Depends (on what you like).

The Gunks is my home crag, but only a cragger would say the east has better climbing.

But why limit ourselves to east vs west? It IS the United States, after all. This land is your land, this land is my land....

Perhaps a better debate is Canada vs US, who has the best climbing?

Disagree. I think that whether you like sport, trad, bouldering, aid, ice, or alpine, it's better in the west.

If you like bouldering, then you prefer sandstone, and if you prefer sandstone, you prefer the South.

QED

If you're interested in big climbs, west is it.

This can of course mean shitty rock, loose approaches, unaesthetic climbing, and lighting. Of course the climbing can be incredible too. For single pitch, oftenmout west you find yourself on a roadcut asking why mountainproject gave the area 5 stars.

Out east, it's about moving over stone. There are no amazing views or jawdropping landscapes. The kinesthetics of each route is often far more interesting than western routes. You have to love climbing rocks to appreciate this, it's not camera climbing.

I also think you can lead a rich full adventurous life on 5.8 out west. If you're not leading 12's at least semi-regularly out east, you'll probably take up geo-caching and posting on the Internet as a hobby.

This is not even close to being true, especially in the northeast. Maybe if the only place you have been to is the Red, but the east has quite a bit of variety, just not as much of it. I know hundreds of climbers, and only a small fraction of them climb 12's regularly.

I live in the East, but if I were to pick, I would pick the West for the following reasons: Weather, pure volume and ability to live in close proximity to rock. In the East, if you want to work and make a decent living, you probably need to live at least 2 hours away from good rock.

Josh

5.12 is a bit of an exaggeration but I get his point. What he means is that there is a lifetime of big long climbs out west for the climber that won't ever do a V1 move, even if you just stick to the popular areas. Get a little farther off the beaten path and there are 10 lifetimes of amazing routes under 5.9.

You can't really do that in the east. We don't have big alpine ridges or 13,000 foot peaks that can be reached via 5.6-5.8. If you want to go up a relatively big wall in the east you need to be able to climb harder than 5.8

There are a handful of Grade III climbs in the NE that go at under 5.8 but certainly not more than someone could do in a years worth of weekend trips. Take a 5.8 climber to Poke-o-Moonshine and see how many pitches he's willing to lead.

The SE is the same. Seneca and Linvile Gorge have a bit of climbing under 5.8 but once you've done that you're left with the big walls of NC and you can't get to the top of any of them without either climbing hard 5.10 and usually 5.11, or running it out 80 feet on 5.8 and 5.9.

If you're a sport climber in the east or even single pitch trad, your problems are even worse. The Red has some good 5.10-5.11 but the New shuts down anyone who can't do a true V4 move. Trad at both places is the same. Sure there are 5.8's but if you can't climb solid 5.10 you won't have fun for more than a few trips to either place.

T-Wall is stacked with classics, starting at 5.9. Other Chattanooga areas are similar.

I could go on.

I love the climbing here but you have to admit that climbers in the 5.5 to 5.8 range end up repeating the same old routes or just going out west.

If you're solid on 5.10 trad and 5.12 sport... there is SO MUCH climbing for you in the east.





Not true. I can think of plenty of places to live and work in the east that are closer than two hours. Maybe not as close as Boulder, but not two hours. It depends on what you consider to be a descent living. If you're looking for a city with more than 500,000 people then yes, you're two hours away. But if you can find a job (and you can) in a smaller city (not town) then it's possible to be within 45 min of good climbing.