On 28/10/2014 simey wrote:
>There is nothing worse than having limited time to visit
>a cliff and jumping on an overly hyped route only to discover that your
>time would have been better spent on something else.
But that situation supposes that the relative starring of routes is inaccurate, which is a different problem altogether. I do agree that the most highly starred routes should be the ones you would recommend to someone for their one and only day at the crag. Whether the best routes in the area are given 2 or 3 stars is neither here nor there.
>I reckon it is a great symbol as it means that
>the route might be a gem, but the guidebook author simply doesn't know
>much about it.
Exactly! Duncan's routes were quite new when the book was written, had received few ascents, and the bloke seems pretty understated when it comes to spraying about his creations (unlike some self-promoty folks, eh Neil?). If guidebook authors were required to have first hand knowledge of every route in the guide, nothing would ever get finished.
>All I am saying is that guidebook authors will cop less flak by being
>conservative. In my opinion a three-star system works pretty well and basically
>anything that gets one star should be worthy of your time, whilst the three-star
>routes are generally mega-classics that have been acknowledged as such
>by a large number of climbers over time (not purely by Neil or yourself
>saying 'I did this route the other day and it is a three-star mega-classic!').
I generally agree with the above, however, there are elements of taste which come into it. I forget how many stars you give to things like Scorpion, Brolga, and Wizard of Ice, but many climbers these days probably won't like them. I think they're all great routes, but it is a matter of taste. The idea of 'objective' quality is laughable. |