"Top Twenty Classic" Fly Boys???

Dunno what your algorithm for determining these routes might be but having Fly Boys on that list is an abomination.

Nothing wrong with sport bolted choss per se...but it ain't classic in any sense of the word.

Just sayin'.

Bueller?

Tenaya’s Tears?

Climbed it last summer. It's like any other 5-9 sport route, times 15. I enjoyed it, I'm glad it exists, I thank the FA party for their all-around efforts, I would do it again eventually, but I have a hard time with any sport climb being called a "classic." Classic climbs earn their status largely because their FA was often done ground-up following features forming the line of least resistance; you can often see the line from a mile or more away and recognize "Wow, that's the line. Look at those massive features we follow. Can't wait. Looks classic." You do not look at Flyboys and say those things.

On way to hijack this thread is to ask what multi-sport climbs are "classic sport climbs."

 

Lone Pine wrote: Tenaya’s Tears?

This spray campaign definitely rivals last fall's campaign to get people to climb Free Jerry. Carry on gents

It seems clear this landed on the list because the algorithm rewards popularity and possibly length with classic status. Either through algorithm tweaks or just changes in what people are clicking on, I've seen trad routes get bumped off classic routes by newer sport routes in a bunch of areas near me. This isn't intended as a dig on the site developers at all, I just like to openly wonder about what actually defines a "classic."

I think sport routes can be classic, on a continental level, but really only the ones with near perfect movement, cool position, and interesting history. To Bolt or Not to Be comes to mind. I haven't been on Flyboys, but for that region, length, and difficulty I do have a hard time believing that it could possibly eclipse the North Ridge on Stuart for classic status.

EDIT: I checked, Flyboys isn't just top twenty classics on this site, it's top ten ( mountainproject.com/route-g… ).

It looks like Fly Boys is listed because a huge amount of people put it on their to do list. Since the classics list is based on user generated data I think that these complaints should really be focused at the users and not the developers, why do all of these gumbies think that Fly Boys is cool when its a 5.9 sport route?

Speaking of classic sport routes, I'd argue that the backbone at smith makes the list.

I do know a lot of people who want to do multi-pitch routes and want to get far off the ground, but don't really want to invest in a rack or are turned off by the added risk of trad climbing in general. These people are driving this trend. Expect to see many more long bolted routes in the future, people want them.

It's not a question if people want routes like this or even enjoy them....Its a question of the quality of the climbing and aesthetic of line.

User generated data has this as only a three star route and there are many 5.9s that are far higher quality ie Epinephrine or NEB that are genuine multi-pitch Classics.

It's an algorithm problem for determining which routes make the list.

The idea that this route makes a "top ten" classics list is a joke. Its mediocre in nearly every regard.

I had this same question awhile ago and I reached out to the developers in regards to the criteria for a classic climb. I forget exactly what they said but the general idea is that it essentially comes down to page views. The climb must have 3-4 stars and they limit any given area to 5 climbs on the list otherwise Yosemite would probably dominate the entire top 20.

Anyways a moderate 15 pitch sport route gets a lot of page views and it meets the rest of the requirements, however specious, so it gets its name in the record books.