UKBouldering.com

UKC Simpson statement (Read 58599 times)

chummer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 587
  • Karma: +26/-2
UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 11:37:09 am

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=59419

I, and I'm sure I am not alone, find the whole thing quite sad (in a depressing way). I know the topic about Rich was locked and rightly so and I am genuinely not trying to be all UKC about this but these statements do raise the question; what will be recorded about Rich's ascents in the history books?

Just read that back and it sounds like I am trying to stir an already muddy pool after it's just settled, that is truly not my intention. I think for the N.Wales Limestone guide that we'll have to mention something about Liquid Ambar but will this set a precedent where all unproven/ unwitnessed ascents of hard routes will have a footnote in the history section? That in my opinion would be pretty shit and it undermines the whole amature sport ethos.

chummer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 587
  • Karma: +26/-2
#1 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 11:38:35 am
 P.S As far as his other sporting achievements i really couldn't give a fuck although it obviously provides ammo for the doubters

account_inactive

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2716
  • Karma: +85/-25
#2 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 11:51:16 am
Today is a sad day indeed

Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12469
  • Karma: +599/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
#3 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:00:06 pm
UKC can always raise a smile though:

Quote from: Yonah
A defining moment in the history of the website: perhaps you, or we, have come of age.

Amazing. We need a smug/superior smiley, hold on a minute.......


shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 6843
  • Karma: +459/-13
  • insect overlord #1
#4 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:01:57 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?

Serpico

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1228
  • Karma: +97/-1
    • The Craig Y Longridge Wiki
#5 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:02:44 pm
I've stayed away from this particular car wreck so far, but this has pissed me off a bit:

Quote
Wild Country have now issued the following statement to UKC:

"Earlier this year there was a forum thread on UKC which seemed to provide some evidence that disputed Rich Simpson's running claims - and alluded to problems with other claims Rich Simpson had made regarding his climbing. Wild Country, concerned about its reputation and also in consideration of concerns over the history of the sport, felt it prudent to ask Rich Simpson to provide evidence for some of his ascents in the shape of naming his belayers for several routes - routes which were reported and claims that were repeated on Wild Country's website as Rich Simpson was a Wild Country sponsored climber.

However, Rich Simpson refused to supply any information that could verify his ascents, even when repeatedly asked directly by Wild Country, thus Wild Country decided to terminate his sponsorship and remove any information regarding Rich Simpson from its website until such time as evidence is provided."

We have also received a statement from Scarpa:

"When we saw the threads on various web sites raising doubts about Rich Simpson's ascents, we asked him to make a statement on UKC in order to protect his reputation and that of Scarpa and the Mountain Boot Company. Rich Simpson refused to make a statement and then, under his own instigation, immediately tended his resignation as a sponsored athlete. We accepted this resignation."

Which is a different sequence of events to:
Quote
When rich became aware of the UKC thread two weeks ago he wrote to his sponsors telling them he was giving up his sponsorship. He had no intention to reply to the thread.
From Doylo on 9th Nov'

Taking advantage of your mate's desire to stick up for you is a low trick.

grimer

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1435
  • Karma: +120/-1
#6 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:02:52 pm
I was writing something for the Moon website the other day about top British performances, and you mention Steve mac and Ryan and Tom Bolger and how great the things are that they do, but then it comes to Rich and when I was writing I just found my heart wasn't in it. Personally I've no reason to doubt him, but I just didn't feel like it, almost like it was disrespectful to all the people who are straight about it.

It seems, at best, that Rich has gone to great lengths to orchestrate some massive mystery about himself as some sort of performance. I don't find it that sad, just mildly odd.

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 19132
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#7 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:09:23 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?

UKC wrote another non-news article.

Ru

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1650
  • Karma: +79/-0
#8 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:23:54 pm
Taking advantage of your mate's desire to stick up for you is a low trick.

It is a different sequence of events, but unless you know exactly what Doylo was told and whether it was possible to misinterpret it, I don't think points like this help. The chinese whisper effect, even in the law where we're all paid to communicate accurately, is huge.

As for the history books point, what history books? Guidebook writers will make their own minds up. 99% of the time it's an irrelevancy. I've written the Raven Tor section of the next BMC limestone guide, and guess what, like most other guidebooks I haven't included lists of everyone that's done Hubble.

Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12469
  • Karma: +599/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
#9 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 12:41:48 pm
Well that's just lazy.

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8191
  • Karma: +214/-4
#10 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 01:02:44 pm
It is a different sequence of events, but unless you know exactly what Doylo was told and whether it was possible to misinterpret it, I don't think points like this help. The chinese whisper effect, even in the law where we're all paid to communicate accurately, is huge.

It works both ways too; I was told a completely seperate version of events by someone who works at WC than their official press release, a version that was far more sympathetic to RS.

chummer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 587
  • Karma: +26/-2
#11 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 01:07:39 pm
Ru, by 'history books'  I mean it as a generalisation for all that is written on climbing ascents whether that be on the internet, in the history sections in guides, or in other publications. Of course it's up the guide writer but I personally don't think it's an irrelevency. You may not have included lists of all those who have done Hubble but others will in other books and articles (see Grimer's post) and for other routes Rich has claimed like Liquid Ambar where Rich's ascent was pretty significant in the history of that route it will/has been be written about, so again I don't think it's an irrelevancy. There's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about.

Dr T

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1524
  • Karma: +49/-3
#12 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 01:25:13 pm
Quote from: Tom Ripley
What about the boxing claims, they sounded pretty unlikely too?

Also, is he defiantly studying at Cambridge - people were casting doubt on that claim too.

Has anyone, of note, in the climbing world come forward to support Rich?

The big question that everybody on the other channel seems afraid to ask is...

"Does anyone have proof that this Rich Simpson actually exists???"

  ;D

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5398
  • Karma: +130/-78
#13 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:05:58 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)

chummer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 587
  • Karma: +26/-2
#14 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:19:28 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)

Why don't you just go and knock one out then Sloper so we can get on with discussing the written and yet written history of British climbing.



chummer

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 587
  • Karma: +26/-2
#15 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:20:38 pm
 :-*

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5398
  • Karma: +130/-78
#16 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:28:36 pm
Perhaps there's an article to be written on famous british climbing fantasists, from Gary Gibson's two new routes in a day (Lundy & Pembroke) through to this.

Ru

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1650
  • Karma: +79/-0
#17 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:35:59 pm
Ru, by 'history books'  I mean it as a generalisation for all that is written on climbing ascents whether that be on the internet, in the history sections in guides, or in other publications. Of course it's up the guide writer but I personally don't think it's an irrelevency.

I meant that it was an irrelevancy for most guides as they don't have lists of ascentionists anyway. Clearly it's not an irrelevancy for the few that want to include this information, but then the writers will make a judgement call as they do already.

Quote
There's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about.

My point is that there has been lots of fuss about the "historical record" when in actual fact the "record" is just a few trainspotter blokes like me who will do exactly the same thing when writing books and articles as we've always done. Which is to do a bit of googling, a bit of ringing round, then writing whatever we feel like afterwards.

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5398
  • Karma: +130/-78
#18 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:42:33 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot>]?

Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12469
  • Karma: +599/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
#19 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:44:13 pm
Surely that was intentional.

chris20

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 239
  • Karma: +19/-0
#20 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:45:05 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)

Rich Simpson, FACT!...... http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rich+simpson&word2=si+o+conner

Ru

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1650
  • Karma: +79/-0
#21 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:48:43 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot?

Wasn't that done on purpose by the writer of that article in very similar circumstances?

account_inactive

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2716
  • Karma: +85/-25
#22 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:49:00 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?

UKC wrote another non-news article.

Exactly.  I understand why people are getting upset by this, but I don't understand why UKC feel like they need to report this as a news item.  I don't remember this happening with Si the Conner or Scott McSpanishspotter, so why they feel the need to single out Rich? UKC doesn't speak for all climbers so no need for the public service announcement.

 

account_inactive

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2716
  • Karma: +85/-25
#23 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:50:07 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot?

Wasn't that done on purpose by the writer of that article in very similar circumstances?

Who would have done a thing like that  :whistle:

remus

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 776
  • Karma: +29/-1
#24 Re: UKC Simpson statement
December 16, 2010, 02:59:34 pm

Exactly.  I understand why people are getting upset by this, but I don't understand why UKC feel like they need to report this as a news item.  I don't remember this happening with Si the Conner or Scott McSpanishspotter, so why they feel the need to single out Rich? UKC doesn't speak for all climbers so no need for the public service announcement.

 

Id guess its an attempt to slow the inevitable tide of 'What ever happened to that Rich Simpson thread?' threads as much as anything.