Scrambling = "technical"

[OldTrad]

For me technical means use of some equipment that requires proficiency - ropes, axe/crampons.

Although crampons and axe are sometimes used on technical terrain, their use does not mean that the terrain is technical. They can also be used for secure passage on non-technical terrain, such as a snowy or icy slope. Consideration and potential use of a rope is the key.

[Eli Boardman]

For me:

Non-technical/hike/walk-up = a dog could do it easily

Scramble = hands on rocks for upward movement

Semi-technical = some specialized gear or knowledge (steeper snow climbs when facing-in on descent, easy glacier travel, extensive 4th or some low 5th climbing especially if complicated, might rappel on descent but probably don't absolutely need to)

Technical = ropes, very specialized gear (route led in discreet pitches, belay stations, definitely rappelling if descending route)

Highly technical = the stuff you see in magazines (hard long rock routes, vertical ice, hard mixed, thin aid, whatever)

[Bale]

A bit beyond the scope of this thread, I think it’s funny when a high level climber says they “scrambled” or “fourth classed” a couple pitches of a route. Translation: “I free soloed 5.12b to get to the hard climbing.” Lol.

[Conor]

A bit beyond the scope of this thread, I think it’s funny when a high level climber says they “scrambled” or “fourth classed” a couple pitches of a route. Translation: “I free soloed 5.12b to get to the hard climbing.” Lol.

I think there is a "sandbagging" thread somewhere....

[aholle88]

I agree 100% with Eli on this as far as my definitions of what technical is when it comes to mountaineering. However, I often find myself [mis]using the term "technical" as an adjective when comparing routes. Such as "Capitol is more technical than Kelso ridge." It's not technical, and I know that, but it just gets used as a way of describing difficulty sometimes and I'm not really sure why that is. I'm sure other people fall into the same trap and that's where things may get confusing. We should all just be saying "Capitol is more difficult than Kelso ridge". But is it Soda, Pop, or Cola? Does it matter? It all means the same thing, right? Damn the Americanized english language and all our interchangeable words.

[OldTrad]

Do we have any technical climbing mentors on the forum that take IPAs for payment?

I have mentored a bunch of folks on this site, most younger and some my age - not for IPAs but rather because I wanted to do it. I now consider them all good friends and reliable climbing partners.

[Conor]

Do we have any technical climbing mentors on the forum that take IPAs for payment?

I have mentored a bunch of folks on this site, most younger and some my age - not for IPAs but rather because I wanted to do it. I now consider them all good friends and reliable climbing partners.

Maybe one day I’ll be that fortunate to learn from someone as kind as yourself.

I'm always looking for someone to carry the rope and gear.

[SchralpTheGnar]

I think of anything technical as something that you need to think about, not just hiking, so roughly 3+ is a technical route for me. Whether or not you use ropes or not is just a personal choice based on many factors.

Something like capitol I’d call technical but cruiser.

[pvnisher]

From the dictionary:
Technical: Requiring advanced skills or specialized equipment.
Scramble: To move or climb hurriedly, especially on the hands and knees.

Seems pretty clear.
Using your hands isn't an advanced skill. Straddling a ridge isn't an advanced skill.

Gray area would be snow climbs. But since it requires specialized equipment, it falls into the technical area.
Snow climbing is scrambling with tools.

Alternately, apply the metal detector test.
If a reasonable person has to use something metal (atc, crampons, pro) then it's technical. The more metal you have to use, the more technical it is (aid, etc).

[angry]

I'm always looking for someone to carry the rope and gear. 8)

Conor, you can rope gun for me and carry the gear. :lol:

To your actual question, I’ve also heard and seen posts about “technical” climbs in reference to the four traverses. Sorry folks, they ain’t.

[Wildernessjane]

However, I often find myself [mis]using the term "technical" as an adjective when comparing routes. Such as "Capitol is more technical than Kelso ridge." It's not technical, and I know that, but it just gets used as a way of describing difficulty sometimes and I'm not really sure why that is. I'm sure other people fall into the same trap and that's where things may get confusing. We should all just be saying "Capitol is more difficult than Kelso ridge". But is it Soda, Pop, or Cola? Does it matter? It all means the same thing, right? Damn the Americanized english language and all our interchangeable words.

It’s also very common to describe trails in terms of being more of less “technical” for mountain biking. Obviously there is no rope or additional specialized equipment involved in this context (skills likely though - which fits with the dictionary definition). I had never really thought about it before but I could see myself doing the same when describing scrambling routes, especially since I have a tendency to describe trails this way when referring to mountain biking. Never really thought about it. Drawing the line between technical routes versus scrambling gets a little fuzzy when you consider the decision to rope up is largely based on skill and comfort level/tolerance for risk, right? Then what about glaciated peaks that require rope work and crevasse rescue skills but not necessarily pitching out a climb? What about running belays in this same context? Lots of gray area.

[Conor]

I'm always looking for someone to carry the rope and gear.

Conor, you can rope gun for me and carry the gear.

To your actual question, I’ve also heard and seen posts about “technical” climbs in reference to the four traverses. Sorry folks, they ain’t.

We'll call it win-win-win

One of the instances I saw was actually referring to a "grand" traverse....

However, I often find myself [mis]using the term "technical" as an adjective when comparing routes. Such as "Capitol is more technical than Kelso ridge." It's not technical, and I know that, but it just gets used as a way of describing difficulty sometimes and I'm not really sure why that is. I'm sure other people fall into the same trap and that's where things may get confusing. We should all just be saying "Capitol is more difficult than Kelso ridge". But is it Soda, Pop, or Cola? Does it matter? It all means the same thing, right? Damn the Americanized english language and all our interchangeable words.

It’s also very common to describe trails in terms of being more of less “technical” for mountain biking as well. I had never really thought about it before but I could see myself doing the same when describing scrambling routes, especially since I have a tendency to describe trails this way when referring to mountain biking. Never really thought about it. Drawing the line between technical routes versus scrambling gets a little fuzzy when you consider the decision to rope up is largely based on skill and comfort level/tolerance for risk, right? Then what about glaciated peaks that require rope work and crevasse rescue skills but not necessarily pitching out a climb? Or maybe just running belays? Lots of gray area.

I didn't want to throw out the "I know it when I see it". But, as oldtrad said, there has to be a general consensus within the community. I don't think we (or at least I don't) should let the outliers dictate. What Honnold calls technical or your 75 grandmother who wants to be short roped don't define the "average." So, I don't think it is person to person, just like I don't think anyone can define what they want "mountaineering" to be. There has to be some standard, whether it is quantifiable to the "thousands decimal" or not.

The "more technical" is interesting. If you said "Steve Buscemi is more handsome than Post Malone" are you really saying "Steve Buscemi is handsome"?