/ What makes a 3 star route?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Norris - on 29 Aug 2013
I recently led Right-hand route at roaches skyline, and i thought it was bloody great! It had a bit of everything packed into an (albeit short) action packed route. When reading other climbers comments on the route that they didnt feel it was worthy of a single star, I started wondering what exactly other climbers look for in a great route?

Personally, I seem to enjoy routes that have a variety of different moves and techniques, so traverses, chimneys, slabs and overhangs, all in one route really do it for me.

Im interested in hearing what everyone else thinks? It seems quite subjective really.

I've also noticed that often really hard routes seem to get lots of stars - not that i will ever climb high e-grades, but it seems a bit like guide writers give stars for bravery sometimes!
ralphio - on 29 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris: For me its variety of different moves, quality of rock and exposed and dramatic positions that earn a route it's stars. Thopugh history is very important i don't think a route should get stars just because it is historically important.
mark20 - on 29 Aug 2013
Polish, usually.
birdie num num - on 29 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris:
It's topropeability is an important factor
ERH - on 29 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris:

The arbitrary opinion of a guidebook writer.

Probably done on a sunny evening after a day of work, then went to the pub after, and had fish and chips on the way home.

when asked "how was the climb?" the writer smiles and thinks back to a perfect day.
"Three stars."
Fraser on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris:

The moves, the line and the position. Not necesarily in that order.
JimboWizbo - on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris: Solid rock is a biggy. Also the aesthetic of the line.
Offwidth - on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to The Norris:

Right-hand route is definitely worth stars so where are these comments saying its not worth one? A lot of the difference in stars is related to grade as some better climbers over-state the quality in things they find hard. 3 stars is about line (including some grade related stuff like position exposure etc), the quality of the moves, the history of the route and a few lesser issues like rock quality and good variety and reasonably sustained difficulty. I'd argue that quality of moves on its own should never equate to three stars whch is where the biggest problem comes with 3 star extremes that should be 1 at most. You need two of the big three at least.
Simon Caldwell - on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
I'd add escapability to that list. A route's not quite as good when you can walk off if it gets too hard (unless you're having an epic of course, in which case escapability is a bonus).
Fraser on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to The Norris)
>
> Right-hand route is definitely worth stars so where are these comments saying its not worth one?

I assume from your comment that I (and everyone else on the planet) should know about this route. I'm afraid to say I don't! With a generic name like that though I imagine there are several in the country. Given the grit-centric bias on this site, do I assume this is the case here?
Offwidth - on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to Fraser:

If you search based on what the OP said you every quickly get this (Roaches Skyline was a big clue):

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=20162

The grit centricity of this site is no more than grit being the most climbed rock in the UK. In that some grit routes get thousands of ascents and posts and thousands of grit routes get no posts (and only a handful of ascents)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fraser on 30 Aug 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

My apologies, I had the mist come down and that didn't register, I only seemed to read the subject heading. Sorry agian.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.