[roddersm]

http://outdoors.caledonianmercury.com/2010/12/20/superathlete-or-walter-mitty-the-strange-case-of-rich-simpson/001440#respond

It'll be in the News of the World next.

[ghisino]

there are loads of strong people who can't climb and loads of very good climbers who are not strong.

you know, my guess is those are the exceptions, and the general rule is that there is a correlation between some feats of strength, (lack of) weight, performance on a board and outdoor performance (at least on styles that have something in common with the board)

it is very pleasing to think about oneself as an exception to this rule since, in the first place, our culture values Ulysses (mastery) more than Achilles (strenght).

furthermore on one side it is hard to think that you should really go through a boring process of training and diet if you want to maximize your performances, at least in terms of best redpoint/boulder grade (fuck on-sight performance on all styles and rock types!)
on the other side, people who embrace that process might easily get frustrated by the lack of consistency of their performances, as they did not realize in the first place that "maxing the redpoint grade" is not "getting better at climbing" in a general sense.

this generates a widespread faith that technique comes to people like a sort of holy spirit and "bam!" they perform better just because of that, and you know, they're soooooo weak...no hard work to put in, no boring hours in the gym or equally boring "training at the crag", thats pointless : just pray, worship climbing and wait for the holy spirit to descend on you.
As a side result, this faith makes it easier to accept other people's performances, since they come from an innate gift that you simply don't have...from a sort of supernatural force...
you can skip the whole process of addressing how climbing performance really matters to you, of solving the conflict between the part of you that wants to chase the grade so badly and the other who says there's a lot more in life than training for it.

and as a result, some forum users (esp. on ukc) have come to the paradoxical conclusion that "people who are strong outdoors are weak indoors. RS was strong indoors, so he could not have been strong outdoors".
Really, some posters seem to use the feats of strenghts and board performance as a proof that RS could not perform over a certain grade outdoors, and they are honestly convinced of their words (!!!)

this really seems an insult to logic, to me.
(wait, i forgot, climbing doesn't follow the laws of logic, physics of whatever...it's some sort of miracle happening. i apologize for my blasphemy to all forum readers)



PS myself as well, i think i'm such a weak bastard in the gym and a wizard on real rock.
but at least i'm honest in admitting that's 90% self-lying, 9% lack of motivation to reach my limit on boards, and maybe 1% truth 

[chummer]

at least the NOTW would have had some tits in it to provide a few minutes of light entertainment

[Doylo]

Ru can explain more about conditional admissibility but I'd say (given the edited videos that are in circulation compared to unedited one that are not) at best the statement is weak evidence that person y had seen a video and that's all.

Spare me the law bullshit (as impressive as it is i couldn't give a monkeys, are you turning into JonC, or are you the same person perhaps?). Its quite simple. I got in touch with the guy Simpson told me belayed him on LA and Hubble (without telling Simpson). He replied that he did belay him.  Thats it. I can honestly see no reason why he would lie. Simspon apparently has some footage of some stuff, we'll probably never see it though so you might aswell stop harping on about it. He was strong and capable enough to climb the routes. However there is a strong case against him. Obviously he now needs to prove the rest of his claims if he wants to remain in the climbing  history books and restore his reputation. I posted what i had found out because i know not everyone wants scandal to light up there lives. I know some people found his climbing and training inspiring and i hope this at least gives them some hope that they weren't completely juped.

[Sloper]

All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

I don't disbelieve you when you say that you were told this.

If this person were to come out and provide an on  the record comment with when etc and that RS did the routes in one then I'd be satisfied that there was good evidence to support the claims.

As for being John Cox, you're having a laugh he's a bloody new labour type.

[a dense loner]

ghisino what are you talking about?

also tbh i'm bored of all this lawyer speak on a bouldering site, do they have no lawyering sites for that kind of stuff?

[SA Chris]

also tbh i'm bored of all this lawyer speak on a bouldering site, do they have no lawyering sites for that kind of stuff?

www.cunts.com

[galpinos]

www.cunts.com

For some reason that site is blocked at work.

[Paul B]

All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

Strangely when these threads first appeared this was what was asked for. If you leave the video out of it for a minute (which is obviously a contentious issue), what more information does a belayer need to give?

I'm not sure how much of the UKC thread people over on this side of the fence have read (or I may have missed it here?) but this information was offered to petejh (assuming the names carry over) first to clarify the historical record (with conditions), which I gather was refused. This information didn't have to come through Doylo.

[shark]

I'm not sure how much of the UKC thread people over on this side of the fence have read (or I may have missed it here?) but this information was offered to petejh (assuming the names carry over) first to clarify the historical record (with conditions), which I gather was refused. This information didn't have to come through Doylo.

I'm not sure what you are saying (as usual) but it sounds like a criticism of petejh. Doylo knows who the belayer was, had his contact details and also knows him personally. petejh didn't.

Also emails from strangers don't elicit the same response (if any) as emails from mates.

To save anyone ploughing through the UKC thread (which you can only do if you are registered) what petejh said was:

by - petejh  on - 14 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:
Seeing as this thread is going to be locked and I have the feeling that Alan won't be allowing anymore speculation to appear on UKC - I'd like this to be on some sort of public record before I forget the details:
Rich got in touch with me 4 days ago (on the 10th December) following my request for him to validate his ascent of Liquid Ambar for the forthcoming North Wales Limestone guidebook. He told me that he'd give me the name and contact details of his belayer for Liquid Ambar and Hubble provided I accept his 3 conditions, which were:
1) That his (the belayer's) details (name, email etc) are not placed on internet forums or in widespread media of any kind.
2) That only one person (yourself preferably) makes contact to verify my ascent.
3) That you request verification for the purposes of the historical record in your guidebook, and do not mention debates on ukc etc – he abhors this type of thing, and would probably be reluctant to get involved if he believed that your requests were in direct response to forum speculation.

I see these as smokescreens and attempts to control the situation - typical of his behavior whenever he's been questioned. His conditions are unacceptable to me for these reasons -
they isolate me into being partly responsible for supporting his reputation without his proof being open to public scrutiny,
it's totally unrealistic for Rich to try to keep his means of validation separated from the internet climbing community by which so much of the doubt has been raised about his claims,
Rich's behavior, by which I mean his long-term refusal to respect the wishes of any member of the climbing community by supplying proof when he's been respectfully asked to do so, has ensured he isn't in a position to demand 'conditions' from anyone,
and lastly there's no reason for there to be any great secrecy in this matter, it's a claim of an ascent up a little bit of a cliff near Llandudno - we're not talking about international espionage here, the only possible reason for wanting secrecy is if Rich has something to hide.

I emailed Rich back today to tell him either to verify his ascent of LA in an open and honest manner by giving me a straight answer, or consider his ascent struck from the record, he hasn't replied yet. I've spoken or been in contact with a lot of Rich's acquaintances over the last week to get a more complete picture, none of them supported Rich's claims and they actually raised even more doubts then they cleared up.

People have always been open and receptive to Rich proving the doubters wrong but he's never done so which is a shame, because he's a 'nice' guy and one of the strongest climbers around. As things stand I believe Rich has lied about all of his most impressive sporting achievements.

 

[Doylo]

To be fair i've only met the guy in question once 7 years ago (hardly mates), i very much doubt he remembered me as he was pissed as a fart. In fact he was so rowdy that night after making me stop the car to get some booze i was persuaded by everyone else to drive off and leave him to save us all trying to control him. Therefore if he'd have remembered me i doubt he would have been as forthcoming with his reply.

[shark]

Sorry Doylo. Sounds like an interesting guy. Simpson has referred to him a couple of times:

Planet fear interview

..Then one I day met someone called Dan Tounley he was older than me and had a very high motivation and was very talented he was climbing 8a+ at the time, he obviously saw that I was talented and very keen so he took me under his wing and taught me how to climb hard, how to train, that there's nothing to be scared of and that you must give 110 per cent if you want to achieve your goals and that you can do anything as long as you want it bad enough. He took me outside and even helped me with money on a few occasions by not letting me pay fuel money etc. We then went on a climbing trip abroad to northern Spain for 3 months, I was only 17 at the time and was very nervous but he was great he looked after me and I just had an incredible time and realised that all I wanted to do was to climb and travel and fortunately I'm still doing it now and enjoying it more than ever.

And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview

3. Who or what has influenced your climbing?

My great friend Dan Tounley, who got me into climbing and showed me the ropes. Although he does not climb anymore and has lived a life full of problems, he remains the person I most respect in climbing

[Doylo]

I think the reason Simmo handed down all those conditions to pete was because he realised that this witness needed to be treated somewhat delicately. Obviously the end result (as usual) was that it didn't look good for him.

[Paul B]

Unsurprisingly I was replying to the post I quoted. I'll try again:

What more do people like sloper want past this:

All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

Unless you happen to know everyone classed as a climber personally there's not a lot else you can expect.

I'm not sure what you are saying (as usual) but it sounds like a criticism of petejh. Doylo knows who the belayer was, had his contact details and also knows him personally. petejh didn't.

I just thought it relevant, the original requests made were for proof, it was offered and rejected. I certainly hadn't seen it mentioned on here and its the first offer of such in what has been a very one sided affair (for obvious reasons).

[Doylo]

I just hope this issue remains dormant on UKC (unless of course Simmo gets involved).  Tis a circus over there

[RAK Punter]

And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview

Difficult to take this article too seriously when the interview opens with:


"1. When and how did you discover climbing?

At school, my science teacher took me climbing as I was being disruptive in her class. I really enjoyed it and continued to climb with her until it I discovered that she was in fact an alien. I found myself looking for a new climbing partner shortly after. "
I read no futher

[clm]

And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview

Difficult to take this article too seriously when the interview opens with:


"1. When and how did you discover climbing?

At school, my science teacher took me climbing as I was being disruptive in her class. I really enjoyed it and continued to climb with her until it I discovered that she was in fact an alien. I found myself looking for a new climbing partner shortly after. "
I read no futher

Theyre desperate for science teachers nowadays. Theyll take anyone.

[SA Chris]

maybe he means she is an immigrant rather than an extra terrestrial?

[andy_e]

And he's a racist too?

[mark s]

Having said that it seems there are many people inflating their own abilities in terms of what level they climb at, consequently, over grading routes and boulders. But, at the end of the day, they are only cheating themselves.


a quote from the climing in luxembourg interview ,oh the irony  ???

[Dr T]

An interesting overview on some of these issues inc a little on this specific sorry affair...

http://www.deadpointmag.com/articles/view/uncut-footage-burden-proof-or-threat-our-community

[a dense loner]

not really interesting, and the author goes on about uncut footage way too much

[slackline]

He also conflates entertainment (in the form of climbing videos/films) with evidence which doesn't make any sense at all.

[Jaspersharpe]

The comments are interesting. In a "gawping at a car crash" way.

[lagerstarfish]

not really interesting, and the author goes on about uncut footage way too much

I think you mean "uncut footage"