[slackline]

If a climber falls in a forest and no one is around to hear him, does he make a sound?

I think you will find that if noone is around, he didn't fall in the first place...

Genius

[GCW]

Comparing Gaskins and Si O' is a bit unfair. At least we know that Gaskins exsits!
Did anyone ever meet the legendary Si O'Conner?

John Watson of Stone Country met him (mentioned in this interview with Dave F). There might be a write up on his blog about it somewhere that I've a vague recollection of reading at some point.

Video evidence of the meeting, plus the ultra problem that is "Atlantic Bridge V(1)4".

[Moo]

Slapper it's not so much what you say, it's the way you say it. Understandably this comes from being passionate about the subject matter but nobody likes being preached to.

Si O is clearly just mad, I'm not sure he's the best example to be using as a basis for this argument because it's all clearly bullshit.

[danm]

I met (and even went bouldering with) the infamous Si O'Connor about 16 years ago. I'd just moved to Kendal, and was looking for people to climb with. A friend, who climbed a bit, mentioned a mate of his. We hooked up, he had this home-made guide to weird scruffy bits of rock around Kendal, buildering etc. We went out, climbed some appalling choss and that was it. It became apparent that he was a nice guy, albeit with some issues (for a while I think he pretended to be Irish, complete with accent) and a couple of years later I heard about the fantasist thing and wasn't at all surprised.

Not that it counts for much, but I think climbing, ego and peers are a strange mix. Otherwise decent people end up making stuff up, tweaking the truth a little and maybe even end up believing their altered reality. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that these days, when you can capture pretty much anything on a phone, that questions may be asked if you make bigs claims and supply no proof.

[turnipturned]

Ben its the massive inconsistencies that are frustrating. You can see by watching stick it he's a good climber and that Isla (despite it being too hot on that err pinch) is fine for him, lots of cuts though but then its a climbing film.

I have to agree with Dan that Gaskins inconsistencies with his grading is completely wack. I have seen a fair few problems of Gaskins in a variety of different areas. A perfect example of this inconsistency is between Isla (8B) and Shallow groove (8a), both on the same face. Shallow Groove (for me at least) is sooo much harder than Isla. Another example is 'Darkness before Dawn' (8a+) in Ireland. The traverse is 8a then you have to turn the lip 8a+/8b (which I did incidentally say was impossible at the time, but have later been told there are holds up there). 8a into 8a+ has to be in the 8b/8b+ region.

Now having thought a bit about this thread and the whole Gaskins things, I honestly think that those lines have been done (and I feel that I have been a complete twat in the past for suggesting otherwise). I honestly think the guy hasn't got a clue about grades and as doylo says just relates grades to how quickly he does them.

Back to the main deal regarding asking for proof- I think its a bloody shame that it has come to this and video evidence is required. I think as English climbers we are a fucking negative bunch, far to quick to judge and doubt people (admittedly I have in the past fallen into this trap). I also think before you guys post, just have a quick think about what you are putting, what you are actually trying imply and what affect this may have on the individual that you are trying rip to pieces. It takes a lot of effort going out brushing and cleaning up projects, and then to have endless sessions to try and get them sent. I would be pretty heart broken if I got called out, or a least people implied it!

As a young enthusiastic climber myself it makes me sad to think that if I put up a new or repeat a hard problem with no proof that no one is going to believe me. It has actually led to this situation, I did for me a relatively hard problem in the south lakes early last, I was on my own and I sent it, I had a camera with me but when I got back to the camera the memory card was full. I then spent the next 20mins trying to repeat it. I was that worried people wouldn’t believe me, I went back the next week and got a friend to film me repeating it in full.

 

[GCW]

Off topic, but is your Isla footage online?  Not an accusation, I'd just be keen to see it.   

[Dave Flanagan]

Did anyone ever meet the legendary Si O'Conner?

I talked to him on the phone, it was pretty intense.

[Dave Flanagan]

Another example is 'Darkness before Dawn' (8a+) in Ireland. The traverse is 8a then you have to turn the lip 8a+/8b (which I did incidentally say was impossible at the time, but have later been told there are holds up there). 8a into 8a+ has to be in the 8b/8b+ region.

I'm not sure who told you there was holds up there but I know one very strong climber who has checked the lip from a rope and found nothing resembling a hold. The move to the lip would be very long, over a steeply sloping landing, without much in the way of footholds, followed by a hard mantel. I think its pure speculation to say what grade the top section merits unless you know someone who tried it?

[jakes]

Off topic, but is your Isla footage online?  Not an accusation, I'd just be keen to see it.   

It's on Dan's facebook GCW.

[GCW]

Yes, Dan has been in contact.  However, as someone with no friends i don't have a Facebook account   

[Sasquatch]

Off on a tangent here, but climbers who have such bad case of competitive anxiety that they cannot stand climbing or training in front of others (IRL or via a camera-lens) should work on that weakness.

After a few years of climbing I started to be uncomfortable when climbing with climbers I did not know and felt a weird self-inflicted pressure to preform.  It took away quite a lot of the enjoyment I got out of a day of climbing if "strangers" tagged along, and when I realised how limiting and unfortunate this was I decided to do something about it.  Luckily, it was not that hard to get out of that pattern, and after being able to happily climb with anyone anywhere again I got much more enjoyment out of climbing.

From what I have seen, most climbers who are not happy to climb when strangers are around soon stop climbing altogether.

As the one who started a bit about this particular issue.  It's not that I have a problem being in front of a video camera, and I absolutely love going out with friends climbing.  It's that when you are pushing a new personal standard, every little detail makes a difference, and if you can't 100% focus, then that keeps you from performing at your 100% best.  Setting the stage for success if huge, and I contend that if you're solo and having to fluff about with a  video camera, then you're not at you 100%. 

Maybe I'm the only one, but I probably go out solo 25-50% of the time.  I have a wife and three kids and live in a place that's at least as shit weather at UK, so when I get a chance, I take it.  If I can get a friend to go, great. If not, I go anyway because it may be only chance for 2 weeks....

[petejh]

Unless you're claiming to have done new probs or routes, or repeated cutting edge probs or routes, nobody really cares. Are/have you?
If not, don't worry about filming yourself unless you want a personal memory. A bunch of made up 7's isn't going to do much harm to the integrity of the sport. A bit like someone cheating at a county athletics meet versus cheating in the Olympic 100m final.

It really is a tiny number of overall ascents we're talking about. Just so happens they're the ascents that make or break the reputations of some people held up as amongst the leading figures in climbing.

[Nemo]

Edit - that wasn't really what I wanted to say, so deleted.

[Sasquatch]

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

So it feels to me from reading everyone's posts that we're looking at this too black and white. 

Dan simply says "Thankfully bouldering seems to be moving in the direction of it not being taboo to ask for proof".   I disagree. 

I don't think it's any more or less than it was before, and I don't think grades have anything to do with it.  I do think internet anonymity has led to pricks being willing to wag their tongues when they never would in person.

If someone says they did something and you call them out, one of you is going to end up being a douche.  Either they back up their talk and you end up being the prick for falsely calling them out, or they can't back it up and end up being the lying shit.  This has been happening for decades in climbing, and in the past would often lead to black eyes, fat lips, and bloody noses.   

[Bonjoy]

Maybe that's true over where you climb Sasquatch. In the UK we have moved past that macho bullshit, at least to some extent and threads like this help to further the trend.

[Jim]

"If there is any doubt, there is no doubt"

[Sasquatch]

Maybe that's true over where you climb Sasquatch. In the UK we have moved past that macho bullshit, at least to some extent and threads like this help to further the trend.

You missed the "in the past" part. 

[Dave Flanagan]

If someone says they did something and you call them out, one of you is going to end up being a douche.

I think you are the one seeing things as too black and white. It's not about "calling people out", I don't think anyone on this thread has explicitly called anyone a liar. People have expressed doubts, I think there is a big difference. The whole jist of this thread is that it's has started to become acceptable to reserve judgement and ask for more proof and that people no longer interpret this request as an accusation of lying.

[petejh]

I might come across as being at the skeptical end of the spectrum in this thread. That partly stems from climbing with Simpson for a day, before the suspicions arose, and listening to him talk 100% convincingly about his climbing and boxing. Only to subsequently realise whilst researching Liquid Ambar's history for the NW lime guide that much of it was bullshit and that it would never be possible to separate the facts from the fantasies. Another foundation of my skepticism has been laid by climbing with a bullshitter for a couple of years in new zealand and canada. I never suspected a thing. Until stories started getting relayed to me about him snowboarding Mt.Robson when I knew he'd never stepped foot on the mountain at that point in time.
 
The links below about Jonathan Pratt are well-worth a read, especially his trip report. They're very relevant, make lone wolf boulderer's stories look unimpressive in comparison, and I find the whole tale quite heartening. According to reporter Peter Gilman this guy should be regarded as one of the most impressive british mountaineers of his time - the 1st successful british ascent of K2 (and 2nd ascent of the W. Ridge) and highest ever bivouac on K2. What he did easily compares to the achievements of self-publicist mountaineers of his day (and today). By all accounts Jonathan Pratt didn't/doesn't give a shit about publicity and was overlooked for sponsorship or funding for his expeditions - many of which, according to him, he went and did anyway illegally on the cheap and then never told anyone what he'd climbed. His K2 ascent was, according to Gilman, discredited by influential and well-known members of the british mountaineering establishment (Hinkes/Payne). It's also worth looking into Dan Mazur's subsequent achievements to help to realise these weren't a couple of punters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mountaineers-spectacular-achievement-goes-unnoticed-last-month-jonathan-pratt-became-the-first-briton-to-climb-k2-and-survive-but-no-one-paid-any-attention-writes-will-bennett-1508567.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-odd-man-and-the-mountain-is-jonathan-pratt-britains-most-successful-mountaineer-a-storm-is-raging-among-the-climbing-elite-about-this-outsiders-claim-to-have-conquered-the-worlds-two-highest-peaks-1420492.html
http://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1995_files/AJ%201995%2037-46%20Pratt%20K2.pdf - trip report in alpine journal.
http://photographic.co.nz/everestposter/K2%20Poster.pdf

The story above helps me stay open-minded, I hope it's true. Gaskins might be the Jonathan Pratt of bouldering - it's the same story in different surroundings. Dyer's a classic example of one of the best british climbers around who doesn't seek publicity. But all I really need to stay open-minded is to realise that I don't climb for publicity, not that I think I'm good enough. Therefore lots of other better climbers also must not actively seek publicity. I did once get asked by Alpinist for info about a new winter route. I declined saying I didn't think it was relevant (get me, it's false modesty) and the editor replied with a curious remark. I questioned him, and he told me about how he often found himself having to deal with climber's narcissistic requests for publicity (he should change job if it bothered him that much). Is it just me who thinks narcissism's gone a bit rampant in climbing? - this guy seems to think so too: http://eveningsends.com/2012/06/a-desperate-search-for-climbings-soul/

If I'm honest I'd admit my default setting is I'm automatically suspicious of the motives of anyone who climbs at a level below the cutting edge and actively seeks publicity. That view might be a bit out of step in today's x-factor world. However the many climbers operating at just as high a level as the self-publicists, but who don't seek any publicity, prove that the two things aren't inherently necessary. I think combining climbing and seeking external reward through publicity requires more self-control over some part of the mind that deals with truth than some people are capable of. Which leads a small number of them to lies, as has been shown time after time. For recognition to be given, there should first be proof. Therefore it shouldn't be taboo to ask for it, if recognition is being asked for.

[Sasquatch]

I think this is an exceptionally slippery slope, and I'm pretty defensive on this because I've been through it. 

it's has started to become acceptable to reserve judgement and ask for more proof and that people no longer interpret this request as an accusation of lying.

You're probably right that it has started to be more acceptable, and this shows to me a huge lack of courtesy and respect.  The only people who should reasonably be able to ask that question without being offensive should be someone with skin in the game, i.e. sponsors, media, etc.  If as a fellow climber you want to ask that question, then it should be public and you should have to deal with the consequences if you're wrong. 

Honestly, when I read through this thread, I see alot of indirect slandering of John Gaskins.  If you don't believe him, say it.  If you do, say it. If you "reserve judgement" then keep your trap shut and reserve judgement. 

I had an experience with this about 15 years ago when I was fairly new to climbing.  I went on a roadtrip with a couple of "friends" and by the end things had gone sour.  When we got back,things were said behind my back, "doubts" about what I climbed.  It was all false as they saw me do what I did.  Unfortunately, I was an arrogant little shit and didn't have the standing in the community and I wasn't believed.  I lost a sponsorship opportunity, friends, community support, and had to spend the better part of the next 10 years rebuilding my integrity and reputation within the local climbing community.  The two guys who did this quit climbing shortly thereafter and I ended up paying the price.

What price did Fred Rouhling pay when he was called out by Huber on Akira?  What about Dai getting called out? Why shouldn't the one who called him out pay him back for all of the time and money he spent correcting their lie. It's easy to express "doubts" when you have no skin in the game, the internet is full of these people.  It's alot tougher when you do.   

If we as a community keep this up, who will we end up alienating?  What great characters and stories will we lose in this drive for proof? 

Pete has it right,

For recognition to be given, there should first be proof. Therefore it shouldn't be taboo to ask for it, if recognition is being asked for.

but that proof should also be proportional to the recognition.  Someone giving you info for a guidebook shouldn't be under the same burden as someone looking for sponsorship.

[shark]

I might come across as being at the skeptical end of the spectrum in this thread. That partly stems from climbing with Simpson for a day, before the suspicions arose, and listening to him talk 100% convincingly about his climbing and boxing. Only to .subsequently realise whilst researching Liquid Ambar's history for the NW lime guide that much of it was bullshit and that it would never be possible to separate the facts from the fantasies.

How are you dealing with Liquid Ambar in the guide ? It is one which has belayer/witness corroboration.

[Johnny Brown]

I think you are the one seeing things as too black and white. It's not about "calling people out"

Totally agree. A point I've struggled to get across in the past, usually due to rising emotions as someone assumes they are being targeted. I tended towards scientific subjects at school and that approach to establishing facts has stayed with me, i.e.: its fine to have a hunch or theory, but you shouldn't get attached to it. You try to get some data and you accept what it tells you, even if it doesn't follow your hunch. Often the data doesn't answer your question, instead it suggests that maybe its the wrong question. In the far east, in addition to the simple answers 'yes' and 'no', they have the term mu or wu, which essentially means unask the question - there isn't an appropriate answer. When folk ask me whether I believe climber x or ascent y, I'm often tempted to reply mu; I don't have the information necessary to form an opinion. Unfortunately the credulous would prefer to deal in black and white, and generally can only conclude that by not believing I am therefore a doubter. I say leave belief to religion. Sport should deal with simple fact.

[Moo]

I'm sorry Sasquatch but I completely disagree with you. In my opinion if someone has a reason to doubt a climbers ascents, they should feel free to voice that without feeling like the climbing world was going to come down on them like a sack of soggy shit.

The climbing community as a whole ought to responsible for upholding the integrity of reporting and recording of ascents. I don't think this  would result in character defamation for personal reasons because if everybody was involved then witnesses would come forwards readily to back people up.

Ps. I wouldn't say that I ever thought Simpson came across particularly well in videos but I was still gutted when the truth came out. I wanted to believe that we had another home grown world class athlete but it's not what I believe that will matter in decades to come, it's the truth. Without people voicing concerns this will clearly be made more difficult to find.

[Johnny Brown]

I'm automatically suspicious of the motives of anyone who climbs at a level below the cutting edge and actively seeks publicity

Pete's point here is pretty interesting and deserving of some thought. When I was young and naive I assumed climbing fame was a meritocracy - the guys in the mags were the best, and the routes in the mags the hardest. Having since been lucky enough to climb with many of the names of the last 15 years or so, I now accept the reality is very different. Initially I had the disappointing realisation that it was more to do with how shameless you were at self-promotion. I became very cynical of the mags and tried to ensure my photography only publicised ascents that were generally worthy. A few more years down the line and I'm rather more relaxed about the way things work. A big part of that is due to the democratising effect of the internet on our news, but also because I've seen that in the long term, folk generally get what they deserve. The dark horses get their exposure and the chuffers get forgotten. I've also come to appreciate how hard it is to make a decent life just from climbing, and those that do deserve it, whether or not they are the 'best'. As the sport gets more diverse and ascents leapfrog each other, who would be the best anyway?

[petejh]

How are you dealing with Liquid Ambar in the guide ? It is one which has belayer/witness corroboration.

I've written a short paragraph in the history section where Pete Robin's 2nd ascent is mentioned. It says Simpson has been proved to have lied about some claims (boxing) and that it's beyond any definition of reasonable doubt that he lied about other achievements (marathon, mile); and that, along with the lack of evidence of his ascents, sponsors dropping him, my experience of him lying to my face (see below) puts the credibility of all of his claims in serious doubt and it'll probably be impossible to ever know what's true and what's false.

Along those lines. I'm undecided on the final wording, or whether I've even got any right to say anything, who am I 
I've seen Dan Townley's email saying he belayed Simpson on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. Normally that would be enough wouldn't it...

Funnily enough I discovered another Simpson lie last week - purely by accident whilst searching for an unrelated phrase in google. The day I climbed with him - Sunday August 29th 2011, he said he wanted to have a go at onsighting the route 'Ibex'. But it turns out a guy named Glyn had belayed him on it the day before that - Saturday 28th. I stumbled across his blog entry by accident whilst searching for dry-tooling. Another outright lie to my face. Little things like that make it impossible to take anything Simpson claims seriously.