was probably due to my actions and the subjusective nature of ratings. |
|
On Middle pal I remember a steeper sketchy alternative start and the climb feels much scarier than Emerson because it is loose. But than you downclimb it and it doesn't feel too difficult. While on top of Middle pal, I remember it being excited about the downclimb lol. Scenic, big but really loose! |