Is the 'Rado better than CA?

So I was reading a thread over on ST a few months ago and some guy satirized a lot of 'rado-centric behaviors,b ut actually lead to me thinking...is the 'rado better than CA as a place to live for cli;mbing? CA has more tall stuff, but the 'rado has more scrappy routes. :)

What say you?

I've lived in both states. Colorado is definitely better, unless you live within 1 hour of Yosemite, Joshua Tree, or the High Sierras. Not sure what you mean by scrappy routes.

I have also lived in both states. IMO, Sierras > Rockies. That beautiful, flawless, white High Sierra Granite runs laps around the choss lumps that exist over here, scenery and climbing wise. As for actual living, Colorado is better if you are anywhere west of the Front Range cluster f*ck of suburban facelessness. That said, it's still better than the Bay Area/LA/San Diego mega metropolises.

Living in the CA central valley would most definitely suck, but proximity to amazing climbing wouldn't make it too bad.

Living in way eastern Colorado wouldn't be too good for a climber.

Living in the actual Sierras/anywhere on the East Side would trump anywhere in Colorado though.

living in rado sux, stay in ca

ShredDogs from the RADo are SCRAPPY compared to the softies from Cali… ;D

Weeds legal in CO. . .

David A pretty much sums it up.

Adding a few additional benefits to the Sierra:

• the high concentration of phenomenal alpine routes within ~150 miles of the range from Bridgeport to Lone Pine with Yosemite intersecting the middle of the range
• far less frequent t-storms
• most of the trailheads are on National Forest (versus National Park) land so no one cares if you bivy at the trailhead

This must be a troll.....

End of discussion right there for many.

Boulder isn't CA??? That's news to me.

Western Colorado ain't bad

I went to grad school in SoCal. Been in Denver 9 months now.
If you have a job that requires you to be near a large city, then living in Boulder, Denver, or Golden is a much better situation that living in LA, the Bay, or San Diego. I do not miss driving 6 hours to Yosemite, 4.5 to Bishop, 4 to Red rocks or 2.5 to Jtree or 2 to Tahquitz. Plenty of long and back country routes in CO, if you get out to the Black canyon, RMNP, and South Platte.
Only thing I miss about CA is the more consist weather for winter rock climbing in JTree. If I could work out of my car or from home, I would say CA and CO are equivalent.

live in western Colorado. it's the best of all climbing worlds. you get all that 'rado has to offer plus all the best of Utah is just as close.

Arizona beats both states and we are nihilists so it does not matter loboski. We care about nothing.

Having lived in both southern and northern California and in several areas of Colorado IMO, Cali has way more exploring and climbing than in Co. Colorado is beautiful, but actually kinda kinda monotonous. One of my my favorite sayings is Wyoming is Colorados best kept secret.

It's difficult to live/work anywhere in California that has a ton of fantastic climbing 10 minutes away.

And, if you look at a 6 hour radius in Colorado, you include some areas in Utah and Wyoming.

California has amazing climbing, fer sure, but it takes a lot more time and driving to access it.

Which is better? I'd say it depends upon your lifestyle.

I think the general idea here is that it's all about where you live in each state.

I agree with disgust at the urban sprawl, and truly world class ice climbing opportunities within a 2 hr are more limited than in SW Colorado. But honestly, I just can't imagine any area in California competes with the Front Range in terms of Liveability for a climber.

The Denver-Boulder area has a booming economy with varied job opportunities and a great social scene. With all of the major pro sports represented, an unlimited number of quality microbreweries and well, legal weed. Your time off the rope is never going to be boring.

Then there's the climbing. At my last count there are ten climbing gyms in Denver/Golden/Boulder, the SPlatte, Eldorado Canyon and Lumpy ridge have enough world class multi pitch cragging to last a lifetime, Clear Creek Canyon has sport climbs galore and while not as splitter as the High Sierra, RMNP has plenty of killer alpine climbing to keep you busy. Then in the winter you're never more than a 2 hr drive to awesome skiing/snowboarding (even if you take the I-70 mountains out of the equation, because well, traffic sucks). Not to mention all of the killer places to simply take a hike if you're feeling burned out on climbing. (With five 14ers to peak bag within an hour and a half of Denver.)

And that's all without mentioning all of the Bouldering in Morrison, Boulder Canyon, Mt. Evans and Flagstaff Mountain, or the more or less serviceable ice climbing at Lincoln Falls and in RMNP.

The answer to a topic like this is generally finding the balance where the climbing/working/lifestyle options all converge. And on that Venn Diagram, the Colorado Fromt range hits that sweet spot better than any place in America.

Dank, I agree with a lot of the things you said but I would not say that just because X activity is within a two-hour drive away makes the FR a great place. That's why everybody in Colorado is on the road all the time to do what they want (hence our horrible traffic problem), though I guess the same could be said for the California metro areas.

Front Range Summer/Fall -> Joshua Tree Winter/Early Spring.

Problem solved.

Hmm. Flip flops or snow shovel. Flip flops or snow shovel. Tough decision.

The surfing is sure better here in CA.