[John Gillott]

It's way off topic now (or maybe the problem of historical accuracy is the new topic) but I'm not sure about your gold dust stuff Shark. I don't see the Al Evans and Webbo quotes as being contradictory, for two reasons: firstly, if I remember it right Bancroft did get a bit stronger in the fingers towards the end of halcyon days - see FAs of Castellan and Narcissus in 1976. Secondly, I think Al Evans was referring to one finger wrapped through a sling or a loop rather than draped on a campus rung or similar. The former is a lot easier.

I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.

[Johnny Brown]

What was the Brown quote about his inventing jamming? Something like 'the fact that we didn't make any such claims didn't stop others making them for us'?

[shark]

Why does it seem to be so easy for bullshitters to prosper and what can be done about it? I have absolutely no idea what the answer is though.

I think the answer has arrived.

My experience is that the majority of people the majority of the time are honest in their dealings. I also thing that it is a healthy thing to be generally trusting. Suspiscion breeds suspiscion and if people are generally perceived to be breaking the rules then it in turn encourgaes cheating for those who wouldnt otherwise as after all what is the incentive to be honest if everyone is at it ? Also it makes for a nicer world. I think this is how things are and should remain in climbing.

However, and I think this high profile case with Simpson will help enormously, if there are anomolies that give rise to doubt then asking for and being supplied with evidence should be an unemotionally charged transaction. I am of course talking about high profile claims rather than what somebody said they did on the Wave last wednesday. If nothing else is salvaged from the Simpson car crash then raising the notion more generally that it is conceivable that top athletes may be bullshitting is likely to put observers on a more heightened sense of alert for anomolies and have greater weight/authority when requesting evidence - well for this generation anyway. Top climbing performers will no doubt also be more likely to ensure they have evidence to hand for these eventualities too.   

[shark]

I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.

He signed a questionnaire confirming there was no chockstone. My take in my dealings with Brown is he as straight as an arrow albeit not having the perfect recall. Perrin also said that he (Perrin) effectively soloed RE as there was no chockstone.

[T_B]

Maybe RS was the last of a generation who could get away (for a long time) with making stuff up? Already the expectation (from both public and sponsors) has shifted and anyone who hasn't got FA photos on their blog or a video would instantly raise suspicion. In the world of HA mountaineering, unless you have photographic proof, you may as well not bother publicising your ascent.

[slackline]

In the world of HA mountaineering, unless you have photographic proof, you may as well not bother publicising your ascent.

You'd be gutted if your batteries died then!

[chummer]

I see your point there Ru, well made. I suppose I just want that 'mush of stuff' to be as accurate as possible but I guess it can only say what is based on evidence of which there is none. So to conclude, the only conclusion you can draw is that all of his unproven ascents are to be recorded with a hefty element of doubt. Full stop, finito, fucking shame, but he's only got himself to blame as my mother used to say. (not that Simpsons had ount to do with my mother, allegedly)

The one good thing that may come out of this is that any bullshitters or potential bullshitters may think twice before bullshitting and those that don't may do a little more to prove they aren't.

That's got to be it now eh?

[Bonjoy]

Excuse the long winded post. By the time I’d written it a lot of the points had already been made, but I can’t be arsed to edit it down now.

I think there are reasons why this happens time and again and trying to address these might reduce the chances of recurrences.
Some of the reasons why climbing has historically been a fertile breeding ground for liars?
1. Climbing is as much a way of life as a sport and as such is done by individuals for entirely individual reasons. I think many consider the seeking of verification as an intrusion and an insult with no part in our noble pastime. Some seem to believe this to such an extent that they refuse to accept that anyone could possibly abuse this trust, or that protecting the code of trust is so precious that a few liars and cheats is a price worth paying. Ironically it is this three wise monkeys approach which leads to the messy divisive splurges which periodically happen (see point 3). Nobody particularly wants to ask their mate “who belayed you on X route?”. And once an aura of doubt surrounds a particular climber this question becomes even less attractive as it tends to label the asker as doubtful. Obviously this difficulty can easily be exploited by anyone seeking to fabricate ascents.
2. The climbing media and sponsors, in reflection of climbers’ attitudes have taken ascents on trust as a matter of principal too. There is rarely any fact checking. Therefore issues only surface (usually in a messy explosion) when a large amount of grassroots noise about a climber forces someone out of silence. By which time the proverbial horse has bolted.
3. Once a ‘doubt’ does surface the nature of it’s emergence has placed the burden of proof on the ‘doubter’ at least initially, rather than the ‘doubted’. Doubters generally have been given a very rough ride for daring to speak out. As it’s not really possible to prove a negative in most cases, the doubter is often then shot down with egg on their face. The whole doubter v doubted game seems to place the doubted party on an apparent moral high ground which is easily exploited to avoid scrutiny.
4. Subsequent to any attempts to clarify matters regarding doubted claims the climbing media has then tended to back up the unbalanced nature of the challenge/response. Either for fear of libel accusation or fear of appearing tawdry, they have tended to take the easy line, at best ignoring the subject, more often shutting down discussion in a way which looks to the world like support for the doubted.


How could things be different?
1.   Climbers could accept that some elements of climbing are in fact as much a sport as for instance athletics. Once this acceptance is made then it stands to reason that for top level achievements a basic amount of verification should be the norm. Not for every ascent but for sufficient to give credit to the rest. Crucially the onus should be on the climber to provide this and failure to do so will leave the burden of proof firmly in the hands of the doubted should any questions arise.
2.   Any source of climbing news could ask a basic set of questions of any ascent and provide the answers or lack of as a standard part of the news. Date, belayer/spotter, witnessed/unwitnessed, film/no film, etc. By making this a basic, standard part of news processing it takes the poison out of the question as everyone will be asked the same questions and won’t feel singled out. There is no temptation for fantasists to build a portfolio because it will appear hollow from the outset.
3.   Hopefully 1 and 2 would greatly reduce the likelyhood of an internet fact finding debacle, but should one arise it should be easy to either dismiss the doubt, or failing that it would be the norm that it’s the responsibility of the climber to back their own story.
4.   Clear news standards should make it easy for websites/mags to dismiss the obvious (hopefully very rare) fantasists and hence avoid having to make tricky calls about moderating/pulling critical threads.

Not rocket science really

[webbo]

It's way off topic now (or maybe the problem of historical accuracy is the new topic) but I'm not sure about your gold dust stuff Shark. I don't see the Al Evans and Webbo quotes as being contradictory, for two reasons: firstly, if I remember it right Bancroft did get a bit stronger in the fingers towards the end of halcyon days - see FAs of Castellan and Narcissus in 1976. Secondly, I think Al Evans was referring to one finger wrapped through a sling or a loop rather than draped on a campus rung or similar. The former is a lot easier.

I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.

billy bancroft lived in leeds when he did the f.a. of narcissus and castellan so its not a case of him getting stronger after he left leeds.as i spent most of 1976 and 77 down the old leeds wall practicing one armers on the pocket above the door with steve and chris the flash i reckon i've more idea about this than mr evans plus given his history i wouldn't trust his memory.

[John Gillott]

Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?

[Johnny Brown]

Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.

[T_B]

Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.

I'd say it was both powerful and fingery (on that flake). But that maybe explains why I still haven't got up it 

[John Gillott]

That's true (JB), or relatively so - I'm just hazily remembering magazine articles and perhaps guidebook histories that mentioned these routes in the context of a surge in his strength and performance.

[petejh]

I suppose I just want that 'mush of stuff' to be as accurate as possible but I guess it can only say what is based on evidence of which there is none. So to conclude, the only conclusion you can draw is that all of his unproven ascents are to be recorded with a hefty element of doubt.

Either recorded with a hefty element of doubt - ie hefty enough to make it clear that the author considers it bullshit, -  or just not recorded at all. As things stand Rich's LA ascent isn't going to be recorded in the guide at all, for reasons which I've already explained to Rich himself and on this thread and elsewhere. I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of writing something about an ascent which I don't think happened in order to make clear to readers that it's considered bullshit.

I can't imagine this happening apart from in exceptional cases like RS - for e.g. a climber who's just had a couple of ascents doubted, but without RS's long record of exceptional claims lacking any evidence, would just be given the benefit of the doubt as seems to be the tradition. Like I'm trying to make clear - I feel like I've done enough research now to ensure my conscience is clear for being partly responsible for damaging RS's reputation. If he'd have stuck to bullshitting about climbing he'd have got away with his ascents being recorded, it's the 4mm/marathon and Olympic boxing team claims - which he made to my face, which have flagged him up and led to this. On a related note I don't think you can pigeon-hole bullshit as being relevant/irrelevant if it's all got to do with sporting claims. Anything to do with private life is obviously irrelevant, but his were public sporting claims.

I agree with Bonjoys list of reasons for why climbing seems to be a fertile zone for bullshitters. His ideas on how things could be done differently made me wince at first as they seemed like a step towards turning climbing into a less honorable pursuit. On reflection though they would make the climbing scene better as long as people took it upon themselves to act in the way bonjoy described, it would take something good away from climbing if it became normal for these things to be demanded by others as a matter of course.

[Johnny Brown]

The Boy's list seems a bit , sure, but the fact is need only apply in unusual circumstances. Very little climbing news comes as unsupported reports from the individual - far more often it comes from friends who were present and can't wait to spread it around. Usually this means it comes already verified - the various reports I've been involved with over the years all have - and there is no need for fact-checking to carry any undertones of doubt, just a genuine enthusiasm for the details.

The second factor is the nature of media today means being a sponsored climber requires you provide some content other than bald facts. If you want to get ahead you provide pics, videos etc upfront to connect with the wider public. Dave MacLeod doesn't put videos on his blog as proof, he does it because that's how you inspire people.

All that needs to change is how much slack is given to would-be heroes who persist in consistently avoiding either of the above. As Pete points out, its very worrying that this has only come to a head due to outlandish claims in other sports.

[jonjon]

Another example was the chockstone on Right Eliminate. Everyone banged on about (it)

well to be fair some guy called Simon Lee on the other channel did

 

[webbo]

Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers.

[mrjonathanr]

No Bonjoy, absolutely not rocket science ( I once casually used that phrase whilst chatting with a couple I barely knew. Turned out he was an engineer on the Ariadne project.).

You're quite right: it's the diffidence about feeling entitled to ask for evidence that's the problem. That way uncertainty prevails. No-one has any business demanding to know what you've done. But if you assert something remarkable it's perfectly legitimate to do so - as you say, take the angst out of it all.

Ultimately it's the law of averages which decides. To not have evidence to give once is perfectly possible. It might happen again, even, but every time is not credible. I think the singular problem with climbing is the need to record two different activities as 'climbing' ie personal  adventure and sporting achievement. One you expect hard evidence for, the other we just want to know about the escapades of the talented, pushing boundaries.

Regarding history, it'll always be a bit vexed, but it's so massively against the odds to repeatedly have no convincing evidence that a consensus will come about so long as people communicate, and that's fine and normal.

What I loathe is people clucking about like a huddle of gossipy fishwives playing at being psychologists, tossers. There's no need to be undignified or get a kick out of all that disapproval.

[Bonjoy]

What I envisaged (and somebody had already suggested a similar thing on UKC already) was a request for info as a matter of course. It's not a demand and anyone is free to refuse for whatever reason (and the reason might be wholly understandable e.g. if you did the FA while bunking off work with your mistress).
So long as the question was always asked then the news item wouldn't have to state "Billy Poopants refused to give details", the lack of details would imply that none were given when the question was asked. As said by others, only a history of multiple mystery ascents would be cause for suspicion.
Regardless of the bullshit deterrent value, i think it's nice to have more of the back-story on ascents anyway.

[Pantontino]

Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers.

Apologies for continuing the slightly off topic stuff, but:

It's a while since I did it but all I remember of the roof pitch on Castellan is a bit of swinging around and then some shoulder barging. You don't need to be able to do one armers for that.

There's always been a strong element of hyperbole in climbing media, and I say that as someone who is probably guilty of over hyping things...on occasion.  (I was just being enthusiastic of course!)

That said, it does dismay me that certain individuals in the older generation seem determined to re-write history in their own favour. We are lucky to have people like Webbo who pop up and give an alternative truthful version of events.

Oh, and well said Bonjoy, couldn't agree more.

[chummer]

Does this mean that all my new routes are going to continue to be recorded as 'superb and stunning last great problems' Si or are you going to start being all truthful and call them all 'fillers in with some good climbing'? 

[Doylo]

I have been hoping that this Simpson affair would get sorted but it seems he's happy to get erased from climbing history. He's content with his life and has no plans to get involved. A strange standpoint in my view but there you go, he's an odd fish. For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Makes me laugh that people are doubting him. I tried to log on to U.K Climbing website when I read about the story but unfortunatly my schools sever wouldn't let me (I am in Thailand). Maybe people will stop doubting him now! Maybe he upset someone, I know he can be an arrogant little twat sometimes!!!

But i guess its too little too late. Case closed.

[nodder]

 

 

[Grubes]

For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.

Excellent news

[surfchimpster]

Cant believe ukc have done an article on this... bunch of chimps.

The whole thing would have been easily put to rest like this....

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=monty+pthon+witch+sketch&btnG=Google+Search

burn him...burn him!

I've never seen such a chuffing pathetic witch hunt in all my days .