MudNCrud Forums

Climbing and ... Climbing => Masters of Mud -- Pinnacles => Topic started by: mungeclimber on January 03, 2007, 11:40:00 AM

Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 03, 2007, 11:40:00 AM
Quote
"Traditionally a climb does not get an R if the runout is not [ed] more than 2 grades lower than rating.  So 50 feet of 5.3 gets no R on a 5.6.  The

upper part of those climbs isn't even 5.3, the only thing that makes the climbing 5th class is the rope drag.  Without a rope a person can stand up and walk around, which by definition is not 5th class."




Quote
Actually, your appeal to tradition is ill founded. The only printed reference I know of is Clint's reference to the Colorado book definition: it is not uniformily applied to all 50 states, much less to Pinnacles prior guidebooks.




Quote
I think Rubine overused "R" and "X." I think Clint likes this system too, and I think that is where I first heard it defined. And it makes a lot of sense.



Quote
I don’t think Rubine overused R or X ratings most of the time. He was cognizant (sp?) of the type of rock Pinns offers. But I would ask for examples where this R or X definition has been applied outside of the Colorado example?  Under normal circumstances R or X could be applied liberally with good rock conditions. But where thru no fault of the climber’s own a fairer warning is appropriate given the rock quality being so poor, a heads up is appropriate.




Quote
Why?  If it is applied liberally then the meaning is diluted.  R no

longer means dangerous it means you might get scared, or if you pass out you could fall over backwards and hit your head.  You may fall 15 feet

and get a bruise so it had better get an R.  If they look at and see a

big gap between bolts on the topo then they know the bolts are far

apart.  The standard at the Pinnacles is that the rock is loose.  So

giving a route and R because the rock is loose to me is senseless since

it tells me nothing.  I can see putting an R is it is extraordinarily

loose since then the state of the rock is different than what I am

expecting which would be "loose".

Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 03, 2007, 11:41:24 AM
as to the dilution issue -



disagree as meaning can come from quantity, in addition to the quality.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 03, 2007, 01:37:49 PM
Hey, in fairness you should attribute the quotes to who said them (I think). It's hard to tell that there are three speakers above, and that they don't all agree. Use my name where it fits if you wish to.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on January 03, 2007, 03:35:55 PM
fine with me
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 03, 2007, 03:47:14 PM
Or leave names out to avoid issues about who's credible. My point is that as presented its hard to tell you're quoting a series of people. BTW, good call bringing this to a larger forum for discussion  Maybe bring it to Supertaco too, for a discussion  of the same issue beyond just Pinnacles?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 03, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
werd good idea



names aren't needed to discuss the ideas.



as scuffy would say about me "you just stir it up and watch what happens"
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 03, 2007, 09:55:58 PM
OK, it should be obvious from my comments that my view on this subject is very close to Mr Mud's. I might have said identical but for a communication I received from him this evening. He was describing a route in answer to a question I posed. (I got his permission to post this quote.)



Now, Dennis is one of my best friends in life. But sometimes he is so disingenuous that I just have to laugh. This is classic Mr Mud: "Do not know if you want to mention that if you blow the crux clip you can deck. I think no R [rating] though." I added the bracketed word for clarity.



What can you say to that? It's not "R" if you deck off the crux? Is it R if you only break one leg, or is it necessary to break two? I'd hate to hear his definition of "X!"
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 03, 2007, 10:45:56 PM
aye, redline if you blow clip it could hurt.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on January 03, 2007, 10:49:58 PM
I think Mr Mud has a point. A tricky clip should be mentioned, but folks get into trouble all the time on Wet Kiss when they blow the 2nd clip. That route is protected pretty well.



I like the Red Rocks ratings: PG, PG-13, R, X, XXX



The variables can be from runout, tricky pro, DES route, bad clips w/ decking potential, some loose rock & friking loose. Maybe PG-13 can be used for loose routes?



Most will agree that the gyms have made people want closer bolts. Having started on TM runouts, I have to wonder if stuff isn't that bad after all and in some cases "R" is no big deal. It's interesting to read on ST about the guys traversing on middle to get used to the rock.



That's my $.02
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 04, 2007, 10:36:09 AM
give scenarios, if you can demonstrating what the pg, pg13, r, x and xxx ratings would be like.



ranges of scenarios are better
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: salad on January 07, 2007, 06:52:46 PM
brad, did you climb these routes this weekend?  what is your opinion?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 08, 2007, 08:13:24 AM
I climbed Full Throttle with Factor and Jake. I then rappeled over the two on the left to place the bolts correctly on the topo.



I liked Full Throttle (and, by the way, I really like all three names). It presented, though an interesting twist on the "R", "X" question. The runout at the end is nearly half a rope length. The climbing eases slowly, but you're getting way up there. If the crux of the climb was, say, 5.7, I would give the climb an X. But, by the time you're really run out, the climbing is in the easy 5th class range. I don't think this justifies an X, but what do you do when the climbing is so run out it should be an X, but the moves are so much easier than the crux that it doesn't deserve one? I think the solution is to give it an R. The topo will help show the reason why too.



If Full Throttle were my route I'd add a sixth bolt.



The other two looked nice. I think they were bolted just right. I don't think either should get an R. Like any slab at Pinns, you could get hurt "cheese gratering" down the face, but every Pinns route would get an R if that were the standard. I think R needs to stand for something; it shouldn't be diluted.



I also intend to give the two on the left one star each (I talked to Mr Mud about this, I hope you other two agree). This isn't for the climbing itself, which looks just average, but for the postion of the routes and the fact that there aren't many full rope length climbs in that difficulty range. The two deserve some traffic.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on January 08, 2007, 09:14:23 AM
Brad,

I think you climbed Full Throttle, which is the route to the left of Gary and Phylis.  Drop Zone is the far left of the three.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 08, 2007, 09:26:32 AM
You're right, sorry. Now I'll add confusion by going back and editing my original post!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: salad on January 09, 2007, 04:18:02 PM
Brad, thanks for your input.



We have all agreed (I think) that Full Throttle should get a sixth bolt.  Brad, do you feel it would deserve an 'R' rating even with the added bolt?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 09, 2007, 04:50:03 PM
No, an added bolt, maybe 10 to 15 feet above the current last bolt would make the end run out, but getting easier and easier and, in my opinion, not R.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 09, 2007, 06:15:16 PM
THREE STARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 09, 2007, 06:24:18 PM
oh, btw, Mr Mud has to put the bolt in as it was his lead for his birfday if I remember rightly.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 15, 2007, 02:57:57 PM
OK, I led Drop Zone. I take back what I said. Yes on the rating and the star, it's a good line. But a leader who normally maxed out at 5.8 or 5.9 would freak on the runout at the end (60 feet?). On both this and Red Line the runout from the last bolt is not all that much easier than is the climbing past all the bolts. It would almost be an ambush not to give these routes an R. Like said, I can picture a new leader absolutely freaked 20 to 30 feet below the anchor.



Upon reflection, I think my earlier comments were based on my focus on the bolts (for topoing) and not on a view of the route as a whole.



Still, good lines and good names.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on January 15, 2007, 04:06:06 PM
You can blame Mudworm for the runout on Drop Zone.  I am fairly sure she put in the last bolt.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 15, 2007, 04:13:12 PM
No blame attaches. The route is what the route is. But, not giving an R would be very misleading I think. We've all done R rated routes.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mudworm on January 15, 2007, 05:12:09 PM
Quote from: "Brad Young"
I can picture a new leader absolutely freaked 20 to 30 feet below the anchor.



No kidding. That's me in the picture. Had to crawl the last 10 feet to the anchor 'cuz I was scared (the last bolt was now  ~50 feet below me) and the rope drag was horrendous.  That felt like an X moment, so R is probably appropriate.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mudworm on January 15, 2007, 05:18:44 PM
Quote from: "Mr Mud"
You can blame Mudworm for the runout on Drop Zone.  I am fairly sure she put in the last bolt.



I was told that only one more bolt was needed, and then I could just run to the anchor.  Yeah right, run to the anchor. If it were up to me, I would name the route "Blind Faith," or even "Fooled by Blind Faith."
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 15, 2007, 05:49:19 PM
Gosh, and who told you "only one more bolt"?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Burner on January 15, 2007, 10:34:23 PM
maybe you should have put your 1 more bolt higher up :)
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mudworm on January 16, 2007, 05:52:02 PM
But, but I am a shortie :?



Hey, I placed it from a stance, so couldn't be too picky.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on January 16, 2007, 06:39:02 PM
Bolting from stance on her first FA not to bad for a Rookie.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on January 16, 2007, 07:07:53 PM
Lot of different things about mudworm that seem pretty damn good for a rookie. You'd know best. Lucky you.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on January 16, 2007, 09:08:45 PM
Yep, I have said it many times, she is the best thing to happen to me.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on January 16, 2007, 10:08:27 PM
are there pics anywhere? my short term memory is shot.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Ubergoober on February 04, 2007, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: "F4?"

I like the Red Rocks ratings: PG, PG-13, R, X, XXX




F4B -



I have to disagree with you here. PG and PG-13 are very superfluous. Climbing is inherently dangerous and adding the full gamit of movie ratings is, to me, just plain silly. R and X make sense in that it gives warning that if you fuck up you are likely to get hurt or die.



PG-13 implies, "whoa shit, this route is spicy and you may go for a long ride, but probably just some minor scrapes and a bit of a scare".



PG implies "hey n00b, if you fall, you may wet your pants but not much else."



So if there is no rating, that implies "G"? Which means what exactly? Totally safe? Bolted every 3 feet like in the gym? Bolted cracks? Because if the cracks aren't bolted, then it should be at least PG because a n00b could fuck up by not knowing how to place gear properly. Heck, maybe even PG-13 since most gym climbers don't know how to place gear properly? Maybe even R?



XXX? Does this imply that I will get a blow job before I deck (sorry for the crudeness, but making a point here). How much more than dead can you get than...dead?



There's a guidebook for Cathedral Ledge and Whitehorse in N. Conway, NH. It uses icons to describe climbs for pumpiness, scare factor, technical skill required, death fall potential, etc. At first I thought this was interesting, but in reality it is TMI and takes away from the experience. Part of the joy of climbing is the self-discovery of your own abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. When we start adding additional safety ratings and icons, where does it end? Will someone give me a diagram of where I should put every piece of pro and what size (which would vary depending on someone's height and skill anyhow)?



R and X are justifiable in that it tells someone leading at the top of their ability that maybe they should rethink hopping on a route because there is a potential to get hurt. Anything beyond that is completely subjective in my opinion.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 04, 2007, 10:56:40 PM
Quote
Will someone give me a diagram of where I should put every piece of pro and what size (which would vary depending on someone's height and skill anyhow)?



Supertopo



Burn your guidebook then.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 05, 2007, 01:09:16 PM
My point is that some climbs require more attention than others. Trauma for example. Great climb, good pro, BUT you have to know how to get the pro in to be safe. Hence I'd give it a PG-13. How about Wet Kiss? Good pro, yet Rubine mentions taking care when going to clip the 2 or 3rd bolt. I've heard a couple stories or people getting hurt when going for the clip.  



One could argue that with the influx of gym climbers at the Pinnacles that the guide book needs to include notes about routes that people could get hurt.



But hey, Brad has been so meticulous with putting together the new guide book, folks will know what they are getting into.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 05, 2007, 02:15:44 PM
Useless platitudes aside, Uber has excellent points. More in favor of his view:



I'm kinda old and kinda old school. One of the reasons I love Pinns so well is adventure. The climbs vary in type, length and style. I agree with every word Uber said about too much information taking the adventure away. In the same spirit, I oppose adding bolts to routes. It is true that each such issue is gray and not black and white, but I draw the line on what info a guidebook should give right about the same place.



How useful are such gradients anyway? Especially at a place where, due to rock quality alone, every climb is at least a "G" and almost all are "PG." (Assuming "G" is a more dangerous rating than no letter at all - is it, I don't know?) And what help is "XXX?" What, instead of bouncing once, you bounce three times before you die? Look at all the discussion that takes place about just the "R" and "X" ratings and expand it to 5 or so danger ratings and soon you could have the whole climbing community paralyzed with indecision.



The book is going to come in at over 350 pages, total (appendices and index included). More information only adds to the volume;



Researching climbs is time intensive. Just getting what exists described right, topoed right and mapped right has been huge work. Factor and Uber, among others have seen this firsthand. Wishing for other types of information is a fantasy. (Another example is GPS coordinates - which example fits into the adventure comments above, too.)



The introductory materials delve into some of these issues - centering on the dangers of protecting climbs on softer rock. (See, too the comments second above.)



So, this book, at least, will use just "R" and "X." And, per much of the discussion above it will use them sparingly. Now, Factor, you OK with that? Will you be burning your book (that is, when it is done and delivered)?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 05, 2007, 02:39:40 PM
I'll just annotate my copy with my own ratings.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 05, 2007, 02:58:29 PM
Dam, you are a lot smarter than they give you credit for. That may be the best solution proposed yet. On the other hand, how do you know what to write in until after you've done the climb - by which time the purpose of a danger warning is gone?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 05, 2007, 04:23:56 PM
Quote
Dam, you are a lot smarter than they give you credit for. That may be the best solution proposed yet. On the other hand, how do you know what to write in until after you've done the climb - by which time the purpose of a danger warning is gone?



What are you implying? Don't you know I'm the supertopo for the Pinnacles at the gym? Folks are always asking about which routes to do. Plus with my short term memory, I'll need the reminder for the next time I do a route.



I keep hearing mumblings about "when is that new guidebook coming out?"



 :lol:
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 05, 2007, 05:02:05 PM
So, we know you go to the gym to play matchmaker. Now we learn that you go there to play climbing guide. Do you ever excercise?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 05, 2007, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: "F4?"
My point is that some climbs require more attention than others. Trauma for example. Great climb, good pro, BUT you have to know how to get the pro in to be safe. Hence I'd give it a PG-13. How about Wet Kiss? Good pro, yet Rubine mentions taking care when going to clip the 2 or 3rd bolt. I've heard a couple stories or people getting hurt when going for the clip.  



One could argue that with the influx of gym climbers at the Pinnacles that the guide book needs to include notes about routes that people could get hurt.



no.



either the gear is questionable or not.  The specialization and training to use it are not part of the equation for a danger rating.  







How 'bout it pimp4crimps? is the book thrown out yet?  



If you throw out yours, I'll throw out mine.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 05, 2007, 06:01:19 PM
Quote
either the gear is questionable or not. The specialization and training to use it are not part of the equation for a danger rating.



I think so. Many Holmgren routes utilize slinging knobs and natural pro. Yet, if you don't know how to utilize the pro the route will seem run-out.



Finally a discussion!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: squiddo on February 05, 2007, 06:12:43 PM
Agree with Munge on that one. Gear is either good or it isn't. If you can't place or see it then don't blame the route. Rock quality is another thing though.



Some of my earliest memories of climbing on this stuff was with a rack of HB's and RP's in my teeth. How many hours did I spend nesting and equalizing some mank granite cracks. I think the persistence in getting the gear in was half the challenge. Then again, perhaps it was not falling on it! There you go Erik, provide that both you and the rock and strong enough what difference does it make. Solo it!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 05, 2007, 06:17:15 PM
Mungie is right, training and special tecniques aren't part of danger ratings. Aside from danger ratings though, many of the descriptions and topos describe unique protections needs. I tried not to give such information, though when the pro in question can be seen from the ground.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: karl on February 06, 2007, 03:57:11 PM
Brad,



I'm sure you'll do what you think is best in terms of ratings and stars.  I'd just like to say that you don't have to be affraid to use the R rating.  In most guidebooks it is just a caution.  A slip in R territory doesn't have to mean a trip to the hospital, instead R is often used for "watch yourself on this one".  I know that I don't like when there is no R rating on a climb with 40 feet of chossy 5.6 after 40 feet of 5.12.  If a knob breaks it could go real bad no matter how good the climber is.



Karl
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 07, 2007, 09:07:30 AM
Quote
I know that I don't like when there is no R rating on a climb with 40 feet of chossy 5.6 after 40 feet of 5.12. If a knob breaks it could go real bad no matter how good the climber is.



My feelings exactly.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 07, 2007, 09:08:55 AM
That is if I could climb 5.12  :shock:
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on February 07, 2007, 10:05:49 AM
I am a bit of the opposite.  I think that R and X are over used.  To me runouts are usually obvious from looking at the guidebook.  If there is a big gap then there will be a run.  I prefer to see an R or X when there is a surprise up there that cannot be seen from the ground or by looking at the guidebook.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 07, 2007, 10:11:31 AM
I agree with Mr Mud. (I have to or he won't climb with me.) The use Karl suggests above would dilute the meaning of "R" to the point where it wouldn't mean much. I'd rather use "R" sparingly, in a way that it catches people's attention where it appears.



And, Karl, good to see you on our little "private" forum. You don't post often, do you read the threads much?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 07, 2007, 01:21:14 PM
Hey Karl, where are you from?



Okay Mr Mud, I'm a grown up and see your point about the notation for "suprises".
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: The Big on February 07, 2007, 05:17:46 PM
Well that make one of us.



Quote from: "F4?"
Hey Karl, where are you from?



Okay Mr Mud, I'm a grown up .
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: karl on February 07, 2007, 05:33:51 PM
F4? --  I'm from San Francisco.



Brad – It’s nice to be a part of the forum, because I love Pinnacles.  I’ve been reading the posts for several months, but often don’t have anything of interest to add.



------



As for R routes, I don't mean to use them all the time.  Pinnacles is notorious for high first bolts, runouts on "easy ground", less than bomber bolts, and choss.  I am not saying to use them in all those circumstances, but not to be afraid to use them.  I think that sometimes guidebook authors are afraid to over-star, under-star, over-grade, under-grade, R, or X a route because of what other people may say.  Well, people will always find something to hate about a guidebook.  People tend to forget that it is a GUIDE book and not the last word on every route in an area.



I agree with Mr Mud that R’s and X’s should be related to something you can not know about from the guidebook or from the ground.  I'm just not happy when I look at the guide and the bolts look safely spaced and from the ground I can't see anything that looks bad, then I end up running out some chossy section over a huge block.  It's usually after I get my heart to stop racing that I think "why wouldn't someone make some notation?"  Of course, if Brad's topos of Pinnacles routes are anything like his topos elsewhere, I doubt that such an incident could happen.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 08, 2007, 07:33:10 AM
Are you the Karl of Gorillas in the Moss and Pickpocket? Thought you sounded familiar. I've run into you a couple times.



It's good to have "fresh blood".



Brad are you working much these days? Your posting activity has increased.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 08, 2007, 09:23:31 AM
Define "working," and define "much."
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: karl on February 08, 2007, 09:59:27 AM
Quote
Are you the Karl of Gorillas in the Moss and Pickpocket?



Yes.  Karl of the Clan McPickpocket from the highlands of Moss.



As for my blood, maybe I should know your name before you take it.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: F4? on February 08, 2007, 01:26:44 PM
Hey Karl, you probably don't remember my name since it's been a couple years. It's Erik.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 08, 2007, 02:55:05 PM
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE HIGHLANDER!!!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: karl on February 08, 2007, 03:00:29 PM
That won an oscar for "best movie ever made" didn't it?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 08, 2007, 05:29:35 PM
prolly, I'm particularly fond of the special effects.



so childish looking now, but at the time!!!
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 08, 2007, 06:15:06 PM
Munge, as your friend, I gotta tell you, your posts get wierder all the time. Half the time I can't figure what in hell you mean. I know I'm two generations behind you and yours, who are very computer literate, but I'm not that out of it am I? (Set myself up for what's coming next.) I stared at your response to Karl and I don't get it. Explain it to a computer nOOb?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 08, 2007, 09:40:09 PM
Ok, roll back the years to circa 1980 something... the movie "The Highlander" comes out.  A bad sci fi thriller, with the sequels becoming progressively worse.



I forget the guys name but he introduces himself as a Scotsman where he says finishes the intro "Of the clan MacLeod"



So my post is an oblique reference to



Quote
Karl of the Clan McPickpocket



the reference deserving of a 'shout out' of sorts as they say in the hip hop industry...



that is the famous line from the movie...



"There can be only one!"  i.e. Highlander.



ok, so that's the reference. Now that I've had to explain it. It loses its value, its gravitas.



However, we can't leave you this post without mentioning the fact that posts can be purely random acts of language with no meaning or value.



Such as the ever popuplar "postcount++"



And now I'll leave you with this so we can stay on topic...





(http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~pgaraud/Pinnacles/Hard-section.jpg)
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Brad Young on February 08, 2007, 09:59:04 PM
OK, so it isn't my lack of understanding modern computer acronyms and slang here. Instead it is my lack of "culture." I've never even heard of the movie "Highlander." You and Uber seem to know every reference to every movie and song that has come out since the mid 70s. Especially Uber. I am much less cultured.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: karl on February 08, 2007, 10:52:35 PM
Munge,



I am glad that you pulled the highlander reference, because my "clan" comment was in reference to it.  I am surprised that no one has caught on to my Ricky Bobbie quote about Highlander being the best movie ever made.



--



OT (meaning Off Topic, Brad)



Isn't it weird that forum posts start in one place then diverge with great speed?
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 09, 2007, 11:37:31 AM
yeah, but in a way it reflects normal speech, just without inflection and body language.  always trippy stuff.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: Ubergoober on February 13, 2007, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: "mungeclimber"
How 'bout it pimp4crimps? is the book thrown out yet? If you throw out yours, I'll throw out mine.



I just read my Supertopo for the pretty pictures. I don't actually believe anything I read in it.
Title: Standards for R or X ratings
Post by: mungeclimber on February 14, 2007, 06:45:41 AM
Quote from: "Ubergoober"
Quote from: "mungeclimber"
How 'bout it pimp4crimps? is the book thrown out yet? If you throw out yours, I'll throw out mine.



I just read my Supertopo for the pretty pictures. I don't actually believe anything I read in it.



 :D  :D