Richards guide standards

[mungeclimber]

There was an interesting pre-requisite to the 74 Richards guidebook that climbs under a certain height wouldn't get included, unless they were already documented (if I recall the phrasing right).

The idea that a certain size climb might never get recorded, at Pinnacles, seems unfortunate. Did we lose history in 74 as a result?  Short solos, short spires, etc?

[mynameismud]

I think most of the following guide books have been comprehesive enough to pick up what was missed.  Brad definetely got all the know routes.

I kind of agree with Richards on this one.  He had a 30 foot standard.  For the most part seems like a good rule of thumb.  If it is 30 foot or less TR or boulder.  Do we really need 20 to 25 foot leads?

[mungeclimber]

I think most of the following guide books have been comprehesive enough to pick up what was missed.  Brad definetely got all the know routes.

I kind of agree with Richards on this one.  He had a 30 foot standard.  For the most part seems like a good rule of thumb.  If it is 30 foot or less TR or boulder.  Do we really need 20 to 25 foot leads?

Folks seem to find that short hard routes are acceptable, but that short easy ones are not. Talking bolted lines. Yet Pinns has tons of these. Some are classic, like Piglet.

[mynameismud]

I question Piglet.

Not to many 20 to 25 foot hard bolted lead routes.  Not saying they are not there.  I still think there just is not a need for 20 to 25 foot bolted lead routes.  To me it just does not make sense.

[mungeclimber]

what is it about a 25' route that is different from 65' route, other than length. I think you're saying that length, by itself, is a quality of it's own in determining the value of bolts.


I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems as though there are lots of lead climbs that are short that are quite enjoyable to lead (assuming of course that leading has a lot of value for 90% of climbers). So isn't more lead climbs better?

I would say yes.

The counter to that principle of unrestrained bolting is minimum impact practices. Do we need to have lead bolts on anything less than 100' anymore?  Probably not. Just TR it, right?  I know, it's an age old agrument.

[JC w KC redux]

As a new leader I like the fact that there are short climbs like Piglet. After leading the Left Side 5.6** on the Sponge, it was a nice choice for me to try something harder - it was my first 5.8**. I was so pumped afterwards that I led the Rappel Route on Burgundy Dome - my first 5.7*** and a big handful of stars for the day! Now that I lead, I've developed an aversion to toproping and my philosophy is - if it won't go trad - then bolts are okay. From a common sense standpoint if a bolt can be placed high enough to keep you from decking then it's worthwhile - regardless of the climb height. Following that, we'd have to think about what grades warrant that standard - for me it's 5.7 and above. I'm sure there are those that think the shorter stuff shouldn't be protected at all - regardless of grade.

[mungeclimber]

I completely understand that JC.

[F4?]

So Mungie are you trying to justify a height challenged route?

dont' forget the sit start as well.

[Brad Young]

Shoot, leave the guy alone Factor; he's trying to have a legit discussion and you're only adding static.

Here's a thought on the subject: On the height issue there is a big difference between independent pinnacles (I think shorter routes are often justified since there is no "easier way" to the top), and cliff faces (shorter rotes are more questionable since it's just a matter of adding routes instead of "getting to the top;" and getting to the top is one of the oldest traditions/goals in climbing).

[mynameismud]

Factor will not be able to post if he does not give folks a hard time. 

[F4?]

Well here are a few more productive thoughts....

There are short climbs in the monument...Unmentionable, Piglet & Photographer's delight.

So maybe it depends on the route...and the experience?

TR 1st...bolt if you can't get the rope up there? And solo if under 20ft.

[mungeclimber]

A counter example to "TR 1st" as a guiding principle is losing the lead climbs on Upper Crust, Back Door, and much of discovery, especially if you have long ropes. The tradition of existing climbs seems to suggest that if the climb is good, it's worth bolting, and that TR'ing as a gating criteria wouldn't carry forward.

[mynameismud]

I think Factor was replying in regards to the 20 to 30 foot climbs.  Back Door, Upper Crust, Discovery are all longer than 30 feet.  I think for the 20 to 30 foot climbs a TR first approach is not a bad idea.  A good example is Teaching rock.  The TR is perfect and actually allows for many more opportunities.  If it was a longer face a couple of anchors could be added allowing for a vast array of possibilities.

Of course there are always extenuating circumstances such as an independent pinnacle, no other access possible or perhaps just an awesome location.

[mungeclimber]

I think Factor was replying in regards to the 20 to 30 foot climbs.  Back Door, Upper Crust, Discovery are all longer than 30 feet.  I think for the 20 to 30 foot climbs a TR first approach is not a bad idea.  A good example is Teaching rock.  The TR is perfect and actually allows for many more opportunities.  If it was a longer face a couple of anchors could be added allowing for a vast array of possibilities.

Of course there are always extenuating circumstances such as an independent pinnacle, no other access possible or perhaps just an awesome location.

Copy that.

Nodal line is longer than 30' though?

The 10b on the far far left?

huh, maybe they are. Maybe my recollection of length is off.

[mynameismud]

The 10B on the far left is about 50, perhaps a bit more.  Nodal line is over 30, not a lot, but it is in the same style as the area.

[waldo]

I think Brad's suggestion about differentiating between stand alone pinnacles and side by side routes on a face is a good one. 

Holmgren and I wandered around quite a bit, looking for likely routes.  We always carried our stuff, but on some days we never got around to climbing.  I believe we may have been influenced by the Richards thirty foot rule. Did anyone else skip something because of it?

[mynameismud]

Yes even though I did not know the source of the the rule/guideline.

[mungeclimber]

I think Brad's suggestion about differentiating between stand alone pinnacles and side by side routes on a face is a good one. 

Holmgren and I wandered around quite a bit, looking for likely routes.  We always carried our stuff, but on some days we never got around to climbing.  I believe we may have been influenced by the Richards thirty foot rule. Did anyone else skip something because of it?

To be sure. All the little lumps peppered hither and yon, are tempting, but then I wouldn't bother thinking that Bob and Holmgren had already done them.  Little did I know.

[Bruce Hildenbrand]

Actually, it was the '35 foot' rule.  Richards has a discussion of his decision in the very beginning of his 1974 guidebook.

Here's my $0.02.  Richards makes reference to the the era of longer routes which started in the late 60's and continued into the 1970's with climbs on the bigger formations such as Machete and Goat Rocks.  Part of me thinks that he took exception to the shorter climbs since the climbers in his posse were the ones putting up the long, multi-pitch routes.

Personally, I have always felt that you report all routes and include the FA info.  If somebody is going bolting 25-foot choss piles then people will know exactly who the 'guilty' party is.  The end result is instead of lots of glory is people will be staying away from your routes.

[mynameismud]

I agree that all routes should be reported and preferably the style of the ascent and the bolting.    I like the 25 or 30 foot rule.   Along the lines of the 25 foot rule I have a greater appreciation of TR's.  When I first saw Clint putting in TR's I did not really agree with what he was doing and it kind of bugged me.  Later I started to really appreciate the style.  I will still bolt lines but I also cannot help to look at stuff now and think "Is that a good TR".  It is an elegent and poetic solution.  The TR allows the next person to climb the line they want, no bolts just rock.  If the line is really good and it becomes popular the option is still there for someone to ground up bolt the line.

I really enjoy the lead and have been a bit of a lead hog throughout the years, but as the years go by I also appreciate the simplicity of the TR.  It is kinda like, soloing without the ground.