RRC Archives

I haven't climbed it this year... that long runout was great, just when you're getting confident in a clean send, you get pumped and get a really nice whipper.

Is it as good as Chocolate Waterfall or Edge of Your Seat at the Arena? Those are unquestionably 3 star routes.

Sandy, yeah, I think its as good as those.

I'd vote 2 stars. I just don't get a great feeling at the top.
I think 'eh, that was not so bad?' What now?
But, you can still take a nice whip if you pump off right below the last bolt. Nothing dangerous, but you throat can definitly feel your stomach.

having not climbed this route yet, I can be totally objective. My opinion is that unless opinion is unanimous that this route deserves 3 stars, it does not.

Also, I think for the most part we need to get away from making changes to existing routes from John's book, unless there are known mistakes. The new routes, however, are another story and consensus on ratings and quality are very helpful.

Good point Sandy.
This site is great and all, but it is not "The Climbing Community" of the RRG.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a Johnny B. guidebook bash.

Actually, I think this is a great opportunity to upgrade the existing info based on today's standards AND a much larger consensus than what was available back in the day. This website alone has provided a means for 10 times as many people to get together instantly to debate/discuss things such as this. We have already had 19 opinions posted on this question where it might have taken John a year to talk to 19 different climbers by word of mouth when he wrote that book. For the routes he did climb, was that his own opinion on the # of stars it deserved? For the ones he didn't, how many people did he ask?

Mj

What does Mj stand for? Monkey juice <snicker>

Yeah, but you automaticly exclude the opinion of any climber who:
1) doesn't have internet access
2) doesn't visit this site (I know there aren't many)
Plus a lot of posters are under an assumed name and live in an internet fantasy world .

I agree with the part about todays standards and a larger concensus. It just seems weird to have a bunch of internet geeks (myself included) being the only ones to make these descisions.

Monkey, Jeff, you both have valid points. So back to my previous post - if there are 'known mistakes', they should be changed and we definitely want to change them. If there was not a large consensus at the time that John was writing the guidebook (or if he had rockfall or sunstroke induced hallucinations), these could be considered mistakes. However I still stand by my statement that we need a unanimous or damn near unanimous opinion that changes need to be made. That would imply a mistake was made.

John, what do you think about all of this?

I must admit that John's, t-bone's, spoonman's and the opinion's of all the other old farts and/or very accomplished climbers around here hold a bit more weight with me when we have these debates than those of the rest of you - though your opinions are also important. Flame away, heh, but keep in mind that I don't consider my own opinion on matters of ratings or quality to be worth a shit when I make changes. I just don't have the experience these old coots do.