UKC

Hello everyone!

Here goes the story, you're climbing a high rock face somewhere in the Alps, above 2500m (say the South face of La Meije in Les Ecrins, France). Because of the altitude, the route might involve some glacier travel on the approach or on the descent but essentially... you're just climbing on rock as you would be outside the mountains (say the Calanques near Marseille). Would you make a distinction?

For example, because of the approach, would you qualify it as "alpine climbing" (but then it ends up in the same category as some pure-ice or snow lines, right?) Perhaps you would label it "alpine rock climbing". Or perhaps it doesn't matter and its all "rock climbing", be it high in the mountains or on the coast...

Any suggestions?

Fabien

PS: The question is sort of trivial but I am trying to make the data-base of summits and climbing routes from http://www.camptocamp.org accessible in English and I need to find the most adequate translation for the categories in place ("snow, ice and mixed", "rock climbing" and "mountain rock climbing"... the difference between the latter being sort of fuzzy).

In reply to FabienenCordoba:

rockaneering?

http://www.pyb.co.uk/information/features/rockaneering.php

might help, never heard the term anywhere else before though........

In reply to FabienenCordoba:

A mate and I spent some time debating this, whilst idly speculating about producing a "top world rock climbing areas" book. We tentatively decided that any climb for which you might pack an ice tool, whether for the approach or en-route is no longer "rock climbing". Obviously it is harsh on some areas - the Bugaboos spring to mind and no doubt lots of places in the European alps also.

In reply to Wingman:


This looks more like a classification of long scrambles/ non-technical multi-pitch rock climbing to me.

In reply to FabienenCordoba: Stuff in the Dolomites is good example of your problem,

Routes are given alpine grades in AC guides(and ine the Extreme Alpine Rock), but in modern guides only given a technical grade. Rightly so i belive, but I remember some peaks feeling pretty serious with tricky descents (rockfall danger) and the threat of being caught in a electric strom (when only carry light rock climbing gear) was quite high if on the peak after 12.

In reply to FabienenCordoba:
I reckon rock climbing in the mountains comes under the genre of "Alpine Rock" although I wouldn't insist on there being a glacial approach. What about Bregalia? Most certainly Alpinism and usually not a glacial approach. In fact the north face of the Badile (one of the 6 classic NFs in the alps according to Mr. Rabbufet) doesn't have so much as a snow field most summers.... I haven't done the route so I'm open to correction here.

In reply to tobyfk:

Not sure tbh. What about something like Epsolon Direct on the Puig Campana in Spain. 1hr walk in. 13 pitches (ish, depends how you pitch it) of severe climbing with the odd grade of HS. 2 1/2 hours descent.?

In reply to FabienenCordoba:

If the climb is all on rock, then it is a ‘rock climb’ no matter the location or how one got there.

In the same season I’ve climbed on the Chamonix Aiguilles and at the Calanques, I did rock climbs on both. I was not confused about what I was doing, I was rock climbing, mind you, I could have used a guidebook to tell me what rock routes I was doing at the Calanques

PS I think if someone needs to be told they are "mountain rock climbing" when they are in the hills rock climbing, you may need to copy the way the authors present the Janet and John books.

In reply to Norrie Muir: I must respectfully disagree. I find it a world of difference climbing on "Alipne rock" compared to cragging. If we compare two climbs graded similarly, the one on a high mountain will almost always have more exposure, more objective dangers, more access/retreat issues. Sorry, I think rock climbing at a crag and rock climbing a multi pitch route on a high mountain is almost like two different sports

In reply to dermo:

Feel free to disagree with me. I used the same techniques, gear and had the same attitude to a rock climb not matter what lenght it was, I don't do rock climbs in the Alps any more. To me any route over 100' was rock climbing, any thing under was training.

In reply to Wingman:

I would classify that as a "bizarre waste of time during a sport climbing holiday".

In reply to FabienenCordoba:

Rock climbing ; to climb rock

It makes no difference for the term 'rock climbing'

all the other stuff surely is a question of grading?

In reply to dermo:

Only if you consider the two distant ends of the rock climbing spectrum, say, Stanage and a multi-pitch in the Dolomites. But in between is a vast range of multi-pitch climbs with highly variable levels of commitment. In my (almost) home town of Squamish you can step out of your car and embark within minutes on 1000'+ granite routes, with worst case scenarios being a nasty forest-stumble on the descent if you get benighted or perhaps getting caught out in the rain. Though they are certainly a step beyond most multi-pitch in Britain in size terms, it would be misleading to class them as anything other than 'rock climbing'. I could cite similar examples all over the world.

In reply to tobyfk:

In my head I draw the line where the walk in/descent is more serious than the bits you rope up for.

Thanks for all the good ideas!!

"One man's alpine is another man's cragging!"... yet it seems that some people do make a distinction for "alpine rock" (seems to be the preferred term). I guess that makes it useful, in spite of a lot of grey situations in between. Maybe most routes are in fact are in that grey area... and "alpine rock" should be somewhat restrictive.

Those that consider the distinction irrelevant can probably live with any classification scheme as long as it details the grades of the pitches and has a description of approach/descent.

Thanks again for all these suggestions!

Fabien

In reply to FabienenCordoba:

Are you trying to translate the difference between Alpinism and escalade into English? If you are the difficulty comes perhaps from the nature of the climbing in most of Britain where rock-climbing would be the equivalent of "falaise" in french... except perhaps in Scotland - hence the different replies you've had.

I'd stick with alpinism as mountaineering, escalade as rock-climbing and accept that people differentiate within mountaineering between, ice & snow, mixed and rock and also that a lot of rock-climbing on the continent (Vercors, medium mountain cliffs Verdon) are a lot longer than is frequently encountered in Britain... especially the South where you don't often get much beyond 4 or 5 pitches.

Mountaineering implies a question of seriousness and hence equipment and skills required over and above those needed for rock-climbing. Like any classification one could quibble for ages.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi!

The distinction we agreed on in French was between "escalade", "escalade haute montagne", "alpinisme neige, glace & mixte" and "cascade de glace"... The tentative translation of these categories would be:
- Rock climbing
- Alpine rock climbing
- Snow, ice and mixed climbing or perhaps "alpine snow, ice and mixed climbing" (?)
- Ice climbing

Of course, a given route could belong to a number of categories. Some routes in the alps involve both alpine rock and alpine snow/ice/mixed climbing and in spite of their altitude, many alpine rock climbs can also be classified as just rock climbing if they have straightforward approaches etc.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and the interesting debates!

Fabien

In reply to tobyfk:

And I would classify clipping bolts on steep spanish limestone as a "bizzare waste of time during a climbing holiday to somewhere with fantastic adventure trad".

Each to their own.

In reply to FabienenCordoba:


That's comprehensible... you could even put "high mountain rock-climbing" if you wanted to stay closer to your original, but both would be understood.