What elements are needed to consider a climb a "Classic"?

I just did Wasteland on Sunday (with Bill D). Although I liked the climb, I would not consider it a "Classic". Here is why:

1) P1 is vague and generally unprotected; there "appears" to be no obvious line (especially when you cannot see the ledge that you need to get established on from the ground - aside from the fact that you can see P2 and the start of P2 from the ground), 2) several of the belay stances are not "obvious"; rope management is critical ESPECIALLY if you are not swinging leads, and 3) the route wanders a lot; the line appears "forced" IMHO.

NOW, one could argue that these are obvious attributes of a classic. 1) great climbing, 2) the ability to surmount a massive, generally keeping the same grade all the way up, 3) a plethora of climbing techniques required to reach the top (crack, face, chimney, traverse(s), run-out, etc), 4) an advanced skill-set in creating anchors and in rope management, 5) good quality rock, 6) exposure, and perhaps 7) a great view from the top.

Of course, the climbing is fun, and makes for a great day. But, what makes a great climb (deserving of classic status)? What do you think?

David Arthur Sampson wrote:2) the ability to surmount a massive

???

David Arthur Sampson wrote:4) an advanced skill-set in creating anchors and in rope management

This would eliminate all routes with bolted anchors, would it not?

A page on North American Classics discusses just this question. In summary, they quote the S&R criterion:

1) Excellent climbing, 2) Striking appearance when viewed from afar and 3) Significant climbing history.

One of the things I've noticed here is that the classics turn out to be easier than they look. Or to phrase it the other way, they look like they are going to be harder than they actually are. This seems to apply for easy as well as hard climbs...

Must be in a book about 50 classic/favorite climbs etc. to be classic, everything else in 2nd best. Also, any chosspile first ascent you do that will remain always unrepeated is a "classic."

George Bell wrote: 2) The ability to surmount a massive. ???

Massive: "A term meaning bulky and heavy". "Ponderous or large". Or: "imposing in size or bulk or solidity": OR: "imposing in scale or scope or degree or power"

Surmount: "get on top of"; "deal with successfully"; "reach the highest point of; "We scaled the Mont Blanc"

So what are the So. AZ classics....by grade and type of climb ?

David Arthur Sampson wrote: Massive: ... Surmount: ...

Hmm ... OK. I catch drift, but perhaps missing.

It seems there as as many definitions of classic as there are climbers. I have certainly recommended climbs as classic and have people do them and tell me they thought they were junk. In guidebooks, it seems there is often a correlation between stars and difficulty rating. In other words, very few 5.6's will get lots of stars, but almost every 5.13 does. This might even be right because most 5.13's are on much cleaner on more solid rock. But it's kind of suspicious sometimes.

Not to put words in your mouth, but I think you meant 'massif' - (1) A large mountain mass or compact group of connected mountains forming an independent portion of a range. (2) A large section or block of the earth's crust that is more rigid than the surrounding rock and has been moved or displaced as a unit.
And massif as a noun makes a little more sense than massive, which is generally an adjective.

>1) P1 is vague and generally unprotected; there "appears" to be no obvious line (especially when you cannot see the ledge that you need to get established on from the ground - aside from the fact that you can see P2 and the start of P2 from the ground)

I guess I'd disagree with some of that. For me, it was the obvious weakness needed to exploit moderate difficulty to gain the upper pitches, although, I think the semi manky nature of the that first pitch does kinda detract from the route.

Was heads up, but, I seemed to find adequate pro and managed to build a decent belay on the first pitch. Was "ok" climbing. Not stellar.

>2) several of the belay stances are not "obvious"; rope management is critical ESPECIALLY if you are not swinging leads, and

I guess I thought there were pretty natural stopping points for most all the pitches.

>3) the route wanders a lot; the line appears "forced" IMHO.

I guess I'd disagree saying that the route follows weaknesses and an amazing line. Was a classic route for me. Especially the last couple of pitches. Forcing a line would be to go straight up where no reasable line exists. An unnatural directissima, for example. This route connected improbable features on neat and varied climbing with very cool position. In other words, classic.

How's this:
There is a part of it where your eyes get wide and a toothy smile breaks out, and you think to yourself or say to a partner:
"THAT WAS F***ING COOL!" 1 or 2 of those and you have good 4 star route; several of them (or maybe the whole thing), then its a classic.

Merk wrote:Not to put words in your mouth, but I think you meant 'massif' - (1) A large mountain mass or compact group of connected mountains forming an independent portion of a range. (2) A large section or block of the earth's crust that is more rigid than the surrounding rock and has been moved or displaced as a unit. And massif as a noun makes a little more sense than massive, which is generally an adjective.

Thanks. I agree; I stand corrected. I suppose I may have been adding words in my brain that didn't make it onto the page. I could have said "massive formation", but I like "massif" much better. Obviously, that word has not been part of my vernacular.

Brian;
I agree that one could find "ok" protection on P1. I was able to adequately protect it. But, the line I took required a 15-17 ft traverse to get to the ledge. And, yes, I was able to place a bomber anchor at that ledge; I placed three pieces, all of them good placements.

Depending on where you stop, I would argue that the belay stances for P2, P3, and P6 are all obvious and nice. The issue with rope management came up because my climbing partner was not leading and, so, during a "hanging" belay we had to reverse the rope. This is usually not too big a deal. But, for some reason, it was with our climb (first time I climbed with him and I suspect that we just didn't have everything worked out).

I suppose I am modifying my position on what makes a classic, but in my opinion, a forced line is one that gets to the top regardless of the number of traverses and pitches needed to get there. To me, a classic line is one that you can see from the ground, where your eyes follow a flowing natural line up the rock. One where you visualize the climbing and the belay stances.

I would agree that P1 - P4 is a classic line; it flows naturally. The issue I had was that you traverse right (under the roof), and then up 20 ft and then traverse back left almost as far. That's all. No big deal.