Short video by Scott Chandler from his recent trip to the valley
Here is a list of the problems in the video:
Hammerhead, v5 @ Camp 4: committing top with a bad landing, bring pads and spotters (and a good head).
A Walk in the Park, v2 @ Cathedral: Another highball with a committing topout!
Quasimodo, v7 @ Cathedral: A new line that Scott just put up on the rim trail just west of the Cathedral boulder turn off. A tad reachy, but definitely an instant classic.
Unnamed, v9? @ Cathedral: An unnamed line with the same start as ladder detail, but head out right and then back left at the lip. Never heard a name or a grade, but it is probably about v9ish. Anyone know the name, or have any ideas for a good name??
Thanks for the video Scott!
-Raza
7 comments:
Quasimodo is not a new climb
There are about 5 problems on that boulder
Tell me more, I am interested.
I'm pretty sure "Quasimodo" is new for many reasons including a hold that broke during cleaning that surely would have broken during a climbing effort amongst other things. ...We also did do some other FA's on that boulder in the easier range.
as for the V9 at Cathedral, I agree with the grade as a good avg. And think it will be height dependent and much harder for shorter climbers. I heard that it was a V11 from Charlie. I didn't want to put "unnamed" on my personal tick list, so in keeping with the names of the boulder, I called it "Nonagon," however, I did not do the FA and would love to know the real name! If unknown, I propose nonagon after the grade and keeping with the polygonal naming schema of the boulder...
Noah
After careful thought, I decided to respond to this post regarding the Quasimodo boulder. My objective is not to incite conflict, but to provide information. I would like to make sure I'm referencing the same boulder. To the best of my recollection, this boulder lies west of the Cathedral boulders off the valley loop trail. On the front side of this boulder opposite Quasimodo are some slopy problems ( i.e. water run off ). The east side of this boulder had a couple of problems as well.
People who know me well, know I'm not an accurate judge of time. If this is indeed the same boulder, I climbed on it about 5 years ago. I do not believe I was the first person to climb on this boulder because of the clues I found on and around the boulder. I was not present for Anonymous' or Naoh's experience. I know these experiences are quite unique to the individual. Nature changes many things; trees fall, holds weaken and moss grows. I recently had an eerie disclosure about a boulder I cleaned and climbed a couple years back in the Crystals. This was a problem I thought had not been climbed. The landscaping was manicured, holds broke and ample brushing was involved. The problem was later described, hold by hold, move by move without me ever mentioning it to this particular person. I found out this problem had been climbed back in 2000. I think this is a continuing battle most of us who climb and develop especially, in Yosemite have to deal with. The best we can do is try and keep accurate records. Sometimes this includes a little help from our friends along the way. Much credit is due to both Scott and Noah for revealing and reviving this boulder, which may have sat dormant for who knows how long. As they said," this boulder will become and instant classic". I guess we all have to wonder if some guy in the 70's has already climbed everything
Jacob
Salina
Thanks Jacob! I guess it sounds like this boulder has been climbed before. Neat line. A top-out hold did break during Scott's ascent of this problem, So I wonder if the problem was a project or if it had been done? Does anyone know if it had been completed? If so, what was the name? How hard was it before the breakage?
Anyhow, Good points, Jacob. Until we have more beta, we should refer to it as Scott's name "Quasimodo" since his very well may have been the FA.
Incidentally, I did a nice little V4 dyne just to the right of Quasimodo that I called "come along."
Gotta love the valley!
Post a Comment