Forums: Climbing Information: General:
WORST city for a climber?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


spikeddem


Jan 10, 2011, 7:39 AM
Post #26 of 63 (7251 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [zeppm] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

Boulder, CO


cornstateclimber


Jan 10, 2011, 7:51 AM
Post #27 of 63 (7246 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 324

Re: [spikeddem] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

illinois sucks, but far from the worst i suppose. its 3 hr drive for me to one oif our worst crags, and 6 hours to our best crags. but 14 hours to to the rockies or thne black hills, and about 14 to great climbing in Western NC. but only 8 to the red. but hell when uyou want multipitch climbing, cuz your looking at 14hours min. drive to get anywhere close to more than 2 real pitches. yet we do have rocks, and some are almost 200'. so i cant complain too much.least we got more than florida!


coastal_climber


Jan 10, 2011, 9:05 AM
Post #28 of 63 (7206 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 16, 2006
Posts: 2542

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
coastal_climber wrote:
Anywhere east of the rockies, excluding Nunavut, NWT, Yukon

Are you talking Canadian Rockies or US? Because, although I was a Bostonian that denounced the idea that Boston is on the best list, it is definitely not on the worst list. We have great climbing between 2-5 hours. If you climb ice, then it is a year-round climbing city.

Josh

Not to mention that Montreal apparently has some really good (even big) granite within a few hours. I'm not sure what he meant by saying there was no good eastern climbing.


Canadian Rockies. If the west coast was discovered first, there wouldn't be an east coast.


dynosore


Jan 10, 2011, 9:16 AM
Post #29 of 63 (7201 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768

Re: [coastal_climber] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

coastal_climber wrote:
camhead wrote:
blueeyedclimber wrote:
coastal_climber wrote:
Anywhere east of the rockies, excluding Nunavut, NWT, Yukon

Are you talking Canadian Rockies or US? Because, although I was a Bostonian that denounced the idea that Boston is on the best list, it is definitely not on the worst list. We have great climbing between 2-5 hours. If you climb ice, then it is a year-round climbing city.

Josh

Not to mention that Montreal apparently has some really good (even big) granite within a few hours. I'm not sure what he meant by saying there was no good eastern climbing.


Canadian Rockies. If the west coast was discovered first, there wouldn't be an east coast.

There is great ice and rock climbing all around Lake Superior in Ontario. A bit far from big cities, but great nonetheless.


majid_sabet


Jan 10, 2011, 9:41 AM
Post #30 of 63 (7179 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [kachoong] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?


kachoong


Jan 10, 2011, 10:32 AM
Post #31 of 63 (7154 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [majid_sabet] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.


I_do


Jan 10, 2011, 10:50 AM
Post #32 of 63 (7141 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232

Re: [kachoong] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.

I must say your times are a bit optimistic considering you'll run into trafic quite a lot, a trip to lets say basel can take as little as seven hours but can also easily take 10. But you are leaving out a couple of options as well. Many crags in belgium are about 3 hours and fontainebleau 5-6. there's nice climbing in luxemburg and germany as well. I think frankenjura in 6 hours is unpossible.

All in all there's plenty of stuff for a (long weekend) the alps are only a day which is fine if you want to go for a week or so and bleau is fine for a three day weekend.

The main reason Amsterdam is shit for climbers is that owning, parking and driving a car here is horribly expensive. When I lived in Brissie I could aford a car and petrol no sweat, and I knew lots of other students with a car, here transportation is always the major problem when I want to go climb, who has/can borrow a car is usually the limiting factor.

That said I started working so I'll probably have a car pretty soon and can go as often as I like!


kachoong


Jan 10, 2011, 10:59 AM
Post #33 of 63 (7134 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [I_do] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I_do wrote:
kachoong wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.

I must say your times are a bit optimistic considering you'll run into trafic quite a lot, a trip to lets say basel can take as little as seven hours but can also easily take 10. But you are leaving out a couple of options as well. Many crags in belgium are about 3 hours and fontainebleau 5-6. there's nice climbing in luxemburg and germany as well. I think frankenjura in 6 hours is unpossible.

All in all there's plenty of stuff for a (long weekend) the alps are only a day which is fine if you want to go for a week or so and bleau is fine for a three day weekend.

The main reason Amsterdam is shit for climbers is that owning, parking and driving a car here is horribly expensive. When I lived in Brissie I could aford a car and petrol no sweat, and I knew lots of other students with a car, here transportation is always the major problem when I want to go climb, who has/can borrow a car is usually the limiting factor.

That said I started working so I'll probably have a car pretty soon and can go as often as I like!

Yeah, I figured some of my times were off but my main point was that Amsterdam isn't remote at all from climbing. Didn't know about the Belgium crags... that's cool. When I lived in Germany I was close to the Hartz, which had a little bit a cragging too.


qwert


Jan 10, 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #34 of 63 (7119 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [kachoong] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.
While those distances might sound not to bad from an american perspective, for europe this is as bad as it gets (if you ignore the Ith, but that is probably going to be restricted for the dutch anyways ;) ) if you take into account that you can get from the north to the south shore of the continent in way under 20 hours.

I need at minimum 2 hours to get to the alps, and that is way too much ...

qwert


kostik


Jan 10, 2011, 11:13 AM
Post #35 of 63 (7113 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 26, 2005
Posts: 275

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
How far of a drive is the nearest outdoor climbing from Moscow?

Bouldering party in an old quarry in Moscow suburbs about 1 h from downtown:
http://www.baurock.ru/lit1707/lit1707.htm


kachoong


Jan 10, 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #36 of 63 (7112 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [qwert] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

qwert wrote:
kachoong wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.
While those distances might sound not to bad from an american perspective, for europe this is as bad as it gets (if you ignore the Ith, but that is probably going to be restricted for the dutch anyways ;) ) if you take into account that you can get from the north to the south shore of the continent in way under 20 hours.

I need at minimum 2 hours to get to the alps, and that is way too much ...

qwert

two hours? No need to squeeze lemon on it! Heh!

It's all relative though, eh? You make do with what you have. I gotta drive three hours to climb anything bigger than a VW


Partner rrrADAM


Jan 10, 2011, 11:16 AM
Post #37 of 63 (7106 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Worst "city"?http://en.wikipedia.org/...Joe_Arpaio#Tent_City

All jest aside... Moving from SoCal, where I had lots of stellar climbing options, so Wilmington, NC is a big change, as I have to drive more than 4 hours for any climbing. There is GREAT climbing here in NC, but it's pretty far. Unsure

Which is why I built that killer bouldering room.


(This post was edited by rrrADAM on Jan 10, 2011, 11:16 AM)


sbaclimber


Jan 10, 2011, 12:35 PM
Post #38 of 63 (7050 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 3118

Re: [kachoong] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
qwert wrote:
kachoong wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
kachoong wrote:
sbaclimber wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
edge wrote:
Key West?

Amsterdam
Well, the weather is definitely worse....but Amsterdam isn't nearly as far away from "real" climbing.

This is correct.

From Amsterdam the Ith is 4 hours, the Frankenjura is around 6 hours, the Donautal is 7 hours, the Peak District is 9 hours and even Grindelwald at the base of the Eiger is just over 8 hours.


how far is that big wall in Norway or Sweden from Amsterdam ?

Do you mean the Troll wall in Norway? There are walls in the alps closer but I think it's about 1700km including a ferry crossing.
While those distances might sound not to bad from an american perspective, for europe this is as bad as it gets (if you ignore the Ith, but that is probably going to be restricted for the dutch anyways ;) ) if you take into account that you can get from the north to the south shore of the continent in way under 20 hours.

I need at minimum 2 hours to get to the alps, and that is way too much ...

qwert

two hours? No need to squeeze lemon on it! Heh!

It's all relative though, eh?
Yeah, it definitely is. I still find it funny how many people think a 2 hour drive is "long". I am absolutely stoked to be within 1.5-2 hrs from 2 huge, and a couple smaller, but still very good, climbing areas. (one of them being the Harz, incidentally)
...not to mention quite a few other crags even closer.
It must be the american in me, but I am more than happy to drive 1.5-2 hrs each way for a day in the Frankenjura or Elbsandsteingebirge...or even the Harz or Erzgebirge...


(This post was edited by sbaclimber on Jan 10, 2011, 1:28 PM)


the_JC


Jan 10, 2011, 5:40 PM
Post #39 of 63 (7007 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 23

Re: [sbaclimber] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Yeah, it definitely is. I still find it funny how many people think a 2 hour drive is "long". I am absolutely stoked to be within 1.5-2 hrs from 2 huge, and a couple smaller, but still very good, climbing areas. (one of them being the Harz, incidentally)
...not to mention quite a few other crags even closer.
It must be the american in me, but I am more than happy to drive 1.5-2 hrs each way for a day in the Frankenjura or Elbsandsteingebirge...or even the Harz or Erzgebirge...

Definitely second that. Before i came to the US, my thought was that more than one hour to drive each way was too much for a daytrip and more than 4 hours were too much for a weekend. This country sure makes us europeans reconsider our sense for distances. On the other hand there was worse trafic jam when traveling towards Frankenjura or the alps on Friday afternoons and back on Sunday evenings than what i experienced on the Washington Beltway at the same times. And the gas is a lot more expensive in Europe, too.
(Personal climbing trip record in the US: 700miles each way for 1 and 1/2 days of HP 40 bouldering. Totally worth it!)


Bats


Jan 10, 2011, 6:20 PM
Post #40 of 63 (6998 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 485

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Houston, TX, to:

3 hrs Austin's Greenbelt
3 hrs McKinney Falls
3 1/2 hrs Reimers' Ranch
3 1/2 hrs Rogers Park
4 1/2 hrs Enchanted Rock
8 hrs Wichitas/Quartz Mt.
10 1/2 hrs HCR & Sam's Throne
11 3/4 hrs HP 40
12 hrs Hueco Tanks

The funny thing is that its faster to go Arkansas or Alabama than Hueco Tanks.Crazy


braaaaaaaadley


Jan 10, 2011, 7:45 PM
Post #41 of 63 (6982 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576

Re: [spikeddem] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I think I have a strong contender... Dumas, Tx. I used to think Norfolk, VA was bad. Norfolk was paradise compared to this place. Google it if you don't believe me! Can't wait to get back to civilization this summer.


Bats


Jan 10, 2011, 8:18 PM
Post #42 of 63 (6977 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 485

Re: [braaaaaaaadley] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have been in Dumas, TX. I think it may be a winner.


photoguy190


Jan 10, 2011, 8:31 PM
Post #43 of 63 (6973 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Posts: 191

Re: [Bats] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Second vote for Lincoln Nebraska, no real gyms, if you aren't a college student. To add injury to insult there is really nothing to do in the outdoors, unless you want to farm. So other city maybe far from climbing but they still have other outdoor activities to go with


guangzhou


Jan 10, 2011, 9:13 PM
Post #44 of 63 (6959 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post



bad enough the rock is a quarry, but you got to put up with Russian climbing outfits too.

And for the other gender:




uni_jim


Jan 10, 2011, 9:34 PM
Post #45 of 63 (6954 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 27, 2008
Posts: 429

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dog River SK.


guangzhou


Jan 10, 2011, 10:00 PM
Post #46 of 63 (6945 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [uni_jim] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rangoon, Burma.


acorneau


Jan 11, 2011, 4:07 AM
Post #47 of 63 (6894 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889

Re: [braaaaaaaadley] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

braaaaaaaadley wrote:
I think I have a strong contender... Dumas, Tx.

I, too, have been through Dumas several times on my way out to NE New Mexico. It's a fairly desolate place, although you might be able to climb the grain silos...
Crazy


kachoong


Jan 11, 2011, 5:05 AM
Post #48 of 63 (6871 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [acorneau] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
braaaaaaaadley wrote:
I think I have a strong contender... Dumas, Tx.

I, too, have been through Dumas several times on my way out to NE New Mexico. It's a fairly desolate place, although you might be able to climb the grain silos...
Crazy

It may be a shithole to live but it's still only about 4.5 hours from the Wichita's and 5.5 hours from Taos. Certainly prevents having the opportunity to be able to climb after work though, which I think is essential for any climber. Even a day trip is pushing it when you're more than 3 hours from rock.


sungam


Jan 11, 2011, 6:32 AM
Post #49 of 63 (6844 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26800

Re: [camhead] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Or antarctica
Depends where in Anarctica...




Partner camhead


Jan 11, 2011, 8:27 AM
Post #50 of 63 (5915 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20939

Re: [acorneau] WORST city for a climber? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

acorneau wrote:
braaaaaaaadley wrote:
I think I have a strong contender... Dumas, Tx.

I, too, have been through Dumas several times on my way out to NE New Mexico. It's a fairly desolate place, although you might be able to climb the grain silos...
Crazy

Hmm I forgot about the far northern panhandle. I've driven through it several times, and although the Caprock Canyons/Palo Dura look really cool, there's not a lot of rock in that area.

However, although I'm sure Dumas sucks for all the typical rural TX reasons, in addition to not having a gym, you're still reasonably close to decent climbing. Looks like the Wichitas and Quartz Mtn. are both around 4-4.5 hours, which is totally reasonable for a weekend trip. Hell, Dumas is closer to Colorado than about any other Texas city; Canon City/Shelf Road in CO are less than 6 hours, again very doable for a weekend.

Still, if I had to take TX, I'd take Dallas or Austin way over Dumas. Not sure about Houston.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook