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.

Middle Palisade, Northeast Face - 3rd/4th class

Mt Muir - West Face - 3rd class

Middle Palisade and Muir seem accurate though I have heard others disagree.

Mt.Emerson Southeast, Face - 5.4

Mt Russell - East Ridge - 3rd class

I thought Russell was fifth class in two places and Emerson was never harder than 4th class.

The other peak was not covered by the book but anyway, that's half of the climbs so far that have what I would call meaningless ratings. I am not trying to fault Secor but how is a body supposed to make sense out of high country ratings. Are California High Sierra ratings screwed up?

Peter Croft has the East Ridge of Russell as Class 3, also.

There is a wide variation within the Class 3 rating. I started up the Northeast Ridge of Mendel, which is Class 3 according to Secor's book. I turned back after deciding I'd want a rope for that.

Also, as you know, ratings are very subjective. And deviating from the route by a few feet can change the rating substantially.

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.

A lot of it is subjective and route finding. I thought the North Ridge of Lone Pine Peak was harder than Whitney's East Face despite being lower in altitude rated lower for example.

Here is how Glen Dawson described the rating scale:

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.

Looking at the FAist also helps and the context, Norman Clyde Class 3 on a complex ridge or face vs. some class 3 XC pass are gonna feel a WHOLE lot different.

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.

When I first soloed the U-Notch on North Palisade it was rated Class 4 in Roper's book, imagine how I felt when I hit certifiable 5.6 terrain! Fortunately I was climbing 5.11+ back in those days.

Secor's book has done a lot to improve the accuracy of the ratings. But, I tend to agree that the ratings are messed up, and I would encourage anyone using MP to help improve the accuracy of the routes posted in the High Sierra 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.

So there's "hole" in the California decimal scale, which many climbers now "fill in" with a rating called "low class 5". And lots of those same climbers often feel comfortable soloing "low class 5". Which means that "low class 5" is a bit like how "class 4" used to be defined: many partipants will want a rope belay, but very experienced climbers feel comfortable without.

So ... many climbs which the Secor book calls "class 4" are now called "low class 5" -- but the meaning and actionable interpretation are not so different.

by the way ...

• Mt Russell E ridge: I have commmented before that it's like there's two different routes there, one class 3 (staying mostly below on N side of ridge), the other "low class 5" (trying to do more of it on the crest of the ridge). Funny thing is that the new select guidebook goes with the Class 3 rating, but then also claims that it's a very very interesting route. My view is that the Class 3 version is fairly boring, and it's the low class 5 version with is fairly interesting.
• Mt Emerson : I and lots of other people think there's one move pretty close to 5.4 at the beginning of the route. Not just the Secor guidebook, but also newer the Chris McNamara guidebook, think it's harder than class 4. Lots of us also feel comfortable doing that move without a rope -- but that doesn't make it class 4.

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.

One could argue that High Sierra routes fall into three basic categories:

Walking: Foot travel, some exposure to falling possible. No technical moves. No special equipment.
Scrambling: Use of hands and feet, exposure to falling likely. Occasional technical moves up to 5.6. Some special equipment may be required.
Climbing: Use of hands and feet, exposure to falling certain. Continuous technical moves up to highest YDS rating. Special equipment is required.

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.
Secor guide is usually slightly off on a lot of stuff. He has not done a huge majoprity of those routes obviously, and collected info from all sort of different climbers. Check for popular scrambles beta on summitpost.org
Ratings in general are very subjective things. I say as long as the suggested rating is within reasonable range, it is all good. If someone rates a 5.7 a 5.8 because they didn't see a foot hold to the side or the other way around, it is not a big deal. Individual climber is responsible for taking care of their ass. If it seems above your head, back off and don't die! :)

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!
Regarding the 3rd class, in my experience it is not uncommon to find a move or a few on third class routes. Especially those that are not very popular. The line between 3rd, 4th and low 5th is often gray. :(