haas@utah-gr.UUCP (Walt Haas) (09/04/85)
A couple of comments on the Yosemite rating system:
In his guide to the Winds, Joe Kelsey said he could never tell the
difference himself between a Class 2 and a Class 3 scramble - so in
that book, the distinction is that if his golden retrievers could make
it up the pitch it was Class 2, and if they couldn't it was Class 3!
That's one of the clearer distinctions I've heard...
In his book Wasatch Quartzite, John Gottman said that as a general rule,
the average beginner on his/her first outing could climb a 5.5, hang
on to a 5.6, and would fall off a 5.7. I've found this to be pretty
consistently true. He added that the same beginner would be amazed that
anyone would be willing to lead a 5.8, and would be totally uncomprehending
of 5.9 and 5.10.
I'll second (third? fourth?) the recommendation of /Learning to Rock Climb/
by Loughman. That's the book I always recommend to everybody I teach to
climb.
Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb?
Cheers -- Walt Haas ARPA: HAAS@UTAH-20.ARPA
...{decvax ihnp4 seismo}!utah-cs!haaseli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (09/09/85)
> A couple of comments on the Yosemite rating system: > > In his guide to the Winds, Joe Kelsey said he could never tell the > difference himself between a Class 2 and a Class 3 scramble - so in > that book, the distinction is that if his golden retrievers could make > it up the pitch it was Class 2, and if they couldn't it was Class 3! > That's one of the clearer distinctions I've heard... > I think its all sort of random. Some purported class 3 scrambles I've seen (the only ones that get rated seem to be associated with climbing areas -- I wonder why :-) could easily be scrambled by my keeshond and seem to be barely harder than some class 2 scrambles. Climber's don't seem to worry much about classifying anything which one can scramble up. > In his book Wasatch Quartzite, John Gottman said that as a general rule, > the average beginner on his/her first outing could climb a 5.5, hang > on to a 5.6, and would fall off a 5.7. I've found this to be pretty > consistently true. He added that the same beginner would be amazed that > anyone would be willing to lead a 5.8, and would be totally uncomprehending > of 5.9 and 5.10. > I'm not sure which book it was in, but either in Roper and Steck or Loughman, the author claimed that a good novice might be able to struggle up a 5.10a but would be stymied by a 5.10d. I'd like to see the novice that can do a 5.10a on his first climb in non-rock shoes! > I'll second (third? fourth?) the recommendation of /Learning to Rock Climb/ > by Loughman. That's the book I always recommend to everybody I teach to > climb. > > Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb? I'd be interested. But are there enough climbers out there? > > Cheers -- Walt Haas ARPA: HAAS@UTAH-20.ARPA > ...{decvax ihnp4 seismo}!utah-cs!haas -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang