UKC

John Gaskins has completed his long-standing project at the G-Spot on Giggleswick South, to give what may be one of the hardest routes in the World! Violent New Breed takes the central leaning wall of the super-steep cave and has taken John many years of work to complete. It is the first route to be given the grade of 9a+ in Britain and one of only a few in the world.

Database Entry - http://www.rockfax.com/databases/results_buttress.html?id=219"

UKC News - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to UKC News: Good on him! It's about time we moved back to routes from all this bouldering lark!

In reply to Anonymous:

Um, have you seen how high it is? It's practically a boulder problem anyway ( in height at least ). Not to intending to take anything away from the effort though.

In reply to richardh: It's bigger than Hubble and nobody doubts its authenticity.

In reply to UKC News:
any chance of a picture?

In reply to richardh:

That photo is a bit misleading. If you stand at the base of that cave there is suddenly a lot of rock above you.

In reply to virgil:

Trying to get some more details but John has just left for a 3 week road trip across Europe.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

well, I wandered up there last year to have a look at henry tuttle, and know the floor drops away a bit, didn't inspire though ( henry tuttle that is )

Had no idea hubble was that short as well though.

I'll wander up again next time I'm up there to see if I'm spouting nonsense.

In reply to UKC News: I wonder what font grade the crux rates at font 8b+ ?

In reply to richardh: The thing is it may well be 'technically' the hardest route in the world. Hubble may be short but it's brick (Even McClure's not done it). The other 9a's are much longer stamina fests but have significantly easier climbing (move for move). That's whats always confuced me about the sport grades.

If Moon thinks Hubble's the equivalent of a Font 8b boulder problem, then what the hell will this be. Font 8c/9a climbing. Gaskins has taken years to do it and he is probably the strongest climber in the UK at present.

In reply to Anonymous:

theres no probably about it. no ofence to anyone, but theres no-one else in the country operating at anywhere near his level right now. awesome.

In reply to richardh: By the way I know Hubble is 8c+

In reply to Anonymous:

how long is the route? Impossible to tell from the photo but i dont doubt it is seriously overhanging.

In reply to Max_01: 6m

In reply to Anonymous:

no really, how long is the route?

In reply to Max_01: Why don't you just look at the links above. but i'm sure you already now how long it is!

In reply to Anonymous:

I had only looked at the photo, not the database entry. So it is 6m. Still, I don't doubt it is very very hard and don't mean to infer that it is anything other than a brilliant effort from John.

In reply to Anonymous:

It is difficult to know exactly how long it is since I don't know at what point John pulled onto the rock. If he climbed out from the back of the cave, then it could be about 15m but I doubt he did that since you can easily reach holds much further out from the ground. Our guess was about 6m of climbing.

Alan

In reply to SCDave: That makes no sense at all!

In reply to richard bradley @ work:

How so? I've done routes where you pull on straight into a roof. you still start off the ground.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
By eck, you've been a bit quick getting it onto the database. Has it made the cut-off for the guide ?

In reply to Max_01: Ah, I think there should have been a question mark after the at! Now I understand.

I've no idea what font grade the crux would rate.

In reply to richard bradley @ work:

I think I have been adding to the confusion.

Crux on Rainshadow is Font 7c, but that is after climbing Rainddogs 8a and then some. If this route is 6m then it must be very hard as you would be grading for doing it relatively fresh. Totally different styles of routes though so not that useful to draw a comparison.

In reply to virgil:
Theres a couple of closer photos of the area in my gallery. Its the black streak to the right on the harry tuttle photo, and in the left of the photos of John on Militia.

Good effort!

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, by about 70 minutes!

Alan

Amazing effort, well done John Gaskins.

To stop the ridiculous guessing, the route is about 6m long, has two bolts, and consists of only a few moves. I believe it would get V15 as a boulder problem. There are no holds. Respect!

In reply to Neil Kershaw:
what makes this a route rather than a boulder problem or vice versa ? Is the crux over some recognised height or is this just an arbitrary decision made by the first ascentionist ?

In reply to Woker:

Because he used a rope.

In reply to UKC News: Who belayed him on it?
Did he glue an artificial hold on?

In reply to Sam the strong:

I'm guessing, but probably his wife or Dad. No he didn't glue an artificial hold on!!!

In reply to Woker: 6m thats rubbish, I've climbed much longer routes. Up to 15m. Does this make me better than Gaskins? I think it must

In reply to Tarquin Farquar: yawn... done years ago in a pokketz cartoon.

In reply to Tarquin Farquar: Troll

In reply to UKC News: the traditional pint and bag of crisps for the first poster to argue about whether or not it's really 9a+.

Keep us posted as the repeats flood in.....

In reply to UKC News: an outstanding achievement. But is it a worldclass route unless anybody comes and tries to repeat it?

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

dunno, but I can picture them getting to the G-spot and going "WTF?"

In reply to Jon Greengrass: Probably too far for most top climbers to go just to get their arse kicked!

In reply to UKC News: 9a+ is that harder than Severe?
What's he done on grit?

In reply to Charlton Chestwig:
Pretty much everything

In reply to UKC News:

6m long and 15a sounds a lot like the fly, 5m long and 14d.

how long till someone boulders this and then calls it the worlds first 15a freesolo?

This, of course, raises the whole question of 'what's a route and what's a highball/problems', etc, which is a very greay area, as we all know. It looks like a stunning piece of climbing by one of the strongest people in the world. Can anything 6m above grass be called a route, though? I'm in no way qualified to express an opinion on that, as I haven't been there and looked at it, and don't climb 9a and above, but unless you've got a nasty landing to contend with, I'd say you're stretching things to claim 6m is a route, irrespective of difficulty. Hubble is about the same length (I thought it was longer) and has a horrible landing, and I've got no problem seeing that as a route.

In reply to sloper:

Oh, yes, I forgot, in the finest traditions of RT;

There is NO WAY that is 9a+. Gaskins doesn't know what he's talking about. My mate's uncle saw him bouldering at Stannage a year ago, and he said he looked weak as piss. If Gaskins is so hard, how come he hasn't soloed Parthian Shot? Besides, it's not a route, it's a boulder problem. I have fallen from 48ft before, onto jagged boulders and was fine. You'd think he'd know better. Honestly.

In reply to UKC News:

A fine effort. Not sure why UKC News feel the need to hype it as "the hardest route in the world?" though.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

As I remember the landing is pretty poor, certainly not grass. The line Harry Tuttle F7b+ to the left is the same length and has 2 bolts and no-one has ever had any trouble with this being a route!

Hubble has about 6m of hard climbing then a comparative ramble for a further few metres (which realistically shouldn't affect the grade) to a lower off in the middle of nowhere.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

6 metres, 7 metres....what the hell

Dam fine climb, well done

Now then let me see.....I've still got 20 odd 5c/6a/6b's to tick off at Bridestones.

In reply to Anonymous:

I thought they said 'possibly' the hardest route in the world. Considering it's hard enough to grade accurately around the 8b mark, let alone a 9a+, and considering John has a reputation for grading things quite stoutly, it seems possible that he might have graded hard at 9a+ and Rouhling/Fernandez graded soft...?

I hope everyone recognises my previous thread as a joke, by the way...?

In reply to Dom Orsler: No use using the old 'joke' excuse now

In reply to Rick Bradley:

Bugger! I hope John doesn't find out I've been ruthlessly slaggin him on RT! After all, I know he hangs on every word written about him here.

In reply to UKC News:

Bon Effort that man! Nice to see his mutant power used on something other than a bum-start - looks a nice bit of rock.

The database entry as "may be the hardest route in the world" is somewhat premature - "may be one of the hardest etc" is certainly more accurate.

Well done once again and let's hope he kicks some serious arse in Europe!

In reply to UKC News:

I can't even imagine what F9a+ looks like!

And it hurts just trying.........

In reply to 220bpm: Looks like it involves levitation.

In reply to Fiend:

Hmm, not spectacular

But the climbing must be !

Does this guy do trad (to the same degree) or focus on boulder/ sports routes?

In reply to 220bpm: Mainly bouldering I think. From what I've seen he just does what he wants to do.

In reply to Fiend:

There really is no response to that route, when you see it like that, is there? Just a brief outburst of bad language in disbelief.

In reply to Fiend:

From looking at that, it's plain to see that gravity is much, much lower in that part of the world than the parts I climb in.

That looks absolutely nails, full respect to the man.

In reply to UKC News: Years to succeed on a few moves up 18' seems extreamly pointless in proving anything about the ability to rock climb at a high grade. It only goes to prove a person with reasonable gymnastic ability with enough repartitions can train his or her body to repeat a series of complex monements. On sight is the only true measurement of a persons technical ability, and in the contex of climbing should I believe be connected with at least some eliment of risk. LOL..........

In reply to Mooncat:

More to the point - how many stars has it got?

In reply to Yorkspud:
Only 2 apparently. So he spent years working on a 6m route which isn't even worth 3 stars!

In reply to Simon Caldwell: Nice to see some rational thought re the stars, it always makes me laugh when almost every new 'hard' route is given three starts even when they're minor variations or a bag of poo

In reply to sloper: The reason a lot of really hard routes get three stars is that they take amazing lines and have interesting and difficult moves which make an outstanding challenge. Take Rainshadow or Northern Lights totally obviously three star routes.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

Random pieces of indistinct limestone choss that have no more amazing lines than any other indistinct limestone wall.

And wasn't the climbing on NL said to be fairly "horrible"??

In reply to Dom Orsler:

It's boulder-able Dom with a stack of pads.

from the one who christened the G-spot, the G-spot

In reply to G-spotter: Mick, how's life upstate?

In reply to Fiend: Go back to grit if you can't value limestone. Take the line above Overnite Sensation at Malham one of the best lines in the UK and still a project it will be 3 stars when it is climbed. The line is everything and even if the moves aren't your cup of tea the line gives the route its appeal. The moves on Right Eliminate or Forked Lighting Crack aren't exactly pleasant but the routes are three stars.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

Really? So a hypothetical route in a horrible location with rubbish climbing would still get 3 stars if the line were good?

In reply to Ian Dunn:

That's just crazy-talk, or more tactfully a product of what you reckon star-grading are for. The line isn't everything at all, to me, the stars are for a combination of line, situation, moves, and subjective quality relative to routes in the area.

forked lightning, nice crack, poor moves? never a 3 star.

In reply to Simon Caldwell: What do you mean by rubbish climbing? The climbing has to be ok but the line is the most important look at any quarried grit for example.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

So how many stars would you give Raindogs 9, not much of a line.

In reply to Ian Dunn:
Personally I'd say that a route with a perfect line but so-so climbing couldn't get any more than 2 stars. It's the combination of line, climbing, situation, etc that warrants the 3 star designation.
To pick a bumbly trad example, the line of Main Wall (Cyrn Las), far from being inspiring, wanders all over the place seeking out the easiest route, yet is undeniably a 3-star route.

In reply to Tyler: Three stars the line is pretty good to me however Rainshadow would be 4 stars!

In reply to Ian Dunn:

I think your argument might have falllen down. I don't doubt Raindog is three star but to say it gets them for the line is ludicrous. Not only does it stop less than half way up wall it has a totally arbitary finish - jumping for a chain placed because the FA could stretch no higher, not even a jug to clip off! It has no line to speak of, just a collection of holds therefore its the moves that make it what it is.

In reply to Simon Caldwell: You've answered your own question Main wall takes the easiest line.

In reply to Ian Dunn:
It may not be a quality line but that's not the point here. Hubble is dirty but it was a milestone in climbing difficulty.
This could also be a milestone for the length although repeats may not be forthcoming through lack of interest. It is still very impressive and far more important to John than anyone else.

In reply to Billy De Kid:

To me, there are two ways that a route can follow a good line -

1) A route following an obvious feature or weakness - ie Right Unconquerable etc, The line of least resistance.

2) A route that blasts it's way straight through the steepest, blankest rock rock there is - obviously the hardest challenge on the crag.

So to my mind, at Malham for instance, the Groove follows a 3* line of type 1, but Rainshadow takes the most uncompromising line on the crag - a fantastically inspiring 3* line of type 2. You will find that many hard climbers are inspired by lines of type 2, and John's new route follows one such as that.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

I think you are being a limestone zealot, I am not being a gritstone zealot. I value any rock that has strong aesthetics and good distinct lines - which most British limestone doesn't. I've seen pictures of the harder routes done on British limestone, and unless those pictures were taken to specifically obscure and hide an otherwise stunning rock feature, they don't have good lines. In fact, they don't have lines at all, they just follow an arbitrary line of holds in overhanging walls devoid of major features. Of course, they can still have good climbing and indeed many high quality routes on various rock types have a similar lack of strong line. And of course some hard limestone routes can have good lines (the main overhang at Kilnsey). But in generally the lines are not good compared to Left Wall, Rainbow of Recalcitrance, White Noise, Reservoir Dogs, S-Groove etc etc.

In reply to Fiend:

Not quite sure what your definition of a good line is - I can certainly think of loads of limestone routes with very strong lines:

Malham

Yosemite Wall - obvious 25m flake / groove line
New Dawn - bulge, groove, strong traverse line leading through bulges. Great line giving easiest (!) climbing through extremely imprevsive rock.
The Groove

Gordale

Cave routes - magnificent lines on a huge piece of rock

Kilnsey

Directissema - a bit polished now but still a magnificent line
Dreamtime - elegent, impressive overhanging groove/corner
Balas - big, clean overhanging corner.
The Thumb - have you seen this! - up there with some of the best lines in the country.

Could go on and on.

In reply to Fiend:

I've seen pictures of the harder routes done on British limestone

Sums it up really! Lots of armchair experts in cyberspace

In reply to Micky mouse:

Your snide reply is woefully inept. The nature of a good line is that it is a strong visual feature. Thus, a good line should be obvious in a visual representation i.e. photograph.

Refer to my previous reply - if a photograph doesn't show a good line, either the photo is misrepresenting the climb, or the photo is accurate and the climb doesn't have a good line. What exactly is your argument against that??




In reply to Ian Patterson:

That is true and as I said there are examples of good lines on limestone, but some of the hardest routes don't seem to be.

In reply to Fiend: Is it not possible that hard routes tend not to have strong lines as a strong line would (to a degree) indicate holds? No holds=weak line=hard route?


Probably boll*cks.

In reply to richard bradley @ work:

Errrrr, yeah it's possible, and maybe that's an issue on limestone, but elsewhere it doesn't follow particularly where routes climb features, and features don't necessarily mean useful holds...





P.S. Anonymous, still waiting for your reply...

In reply to Fiend: I'd say The Groove, Mandela and the Thumb were pretty tough (have you climbed 8b recently?)

Andy F

In reply to Fiend:

That's a matter of opinion, shirley? The best line once you actually get on the rock might not be what looks most striking from a distance.

Cheers, A

In reply to Fiend:
When you did Right Wall Fiend, what did you think?
It has to be one of the best routes in the world yet at two places you can almost walk off, make a brew or have a kip.
Wanders all over the place too. Crap line.

Enty

In reply to andy farnell:

This particular topic is about totally cutting edge routes i.e. 9a upwards, as was Ian Dunn's post that I was replying to.


Adam:

I find it hard to believe that something could have a good line which was not visible from typical route-photo distance. Even the subtlest lines are quite obvious visually.

Could you explain more please any maybe give an example??





And once again, Anonymous Coward, I'm waiting....no doubt having given a sane answer to your snide comment, you will now disappear off the face of the forums....typical.

In reply to sloper:

I'm imprisoned by trees, moss and moisture.

Mick

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I guess this depends on the ascentionist. If the ascentionist breaks their ankles then its a route. If they don't, then its a problem. Easy

In reply to Dom Orsler:
'what's a route and what's a highball/problems', etc

I've seen John working this. You can't top-rope it because it's too overhanging. You can't work it by bouldering it out because each move is so hard that its only 50:50 that you will get any one of them. Therefore you put bolts in it just to try the the thing. The landing directly beneath the route might be good but some of the earliest moves involve locking off a smooth undercling by your little toe. If you come off there you're likely to win a Darwin award for a spectacular human-powered projectile death.

Oh and it is not the nicest line in the world. It certainly isn't the most inspiring crag in the world but given how short this thing is, it certainly is the most powerful route in the world and that makes it worth doing.

In reply to Fiend:

That's not the impression I got.

In reply to Fiend: Hard routes do often take the most fantastic lines, eg Realisation or in the UK Mandela or Cry Freedom or even in the peak Rage or Monumental Armblaster. Ok there are some desperates that have little to offer apart from a series of very hard moves on a small bit of rock but this applies to all types of rock not just limestone and as usual as a very hard route is bolted and on limestone the anti-bolt brigade start to come out with all sorts of crap including slagging off limestone and sport climbing. Its about time that people realised that very hard routes will only be climbed by being bolted. I know that John has being trying this route for at least 6 years and that it is going to have moves that make the crux of any death route seam like a walk in the park. Given John's record this is the hardest route to repeat in the UK.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

"Its about time that people realised that very hard routes will only be climbed by being bolted."

What about Dave Birkett's Welcome to Cruel Times on Scafell East Buttress? Or indeed any of the current hard crop in the Lakes.

Ian, I have never slagged off bolt protected climbing, I just prefer naturally protected routes. That doesn't stop me from doing bolt routes or even enjoying them. Big difference between that and "slagging off" - remove your blinkers and read what is being written .

Bob

In reply to Bob:

but Birketts hardest routes are 8a+ difficultly. Gaskin's route is 9a+....this is a different league

In reply to Bob: I am not slagging off traditional routes like those of Dave Birketts it is just that the moves on John's new route will be way harder than any of the moves on these routes. And I mean two to three grades harder for every move. These moves would make the crux of Superman or Pinch Two or other hard boulder problems look easy.

If you prefer naturally protected routes then fine I like them too but I get pissed off when people repeatedly jump on the moral high ground and slag off sport climbing and limestone. If climbers like Vickers or Dunne or Birkett hadn't sport climbed they would not have got fit enough to do their hard trad routes.

In reply to Anonymous:

I didn't say that it was in the same league as John's new line: I was challenging the assertion that hard climbing does not exist on naturally protected routes. WTTCW follows a crackline so is perhaps slightly different to other hard naturally protected routes.

Bob

In reply to Bob: It will still be piss easy compared to Violent New Breed. That's not a critiscm of the route which is an ace line, I even abbed down it years back and it was and still is way too hard for me its just that VNB is in a totally different league.

In reply to Ian Dunn:


Not to on-sight.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Ian Dunn:

Well said Ian Dunn. Bob you can't labour under the misapprehension that WTACW is "hard". This goes for most of the commentators on this thread - you obviously don't come anywhere near grasping what Gaskins is capable of! The crux hold on his route may be as thin as a CD, and entail a big move off it. No problem, this is a possibility. It is no good measuring people's abilities by your own standards, some people, Gaskins especially, are at another level.

In reply to Jamie B.:

Laughable!

In reply to Jamie B.: VNB will not be onsighted before WTACW which will be onsighted in the next 10 years.

Hubble has had hardly any ascents let alone anyone getting close to onsighting it.

Hard limestone routes are HARD BOULDER PROBLEMS with more hard boulder problems in between.

In reply to Jamie B.:

Do you have any idea how hard the moves must be on a short route graded 9a+??

I would lay odds that a route like that will not be onsighted for a long long time (10yrs+)

In reply to Neil Kershaw:

Well if WTTCW isn't hard, I'll nip up there tomorrow with Mr Puttrell and our better halves! Yesterday's hard route to easy day for a lady in one

Seriously though are you suggesting that WTTCW is "easy"? I would say that it is hard, now it is likely that it isn't cutting edge but it is still *hard* by most reasonable definitions of the word.

As for John Gaskins: I knew him when he was a decent, but not outstanding, climber. I think this was when he was just starting his training for Hubble so quite a few years ago. I am not calling into question his ability, tenacity or determination in completing his project.

Nor am I measuring him by my standards: that is your slant/problem.

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Look, Bob, you're just not getting this, are you? What people are trying to say is, that in terms of technical difficulty of moves, VNB gets 9 or 10 out of 10 by current standards, and WTTCW gets about 6. Most people climb 1 to 4. Yes, WTTCW is pretty hard, but in terms of technical difficulty, doesn't come anywhere near VNB. Yes, it's a trad line, but you started by saying truly 'hard' climbing (i.e. from Hubble to VNB) exists on trad. It doesn't. Check out the hard trad list on planet fear and you will see that Dave's stuff is faaaar from being the world's hardest stuff on trad, but even the routes listed there don't come close to Akira, Oruja, Chilam Balam, VNB and La Rambla extension.

If you don't understand this, then you've never tried the moves on a limestone 8c. To even think of doing them on gear is, even for people like Dave, a bit alien. 8c to 9a+ is piss.

To clarify, my last sentence might be a bit less misleading if I chaged it to;

"8c compared to 9a+ is piss".

In reply to Dom Orsler:
So in the sports climbing dictionary, does "hard" exclude anything but technical difficulty?

In reply to Simon Caldwell: Er....yes. I think the penny might be starting to drop here guys.

In reply to Anonymous:
and also that "hard" means "hardest", ie a route cannot be described as "hard" if there is something else that is harder?

In reply to Simon Caldwell: No, no, no. Now your just being daft. Hard in the context of this discussing means on or near the cutting edge ie roughly speaking - 7b english tech or higher, route 8c+ or higher, V13 or higher.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Actually Dom I think VNB would get 10, possibly even 11 out of 10 on that scale!

No Bob I'm not saying that WTTCW is "easy", just that its not "hard". Its a hard *trad* route for sure, but like Dom says if you compare like with like i.e. difficulty of the moves, there is no contest. WTTCW given UK 7a, VNB probably UK 7c at least I would have thought.

Its nice to see people sticking up for trad all the time and I'm all for it, but on this thread wouldn't it for once be nice to celebrate someones actual climbing ability instead of try and "big up" trad. The simple fact being that Mother Nature made some rock faces impossible to climb but this doesn't seem to stop Gaskins crimping invisible nothings where NO ONE else could. I think that's inspirational to all climbers, trad or not.

In reply to Neil Kershaw:

Agreed. It ends up doing someone a disservice if you try to compare cutting edge trad with cutting edge sport. They are both incredibly difficult, but for different reasons, which doesn't mean one detracts from t'other.

And, for the record, while Dave's stuff in the lakes may be very hard (in trad terms), it's not cutting edge trad on a global scale. That would be an insular and blinkered view.

I would also suggest that John's new stuff, while right up there, is not the hardest thing ever climbed (in which case it would get 10). There are a few other routes out there at the same grade and two higher. It's also a 'thin ice' statement to claim that only John can make these moves. You've got Fred Nichole who could probably manage this line sooner or later, Fernandez with his 9a+ and now 9b+, the whole Basque crew who seem to be out of control on anything harder than 8c, a whole bunch of German freaks like Loskot and Willenberg, not to mention the Spaniards, headed up by Ramonet (who's done several 9a's and a 9a+), Andrada, etc.... I would also be surprised if Sharma, Graham and perhaps even Kehl didn't make a serious impression on this route.

There are lots of very good climbers in the world. Unfortunately, we only really have Steve and John who can compete on the world stage right now, but that doesn't mean John is THE BEST in the world or is able to do anything others can't. Who knows...? That's why it's exiting to watch the people at the top; you're never quite sure of what they're going to do.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

"that doesn't mean John is THE BEST in the world or is able to do anything others can't"

No it doesn't, but I still think its true! I have seen the V15's in Europe and felt the holds. That says it all, on John's problems I can't even feel the holds, they are too poor.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Care to supply a URL for that list Dom please? I have had a trawl round the site but haven't come across any obvious link.

Looking back at my question to Ian I did not assert but asked whether Dave Birkett's routes consisted of/contained hard climbing. Big difference.

Bob

In reply to Bob:


Yep, me too.

So spent an hour or so bouncing around Bobs site.
All very nicely put together and an impressive set of 'ticks' to your name.

Nice one that man.

In reply to 220bpm:

Obviously nothing hard though

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Plenty dangerous <ahem>, I mean plenty risky stuff tho.

And harder than I'll ever know

In reply to Bob:

In the context of a discussion about John's new 9a+, no, nothing 'hard'.

In the context of a discussion about E4's, lots of very hard stuff.

I'll dig up the link when I fix the problem I'm working on at work, then get back to you.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

touche

OK

Bob

In reply to Neil Kershaw: or, in order to define "hard" a bit more clearly, it's simple to state the Gaskins would stand a far far better chance of repeating Birkett's routes than the other way around. It is even possible that Gaskins may find them "easy," similar to when Huber dispatched the Salathe. Some of the press were trying to get him to validate its diffculty and he said something like, "When you can climb 14c, all the holds on a 13b are jugs so the fact that your protection may not be perfect is of much less concern."(sic).

In reply to steve edwards:

"When you can climb 14c, all the holds on a 13b are jugs"

Bastard.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

I don't think he said that, just something about having "power to spare".

My favourite quote in this vein was from Michael Mayr who has free climbed three El Cap routes (despite having never placed a cam before coming to Yosemite!):

"A person who has never climbed trad but has climbed 5.14 is much more likely to free-climb a 5.13 route on El Cap than someone who has climbed trad all his life but never climbed hard."

In reply to tobyfk:

... and of course, (of El Nino):

"I thought, if the Brits can do it, then it can't be so difficult"

In reply to Dom Orsler: ' it's not cutting edge trad on a global scale'

Forgive me if you've told us this before, but what is cutting edge trad on a global scale? I've seen somebody lead E9 which equated to French 8A+ with 100 foot fall potential from the crux - is this the cutting edge, or are people doing better these days? (Please read no sarcasm into this question - none was intended).

In reply to John2:

As you'll recall, I said "Dave's stuff in the lakes may be very hard (in trad terms), it's not cutting edge trad on a global scale".

It depends what you use to define 'cutting edge on a global scale'. I was meaning in terms of overall difficulty with, perhaps, a bias on technical difficulty, not just danger, which many people (and I don't necessarily mean you) in the UK anyway, seem to regard as the defining aspect of a trad line.

There are approximately five trad routes currently in existence. I say 'approximately', because one or two of them may be a little controversial. That's a long way from Dave's 8a+ stuff, but might not be as dangerous.

I meant to say;

"There are approximately five trad routes currently in existence at or above 8c".

In reply to John2:

"8A+ with 100 foot fall potential from the crux"

Makes my hands go all sweaty just thinking about it. What route was that?

In reply to Ian Dunn:

I'm not slagging off limestone, and certainly not slagging of sport climbing. I'm just thinking about the line (and it as a factor of the quality of the hardest routes).

I agree with all the comments (well the sensible ones anyway) praising Gaskins for this route.



P.S. Dom, Bob, Neil - interesting discussion there =).

In reply to Fiend:

Yep - once in a while a group of people get together on RT and have an interesting and thoughtful discussion in which their opinions/knowledge progress and everyone walks away happy without any insults being hurled or aged plumbers shouting 'BOLLOCKS' at anyone who doesn't share their opinion/s. I've been using RT for about four years, and in that time it must have happened to me, ooooh, I dunno, three or four times!

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Chupacabra, in Huntsman's Leap.

To be fair to Jamie B, above, I think he meant that to onsight Welcome to the Cruel World would be an achievement of comparable difficulty to repeating Violent New Breed. This may or may not be true - probably isn't if you ask me - but wasn't quite so absurd as the anonymous hero JB was replying to seemed to think.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

yes, you can't help feeling that if jg really has been working this thing on and off for a good few years then it must be mentally hard. and it seems like most of the other routes given this kind of grade are significantly longer so, as the sensible people have said above, the moves on this must be totally daft, and suited to jg. as such, the likelihood of anybody repeating it in many, many years seems quite low.
I think we have to give jamie b the benefit of the doubt on his on sight comment.

In reply to Fiend:
Fiend, if you are really suggesting that a route must have an obvious natural feature on it to qualify as a quality route, then I feel obliged to level an accusation of pretentiousness in your direction. What about the quality of the moves? I've often enjoyed climbing on crappy quarry walls, as much as on soaring mountain-crag aretes.

In reply to Kev Wynne:


No.

I've thought I've implied the contrary a few times, and it's bloody obvious anyway. I'm suggesting a route must have an obvious natural feature on it to qualify as a genuinely good line. That's all.


P.S. I like crappy quarry walls.

In reply to Fiend:

>I'm suggesting a route must have an obvious natural feature on it to qualify as a genuinely good line.


There are some routes that look like a bag of poo, but contain brilliant obvious natural features in the form of the positions and shapes of the holds. Some holds are genuinely beautiful, you could look at them all day - running your fingers over their intricacies (who's starting to sound like a pretentious git now?), but they might be located on a fairly ugly wall. The combination of these holds and the moves that they create can amount to a genuinely good line; admitedly, one that looks like plop.

In reply to Jamie B.: Hasn't yuji Hirayama onsighted trad cracks of a comparable difficulty to WTTCW?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Just what I was thinking as I was reading the latest posts - this has been a very enjoyable thread to follow. Cheers guys.

For what it's worth, I think I'm agreeing with Fiend in that, in my opinion, the best lines are those which follow obvious features. That said, I appreciate that it's quite possible to have fantastic moves/climbs up blank bits of rock, which also justify three stars. It's just that until you actually get onto them, it's harder to appreciate what makes them so good.

In reply to UKC News:
I find it hard to concieve from day to day the grade that I myself climb so to concieve something that is 7 grades harder is impossible.

In reply:
Of course it's a route. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their arse.

In reply to Bob:

As requested, link to the list of hardest trad lines in the world, by tech rating. I'm not sure if it's bang up to date;

http://curbar.planetfear.com/climbing/features/misc/records/records.html

In reply to Dom Orsler:

My GOD, that list’s crap. Typical of Planetmildtrepidation. I and others made an effort to get them to improve it a while ago, but to no avail I see. History’s so happened, man.

I mean, Question Mark F8c, FFS!!!

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Thanks Dom, looks like 8b+ with the occasional foray into 8c is the sort of level that we are looking at. I notice that WTTCW is given 8b+ which is probably more like it than the supposed 8a+ mentioned earlier in this thread.

Still all too hard for a fat old bloke like me

Bob

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

It does say disputed grade John

Bob

In reply to Bob:

Yeah, but let's get real here. 8c climbing above that kind of fall wouldn't be E8, now would it? Shall we say 7c, to be generous?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

I have to admit that my knowledge of stuff in the southwest is lacking to say the least.

Bob

In reply to Fiend: Sorry, not had much time for forumming. Looking at it now it's a slightly tenous point, but at the time I was thinking of limestone routes where the line of least resistance isn't obvious.

It's partly down to how you define 'line' - it's not just where the route goes, line is something more, so I think I'm coming round to it being something about the route you take in relation to the whole piece of rock/whatever you are on. There are good *routes* you couldn't necessarily spot from a distance - a line of good holds up shattered limestone, like the ones up the inside of Goredale, or some routes that sneak their way round overhangs and other features on an easy 'line' that appears where things look impassable. But I don't know if they're 'good lines' - cos a 'line' probably is, the way we use, something you can see..? Can you have a bad route up a good line? I'd say you can have a good route up a 'bad' (or odd/strange/not obvious) line.

Whether or not something's a 'good line' is another question though

Cheers, A

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:


Chill, John. This is a mellow thread (see ~ 5-10 posts higher).

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Hey JCM,

I pull that list together with consultation from a lot of people. While I did not keep all of my references (perhaps I should have), I assure you anything on the list came from good sources. I would be interested in any updates you might be able to offer to the list. I have kept it pretty current, with ascents like the Zodiac by the Hubers and Caldwell being included.

Any updates you can offer are cool. And please, keep to facts, not ill-informed opinions.

Kurt the Canuck

In reply to Kurt the Canadian:

Kurt! Good Lord.

I'm not talking to you since you never came back and told me what grit routes you did. Did you ever come back in February and do some more?

Actually I should have made it clear I wasn't talking about your list in particular - this isn't a subject I know anything about. I was more incensed by the UK trad lists, which are garbage, although less so than they were.

Seriously, though, Question Mark at 8c is ludicrous. Call it ill-informed opinion if you like, though I've seen it at least. I’ve also seen pictures of Ken Palmer’s repeat and the gear he had, and I don’t need to be an 8c climber to say that if the climbing’s 8c there’s no way the route’s only E8 with that gear and that landing. (to be fair, I think Edwards gave it E9, but KP downgraded it. But there’s no way E9’s correct either, to be honest.)

I might also quote Pat Littlejohn (an aged punter from these parts who has probably never climbed 8c, so Andy F and the rest can ignore him) from the Count House Log Book – words to the effect that it’s surprising Mark Edwards was climbing quite so far in advance of the rest of the world back in 1989 or whenever this was put up.

In reply to Bob:

Yes; ironic that I suggested this list as evidence that WTTCW was, perhaps, not cutting edge, and there it is on the list!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Whether or not Kurt actually tells you about what he ticked (onsighted) is up to him, but I can vouch for the fact that it was quite impressive, given the circ's.

Question Mark gets E10 in this list. Where does it get E8?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

The latest guidebook to the area, I believe. Based on Ken Palmer's repeat. I didn't think even ME ever gave it E10, but I could be wrong.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Fair enough.

It would be great to have this list updated, though. Kurt and I started putting this list together, then he ran with it and got it where it is. I think it's a great thing to do and am not aware of similar lists existing anywhere. It's so hard to pull world trad together, unlike bouldering or sport climbing.

That goes to everyone out there. If you have any suggestions, footnotes or addendums, please let Kurt know. John - perhaps this list should be hosted on UKC if PlanetFear aren't receptive to updating it?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1: John, Mark Edwards was quoted in an interview as saying the climbing on Question Mark would be "solid 8c, if bolted". Those are the exact words used. Ken Palmer suggested 8a. Edwards originally didn't give an E grade, but then gave it E9 7a in his own SW guide.

In reply to Peter Walker:

OK, then - Palmer 8a, Edwards 8c. Call it 8a+?

In reply to Dom: I'd love UKC to host these lists but it's nothing to do with me, of course.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

8b is in the middle.

Who does one e-mail to get a list like this on UKC?

In reply to Dom Orsler:


charles arthur or nick smith, I think.

In reply to Adam Greenwood:

Okay yes there can be more subtle lines that's true.


Absolutely! Including possibly the routes originally in question...


Interesting. One assumes so if the climbing is just so awful as to completely outweight the line. Discounting loose rock routes of course that's cheating. Can't think of many though.

Oh wait, I sort of can - Easter Island, on Ilam Rock. Good line, great position, crap climbing.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

+ grades don't really exist in sport climbing; they're there either to inflate the ego of someone who struggled on a route, and assume it must be harder, or to prevent being shot down when you go past the end of the scale.

Whole grades rule!

8b it is then.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

He only pops up when Mr Orsler gives him a nudge. I think they're related.

In reply to Adam Greenwood


Definately.
(Though I dunno about at the grade being discussed here)
Lots of chimneys are just that

In reply to Dom Orsler:

>8b is in the middle.

Only in Euclidean geometry. Applying my knowledge of Palmer/Edwards geometry, I'd say 8a.35 is about in the middle, but I've rounded up.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Actually I should have made it clear that your and Kurt's list's interesting and a pretty good effort: I agree this must be a lot harder to do than for sport or bouldering. Thanks for that.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

And BTW Question Mark's at Cribba Head, not Carn Gowla.

Something I seem to recall pointing out to the editors of PMT some while back, but there we are.

I don't actually see Zodiac in that list. What French grade did it get?

In reply to Kipper:


So are you downgrading or upgrading Violent New Breed?!

In reply to Fiend:


I immediately thought, "of course, I've done loads", but the only offering I can think of, apart from Easter Island, was Original Route on High Tor. Great line, but let down by, well, unpleasant, unsatisfying climbing most of the way up. Got to the top thinking it wasn't the classic it had been made out to be.

In reply to expat:

If I'm allowed to, I'll move it up a notch

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Forgive my ignorance, but what is Zodiac?

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Isn't that what it's called? That Yosemite aid route the Hubers freed last year.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

The Zodiac *IS* on my updated list, which I emailed to Planetfear. However the PF folk have not put up the revised list yet.

My revision also includes some other updates (repeats of routes, other new hard lines like Greenspit, etc.)

I can get you a copy if you are interested.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Aaaahhh, yes, of course. For some absurd reason I wasn't including big wall routes in my thoughts. Interesting to rank this alongside Blind Vision, etc, but there you go!

In reply to Dom Orsler:
Speaking of big walls in Yosemite, The Nose, Muir Wall, Lurking Fear would appear to be 8b or thereabouts.

In reply to Kurt the canuck:

Kurt; yes, I would be interested if it's not too much trouble. My email is johncox@dewarhogan.co.uk. Thanks very much for the offer.