Gunks vs. Seneca

Direct is 5.4. regular only 5.3

I learned to climb at Seneca and the Gunks felt softer when I finally visited.  I once watched some shirtless/helmetless bro grunt his way through Cottonmouth at Seneca while screaming out that it was the hardest 10a he's ever climbed.  When he got to the belay I asked him where he normally climbs, he said the Gunks.  

I've never climbed at the Gunks, but I hear the grades are old-school.

At Seneca, I have climbed 5.3 and been terrified.

At Red Rocks, I have climbed 5.7 and wondered why I bothered placing gear.

Robert S wrote: I've never climbed at the Gunks, but I hear the grades are old-school.

At Seneca, I have climbed 5.3 and been terrified.

At Red Rocks, I have climbed 5.7 and wondered why I bothered placing gear.

This is accurate.  I've lived in Las Vegas for the last 3 years, and in 2 weeks I'm visiting Seneca for the first time since I've moved.  I'm a little worried lol

Nick Goldsmith wrote: Direct is 5.4. regular only 5.3

Both are amazing 

Climbing Seneca whenever I can I've been told the gunks is easier if your taller. I will find out this summer when i finally hit the gunks.  

Ones roofs and ones not. Stop comparing them. 

Psychologically, gunks is soft. At the gunks i allow myself to be a little more reckless.  If i hurt myself, I know someone will come save me pretty quickly.  If I hurt myself at Seneca, I'll be in pain for many many many hours....

Lone Pine wrote:

People should stop referring to places like the Gunks and Seneca as “sandbagged” and instead aknowledge them as a what they really are, regular traditional climbing areas. It seems like every trad climbing area from Maine to South Carolina is uniquely and notoriously sandbagged lol

IMHO, with the exception of West Pole, i thought all of the climbs that i have done at Seneca in this grade range were pretty comparable to any other climbing area in the east coast.

With a few exceptions, they're also on par with trad areas in the west that were developed when grades were being defined and with routes established by climbers from that era.

Gunks was just an adapt to the style thing for me. Not really sandbagged IMHO. Seneca was an entirely different animal. Very sandbagged. 

   The first time I went to Seneca was around March of last year. I was as green as they come, I had a blast and learned a lot even though I didn't get to lead that much. The second time was last August and I was a bit less green than six months before that :) By that point I had been climbing locally in Western Mass and occasionally at the Gunks. I think that the hardest routes I had climbed at the Gunks around that time were Madame G and Baby. This second trip was when I got to have my first go at leading at Seneca for a few days in a row. Lots of good memories with Candy Corner (yes, easy climb but so fun for newbie like me) Ecstasy and the Green Wall standing out. So far the climbing felt equally challenging but with its own specific challenges. Oh and just as an aside earlier that August I felt comfortable leading the Finger of Fate pitch on Moby Grape (5.8 PG13).
   I went down to Seneca earlier this year for the third time. Unfortunately the weather took a turn for the worst and instead of three days of climbing we ended up with half a day of climbing on semi dry rock with cold wind and gusts at a 45 mph. I thought about leading Ye Gods (5.8) but couldn't get in the head space I needed so just led Candy Corner (again) and setup a TR on Ye Gods. I'm now comfortable with 5.7's at the Gunks and have climbed a bit less than a dozen 8's. Maybe it was my limited experience or maybe my memory is clouded by the weather conditions on that day but Ye Gods felt harder on top rope than any 5.8 I've climbed in the Gunks so far.
   All this said, my unrequested recommendation is nothing revolutionary, just get on climbs that have good gear (single pitches maybe at first?) and get a feel for the rock. My recollection is that Seneca felt more physically sustained at each grade and a bit less cryptic to read. You might be able to find bigger rests at the Gunks but route finding and pulling over roofs out there is an art form of it own. That said the exposure at Seneca feels a lot more demanding. But then again, I recall gear placements at Seneca feeling a lot more encouraging than the Gunks. And even though Seneca gets crowded, it has a much more adventurous feel than the Gunks which adds to excitement to some (me included) but can be a bit nerve wrecking for someone that likes the fact that if anything happens the carriage road is right there and that, at least on weekends, there is almost always somebody within earshot. 

For historical perspective: I learned to climb at the Gunks in the mid 1970s, and my first out-of-state road trip was to Seneca, so I wondered this same thing as the OP before that trip. We had just broken into easy 5.10s. Thankfully, we found the grades at the two areas to be similar, but Seneca did have this thing called crack climbing. This made some of the routes feel on the hard side until we got the hang of it. Since that time, however, ratings have changed a little at the Gunks. My first 5.5, 5.6, and 5.8 leads - Gunks routes the defined those grades for me - have now all been uprated in Dick's subsequent books. So Gunks ratings have gotten softer since the 1970s. I have not seen the same grade drift in the Seneca books. So now even the Gunks has gone a little soft compared to its former self. The fact that someone in the thread above asked "is there a difference between 5.6 and 5.7?" is pretty funny. It goes to show how wrong and unhelpful "modern" grades have become at the sub-5.10 levels. Hell yes, there is a difference. Or used to be, should be. Neither the Gunks or Seneca is "sandbagged." It's just that each 5.2 - 5.8 grade actually means something. 

J Achey wrote: . So now even the Gunks has gone a little soft compared to its former self. The fact that someone in the thread above asked "is there a difference between 5.6 and 5.7?" is pretty funny. It goes to show how wrong and unhelpful "modern" grades have become at the sub-5.10 levels. Hell yes, there is a difference. Or used to be, should be. Neither the Gunks or Seneca is "sandbagged." It's just that each 5.2 - 5.8 grade actually means something. 

That last statement cannot be said enough times. 5.2-5.8 is a meaningful grade range in both of these places and I’m sure a few others. That’s something I greatly appreciate about climbing here and it’s only possible because of the work that started back in the Fritz Weisner and Hans Kraus days. 

Not that I’d have any influence in the process but I used to be all for “updating” the grades at the Gunks. The more I learn about the history of places like the Gunks and Seneca the more I realize what’s obvious to some of the old timers.There certain routes and grade ranges that are absolutely meaningful. 
Perhaps the issue is not that old routes and grades are not “sandbagged”. Maybe the issue is that modern grades, particularly within 5.2-5.8 range are mostly meaningless. 

I could lead a handful of 10's at Seneca but could barely scratch up 9's at the Gunks. Having said that, I am on the shorter side and I felt like the Gunks would often have shutdown moves because reaching the next horizontal involved something interesting. If I was to pick a place to climb, Seneca all day. No real crowds, waaay better camping situation, and no carriage road fee.

finger of fate pitch on moby is not 5.8. it's 5.6x if you want to be realistic. the PG 13 is nice and all but seriously if you fall on that thing you are toast. that being said you are not going to fall unless the climb falls off ( very likely) and in the good old days even though this is a zero falls allowed pitch it would not get a protection rateing because it's only 5.6 on a 5.8 climb and the leader does not fall...