[dave]

Even methodical macleod is allowed the odd fuckup.

[Doylo]

Last year i was belaying Caff trying the top of Rainshadow and he did say the whole section was '7c+' and had english 5c moves. he wasn't joking either 

But yes ironic considering Pearson thing

[SA Chris]

Someone pay Birkett to get up and do it so a consensus can be gained.

[Will Hunt]

But it wouldn't work, Chris. The man doesn't even understand how the adjectival grading system works!
I find this thread quite surprising. Is it any wonder the two climbers had different opinions? Caff: on the form of his life; did just the top pitch; apparently notorious for claiming stuff is piss when the consensus is otherwise.
McLeod: First Ascent (the few lowly FAs that I've done I find near impossible to grade); did the whole route; may have allowed the situation and scale of the route affect the adjectival grade (and rightly so) etc etc.
Plus the fact that they might have used totally different sequences.

This is all just a bit    I think the great thing is that this route got repeated so quickly considering how difficult it is to get to and work compared to a route in the pass or the Peak for instance. The grade is incidental, LOOK AT THAT LINE!

[petejh]

I think the great thing is that this route got repeated so quickly.....

The route hasn't been repeated. One pitch of it has. It's like abbing in to climb the crack pitch on the Salathe headwall - you haven't climbed the whole Salathe Wall route, just a legendary pitch which makes up a part of the route. Which is pretty much what Caff's saying. And of course the top pitch is going to feel harder on the full lead after a 9 pitch E6/7 lead-in. Hopefully another beast will get on it soon to get some sort of consensus, my money's on it settling at 8b!

I think downgrades of big routes raises eyebrows more when it's a 'professional climber's' route because, unlike talented amateurs, they set themselves up to be shot at - by selling an image of them being 'the best', or close to, based on their ascents. It's their image which finances their career choice. Didn't Tim Emmett sell people the idea that he was one of Britain's best climbers by basically being able to climb 8a+ and saying 'av it' lots? 

The Long Hope

Long Hope DVDThe 40 year story of the awe inspiring Longhope Route, finally freed this year by myself to make one the hardest trad multipitch/big wall routes in the world. 400 metres of loose, soft, dirty, fulmar infested battling up to E6, followed by a 65 metre final pitch of F8b+/E10 7a. All climbed in one day, single push, no falls.

That was the goal for me, but it took many trips and attempts, a lot of training and a lot of tactical preparation. Filmed over the three years I worked on the project, I think the film really shows off how amazing the climb is. You’ll not find another 500 metre overhanging bigwall sea cliff with a trad route of this standard and remoteness anywhere on the planet.

The film also tells the story of Ed Drummond and Oliver Hill's original 7 day tour de force in 1970 in making the first ascent using aid, and Ed’s emotional return to St John’s Head 40 years later to revisit the most intense and scary moments of his climbing career.

Also includes the film of my 4th ascent of Indian Face (E9 6c) on Cloggy. No other route has attracted such a legendary status for raw danger as Indian Face. Hopefully my ascent, the first to be filmed, clears up some myths, or maybe reinforces some too? There are also extra features of climbing The Old Man of Hoy and Mucklehouse Wall (E5 5c, 5c, 6a). PAL format only.

The music is by a wonderful Orcadian band The Chair.  You can buy the album here on iTunes.

If you would like your DVD signed, just let me know.

£20
€23
$32

It's a bit naive to believe that pro (and wannabe pro) climbers don't allow themselves to over-hype the difficulty of routes. A three-year project to do a big-wall E9 wouldn't sell nearly as many dvd's, articles or lectures, despite it still being massively impressive. It's massively impressive but, on paper at least, it's still achievable by talented 'amateurs' - which begs obvious questions when something gets marketed as 'hardest in world' etc.

[shark]

Didn't Tim Emmett sell people the idea that he was one of Britain's best climbers by basically being able to climb 8a+ and saying 'av it' lots? 

Give Timmy a break. He's pretty handy especially compared to other media types such as "Master of Bullshit Movement" Bear Grylls. Similarly for Dave Mac too - if there is a gap between ability and presentation then it is miniscule in comparison. In the absence of a professional support structure such as you find in most other sports he does a pretty good job between making a living and keeping it authentic. The implication that he would deliberately over-grade a route for financial gain is one I find difficult to believe.

Having said that there is a responsibility for pro climbers to grade stuff honestly and ideally right otherwise consumers will have an incorrect feel of what's really been achieved and it does others achievements down by comparison. It is in the long term interest of the pro climbers to do so as well otherwise there will be a backlash when discovered - everyone feel an idiot to discover they've been duped.

What is an Orcadian band btw?

[robertostallioni]

ask fiend.

[shark]

ask fiend.

I know he is struggling with weight loss - but that sounds a step too far

[robertostallioni]

Do they real look like this on the Jockish islands?

[petejh]

Didn't Tim Emmett sell people the idea that he was one of Britain's best climbers by basically being able to climb 8a+ and saying 'av it' lots? 

Give Timmy a break. He's pretty handy especially compared to other media types such as "Master of Bullshit Movement" Bear Grylls.

Agreed, but I know plenty of people who are just as handy who have proper jobs and just go out climbing at a better level, some with sponsorship support and some without. Maybe I'm in a minority but I believe if some people want to treat climbing as a professional sport than that's when the 'sport' should be held up to objective performance standards, as should they. You wouldn't expect a club runner to be as good as Jessica Ennis and I wouldn't expect an amateur climber to be as good as a supposedly 'professional' one.
Anyway 

The implication that he would deliberately over-grade a route for financial gain is one I find difficult to believe.

I wasn't implying it was that simple - I meant that it would be naive to think that the pressure to being seen to perform doesn't lead to over-hyping, compared to someone who isn't actively working the media for their ends.

[Danny]

"... I wouldn't expect an amateur climber to be as good as a supposedly 'professional' one"

I would.

If only because I think we all mean different things by the word 'professional' in the context of climbing.

As much as I think the word 'ambassador' is ridiculously grandiose, it is more appropriate to climbing. Sponsors want likeable, saleable, interesting folk who are willing to communicate with climbers, and a wider audience. Being very good at climbing clearly helps, but is not requisite by any means, particularly if you're a miserable wanker. Or, indeed, if you just want to get on with your climbing in relative peace and quiet.

I'm relatively happy with this status quo, because they're all a country mile better than Bear, with the possible exception of Richard Simpson.

   

[petejh]

Going well off topic and probably better off in a different thread so as not to take away from Caff's climb but..

The 'climbing ambassador' thing is well and good and makes for nice articles in patagonia clothing catalogs. That company's 'ambassadors' are often also leading edge climbers but the term 'ambassador' could often also be a euphemism for 'mediocre self-promoter'.  I'd prefer black and white objective parameters like in most other sports.  I want the very best, say, 5 or 6 wads at the leading edge of their genre to get nearly all the recognition, and the rest of the mid-table Aston Villa's of British climbing to go on a long holiday away from calling themselves 'professional climbers' until they're able to climb at least 8c+, or 8B, or consistently onsight E8's, or FA/repeat the most bad-ass cutting-edge super alpine routes of the day.    Seriously, it's the x-factor and this guy has it right: http://scottsemple.com/archives/  His slideshow was cool to watch.

In tennis a while back, there was a female player — not at the top, but close enough — that was better looking than the other contenders by a long shot. Her sponsorship contract was also the most lucrative. The subtext is that what sells rackets gets rewarded and the public regards performance second to appearance. This is bleeding into climbing with brands starting to call their sponsorees “ambassadors” rather than athletes. It takes skill and effort to be a real athlete, while anyone comfortable behind a microphone or at a tradeshow can be an ambassador.
..
My beef is with climbers that are put on an official, publicized pedestal by the sponsoring brand (and with climbers that are striving to be put on that pedestal) — via blogs, websites, magazines, slideshows, etc — but who really haven’t done anything of note to warrant their elevated status. This latter group seems to be growing in numbers, and that trend needs to be reversed.

I don't want mediocrity clogging up climbing media like hair in a bath-plug with their latest E8 or E7 headpoints, just because they're 'good at self-promotion'. That level of performance was reached 30 years ago, where's the progression?  Recognition of top-level climbing talent, no matter how quiet, should take priority over recognition of more mediocre climbers who actively self-promote. X-factor.

Forgotten what this thread was about now. 

[Nemo]

"I think that grading a climb is extremely difficult, because our experience is completely subjective." - Nibile

Within limits on a small percentage of routes maybe.  But when was the last time you confused a E6/7 with an E4…  And as T_B said, the difference between 8a+ and 8b+ is enormous. 

"I've never heard Caff say a route is hard, he just states that everything thing is 'piss'" - JB

Maybe in off the cuff sarcastic remarks in the pub.  This clearly isn't that.  Caff isn't daft and he's given a long and thought out account of the difficulties of the route.  He climbs enough routes day in day out to know what E8 and 8a+ are, so the fact that he's "on form" seems pretty irrelevant.  Also as far as I'm aware, Caff's never onsighted harder than 8a+, even on perfect rock in perfect conditions at sport crags - so how quickly he climbed the pitch on TR, given the position, conditions, sandy rock etc, suggests that it's very unlikely to be any harder than 8a+.  The fact that Dave eventually climbed the whole route doesn’t really seem relevant either – he’d spent a stack of time on numerous trips just working on the top pitch, so should really have been able to grade it reasonably. 

So it does sound like the difficulties have been overstated.  As for the reasons, I think there are all sorts of possibilities and I’m not sure there’s too much point in speculating – it was probably a combination of things.  (One that I don’t think has been mentioned is that maybe he allowed the position / situation to get to him a bit - I suspect that Caff probably has more experience of dodgy rock on really big cliffs – Dave’s primary focus has been on single pitch headpointing / sport / bouldering, although clearly he has done some bigger stuff / ice climbing etc…)  Hopefully he won’t see this thread as too negative.  Given what he’s said before, he did kind of set himself up for criticism if this happened.  But it’s hardly the end of the world for this to happen on one route. 

Does kind of make you wonder how easily Caff and some others could do other hard trad routes if they were even vaguely interested in headpointing though…

”Didn't Tim Emmett sell people the idea that he was one of Britain's best climbers by basically being able to climb 8a+…” - Petejh

Singling Tim out for criticism in that context seems pretty harsh.  You could say very similar things about the vast majority of people who’ve made their name out of headpointing routes in the UK for the last two decades (DM and JP being obvious exceptions).  How many of them, elsewhere in the world would have become famous climbers and been considered good enough for sponsorship deals etc?  Hard to be too critical of them for it though – they’ve just played the game in the UK the way the media have (perhaps without realising it) caused it to be played.  But I agree with most of Pete's last post.

[shark]

Also as far as I'm aware, Caff's never onsighted harder than 8a+, even on perfect rock in perfect conditions at sport crags - so how quickly he climbed the pitch on TR, given the position, conditions, sandy rock etc, suggests that it's very unlikely to be any harder than 8a+.   

Not disagreeing with any of your points but he did say he'd spent "half an hour on a grigri playing on the moves" prior to doing it in a oner on top rope and that makes most routes significantly easier than an onsight. 

[craic-head]

I'm sorry. I have to cry foul over the Tim Emmett dissing. Jealous? The guy's successful for many reasons- his sport grade is not one of them.
Stick to the f'kin topic.
As far as the Long Hope downgrade goes- probably needs Birkett up there as someone has said.

[petejh]

The Tim E comment was made tonque-in-cheek, hence the tonque-out 'joke' face thing, please relax. And come on, 'jealous' is such a facile attack on a person but not on the point they're making and is an unthinking go-to response. But yeah I agree with you that it wasn't very relevant to this thread.

(but it's all valuable face time, Tim Emmett Tim Emmett Tim Emmett).
 

[Danny]

Going well off topic and probably better off in a different thread so as not to take away from Caff's climb but..

The 'climbing ambassador' thing is well and good and makes for nice articles in patagonia clothing catalogs. That company's 'ambassadors' are often also leading edge climbers but the term 'ambassador' could often also be a euphemism for 'mediocre self-promoter'.  I'd prefer black and white objective parameters like in most other sports.  I want the very best, say, 5 or 6 wads at the leading edge of their genre to get nearly all the recognition, and the rest of the mid-table Aston Villa's of British climbing to go on a long holiday away from calling themselves 'professional climbers' until they're able to climb at least 8c+, or 8B, or consistently onsight E8's, or FA/repeat the most bad-ass cutting-edge super alpine routes of the day.    Seriously, it's the x-factor and this guy has it right: http://scottsemple.com/archives/  His slideshow was cool to watch.

In tennis a while back, there was a female player — not at the top, but close enough — that was better looking than the other contenders by a long shot. Her sponsorship contract was also the most lucrative. The subtext is that what sells rackets gets rewarded and the public regards performance second to appearance. This is bleeding into climbing with brands starting to call their sponsorees “ambassadors” rather than athletes. It takes skill and effort to be a real athlete, while anyone comfortable behind a microphone or at a tradeshow can be an ambassador.
..
My beef is with climbers that are put on an official, publicized pedestal by the sponsoring brand (and with climbers that are striving to be put on that pedestal) — via blogs, websites, magazines, slideshows, etc — but who really haven’t done anything of note to warrant their elevated status. This latter group seems to be growing in numbers, and that trend needs to be reversed.

I don't want mediocrity clogging up climbing media like hair in a bath-plug with their latest E8 or E7 headpoints, just because they're 'good at self-promotion'. That level of performance was reached 30 years ago, where's the progression?  Recognition of top-level climbing talent, no matter how quiet, should take priority over recognition of more mediocre climbers who actively self-promote. X-factor.

Forgotten what this thread was about now. 

All fair points and yes, we are off topic, but the topic isn't particularly interesting to me (ie 8a + vs 8b+ blah blah), whilst this diversion is.

In my view, this utopian vision of entirely meritocratic sponsorship deals would make the world of professional climbing a very dull one. This has manifestly not happened, in pretty much any sport going, for both good reasons and bad. Its always been a mix of outright ability and personality.

Yes, there are quite a few mediocre self promoters out there, but the cream will, and does rise. People who are half decent communicators, quirky writers, those with interesting insights...doing not just hard things, but worthwhile, interesting things are the ones worth listening to, and sponsoring. Well, that's my view at least. But I can understand why folk would want their sponsored wads to be bouldering at least 8b before they're worthy of a bit of attention, I think. 
 

[Doylo]

Tim Emmett  saying 'av it' lots? 

How else is one supposed to get psyched? 

Nemo is spot on really- for all Caffs tongue in cheek sandbagging he knows his capabilities and how difficult things are.