). Rather, to avoid the kind of discourse regarding what is risky or difficult and what is not that occured earlier this summer on the Whitney Portal board in regards to the Mountaineer's Route. I would certainly not have posted a comment if this was Climber.org or Summitpost.com, but the fact is that not everyone on this board is an experienced peakbagger, yours truly included. Maybe the original poster is a peakbagger, maybe they are not. I do know that a number of us may be considering climbing University later this month, if the weather holds, so this is an interesting topic to us.My experience with tennis shoes is that they are not as sticky as a good pair of boots, trail runners, or approach shoes, but I'm not going to say I am familiar with all the tennis shoes out there, and like you said, that is another discussion anyway, to be undertaken by people much more experienced at climbing than me. Regardless, I figured you to be a more experienced climber, as evidenced by your nice explanation of the difference between class 2 and 3 on the "Technical" thread. Unfortunately, I have the old Secor edition, and I'm sure you are right as to the reason that was changed.
Here is part of a trip report on the same climb by Bob Burd, who is well known among the Sierra peakbagging community as a fairly accomplished peakbagger:
After our break we began climbing up again, spreading out as we went, myself in front, Michael second, David further behind. The route turned out to be surprisingly fun and challenging the whole way. Lower down, huge blocks of granite overlay the more solid rock below, mixed with some smaller blocks. This made for a steep class 2+ scramble rising half the height of the North Face. At this point a blocky arete pushed us futher right towards the center of the face. Traversing on some narrowing ledges, I made my way over towards the center which looked to offer the easiest way up. Michael was just visible behind me, David out of my view behind him. As the route grew progressively more difficult, I knew from last year that David would likely turn back - somewhere between class 2 and class 3 was where he exceeds his comfort zone. With about a hundred yards to the summit ridge, the boulders gave way to blocky face climbing - steep granite slabs punctuated with large cracks which kept the climbing to class 3 - just barely.
Once at the ridge, I found it to be a broken line of huge, off-setting blocks that made it impossible to follow on the ridge. I stayed 10-20 yards low on the north face as I traversed west towards where I expected the summit to be. It was 10:20a when I finally gained the highest block, finding the register tucked in a crack. The summit block was a bit tricky to get to, but the top is nearly flat and quite large. One could have quite a party up here. Though not high by the standards of the High Sierra in this region, the views were some of the best I'd seen. I could see north to Goddard and the Palisades, west to Brewer and the Great Western Divide, south to Williamson and Tyndall, and not a cloud in the sky. About ten minutes later I heard Michael's voice and helped direct him around to northwest side to get to the summit block. He confirmed what I had suspected, that David had turned back at the face climbing a few hundred yards from the summit ridge. Michael was a bit winded, but climbed impressively given his lack of acclimatization. He would continue hiking strong the next three days as well - clearly he was used to this type of abuse. We sat about the summit 20 minutes longer while Michael had his lunch and I took some more pictures. (Summitpost.com)
I guess my point is that, for those of us who are more like David than Bob Burd, a description more in line with our abilities is what we are looking for. And once again, I think your post on the "Technical" thread explains the differences nicely.
Anyway, sorry if I offended you.
