Path of Least Resistance

I have noticed an increasing number of route descriptions, on MP.Com and in sport area guide books, that rate the difficulty of routes based on which hold you use or how far you deviate in distance from the bolts.

While out climbing with a friend, just the other day, I did three routes that were within eight feet of one another. Although I enjoyed the movement on all of the lines, I was easily able to use several key holds from the adjoining routes, which made crux moves considerably easier. At the crux of my friend's 5.11, I easily avoided a powerful throw to a bad hold by reaching for a jug that was within arm's reach of my stance. When I told my friend that using that hold made the route more reasonable, he told me: "That's good, but you didn't do the route." I asked him to lower me a bit, and then I did the move his way. Although it was a fun move, it felt like an eliminate to me. He was correct that I didn't do the route that day, because I fell, but I went back two days later and redpointed it using my beta. As far as I'm concerned, holds within arm's reach are part of the route, so I did the route.

This is not a slam on my friend, because he has put up many four-star routes. I even enjoyed the one in question. My point is that routes have traditionally been known to take the path of least resistance. Knowing how to unlock the easiest path has always been considered a sign of intelligent route finding - especially during an onsight. You don't go for an onsight and purposely avoid the best holds so that you can say that your ascent was harder. That has been traditionally called an elimination problem, and does not reflect the rating of the route.

If you want to climb a harder route, just get on a harder route, but if you want more success at onsighting or quickly redpointing routes, then finding the easiest path is the way to do it. I feel that guidebooks should rate a route by it's path of least resistance. If people want to eliminate holds or stray off route, that is their prerogative, although that should not reflect the route's actual difficulty rating for finding the easiest path.

Ken,

I think most climbers agree with you. Leave the elimination problems to your local crag where you have climbed all the routes 100+ times, then the eliminations can make climbing the same old route quiet fun again.

Ken, your buddy's route sounds like gym climbing. Was there different colored tape marking the holds? In my opinion a classic and aesthetic line should be rated for the most difficult single move, while following the line of least resistance.
A classic and aesthetic line always follows the line of least resistance. Anything else is considered an "eliminate" which is fun when bouldering, or to add some spice to a line that you already have wired, but unless you are taking the line of least resistance, you are doing a contrived and unatural eliminate.

Tom Hanson wrote:Ken, your buddy's route sounds like gym climbing. Was there different colored tape marking the holds? In my opinion a classic and aesthetic line should be rated for the most difficult single move, while following the line of least resistance. A classic and aesthetic line always follows the line of least resistance. Anything else is considered an "eliminate" which is fun when bouldering, or to add some spice to a line that you already have wired, but unless you are taking the line of least resistance, you are doing a contrived and unatural eliminate.

In all fairness to my friend and his route, the route is really fun, and maybe he was just trying not to use the jug on the adjoining line. The problem is that it is within easy reach, whether on the other route or not, so not considering it legal to use it is an elimination problem. I see this as another problem of cramming routes so closely together. In this case, my friend's route was the superior line, and the one next to it only took away from the routes on either side of it - my friend's being the line to the right of it.

I did a another route, yesterday, called Mosquito Burrito, which has no adjoining routes, and the guidebook did the same thing. First it over overrated the route, and then it said that climbing belly to the bolt line was one rating, and climbing two feet to the right was another.

I wondered two feet on either side of the bolts, the entire way up, always easily reaching the bolts to clip, so that rating and description made absolutely no sense to me. Writing guidbooks this way, IMO, seems unecessary and confusing.

In defense of guidebooks that tell you to go one way for one grade and another for another. Historically routes have been giving ratings for going out the roof or traversing around it then meeting back up with the adjoining route, I think these kind of variations are ok if the variation avoids an obvious feature that makes the route much harder (roof, section of off-width). These sorts of variations are extremely prevalent on long multi-pitch routes where the easiest line to the top can do quite a bit of traversing.

But in general I think making eliminates to make the route harder is a silly practice that should be left to bouldering and your local crag.

-Ladd

I understand your point, Ladd, and I agree with you, although routes like Mosquito Burrito and my friend's line do not fall into that category. Nor do some of the other routes that I see listed this way.

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw it out there to see how others felt about the trend.

It sounds almost as if your buddy is trying to get the most bang for his buck. A good friend of mine who is the queen of pulling plastic always says "Everything is on outside". If you can reach it and it doesn't deviate you from the route it is on route. If you can reach it and it takes you elsewhere it is a variation of the route. If you want to name the route 6 diferent names by adding and subtracting holds sounds like someone is trying to bump their FA's to me. Nothing malign towards your friend, just my $.02 on the matter.

For the most part, I agree with you. However, there was one route I did where two seperate ratings for the same climb seemed to make sense. It is called Water Streak at Red Rock, and it ascends....well, a big water streak feature. If you stay to the sides of the water streak near the featured rock, it is a 5.8, which is how the guidebook primarily rated it. However, doing so avoids the water streak feature almost entirely, staying always on one side or the other. I felt a little cheated, so I wanted to climb the entire route, climbing just the water streak. This variation was 5.10a, and very fun. I had to keep myself from grabbing big jugs along the side once or twice, which I suppose makes it a form of elimination, but at the same time, it seemed like a more natural constraint, and an acceptable variation to the normal climb. Besides, why climb a climb named Water Streak if you aren't going to climb up it?

I agree that routes should be rated by the path of least resistance. On Mountain Project, harder "eliminate" variations can also be listed in the route description.

For trad climbs, I usually follow the line of easiest climbing and most protection. I'll sometimes opt for better pro and harder climbing if the easiest line is more runout.

For sport routes, I figure that anything within arm's reach (about 6') of a bolt is "on route". But some of my friends like to climb "belly to the bolts" as much as possible, even if it makes the climbing a lot harder. One friend even turned a 5.7 warm-up at Ten Sleep into a 5.11 by refusing to stem off the corner to the right.

Bottom line: It's all good. Play the game the way YOU want to play it.

This makes me think of laying back cracks at Indian Creek. I remember doing a hard route there on toprope after a friend of mine grunted and cursed his way up. He jammed and clawed on lead. I cruised it via the layback. Arguments ensued about the change in difficulty. There was no doubt that it would have been a ballsy layback on lead, but still, it got climbed at "an easier grade." So what grade should it be given? I didn't really care because I don't take any pride from top roping, but this thread did remind me of that issue.

Ron Olsen wrote:Bottom line: It's all good. Play the game the way YOU want to play it.

Playing the game my way is one of the reasons that I prefer climbing over organized sports, although I feel that the issue of how to describe routes in guidebooks is a different matter. MP.Com is unique in that people can post their personal ratings and comments, which helps to create more of a consensus. Guidebooks, conversely, are limited to the views of the author.

None of this is really a big deal. I just found it odd, and wanted to hear from others about their feelings on the topic.

John J. Glime wrote:This makes me think of laying back cracks at Indian Creek. I remember doing a hard route there on toprope after a friend of mine grunted and cursed his way up. He jammed and clawed on lead. I cruised it via the layback. Arguments ensued about the change in difficulty. There was no doubt that it would have been a ballsy layback on lead, but still, it got climbed at "an easier grade." So what grade should it be given? I didn't really care because I don't take any pride from top roping, but this thread did remind me of that issue.

Ahh, but liebacks on the sharp end always seem a little scarier to me.

Refer to the following for some previous thoughts on this from myself and others:
mountainproject.com/v/color…

"but isn't the climb an 11a if there is an 11a way to do it and anybody doing it a harder way is just making their ascent harder, not the route? From my point of view, skipping crux holds doesn't make a route harder, it makes the ascent of it harder."

Or:
mountainproject.com/v/color…

"The route went on the FA straight up over the overhang...5.11c for sure. An easier way stems out left and then back right with feet over the overhang."

Heh, this reminds me of a lead I did recently at the Gunks (Arrow). I found a little sidepull and crimper slightly right of the plumb line to make the move over the crux bulge. When my partner followed, he went more or less straight up the line. I asked him if I'd been off route; he kind of laughed and said he and some other long-timers (he's been climbing at the Gunks since the 60s) decided on one occasion to see how many ways you could pull the crux on Arrow and came up with about 28.

It's all good as far as I'm concerned.

JL

Before this becomes a flamefest, please understand that my intention for this thresd was not to pass judgment on anyone. It was to find out if anyone else finds this new practice a bit out of character.

The earliest example of this sort of thinking anyone I know of is Eldo's "Psych-Gill-Logical" Check out the MP.com page for that one. Seems that for the assigned 10b rating, you had to deliberately avoid the best sequences at the crux.

Hmmm.. 'Joke Crack' on the West Ridge in Eldo also comes to mind. 5.11 ONLY if you don't do the obvious stem.

But I guess it depends upon how you rated it. I've heard "belly to the bolts" as obviously one could traverse infinitely off route to avoid a crux and then back... which would obviously not be the route at all. But for me, if I can reach it and clip a bolt at the same time, I don't see another way to rate it. An easier sequence is just that much more cleaver, and makes someone a 5.11 climber on a 5.10 rather than a 5.9 climber on a "5.12" they just can't read the sequence of (that is really just a 5.10 anyway).

Tony Bubb wrote:Hmmm.. 'Joke Crack' on the West Ridge in Eldo also comes to mind. 5.11 ONLY if you don't do the obvious stem.

That's an interesting thought, although a slightly different situation. I'm always after the path of least resistance, but I find it infinitely more satisfying to work out a technique that gets you efficiently and smoothly through a climb with only the rock that's available (e.g., stemming a dihedral rather than jamming it straight on), instead of traversing over two feet to grab bigger holds. It's a different mentality more akin to bouldering, which I enjoy on occasion, but something for which I've never had much patience.

I put up a lot of routes ground up and top down but mostly top down these days. Compared to climbs a decade ago we squeeze them in tight. Our rule is that if you are within arms span (your ape index roughly) then you are still on route. We really try to avoid contriving things to make them harder. In the old days we wandered all over to follow the weaknesses. Now we want to get a lot of climbing out of the walls we set up. We are currently working on a new wall where there are a lot of diagonal features. In order to get the most routes out of the wall and make lower offs easier we have tried to work bolts in a direction that takes people away from the easier ground and angling weaknesses. I don't mind doing this as long as the features you are now climbing keep them or me away from the easier ground. If you have to force yourself to stay on the hard stuff it is contrived.

The other day at the above mentioned wall we wanted to get two routes through a six foot section of roof. My friend stayed left at ten plus. When I followed I could not reach the holds he did and I went up in the middle at 5.10 so we moved the bolt to the middle. We still got two routes because we did and alternate start farther right. It was 11a or so. We then worked back left to the top part of what would have been the right side of the roof. The two lines came close at that point but soon were ten feet apart. The best route is actually to start on the first one and finish on the second one's upper section. So both routes are defined by their bolts but you really cannot step onto easier ground once you commit to a direction (line of bolts) on either one of them. What I call contrived is when a person drills bolts on a blank face that is 5.11 when there is 5.6 climbing just a move away.

Also the idea that a route is rated on specific hold use seems silly. If it is easier to layback a crack then laybacking is the proper way to do it and that should be the rating. Here in Tucson people don't get a lot of crack time. Some routes have great jams the make them easier then face climbing around the crack. Just because a person doesn't see the easiest way to do something or doesn't have the technique doesn't mean the guidebook rating should reflect that. I think it is fine to say on MP or in a guidebook that if you fail to layback or jam this section it might be a bit or a lot harder. This is especially true if it is a climb that people commonly misread. But I don't think we need to give ratings to every possible variation.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: That's an interesting thought, although a slightly different situation. I'm always after the path of least resistance, but I find it infinitely more satisfying to work out a technique that gets you efficiently and smoothly through a climb with only the rock that's available (e.g., stemming a dihedral rather than jamming it straight on), instead of traversing over two feet to grab bigger holds.

I think I'm missing something, because I don't quite follow this post. How is a hold that is a third of a body-length away not part of the available rock?

Eric Rhicard wrote:Compared to climbs a decade ago we squeeze them in tight. Our rule is that if you are within arms span (your ape index roughly) then you are still on route. We really try to avoid contriving things to make them harder.

This seems like a direct contradiction to me. How is it not contrived to say that you are only on route if you stay within your arm-span? Does that mean that stepping three inches beyond one's arm-span is considered off route?

Eric Rhicard wrote:But I don't think we need to give ratings to every possible variation.

This is exactly my point, although I wonder if you are rating your routes based on staying within arm-span of the bolts.

Ken Cangi wrote: I think I'm missing something, because I don't quite follow this post. How is a hold that is a third of a body-length away not part of the available rock?

Maybe I should have said six feet or eight feet or 12 feet. It doesn't matter because anything that you can get to is part of the available rock. That's my point: it IS part of the available rock so why not use it. I guess my bouldering comment was a little too obscure; i.e., I'm just not into "eliminates". I like moving on rock, easy, hard, whatever. I don't like the distraction of having a good hold "within arm's reach", as your original post said, and not actually using it.