Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:32 pm
personally i think this route sucked. but i was fresh off a trip to yosemite so maye my vision was warped.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:06 pm
It does suck.
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:54 pm
It is to short.
I traversed right to the anchors on the middle of whiteout.
I traversed right to the anchors on the middle of whiteout.
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:16 pm
Its longer than Green Eggs and Ham hamsco, and you put anchors on those.
That's a long and downward traverse to those anchors as well.
That's a long and downward traverse to those anchors as well.
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:49 pm
don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the climbing on Sharp.
I enjoyed it so much I wish it went to the top of the cliff.
I traversed into the hueco thinking I would find the "fixed gear",and when I found nothing and not liking the moves out to the left, moved around to the belay on Whiteout.
I would have little problem with someone (including myself) putting anchors on the climb.
Being an established climb on FS land, It would be legal to bolt fixed anchors.
I enjoyed it so much I wish it went to the top of the cliff.
I traversed into the hueco thinking I would find the "fixed gear",and when I found nothing and not liking the moves out to the left, moved around to the belay on Whiteout.
I would have little problem with someone (including myself) putting anchors on the climb.
Being an established climb on FS land, It would be legal to bolt fixed anchors.
Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:46 am
DO it! Being legal and all! Many of us not wanting to go to top of the bolt line would thank you ....
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 6:35 pm
I think there is a finish to Sharp that could be done over the overhang on the face above. If you are going to put in bolt anchors, considering putting a real finish on it.
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:42 am
I'll consider that right along with taking a crowbar to your knees. 