So bad they're good?

Being a big fan of films in the "so bad they're good" genre (The Room, Samurai Cop, anything by Neil Breen), I was wondering if there is a similar category of climbs.  Have you ever done a climb that was so bad that it was amazing?

Bryan K wrote:

Being a big fan of films in the "so bad they're good" genre (The Room, Samurai Cop, anything by Neil Breen), I was wondering if there is a similar category of climbs.  Have you ever done a climb that was so bad that it was amazing?

This one comes to mind.

Harvard, in the gunks fits the bill. It's awful chimney climbing through squeeze chimneys in which your only spots for gear are spider nests. You go behind the cliff in the start, which guarantees awful rope drag, and you can either protect the crux and get your rope stuck right after it, or not protect the crux and still have a chance of getting your rope stuck. That being said, the climbing is pretty cool and the spiders give it character.

Probably most popular lowballs. "That was super dumb..... lemme do it again!"

Portable Mantle, Squamish

The Crocodile, Font

Fritz, that was one hilarious read… route description + comments. A big thumbs up. 

Ice climbing is good for this because 

1) it's easy to get a 15ft wi2 in unexpected places and times of year, but some of us find delight in grabbing these flows when they pop up, for example North Table Ice, Coors Lite although some people also like the latter unironically. I took an inordinate amount of pride in finding this tiny flow in September.

2) alpine ice/mixed often derives its difficulty from sketchiness/shittiness such as bad ice quality, choss, getting wet/muddy, postholing, bad pro; fickle conditions meaning a high probability of having to hike out but then bail; objective hazard disproportionate to the payoff, etc. I'm struggling to think of examples, but for one Hallett Chimney seems to fit this definition because of all the tunneling through snow mushrooms, but still in the comments everyone's calling it mega classic.

3) Many routes derive their fame simply because of the insane objective hazard or unprotectedness (also the case for some rock routes but more common in ice/mixed imo) such as Slipstream, Reality Bath, more locally Smear of Fear, etc. 

Daniel Joder wrote:

Fritz, that was one hilarious read… route description + comments. A big thumbs up. 

I also had a friend speed back up the WoS after realizing he had forgotten his shoes. He made it back in time to climb their intended route (5.10+ 1700') in good style. It actually worked in their favor because the crux pitch was in the shade, which never happens with alpine starts on that route.

For those who have sent the CG WoS and want to step it up a notch, perhaps consider sampling some of the fine bailure terrain across the river like this 5.12 gym climber that I encountered in SOFB.

F r i t z wrote:

This one comes to mind.

I'm cautious not to laugh too hard just in case I must take the Walk at some point in my Black career.

Chimney  of doom at 5.8 crag at Rumney.

Pooh at Cathedral Ledge. Described in the guide as "interesting rather than aesthetic".

DGoguen wrote:

Pooh at Cathedral Ledge. Described in the guide as "interesting rather than aesthetic".

I think many chimney-style routes are going to meet OPs criteria. I’ll throw in another personal “favorite” in NH: Rogers Spire @ Woodchuck

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/106519653

DGoguen wrote:

Pooh at Cathedral Ledge. Described in the guide as "interesting rather than aesthetic".

While it has been many years since I've done Pooh ( only once--compared to multiple ascents of other Conway moderates), I'm struggling to remember the 'good' aspect!!!!

While thinking about that cliff, another candidate could be Remission ( as a rock climb not the winter version). It is sandbagged ( a '5.8' with several 5.9 sections ),often wet,  very awkward,  crumbly in places, and somewhat dangerous, the 'good' part is the 'perfect natural line' and the history---a John Turner route.

I’m convinced many “classic” boulder problems exist merely to point them out to friends and watch them strugglebus. 

Bryan K wrote:

Being a big fan of films in the "so bad they're good" genre (The Room, Samurai Cop, anything by Neil Breen), I was wondering if there is a similar category of climbs.  Have you ever done a climb that was so bad that it was amazing?

A high percentage of local "classics" in CT fit this bill, interesting rock and interesting rock quality 

M M wrote:

A high percentage of local "classics" in CT fit this bill, interesting rock and interesting rock quality 

Have to disagree with you in this M M. While it does come down to personal preferences, I think the climbing on CT traprock is excellent. Sure there are bad routes there,probably some 'so bad that they are good' ( though can't think of any offhand), but the good routes, and there are many, are technically very interesting and continuous--steep in a vertical kind of way. Yeah, the protection on the face routes is usually laughable, hence the top-roping focus, but the crack routes protect well and combine crack and face moves. Any, that's my opinion, not that anyone asked.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Have to disagree with you in this M M. While it does come down to personal preferences, I think the climbing on CT traprock is excellent. Sure there are bad routes there,probably some 'so bad that they are good' ( though can't think of any offhand), but the good routes, and there are many, are technically very interesting and continuous--steep in a vertical kind of way. Yeah, the protection on the face routes is usually laughable, hence the top-roping focus, but the crack routes protect well and combine crack and face moves. Any, that's my opinion, not that anyone asked.

I include appearance I'm my personal ratings, even the classics have that look of a no star route. I'll admit I really enjoy about a dozen+ lines on the traprock , it's just that the rock is not aestheticly pleasing most of the time and looks like the garbage route at most places. The title of the thread made me think of traprock routes. I also read western basalt much better than eastern basalt.

M M wrote:

I include appearance I'm my personal ratings, even the classics have that look of a no star route. I'll admit I really enjoy about a dozen+ lines on the traprock , it's just that the rock is not aestheticly pleasing most of the time and looks like the garbage route at most places. The title of the thread made me think of traprock routes. I also read western basalt much better than eastern basalt.

Interesting, I find the look of the routes, particularly at Ragged and some of the lesser known crags, to be very appealing. Also strongly prefer the CT traprock to western basalt!!! As I posted earlier, it comes down to personal preferences!!!! Though tomorrow I will be climbing on some MA traprock that definitely fits within your description!!!!

Sandy Hole on Angel Food Wall in Vegas sort of comes to mind for me.   It also doubles as a hilarious sandbag. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106085157/sandy-hole

Alan Rubin wrote:

Interesting, I find the look of the routes, particularly at Ragged and some of the lesser known crags, to be very appealing. Also strongly prefer the CT traprock to western basalt!!! As I posted earlier, it comes down to personal preferences!!!! Though tomorrow I will be climbing on some MA traprock that definitely fits within your description!!!!

Having spent lot's of time on the rock it definitely grows on you, even in the bowels of New Haven!

Alan Rubin wrote:

While it has been many years since I've done Pooh ( only once--compared to multiple ascents of other Conway moderates), I'm struggling to remember the 'good' aspect!!!!

Youre right Al. With further reflection I'd give it a "so bad it's interesting". Ha