UKC

You hear the term mentioned often when relating to long alpine routes, just wondered if there is an official definition of a 'grand course' - length/grade/some historic significance?

In reply to Paul Manson:

I don't think there's a list as such. I've always heard it used to denote the classic ascents of significant peaks by hardish - but compelling lines.

In other words a combination of factors - line, peak, history, difficulty.

The easiest example is perhaps the "set" of classic north face routes.

There may be a more formal definition in guiding circles - so will look forward to others' answers

In reply to Paul Manson:

There is a coffee table book written by Francois Labande titled "Grandes Courses" Arthaud 1980, which has 104 selected (francophile)routes. I suspect though the term "Grande Courses" predates this.

In reply to Paul Manson: Traditionally I think there were six Grand Courses, these being the North Faces of The Grandes Jorasses, Matterhorn, Eiger, Petit Dru, Piz Badile and one other which I can't remember right now!

In reply to pec:
The six north faces were defined by Gaston Rebuffat in his book Etoiles et Tempetes, (Starlight and Storms) Arthaud 1954. The missing face is the Cima Grande di Lavaverdo. I am not sure this is the same as what is meant by "Grandes Courses".

In reply to Paul Manson:
When I started alpine climbing in the late 1960s the term was used to refer to long, serious, and fairly difficult (D or TD), but not necessarily extreme (ED), routes in the western Alps. I suspect it was invented as a membership qualification for the French GHM (Groupe de Haute Montagne) which was an elite splinter group from the CAF (French Alpine Club) -- maybe Jon knows if he's reading this thread?. The later UK equivalent (ACG - Alpine Climbing Group, which was modelled on the GHM and ended up getting merged into the AC) required would-be members to have done quite a few (6 or more?) grandes courses. There was a list of examples, which I don't have handy but included wonderful routes like Route Major, Peuterey arete, Triolet N face. Interestingly, some of these have held their reputations despite not being hard technically by modern standards.
Rob F

In reply to Paul Manson:

There are no specifically defined requirements as such ie grade, height etc. It's a sort of nebulous term and certain routes considered by some as GC's will be dismissed by others...! A Grande Course for me is a route that is committing. It'll be remote-ish (for the Alps). It'll have a reasonably long, glaciated approach, done in the dark. It'll certainly be long and may require a bivvy - or a fast and light approach to avoid one. It'll be hard enough to require more than just snow plodding - so sections of hardish rock generally climbed in big boots, or perhaps mixed climbing. It'll have a long and equally committing descent.

So, for instance, Mont Blanc via the 3Ms isn't one, but Mont Blanc via a Brenva or Freney route is - OK, the descent is fairly straightforward, but is certainly long after a full day (or two), perhaps in the dark.

As said above it was Rebuffat who picked out HIS six classic N faces, and of course these became a ticklist. Arguably the Cime Grande doesn't fit the bill. The Badile only squeezes in.

In reply to Paul Manson: A "grande course" is a term that originated in France a number of years ago and simply refers to any long classic route. The major north face routes actually aren't good examples as the term usually refers to routes that aren't quite as committing and are more frequently ascended. There are lots of grandes courses just in the Mont Blanc massif, such as the normal route of the Mont Blanc itself, and in fact every important massif in the Alps has several grandes courses.

In reply to American Friend:

It would seem we don't agree!

In reply to jon: What you think is a grande course is not what the French think. Ask any experienced French alpinist for a list of grandes courses in Chamonix and I can guarantee you they will include the Trois Monts Blanc and even the normal route. The term in French simply means it's a long route. Tout court.

In reply to American Friend: Jon could be described as an "experienced French alpinist", and although British, I've lived in France several years and been a member of CAF for something like 20 years and think his definition is far closer - its something fairly committing, long and with a degree of technical difficulty.

In reply to American Friend:

It implies a little more than a long route - a certain ampleur, let's say.

In reply to American Friend:
Then the meaning of the term has mutated over the decades! Back in the 60s/70s the original Brenva route on Mont Blanc didn't count as a GC and the ways you mention were descent routes.

In reply to jon: yes, if you like, there's a degree of commitment involved in a long route, but there are countless routes graded as low as PD and AD that are considered to be grandes courses. We are talking about the way a French term is used by French speakers, not a Brits understanding of what constitutes a hard committing route.

In reply to American Friend: Both Jon & myself are 'French speakers' !

In reply to Paul Manson:
There was a supplement in climber mag last year by Martin Moran and Bruce Goodlad which in their view GC's had 5 criteria:
1.Route length is at least 500m but typically 1000m or more.
2.Overall difficulties will be at least TD including a minimum grade V on rock (VS 4c uk ) or Scottish IV on ice or mixed ground.
3.Glacial terrian is encountered on approach and/or descent.
4.Descent is usually long and/or complex.
5.Bivouacking is to be expected at some point during the enterprise.

In reply to American Friend: excuse me for asking but when riding in what we brits call "cable cars" (I think the french use the term "telephrique" or "perhaps "frique" pronounced "freak") you dont by any chance talk REALLY LOUDLY ?

In reply to jon:

Not surprised when it's the only one I've got any real aspiration to do!

In reply to petestack:

Now you make me feel bad, Pete.

In reply to jon:

No need, Jon, when it's the gorgeous granite that grabbed me (discovered while searching for info on Ian Clough) before I even knew it was one of the 'big six'!

In reply to Paul Manson: sorry didn't mean to sound disrespectful, but what you are talking about is what French alpinists call a "très grande course". Conversely, only an immodest French alpinist would call some of the routes you're dismissing "des petites courses".

In reply to jon:


I think that's an interesting indication of how things have changed with modern gear. The 2 pure rock routes in his 6 have been tamed much more with the advent of alpine rock climbing in sticky shoes with cams, wired nuts etc, whereas the others are still pretty serious affairs.

In reply to Paul Manson:

While the link between ACG membership requirements and the term "grande course" may be nebulous and subject to evolution, here, if it's of any help, is the ACG's 1967 take on it: <Aspirant Membership; Two-three seasons and ten climbs of a serious nature. Three of these must be of at least "Difficile" class and regarded as "Grandes Courses", i.e. 600 metres of mixed climbing (e.g. Route Major, Dru North Face, Aiguilles du Diable).> This from the ACG bulletin of that year; I haven't yet ploughed through any later editions. Although the definition specifies "mixed", I would imagine that rock routes like the American Direct (either of them) or the Bonatti Pillar on the Dru would also pass muster.

In reply to pec:

Yes, you're right of course, I hadn't really considered that. However,it's occurred to me that this link with Rebuffat is a complete red herring... He designated them as his chosen six classic north faces - not as six grandes courses.

In reply to American Friend:

Doesn't seem that way http://www.grandes-courses-alpinisme.com/

I think they are routes that are slightly longer/harder/more committing than I have done but still possible conceptually! Anything more than that comes in the "unjustifiable" category!!

In reply to Paul Manson:

I always thought that they were long hard routes in the alps, the sort of thing that would be at the top of the list of any keen alpinist.

I would say these are examples of grand courses:

Walker Spur
Dru N Face
NE Spur on les Droites
Swiss Route les Courtes
1938 Route - Eiger
Schmit Route Matterhorn
Gervsutti Pillar
Peutry Ridge Integral.

I don't think these quite cut the mustard...

Grand Cap - too much rock climbing
Hornli Ridge - not hard enough
Frendo Spur - easy descent
Tri Cima - rock climbing
West Face of Petit Jorasses - I'd say this is a Grand Course if you carry your boots up and descend down to Italy, but if you rap back down the bolts then it isn't.
Brenva Spur - Big and remote, but surely too easy.
Kuffner - Too easy.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:


Yes, I think therein lies one of the criteria. Difficult one that as if a straightforward rap is possible from anywhere on the route, then this diminishes the committment.


But I'd disagree with these two as the committment is there.

In reply to Paul Manson:

I passed this thread on to a colleague (lives in Cham) who is a long-standing authority on French alpinism, an author and translator, and he climbed the Walker in 1962, the Dru N face in 1961.

I was surprised to hear him say that there has never been a definition, of any kind, however broad, of the 'Grand Course' climbs. They have changed with time, some were in, now out etc. Changes in skill, equipment, psychology etc have all been at play.

He, generously, I think, did note that to the amateur mountaineer the Vallot route on MB may indeed seem a 'Grand Course', though traditionally it may not have been considered one. Implicit in all his views, and in every other source I found, was that a Grand Course did involve some technical difficulty, and some length. His ascent of the Walker was the 18th, but 14 parties climbed the route that year and he felt that even then its status as a Grand Course had been somewhat dented by that. I think that gives some idea of what was, and maybe should be, involved with a climb considered a Grand Course.

Perhaps, like a number of other things in climbing, changes have also come about through increased commercialism, so it's sexier to sell something as a 'Grand Course' even though, traditionally, it may not have qualified as such. eg. the Gouter route.

Some people don't care about the importance of words and their definitions, though usually they're happy for them to be changeable because it suits their ignorance, apathy or commercial motives. Categories, definitions, words, are all debatable and changeable, and should be, to accommodate genuine progress, but they are the key to communication and understanding, and that remains as important as ever.

I'd like to think that climbing definitions changed because more climbers got better, not because the media got lazier or travel companies got cheekier.

D

In reply to Paul Manson: Given the great variation in definitions, it seems clear that this is largely a subjective category. So maybe one could say this: a grande course is a route which will require the average reasonably experienced Alpinist who climbs in the D-TD range to take a couple of days' rest afterwards - in other words, a climb that really draws on one's resources. This definition will not apply to superfit hotshots or guides. But it means that for most, it would cover routes such as the Gervasutti Pillar, Aig Noire S Ridge, the Jorasses by the Tronchey or Hirondelles ridges, the Matterhorn Zmuttgrat, the Schreckhorn S Pillar, most of the the routes on the Verte and most of those on the Italian side of Mt Blanc and Mt Maudit. Of course harder routes in these and other areas would also be covered. I agree that a rap descent probably eliminates a climb - so, for example, the Tacul by the Gabbarrou-Albinoni would qualify only if the party goes to the summit. Rapping down and then skiing to Montenvers wouldn't count.

Otherwise you're left with a definition that basically would cover only the really hard routes of each era.

A separate question: what's the oldest grande course? It's amazing how many really serious climbs are now 100 years old. Eg: the Finsteraarhorn N rib.

In reply to davidoldfart:

I meant to add that, according to my French source, the term originated in the 1930s, in publications by the CAF. So it was being used before anyone had climbed the Walker or the Eiger N face etc.

In reply to davidoldfart: Brenva Spur? Or even Tournette Spur? Both surely Grandes Courses in their time, if not now. Mummery was doing startling things in the Caucasus that still get TD equivalent in the 1880s(?) too.

In reply to Damo:

I too was intrigued by...


So purely out of curiosity, I did. Marc Ravanel is an Argentière born and bred guide. Father Roland Ravanel. Marc is responsible for new routes on valley rock and in the mountains. He guided the Walker whilst still an aspirant and got an almighty bollocking from the Compagnie. Here's his definition:

<< Une grande course doit présenter une certaine envergure, et de l'engagement, mais pas forcément de grosses difficultés techniques.
ex : sud de la noire de Peuterey. >>

When I asked him if he considered Mont Blanc via the Bosses Ridge (Gouter) a grande course, he said:

<< ... pas vraiment, étant donné que l'on peut faire demi tour quand on veut ! >>

So whilst not ruling it out on grounds of difficulty (as I would have done), clearly just the lack of committment would. This also goes, as far as I'm concerned, for the Traverse because, as with the Gouter, you can just turn around.

In reply to Paul Manson: A fascinating thread, in terms of the oldest "Grande Courses" I feel you have to consider the serious nature of some Alpine first ascents, without modern equipment and the Alpine hut network a climb such as Tyndall's East Ridge of the Weisshorn in 1861 must be a contender.

In reply to The Ivanator:

I'd say you were right, but I'd add that ALL of the big routes opened up in the 1800's must be considered, as they were all cutting edge at the time.

In reply to jon:

In my mind the Hirondelles Ridge is that sort of route, old, long, committing and not over at the top. I haven't done it.

In reply to jon:

As you say, cutting edge routes. think of no uplifts, virtually no paths. No huts so you carried everything from valley bottom to summit and back.
How many do that now?

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: I remember discussing the elegibility of some of the routes we did in 1969 with a couple of grandees of the ACG in Cham that year, both the Gervasutti Pillar and the West Face of the Petit Jorasses were accepted (but in those days nobody considered abseiling back down the WFPJ as an opition)

In reply to Al Evans:

People have only done since Piola bolted Anouck.