|
wayfare
Apr 19, 2005, 2:51 PM
Post #1 of 136
(26147 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 17
|
Is Shockley's Ceiling a sandbag?
I was looking for an easy climb to take a friend of mine who just started climbing. Shokley's Ceiling is rated 5.6 (according to a guide that I borrowed) and so I thought that it would be a perfect climb. But as I pulled over the roof, I thought to myself, 'wow, if this is 5.6, then I'm missing somthing big.' This particular move was too much for my partner and she could not make it. When she fell, she was left dangling, helplessy unable to reach the wall, and I was forced to haul her over the roof (which turned out not to be an easy task). Normally I take sandbagging as part of the sport, but I think this is a little too underrated and the consequences of failing suggests that one should err more on the other side.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 19, 2005, 3:00 PM
Post #2 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: Is Shockley's Ceiling a sandbag? I was looking for an easy climb to take a friend of mine who just started climbing. Shokley's Ceiling is rated 5.6 (according to a guide that I borrowed) and so I thought that it would be a perfect climb.
It's the Gunks, almost all the climbs are a sandbag. You picked about the worst climb to take newer climber on. Intimidating for a lot of experienced people, let alone a newb, hard, no way to communicate with your partner on the crux. Guess you found this out :) .
Hopefully, your partner was a trooper and not totally put off by the experience.
FWIW, next time just ask here or at www.gunks.com and we'll be happy to direct you to some more appropriate first time climbs.
BTW, props for at least being able to not turn the situation into an epic.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
adamd
Apr 19, 2005, 3:01 PM
Post #3 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 62
|
It doesn't seem any harder to me than many other 6's in the Gunks so I'd say it isn't a sandbag for the area as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
abisharat
Apr 19, 2005, 3:02 PM
Post #4 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 29
|
I think the climb is no more 5.6 than any other 5.6 at the Gunks...not that that means anything. It's definitely intimidating, especially for someone who isn't comfortable on 5.6 gunks terrain. Nice job hauling your partner...that's burly.
That said, the Gunks is emphatically NOT sandbagged, so don't start in on that. Everywhere else is soft...get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
hoppinbig
Apr 19, 2005, 3:08 PM
Post #6 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
Go to Cathedral... in comparison I find the Gunks to be soft
|
|
|
|
|
abisharat
Apr 19, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #8 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 29
|
In reply to: Go to Cathedral... in comparison I find the Gunks to be soft
Cathedral is also a place for "real" ratings, but which is harder:
Book of Solemnity (5.9+ originally; now 5.10a) or M.F. (5.9+)? If I wasn't sprayed down by three different new york city studs before getting on MF, I probably wouldn't have been able to onsight...
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Apr 19, 2005, 3:19 PM
Post #9 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
As a shorty, I found it to be hard. My 6'2" partner found it a little soft.
|
|
|
|
|
wayfare
Apr 19, 2005, 3:23 PM
Post #10 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 17
|
I am new to the gunks myself, though I am aware of the reputation. The day before, we had climbed Ant's Line (5.9) and though Ant's Line is more sustained, I'm not sure the crux move (even with the pump) is that much harder than the Shokely's Cieling's roof move.
Someone later told me that in some guides, the move itself is rated V1. I'm not sure I would go that far, but doesn't it seem odd that someone would rate the climb 5.6 and then say there is a V1 move on it?
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 19, 2005, 3:24 PM
Post #11 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
I taught myself how to climb at Cathedral. The first time I went to the Gunks I thought it was sandbagged, but this is most likely due to the style of climbing not being what I was familiar with. Once I climbed there a few more times, I thought they were both comparable grade-wise, just different style-wise.
I took an ex-girlfriend up Shockleys, and knowing what she was capable of I reversed the moves once I had cleared the crux to hang a couple slings for her. A0, done.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Apr 19, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #12 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
Dude, I know YOU didn't make the claim, but whoever told you that the ceiling move is V1 is nuts.
It is awkward, yes. But anybody with real (outdoor) roof experience can pull through it without too much difficulty, especially seconding.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 19, 2005, 3:28 PM
Post #13 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
edge moved this thread from General to Regional Discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Apr 19, 2005, 3:31 PM
Post #14 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: Is Shockley's Ceiling a sandbag? I was looking for an easy climb to take a friend of mine who just started climbing. Shokley's Ceiling is rated 5.6 (according to a guide that I borrowed) and so I thought that it would be a perfect climb. But as I pulled over the roof, I thought to myself, 'wow, if this is 5.6, then I'm missing somthing big.' This particular move was too much for my partner and she could not make it. When she fell, she was left dangling, helplessy unable to reach the wall, and I was forced to haul her over the roof (which turned out not to be an easy task). Normally I take sandbagging as part of the sport, but I think this is a little too underrated and the consequences of failing suggests that one should err more on the other side.
What you don't know is that you made one of the most classic Gunks mistakes of all time. Hundreds of other climbers have had the same thoughts and produced the same results. I've heard Shockley's Ceiling called "Shockley's Divorce" for the damage it has caused in many relationships. Glad you and your friend survived intact.
|
|
|
|
|
fjielgeit
Apr 19, 2005, 3:33 PM
Post #15 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Shokley's Ceiling may be technicaly a 5.6 but ... Is your girl friend still friends? I know an excillent climb in Central California at the Pinnacles called The Hand, put up by the legendary John Salathe. Rating no more than 5.5, yet when you go around this butress corner to start that 2nd pitch, and there is about four hundred feet betwen your legs and no pro, 5.5 psychologically becomes for a moment, very wrong. On the east face of Mt. Whitney, the fresh air traverse is another sphecter pucker easy fifth class traverse when you consider the thousand feet to the deck. My suggestion in regards to grades and girls or students or novice boyfriends in tow, get the beta. Nothing worse than you being able to do it because you are more experiences or bold or ... but your student cannot. As a guide you've just commited a very serious faux pas: Don't learn lessons at the expense of your students.
Fiel geit.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Apr 19, 2005, 4:20 PM
Post #16 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
In the 1972 Williams Guide book (blue Dick) Shockley's was 5.5. In fact it was the THE 5.5 at the Gunks that was used to correlate by.
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Apr 19, 2005, 4:29 PM
Post #17 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
In reply to: Someone later told me that in some guides, the move itself is rated V1. I'm not sure I would go that far, but doesn't it seem odd that someone would rate the climb 5.6 and then say there is a V1 move on it?
Heh heh. No, the "V1" in the guides means "Variation 1", not the bouldering grade. Shockleys has a few variations, check the route guide and you'll see the variations and their grades.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
Apr 19, 2005, 4:32 PM
Post #18 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
In reply to: In reply to: Someone later told me that in some guides, the move itself is rated V1. I'm not sure I would go that far, but doesn't it seem odd that someone would rate the climb 5.6 and then say there is a V1 move on it? Heh heh. No, the "V1" in the guides means "Variation 1", not the bouldering grade. Shockleys has a few variations, check the route guide and you'll see the variations and their grades.
You are so dead-on. That's a riot. Yes, someone was quite mistaken when they gave you that info.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 19, 2005, 4:35 PM
Post #19 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Shockley's is ALL jugs. Exposed, yes, but if you're not pulling on a full-on arm-eater bucket, then you're grabbing the wrong hold.
|
|
|
|
|
hoppinbig
Apr 19, 2005, 4:46 PM
Post #20 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
In reply to: Shockley's is ALL jugs. Exposed, yes, but if you're not pulling on a full-on arm-eater bucket, then you're grabbing the wrong hold.
Exactly
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 19, 2005, 5:12 PM
Post #21 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: I think the climb is no more 5.6 than any other 5.6 at the Gunks...not that that means anything. It's definitely intimidating, especially for someone who isn't comfortable on 5.6 gunks terrain. Nice job hauling your partner...that's burly. That said, the Gunks is emphatically NOT sandbagged, so don't start in on that. Everywhere else is soft...get over it.
rediculous!
at the very low levels 5.4-5.6 the gunks is absolutely majorly sandbagged no doubt!!!!
when you get up into .10's they start to even out way more. and that is where you might want to say oh, well other areas are softer. the lower levels... SANDBAGGED OUT THE ASS. However, one nice thing about the gunks is that the gear is bomber and most anyone with some experience can handle the placements.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 19, 2005, 5:13 PM
Post #22 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Shockley's ceiling is indeed 5.6 to a person who has good all-around climbing skills at that level. However, I would still hesitate to take a relative beginner on a Gunks route like Shockley's where the crux is turning a roof. That type of move is quite different from a standard 5.6 face climbing crux - for example.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
abisharat
Apr 19, 2005, 5:24 PM
Post #23 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 29
|
the gunks is not sandbagged by the simple reason that the Gunks, along with other so-called "sandbag" areas like yosemite and tahquitz and cathedral, was one of the places where top climbers of decades past got together to first define the ratings. You should use these areas to determine what a 5.6 truly is, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Apr 19, 2005, 5:28 PM
Post #24 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
indeed 5.6 at the gunks. nowhere else. I have to say that I really don't mind the fact that the ratings are stiff because with the huge amount of idiot first timers and dangerous" i know what I'm doing" beginners it keeps them off of the routes that I am on and hopefully out of dropped nalgene/ boulder range. New climbers at the gunks should start at the lowest level possible and work their way up. Moving to the gunks as a new climber and jumping on any 5.8 ( which might have been your standard) is a sure way to get yourself in trouble.
oh and curt...i think that your post is hilarious...good all around climbing skills as a 5.6 climber!...hmm.. oxymornon!! thats kinda why it is a bit of a bag man...good all aorund climbing skills don't go hand in hand with a 5.6 clmber.
I am so sick of all of you guys out there wanting to sound hard and tough. It cracks me up. At the low levels the gunks is certainly sandbagged and all new climbers who didn't learn how to climb there should be aware of this FACT!..if for no other reason than to keep themselves out of adangerous situation that they are not ready for or prepared to handle.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnbkrxtrordnair
Apr 19, 2005, 5:30 PM
Post #25 of 136
(26142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 267
|
In reply to: rediculous! at the very low levels 5.4-5.6 the gunks is absolutely majorly sandbagged no doubt!!!! when you get up into .10's they start to even out way more. and that is where you might want to say oh, well other areas are softer. the lower levels... SANDBAGGED OUT THE ASS. However, one nice thing about the gunks is that the gear is bomber and most anyone with some experience can handle the placements.
If it's a Fritz Weissner route say 5.3-5.5 put up in 1930's to 1950's, it's a sandbag. At the Gunks there are 4th class climbs that are sandbagged. In general, if it has several stars and is considered a "classic", it's a bit of a sandbag.
And if you want to take someone on a classic Gunks 5.6, try Madame G's. In many people's opinion it's the classic 5.6, even more so than High-E which I wouldn't take a beginner on either. It's a one move wonder with high pucker factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
