No longer taboo to ask for proof ?

[shark]

http://www.beastmaker.co.uk/blogs/news/7110450-2012-wrap-up

As an aside i have witnesses or unedited video (or both) for all my problems i’ve put up this year (as i’m aware i’ve put up more new blocs this year than si o' connor ever did and he churned them out! which might flag up the bullshit radar) End Sequence is the only exception as the camera was left in Katie's car and she had a meeting in Newcastle. I do however have the footage from the session before with Katie and Ben when i dropped the very last hard move on the out swing and i’d be more than happy to head up there again if it was an issue. Lying makes no sense to me unless you’re weak and have alot to prove. Strong climbers are strong fact. Strong developers cherish undone lines alot more than done ones as they are bloody hard to find.Thankfully bouldering seems to be moving in the direction of it not being taboo to ask for proof.


My bold. Are we there yet ? Good thing if so.

The rest of the blog is superb BTW

[a dense loner]

Dans got a fucking God complex

[shark]

Do you have a scale? He's got to be a demi-god at least.

[Johnny Brown]

Lying makes no sense to me unless you’re weak and have alot to prove. Strong climbers are strong fact.

Although this would seem to be counter to the most notorious recent case. Why is Britain so obsessed with using the term 'strong' instead of 'good'? As dense will tell you, being strong is barely half the story...

[scottygillery]

Dan's boring.

[slackline]

Why is Britain so obsessed with using the term 'strong' instead of 'good'? As dense will tell you, being strong is barely half the story...

It might not be being used in the literal sense, more the "doing something well" type of strong? 

[Three Nine]

Was gonna say, this is bullshit:

'Lying makes no sense to me unless you’re weak and have alot to prove. Strong climbers are strong fact.'

Also, i'm sure Dan tells some lies, even if he hasn't fibbed about any of his ascents.

[dave]

Lying makes no sense to me unless you’re weak and have alot to prove. Strong climbers are strong fact.

Although this would seem to be counter to the most notorious recent case.

Rich Simpson was afterall famous for being as weak as a pint of homeopathic lager.

[a dense loner]

The dagger is half the story! The whole is much greater than the sum etc. but yes I agree with johhny
I was speaking with mike Adams the other day and he is now agreeing with dan and bonjoy about video proof of first /hard ascents now. I can completely see where they're coming from but it doesn't mean I agree with it. As far as I'm concerned you can video yourself if you want, some people do this much more readily than others, but x person doesn't need to do it cos dan or mike or a.n.other want unedited proof. Sometimes x person might not have got into climbing to prove themselves to y person.
This leads us to the state of things of someone being doubted or not etc but I'd rather that than the alternative, and it gives us something to talk about in the pub

[MJC]

The only time there needs to be video proof is if the ascentionist actually gives a crap what people think about his or her ascent.  Although if it's being recorded somewhere then it makes sense.

[cowboyhat]

Exactly, its only relevent if you are minded of what other people think.

The can of worms there though is potentially impinging on someone elses livelihood or more importantly if there is a safety issue.

[tim palmer]

The only time there needs to be video proof is if the ascentionist actually gives a crap what people think about his or her ascent. 

? or if the ascensionist stands to or has made financial/material gains as a result of hard repeats/first ascents? 

[dave]

The only time there needs to be video proof is if the ascentionist actually gives a crap what people think about his or her ascent. 

? or if the ascensionist stands to or has made financial/material gains as a result of hard repeats/first ascents? 

Or if the ascent is something of particular historical/local/national significance.

But lets not forget the main thing about this type of thing, and that is that a climber builds up a level of credibility over time, and the more credible they are, the less evidence is to be expected. For instance if a previously unheard of johnny-come-lately rocks up in the grouse claiming a brand new 8b+, you might want to know a few details, spotters, videos etc. But if Dave Graham rocks up in the grouse then firstly you buy him a pint, and secondly you give up your seat by the fire so he can sit down, and thirdly you take his word for it.

[carlisle slapper]

Yep by strong i also mean good. But the same point stands within a few seconds of seeing the JB machine flow over the gritstone (and drop the last move on the flash) its obvious he's a smooth operator. But its all the better reason for climbers who's form varies wildly between nails FA's and lots of bad days to record the better days.

I couldnt care less about whether people video themselves or not on repeats, which is most peoples climbing. I just think that if a hard new problem is going to go in a new guide/ in the news it shouldn't be hard to get some proof of it being done nowadays as we shouldn't still be sending climbers on wild goose chases in 2013. I dont care about past problems quite as much as it was obviously much harder to video things in the past and its tight to put people on the spot. I dont put all my vids on the web as it feel lame, but its important to have them there for when the problems written up. Obviously this is a self centered view point as i put alot of effort into many Fa's as do Mike Jonboy and loads of other people and its just a bit shit and puts you off when the blocs get messed about with.
E.g  (past example used in pantons thread) Traci lords sitter has never seen 8A+, and the stand was never 7C+ and is hard for 8A greg downgraded it because the stand was flashed and said to be piss and the sitter was put up on the same day, with much harder beta than is needed. Traci had 2 repeats this year and a lot of people have tried it (B-free took 4 sessions and was climbing really well, well enough to look alot better and more competent on that dice prow proj in Ireland than another famous attempter). If you take things like this and O' connors reclimbed kentmere problems such as KOTT sit getting the same grade as soul fusion in yorkshire (a classic new problem put up with witnesses) There's clearly 2 systems operating. There is also a huge difference between grade varation in the lakes & county which as far as i know is 100% mystery problem free as whenever you get on one of Malc, Andy, Moffat or Moons problems up there they all make sense in relation to one another and i can easily tie in my new problems with their efforts.
Bygones can be bygones thats fine and alot of the whack problems will get reclimbed eventually but if we could please see sense and have a system of not writing up some persons whimsy who fancies being a top climber for a few years.
Simpson only ever climbed one new problem on grit (a link up so safe in that adds no new moves, in a session after flashing James's other problems) I reclimbed it via a totally different method (albeit from a foreshortened/ more logical/ lazier start) I worked it with RY, Bransby and Caff, none of us could understand the logic of his beta (usual theme, way harder weird sequence to get into and have to be really strong!) and we all ended up using the gaston method. I've got a vid of this too but never uploaded it, if Cofe asked for it when he was putting the guide together i could happily have sent it over or said that Ry and Rich were present.
It'd just be nice to repeat problems knowing they've been done thats all i guess. Pretty boring but i like being boring.

[GCW]

E.g  (past example used in pantons thread) Traci lords sitter has never seen 8A+, and the stand was never 7C+ and is hard for 8A greg downgraded it because the stand was flashed and said to be piss and the sitter was put up on the same day, with much harder beta than is needed. Traci had 2 repeats this year and a lot of people have tried it (B-free took 4 sessions and was climbing really well.......

Sorry Dan, I don't quite understand what you're saying here.  Didn't Gaskins suggest 8B for Traci Lords sit?  I seem to remember Greg graded the stand up as hard 7C+ before Gaskins climbed it?  Although Greg is still the phantom downgrader..... 

[a dense loner]

Yep, I don't understand either. Why the gaskins example? It doesn't seem to lead anywhere, unless ive completely missed the point as well. As for using Si o' as an example, again I don't understand, no one in control of their faculties believed a word of it, same with scotty boy bullshit.

[Fiend]

Dan is inspiring, having videos of hard new problems especially in different areas is inspiring, where the fuck is the footage of that thing at Carrock Fell and I will read this thread in a mo

Edit: Read the thread, no other comments except please post up more videos dan cheers.

[Bonjoy]

The dagger is half the story! The whole is much greater than the sum etc. but yes I agree with johhny
I was speaking with mike Adams the other day and he is now agreeing with dan and bonjoy about video proof of first /hard ascents now. I can completely see where they're coming from but it doesn't mean I agree with it. As far as I'm concerned you can video yourself if you want, some people do this much more readily than others, but x person doesn't need to do it cos dan or mike or a.n.other want unedited proof. Sometimes x person might not have got into climbing to prove themselves to y person.
This leads us to the state of things of someone being doubted or not etc but I'd rather that than the alternative, and it gives us something to talk about in the pub

I agree, shock horror! Videoing or not is entirely up to the individual. However, in this day and age nobody has any cause to complain if they do a bunch of things and nobody believes them because of some combination of being an unknown/doubtworthy entity and not keeping a record/having a witness. Climbing has seen too many bullshitters over the years to hand out unconditional credit to every and all claims. This is not a demand for video evidence, it is a statement that it's okay for people to say 'I don't believe you unless you can prove it' to people who act like bullshitters of the past. How the questioned climber responds is entirely up to them.

[Dave Flanagan]

... (B-free took 4 sessions and was climbing really well, well enough to look alot better and more competent on that dice prow proj in Ireland than another famous attempter).

There seems to be a subtext in these recent debates about proof that I'm not aware of. Something must of re-ignited that debate. Most of the rumours don't make their way across the water. PM me your slander.

In the case of the Dice Project I don't think it's fair to read too much into a few seconds of video

Glenmac files part 5

[Nigel]

In answer to OP: of course it shouldn’t be taboo to ask for proof, I don’t think it ever was.

It’s a funny one though isn’t it, because the majority of well known climbers are so above reproach that you wouldn’t bother asking e.g. Caff, Ry, BB Guns, PRob, Dan, Mike, Micky P, etc. (even though you know they probably did film it / have witnesses). Like Dave says this is because they have a track record of being uber wads day in day out, they are at the top of the tree for a good reason. On the flip side the people you would like to ask for evidence (I won’t mention names this time, apart from Dense RE penis size) are obviously going to take it as a tacit statement of disbelief and tell you to fuck off.

As an aside I remember Greg giving Traci Lords 7c+ (or V10 as we called it back then) from the off, though I may be wrong.

[Johnny Brown]

What Nige said.

The only time there needs to be video proof is if the ascentionist actually gives a crap what people think about his or her ascent.  Although if it's being recorded somewhere then it makes sense.

This is the nub of it, though I wouldn't have worded it like that. If you really 'don't care what others think' then don't tell anybody (I'm not convinced anyone actually falls into this category).

If you want your efforts to be added to the historical record, then be expected to either provide proof, or to establish yourself as beyond question. As has been discussed here ad nauseam, 'proof' need not be a video, but its useful if you're on your tod.

[carlisle slapper]

I'll upload the carrock vid for you fiend. its not great which is why i just gave it to greg, its in 2 takes as was on my tod that day and did it from high and got close from low) On the day i did it there were loads of people about and i did it second go of the day (dave and elsie from beastmaker and 2 guys from kendal) so no one got the camera out.

From what i can recall (and Greg can correct me if i'm wrong) Greg was tempted to grade Traci 8A but within a week of him doing it Gaskins had flashed the stand and did the sit the same sesh at 8A+ think greg nagged him upto 8B soon after (http://lakesbloc.com/component/content/article/214.html) so he gave it 7C+. I've stuck up for Johns efforts more than once in my time including infront of Gossip with windisch where i was told his ridiculous sequence. but i am saying that he's a great example of not knowing the hell what's actually gone on. No witnesses or beta and just pics holding positions on the really hard problems. i am aware he's a good climber and like i say this is a spot of playing devils advocate with a problem which would be 8C anywhere else in the world (easily 8B into a single move 8A from sit) my point is that when you are that strong to do climbs that well, fair enough you might have a bad day (e.g in that ireland vid he must be having a REALLY bad/ relaxed day) but it'd be nice if we had a video of just one of those good days. As it stands all the hardest G problems in the country have no ascent videos or (publicy known) witnesses and wildly varying grades in relation to one another (anesthesia compared to shadowplay) no one elses do really, if i try an 8B of moons or Mike's it usually feels pretty close to the benchmark. It's amazing if they are all outstanding efforts but really crap for the UK scene if they weren't, all it would take is for an uncut vid on one problem to go a long way to sorting it out but in the past this was a lot harder to do (mind you many people managed fine). But if it was more acceptable to ask for proof then maybe Greg wouldn't have got rebuffed in such a way when he did broach the subject.

[Monolith]

As it stands all the hardest G problems in the country have no ascent videos or (publicy known) witnesses

A few have come forward over the years (and on here) who have bumped in to John and seen him do Walk Away ss in two halves with ease etc etc. whilst out at the crag. There's about as much substance to this 'evidential' comment as a John Bishop standup routine though sorry.

Dan, I'd love also to see your video of Home. I admire your devotion to the small hold.

[Johnny Brown]

I think you've got to take the evidence within the context of the times. If Gaskins popped up now with this kind of behaviour he'd be laughed out of the park and rightly so. But at the time it was standard behaviour, so was/ is accepted. You can't have the guy as a big enigma without a lot of uncertainty.

[GCW]

OK Dan, I see what your point was.  Looking back through LakesBloc I can see where the confusion has arisen, Stand up report and Sitter report.

We can debate all day long, but I suspect that other than the Stick It footage there will be no proof per se of these ascents, in a similar way of Sam's repeats.

I suppose the flip side of all this is why not film these FAs now that video recording is so widespread on phones etc etc