Wolf's Tooth 

Do not expect a casual 5.8 on this one. I did it for the second time recently and the first pitch feels to me as hard as Conads! It certainly is a bit scary ...

This is a great route. I just did it for the 2nd (and 3rd, kinda') time this weekend and loved it. I used a #5 camalot in the wide section (but some of it is too narrow for that, more like #4.5). Seems like you could put some "normal" pro in the left wall, but after carrying that cam up there, I was sticking it somewhere. As for the "and 3rd" time, partner was tired after the chimney, and suggested I could rap and do it again if I was bored. Sounded like a good idea so that's what I did (also retrieved the forgotten nut tool).

I've been feeling recently that this is my favorite 5.8 on the Ridge, rather than Pear Buttress. As George indicates, it's a very physical climb, but unlike many chimney climbs, it offers excellent protection the whole way. Last time leading it, I didn't place the #4--as Eric indicates, another crack begins at the wide section and continues the length of the climb. You can also jam this crack in places, for some variety. However, I'd definitely recommend bringing a big piece if it's your first time on it. At any rate, the climbing is excellent and the position can't be beat.

I'd have to agree with George, it felt a lot harder to me than any 5.8 I've ever done. Charles, however, is trying to convince me that I climbed it wrong and wants me to try it again.

Yes, this climb seems to be 5.9 in my view and a bit spicey getting to the chimney itself. Tiger's Tooth on the other side is MUCH harder and I think more like 10a/b (but it will feel MUCH harder than any 10a sport climb, hand crack, finger crack, etc. as is the custom with offwidths.)

Yes, I guess I am inflating the grades, but I'm trying to bring them more in line with hundreds of other 5.8's. I think this pitch is certainly a grade harder than Pear Buttress (another 5.8 at Lumpy). Grades on routes are arrived at my consensus, usually, but sometimes people are very attached to the traditional ratings - which are frequently way off and serve little purpose.

Well, I'm all in favor of realistic grades, but here's a vote for 5.8 on this one, which is odd because it is apparent to me that Bill and George are better and more experienced off-width/chimney climbers than myself.

At the crux, it seems like there are so many features to use, e.g. 4-inch crack, shallow chimney, dihedral, finger crack, and higher some face holds, that while strenuous, the 5.8 seems accurate. It would be easy to make it harder, though. My first time on the route we climbed Conads (5.9) as a link-up and that route seemed considerably more difficult to me.

Well since this is one of my favorite routes around and I have done a "few" wide cracks and chimneys, I wanted to give my opinion.

I feel like this is 5.8+. It is strenuous and may have numerous 5.8 moves, hence the '+'. I don't think that it has any move with technical difficulty of 5.9. The bottom is sustained crack, but the dihedral helps a bit. Offwidth is awkward but there are numerous ways to do it, and doesn't involve anything I would equate with 5.9 offwidth, like having to get both feet tucked into the crack in that weird 5.9 offwidth fashion (ok that was vague sorry but figure people who climb many offwidths know what I mean).

I will admit it feels harder than some other 5.8s at Lumpy. It is much more strenuous, though probably no more technically difficult than The Frame (8+ offwidth on Lens Rock). Also, it is much easier than Sicilian Defense, on the Book End, or The Snake (5.9 ow) on Turkey Tail in the S. Platte (i.e. another granite offwidth). For the closest comparison I would use Tiger's Tooth, 9+ and right next door. As a side note, I think 9+ is fair for Tiger's Tooth. Again it is extremely strenuous (of course more or less depending on technique, luck/skill of finding holds, etc), but I don't think the technical difficulty exceeds 5.9.

I'm glad this is hard for 5.8 because someday I want to do the Crack of Fear which I hear is hard for 5.10. I'd hate to see the "Tooth" climbs upgraded since their grades accurately reflect their difficulty in relation to other cracks on the Twin Owls. It's just a burly place to climb and we should respect that.

A 10hex, a 11hex, a 4 Camalot and a few stoppers, 5.8 +. Lumpy's Bastille Crack, SK.

...It surprises me that everyone thinks the crux is the wide crack. I actually thought the first few moves in the first 20' (before you get to the wide crack) were the crux. Slippery and insecure, and hard to get pro in. Borderline 5.9, at least as an onsight lead, IMHO.

Huh. I just remember the first 20 feet being a good hand to fist crack (and some stemming possibilities), easy to place #3-4 friends, up to a rest stance at the wide spot. I did the route again last weekend and the wide section definitely felt the hardest, as usual. Oh well. George, I think this is funny because I was the one bitching about all the offwidth that you didn't remember on Turnkorner :)

By the way, for anyone going to do this route, let me reiterate: definitely start it with the Conad's pitch just below (did this again on 5/27)--I think the link-up is top 5 for Lumpy, at any grade! Steep, sustained crack climbing, all the sizes from fingers to chimney!

I agree with George Bell and Bill Wright - this definitely feels like Lumpy 5.9 in the initial 30 feet. Traditionalists who decry grade inflation should be demanding that this route be graded 5.7; after all, that's what it was rated in Walter Fricke's 1971 guide. To me, ratings should reflect reality and not tradition. Wolf's Tooth is on a par with Conad's in difficulty, and is much harder than Melvin's Wheel, Pear Buttress or Cackle Crack. In fact, it's harder than several Lumpy 5.9's, such as Backflip or Mainliner. Ratings should be consistent across an entire area, and not be harder on one rock (Twin Owls) than elsewhere.

5.7 would not be an unreasonable grade for this climb- if it were in Yosemite or Vedauwoo.

Seems to me that wide cracks have always been touted as "hard for the grade" since they aren't the main course in most climber's diets, and they generally require a lot more energy (and technique) to succeed on.

Geez, it's rated 5.8+; keeping in mind that it is also an offwidth/chimney, it shouldn't be surprising that it feels pretty hard/strenuous for 5.8. I have pretty poor offwidth technique, but it feels easier, and *much* more secure than most of the 9s and even a few 8s I've done at Lumpy. I've done the Conads-Wolf's Tooth link 3 or 4 times and every time, Conads has felt significantly harder. Of course, some people think Conads is a hard 5.9, but they probably haven't done Tiger's Tooth (9+) or Gollum's Arch (10a). The grades on these steep hand to offwidth size climbs on the Twin Owls seem pretty consistent to me.

Wolf's Tooth is NOT rated 5.8+ in any guidebook that I have seen: Walter Fricke (1971) - 5.7 Salaun and Kimball (1980) - 5.8- Rossiter (1996) - 5.8 Gillett (2001) - 5.8

It's rated .8+ on the topo in Rossiter (and possibly in Knapp's guide?), but whether 8 or 8+, I think my comments comparing it to other Twin Owls routes are what's important. I just don't think it's comparable to routes like Pear Buttress, Mainliner, etc.; it is a totally different kind of climbing, one that most climbers (including myself) normally avoid.

I followed the .10+ crux of Crack of Fear once, and while it brutalized me more than any .11+ I've ever tried, I don't think that means it's .11+...I simply lack the technique and experience on such strenous, overhanging offwidth. IMO the same principles apply to Wolf's Tooth at a different grade.

Finally climbed this last Saturday. After reading the comments here, I was expecting a battle and got one. I thought the crux was about 3 or 4 moves, 25 ft. up, just below a great rest. Felt hard for 5.8 to me, even for OW.

Combining this with Conad's and the 5.9 finish, this is definitely one of the best 5.8/5.9 outings I've done at Lumpy. This is a great feature to climb on and the protection is very good. Large cams are useful for the first 20 or so feet, then small to medium gear can be plugged into the main wall.

Well, it appears the 5.8 rating of this climb is correct as that is the average rating of all these comments. I think that is great info - just what these comments are useful for! They also give you an idea that the spread in ratings on this climb is larger than normal, perhaps depending on how much you've climbed in Yosemite or Vedauwoo.

Did this route last weekend and was somewhat surprised at the difficulty considering the 5.8 rating. The route is certainly stiff for the grade if comparing it routes in Eldo or elsewhere in Boulder but is probably not much harder than Huston's crack (5.8+) on Cobb Rock. The 5.9 finish is much easier than the 5.8 below! The route is excellent (3 stars) but might not be a good choice for the new 5.8 leader although the gear is excellent.

I followed this route 4 summers ago, about this time of year. I was new to climbing at the time. I flailed.

However, it still stands as one of the best routes I have ever climbed/followed/whatever. I am a semi/quasi-reformed endurance athelete--this route reminded me of how I feel after a long bike ride/run.

I guess this climb biased my opinion about climbing; If I am not all-body tired after a climb, then I don't feel like I have done anything.

There is a nice 100 foot rap in situ for the first pitch.

Great climb and a good workout.

This is a 5.7 route!! It was the first time I led it in 1974 and I really do not think that it has changed that much... I have noticed that many of the old routes have been upgraded. I do not think that they have gotten harder....

One of the best moderate link-ups at Lumpy Ridge: "Conan's Gonads" (hands) to "Wolf's Tooth" (hand crack to fist to off-width to chimney) with the 5.9 finish (fingers) - serious variety. Don't forget to hit up "Yosemite Crack" on your walk back around the Twin Owls.

It might sound sick, but I've climbed this route about 17 times. Living locally, I give my visiting friends the choice of Lumpy routes. Many WANT to do Conad's & Wolf's Tooth, or can only climb for 1/2 day and want the ultimate Lumpy *classics*. I find them solidly graded and quite equal, albeit technically different. However, I would never send out a 5.8 leader on to it. It might be 5.8 climbing if you hit the sequences perfectly: y'all just better have your 5.9 head screwed on tight. :)

This is an awesome route. I love a chimney with a view. You only need up to a #4 Camalot and even that felt semi-unnecesary since there was ample protection in the incipient cracks on the left side of the chimney.

Definitely pretty physical, but thats what makes OWs OWs. This climb had lots of opportunities for rests.

There is a great belay seat at to belay from just below the summit of the pilar.

I dodged right of this belay and climbed a short finger crack- kind of curious if this is the 5.9 finger crack. I didn't see anything else abovet the belay that looked worthwhile climbing.

You could probably rap the first pitch of the route with a 70m- I noticed some pieces of rope at the top of the pinnacle that looked rappable.