[shurt]

If this is a bit too UKC then what evs..

I feel like stars have changed since I first started climbing. I always thought it was:

1 Star - significant to the crag
2 Star - significant to area
3 Star - nationally significant

Been noticing a few of the newer guidebooks have upped the stars on some routes and the rockfax guides say they are 1 star, worth doing / 2 star, significant to crag / 3 star, significant to area.
The worst guide for this has been the newer Wye Valley guide with heaps of routes having starts added to what is only really a mediocre area in the first place (compared to N Wales, Cornish Granite etc.)
I can understand a route being a bit overlooked and getting a star added over the years but I was always under the impression that 3 stars was only really reserved for the creme de la creme. Seems not anymore. Things ain't what they used to be etc.

[petejh]

I agree completely. Which is why I was keen to knock one star off lots of routes in the N Wales Lime guide:
1- exceptional for guidebook area.
2 - exceptional for N.Wales
3 - exceptional nationally.


Fuck me you should have heard some of the locals moan that there suddenly aren't many 3 star routes on Pen Trwyn in the guide! That's because there just aren't, despite it being an exceptional crag. If you want 3 star routes get off your arse and go to the Gwynt, The Diamond, LPT or Craig y Forwyn. And if your choice of route depends on it having 2 or 3 stars given out like platitudes then buy the wrongfax.

Basically - 1 is brill and 2 is the new 3.

[Muenchener]

Coming as I do from Leicestershire, I do have some sympathy with guidebook authors who have to apply rather strict blinkers and/or locally relative standards if they want to put any stars in their guidebooks at all. And how dim would a reader have to be to expect a "three star" E2 in a Leics quarry to be comparable to Prophecy of Drowning?

Also, particularly on limestone, there are numerous formerly great routes thar are no longer much fun to climb because of polish and should be down-starred. See: Middleton, Stoney

[remus]

Personally I think it's probably a good thing. There's no reason to it, but I think people are much more willing to get on a route if it's got a star and the net effect is that more obscure routes get done. In somewhere like the wye valley that might mean that 30% of routes see semi-regular repeats as opposed to 10% with minimal starring.

It's very true it doesn't necessarily line up with starring in other areas, but with something so outrageously subjective as judging the quality of rocks i don't think it really matters.

[shurt]

Tragically my first day climbing was at Markfield Quarry, I'm surprised I went back!! Its slim pickings round those parts...

I think routes getting stars is no bad thing, just that 3 stars is just reserved for great ones and I think its doled out a bit too liberally in some areas. Surely one and two star routes can still spur people on to climb them?

[tregiffian]

And at Markfield you get your car vandalised.

[Offwidth]

My view remains that one star should be significant on a good crag so it is consistent across the guide. It's also got to be type related: the rise of bouldering hopefully has stopped the silliness of comparing the perfect microroute with the very best multi-pitch epic. I also like the YMC hollow star system where routes get dirty easily but are classic when clean. Rockfax define a different system for one star but I think it's flawed: if you give all good routes 1 star, you need a 4 star system to distinguish between the real quality, especially important in a selective guide where quite a few users are cherry picking on holiday.

[SA Chris]

Maybe bring in the 5 star system used in SA and elsewhere?

[Will Hunt]

Rockfax's idea that one star = worth doing is a complete nonsense anyway. They're writing select guides. If it isn't worth doing, it shouldn't be in the guide!

[SA Chris]

But i think that's part of their "describe the whole buttress / crag"  policy, ie if theres a photodiagram of part of a crag, they will list all the routes in the photo, whether good / bad or indifferent. Hence them needing the "bag of" symbol as well.

[tomtom]

Meh.. its all subjective -

I mean - its like Will loves Lady Gaga, and SA Chris is a mahoosive Barry Manilow buff. Now Will might think Copacobana is strictly zero stars and would rather slam his family jewells in a car door than listen to that big nosed twat warble - Whereas Chris thinks it deserves a big five glistening glittery smackerooney set of spangulators.

Its just a useful indication of the relative quality of problems at a crag/spot/area

[SA Chris]

Similar really, one has two big hooters, the other only one.

[tomtom]

Similar really, one has two big hooters, the other only one.

Dang.

When I first saw the thread title I wondered if this was about cosmetic surgery...

[slackline]

Did a supposed three star route at Pont d'Espange  yesterday the first two pitches were filthy and the crack you had to climb on the second pitch was full of grass  & other vegetation.  The guide we're using goes up to four starts, but despite the third pitch being good the route really didn't deserve it's star rating.

Conversely afterwards did a brilliant  6b+ that didn't get any stars,  but they don't seem to use any stars at all for the single pitch routes.

[Fiend]

The main problem is inland limestone. It should operate on a 3 star system as per elsewhere, but nothing should get 3 stars due to the nature of the base material.

[Danny]

At the risk of getting negative karma again, I'll take the opportunity to slag of the Lakes here (I disparaged Welsh bouldering a while back, sorry about that).

Is it just me, or is the Lakes actually a land of highly regarded but mediocre cragging? Not that there isn't some very good stuff, mind, I just get the sense that we all give it a psychological bye-ball because it was once a proving ground for betweeded hooray henrys.

Maybe this needs an "Is the Lakes shit?" thread, but I think it serves to demonstrate another issue with stars: they're often wrapped up with some historical context. Some routes probably were genuinely amazing back when the limit of the climbing world was about 7 crags in the UK and you were running it out in hobnails in a wild position, but from a contemporary perspective, with modern kit and knowledge of just how good rock climbing can be, they're relatively shit.       

[Will Hunt]

You must have done some shite routes in the lakes to have that opinion. Not sure how your avoided all the hundreds of good ones. Probably easier just to understand and accept that you're wrong and move on.

[Fiend]

WRT: The Lakes, there has been deliberate grade inflation across the board to try to spread the load etc etc. In my experience, this has led to some minor crags and minor routes being slightly overstarred, BUT the major crags and classic routes have invariably been definitely worth their stars.

[tomtom]

Taxi to Log Pile please....

[petejh]

Can we change this to a thread about Red Giants.

[SA Chris]

OK





Yes I know he's not a giant in the fairy tale context.

[moose]

I saw the title and was expecting a counterpart to the UKC thread about how Kylie at the Commonwealth Games closing ceremony didn't look as svelte as she once did (funny that, people not appearing as young as they did when many years younger).

[tomtom]

[Danny]

A red giant climbing some chossy excuse for a three star classic:

[shurt]

There's something comforting about the inevitable descent of most threads into an array of low quality jokes and tangents. This all after there has been a brief discussion around the subject mind.