🚀 go-pugleaf

> A couple of comments on the Yosemite rating system:
> 
> In his guide to the Winds, Joe Kelsey said he could never tell the
> difference himself between a Class 2 and a Class 3 scramble - so in
> that book, the distinction is that if his golden retrievers could make
> it up the pitch it was Class 2, and if they couldn't it was Class 3!
> That's one of the clearer distinctions I've heard...
> 

I think its all sort of random.  Some purported class 3 scrambles I've seen
(the only ones that get rated seem to be associated with climbing areas --
I wonder why :-) could easily be scrambled by my keeshond and seem to be
barely harder than some class 2 scrambles.  Climber's don't seem to worry
much about classifying anything which one can scramble up.

> In his book Wasatch Quartzite, John Gottman said that as a general rule,
> the average beginner on his/her first outing could climb a 5.5, hang
> on to a 5.6, and would fall off a 5.7.  I've found this to be pretty
> consistently true.  He added that the same beginner would be amazed that
> anyone would be willing to lead a 5.8, and would be totally uncomprehending
> of 5.9 and 5.10.
> 

I'm not sure which book it was in, but either in Roper and Steck or Loughman,
the author claimed that a good novice might be able to struggle up a 5.10a
but would be stymied by a 5.10d.  I'd like to see the novice that can do a
5.10a on his first climb in non-rock shoes!

> I'll second (third? fourth?) the recommendation of /Learning to Rock Climb/
> by Loughman.  That's the book I always recommend to everybody I teach to
> climb.
> 
> Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb?

I'd be interested.  But are there enough climbers out there?

> 
> Cheers  -- Walt Haas    ARPA: HAAS@UTAH-20.ARPA
> 			...{decvax ihnp4 seismo}!utah-cs!haas

-eli

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eli Liang  ---
        University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526
        ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep
        CSNET: liang@cvl  UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang

> > Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb?
> 
> I'd be interested.  But are there enough climbers out there?

I would enjoy seeing a net.rec.climb newsgroup.  I think there are
plenty of climbers out there, but they tend to keep to themselves.


    "After climbing for three days we reached a piton.  It was 
    good to see some signs of civilisation."
						M. Harris

Lowell Skoog     
John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.    
Everwet (Everett), Washington

> > > Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb?
> > I'd be interested.  But are there enough climbers out there?
> 
> I would enjoy seeing a net.rec.climb newsgroup.  I think there are
> plenty of climbers out there, but they tend to keep to themselves.

1) I think there are too many news groups.  We have not yet flooded
net.rec [but I admit we might],
2) I am not interested in reading "What I did ..."  I do not attend
local Sierra Club meeting for the same reason.  I just returned from
climbing in CO, UT, and NV [sorry Alan, you weather postings did
not reach me in time].  Anyway, what I did in CO ......
Boring, boring, boring!
3) What shall we discuss?  Ethics? help? [I think the Cerro Ac* was
a good example of this posting, but net.travel might be better.]
We can still use net.rec.  We can certainly discuss why we think we
go climbing.  I wrote a 124 page paper on climbing in High School
[excluding figures] and I know of a book on the subject published
at OSU.

I suggest everybody get the ball rolling and have a discussion
before doing this, like the image processing discussion on net.graphics.
Other than that, I think, climbing is in many ways too personal
a 'sport' to easily discuss.  I am frankly surprised there is no
backpacking group on the net yet there are supposed to be 10 million
backpackers [I was offered a job with a new East Coast mag out of HS
with the name "Backpacker." I think they've reach a point of stagnation
because of a similar 'personal nature.']  The info for much of what we
might discuss better appears in climbing and hiking magazines and
journals or in local shops in the form of guidebooks (sic).

A proposal was made in another group to talk about weather [for
the reason of retirement].  In a sense, the same info can be obtained
by going to a library.  I get a bit of a sense of laziness on the
part of some netters [not this group, don't get me wrong] to
use other than electronic media for communication: like writing
physical letters to one's Congressmen.  In short, if you want net.rec.cl*
show the need exists.

--eugene miya
  [you know where] and
  Alpine Consultants
  Palo Alto, CA

In article <1156@ames.UUCP> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes:
>> > > Anybody interested in starting net.rec.climb?
>> > I'd be interested.  But are there enough climbers out there?
>> 
>> I would enjoy seeing a net.rec.climb newsgroup.  I think there are
>> plenty of climbers out there, but they tend to keep to themselves.
>
>1) I think there are too many news groups.  We have not yet flooded
>net.rec [but I admit we might],

I don't believe they're enough of us to use a newsgroup either, but it
sure feels nice seeing all these people come out of the siliconwork.

I get to do a moderate amount of traveling on business, and the net
seems like a decent opportunity to find partners in advance, to fill in
the weekend with some new rock, or tired legs.
Other topics might be new equipment or techniques, I know those who
climb in Yosemite/Gunks feel up to date, but many are more isolated.

So if you happen to be stopping down at the Triangle, I'll try to help.
Ed Pavelchek  (perpetually oscillating around 5.9)