[Dave Flanagan]

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. 

There you go black and white again. Reserving judgement means someone is undecided or has doubts. They are, rather than rushing to go one way or the other, waiting to see if more information, or evidence if you like, will come to light. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Kingy]

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.

Ben Moon did the 2nd ascent in 1990 if I recall correctly

[Sasquatch]

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.

I have two thought on this:

1.  I agree that if a person has reason to doubt someone else, then they should feel free to voice that doubt.  In public and not anonymously. 

2. If the accuser is wrong, then they also have an obligation to publicly come out and say so with as much or more force than the original questioning.
 

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. 

There you go black and white again. Reserving judgement means someone is undecided or has doubts. They are, rather than rushing to go one way or the other, waiting to see if more information, or evidence if you like, will come to light. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

I agree.  But if you are waiting for more informatin, then wait.  Once you air something in the public domain, you'd better be willing to take the stance I put above. 

Also, I reread the thread, and you're right that people have kept it pretty positive here.  I was confused by links to other, less positive threads.

[petejh]

Apologies, 3rd ascent      (or 4th)

and the blog entry for anyone who thinks my point was a bit vague: http://adventuresplusnorthwales.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/slate-dry-tooling.html

[slackline]

Unless you're claiming to have done new probs or routes, or repeated cutting edge probs or routes, nobody really cares. Are/have you?

Kind of disagree, if someone starts out bullshitting when they're doing new problems/routes at lower grades it'll then carry over when they reach the upper echelons that people are saying that it does matter.

Bullshitters are bullshitters, no matter what grade they are climbing, and saying it doesn't matter unless its cutting edge will result in an increase in its prevalence which then filters up to the areas you are saying it does matter.

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. 

I also tend to disagree with this based on my "professional" (for want of a better phrase!) work in science/academia*.

When you submit a piece of work to a peer reviewed journal it is scrutinized in detail to assess its validity.  People aren't given the benefit of doubt and are expected to be up front about what they have done so that others can go out and replicate it, no matter how hard the technique they have used is to master.  There's nothing wrong with questioning anything, its how society has progressed over the years.

I see some parallels with what is being suggested here, ie. back up your claimed ascent, otherwise it will be doubted (not necessarily completely dismissed/ignored).

To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.

* Caveat - Yes I realise that this is a pass-time/leisure activity for many and in that regard bears no relevance to science/academia as its all about personal endeavor, but what people are talking about here is essentially money, people who are courting sponsorship by claiming ascents that they may not have done.  If I went for a job interview (akin to seeking sponsorship) I'd be expected to prove my track record, be it through recognised qualifications or through a series of past jobs with demonstrable achievements that are well documented.

EDIT : Thats not to say that peer-review or job recruitment is flawless, both are fallible as has been demonstrated.  Its also good that this discussion is happening so that people know what to expect.

[Monolith]

You know, on many many occasions, I like so many others of you have longed to read something new from John. I've also thought on many occasions how a real effort made to speak with him might yield some further interesting and historical minutiae. Who is to say whether he may or may not have some more images or video of interest? Perhaps leave out this wish to see such media at the expense of appearing as a witch hunt? It absolutely shouldn't be one. Not that one can or should artificially engineer a rapport but somebody with an existing friendly rapport would be a good start to attempt forging a new dialogue that he might allow for dissemination to the climbing community. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Will we continue to long for 'more' or might somebody not be able to meet and convince John of the magnitude and historical importance of his achievements? Who can blame him for losing interest in it all post Bock spat. I'd probably want to burrow away if somebody publicly character assassinated me in my professional line. Others might retaliate in a bid to restore their profile. Different strokes.

Days pass and my intrigue about the man never relents. I don't know why this is, but I'm completely drawn to anybody so devoted to any pursuit and in any other sport, you'd be able to buy voluminous collections about such an athlete.

I believe that much as the man might be of enormous fortitude physically, his retiring, unassuming and seemingly content disposition might never allow for much further insight into the makeup of a man I consider to be brilliant. This saddens me.

[slackline]

  hit quote instead of modify.

[a dense loner]

Dan I said no such thing as its better to have a bullshitter than a witness or video evidence. Im not even sure I mentioned a witness in the whole thread, I keep saying about the video bit. We're even getting tips from people about how to work up to being in your own vid for gods sake. This thread is getting screwed up into black and white and people saying someone else is wrong and they're right or someone's believing and someone's not. Why you yourself said I made my mind up years ago by comparing probs and being able to do none, I've never been a good climber I'm the second to admit that and have never suggested otherwise but it was nice of you to remind me. My beef, if you like, here is you compare probs definitively with something that's not definite.
I think Sasquatch has been on the money quite a lot of times, nothings changed and nothing will. Just cos people have a new medium doesn't mean too much. Everyone on here knows how it works as much as I do. Let's take ondra, loads of vids of him, however if there wasn't, someone will say fuck me sideways there's this Czech kid with a swan neck, best thing I've ever seen but can't dance for shit. Someone else will say who told you this. John. What John John he's full of shit. Ok Peter told me the same thing. What Peter pete, fuck wait til I see him he knows the score etc etc. I've never seen Michi tresch climb but I know he's bloody good. Why? Because he's climbed with friends who's opinions I trust on the subject.

[Andy W]

 

Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent; 'Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.' yes I know he was a bit of a dictator.

Doubt is doubt, its possible to have degrees of doubt. If Rich Simpson did some routes and not others which seems pretty clear now, it is tough for guide book writers and all those on here seeking absolute proof and truth, for they have to go with either one version or the other. Neither ultimately being the complete truth.

The messy nature of climbing, truth/history is surely one of the attractions. If it becomes more like athletics say, then that will be a loss and a shame.

The context for the mess is now predominantly the internet. Knowledge becomes teasingly close, yet unattainable  to the multitude and the overall effect is reductionist and often revisionist.

Videoing ascents seems entirely that of choice. If you choose to have sponsors and court the media then it seems a pre requisite of that contract. If you climb for other reasons like I imagine the majority then its a choice. The other issue, I'm afraid I don't understand, people tell the truth, lie a little and sometimes quite a lot. As individuals  we negotiate our way through this sort of stuff on a daily basis.

[shark]

A solution is to classify FA's where there is doubt for one reason or another in the guidebook writers mind. 

Maybe annotate an FA as (U) for unproven.

This should prompt evidence (witness or footage) to be put forward if it exists for subsequent editions.

[andy_e]

I've got a new highball 8A/+ (V11/12) which is only 7C+/8A with a kneebar and nobody saw me do it. It'll be written up in the guidebook as follows:

Andy's Really Real Problem 8A/+ (7C+/8A KB) (U) (P3) (!)

Or is that just being ridiculous?

[Bonjoy]

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.

The thrust of what people are suggesting is to avoid this sort of negative scenario occurring. It's about establishing what the reasonable expectations of the climbing community are in respect of verification prior to a significant ascents. In the past climbers could justifiably complain about being asked to produce evidence after the fact as there was not a very well established expectation with regard to this. If we are at a point, and I personally think we are, where all involved parties realise what is expected then the situation is very different to the past. It is a given that under some circumstances (pointed out elsewhere in this thread) the community expects some quality verification, typically video. As this is the new status quo the person asking for verification can no longer be dubbed an accuser (as often happened before) merely for asking a question, the person is in effect acting as a voice for the wider climbing community in his request (assuming it is reasonable). The climber has every right to refuse to provide this evidence, but as the expectation of verification is well established from the outset he/she cannot complain if this refusal leads to people doubting his/her achievements.

[shark]

I've got a new highball 8A/+ (V11/12) which is only 7C+/8A with a kneebar and nobody saw me do it. It'll be written up in the guidebook as follows:

Andy's Really Real Problem 8A/+ (7C+/8A KB) (U) (P3) (!)

Or is that just being ridiculous?

The annotation would be against the first ascentionist's name not the grade. That might be in a separate history section depending on the guide. Also it need only be deployed if there is any doubt.   

[Jaspersharpe]

Or it was a cave link up with split sport grade too then it could be 8A/+(8b/+)[(KB 7C/+ (8a/+)) U]. Which if I'm not mistaken was the formula used at CERN for discovering the Higgs Boson.

[carlisle slapper]

Bon Joy's just summed it up really well there (and JB. There is no reason to get worked up if you get asked for proof. The question is, is it better if those with a high level of credibility willingly provide proof (which might make those who dont feel guilty) or if they hold back a bit to make it less pressured for those who dont want to film or have everything witnessed.

Dense it was only this point i unfairly singled out.

If a person does not want to or for some reason didnt video himself doing something he does not need to, historical significance or no,

surely you'd have preferred Chas coopers 8A in oldham to actually have been there? (if it was a good problem) It does make climbing lamer if everything needs vids but i think there is a middle ground worth encouraging where climbers shouldn't feel put out if asked for proof if it puts a stop to the odd person taking climbing on a jolly for their own amusement/motives. I'd be annoyed if everyone asked me for proof for sure. But not if i was getting an article written about an ascent or sending info into guides.

I say leave belief to religion. Sport should deal with simple fact.

Amen!

[GCW]

I would have thought it a little naive nowadays for someone to be claiming problems and not have any proof for the ascents.  I don't think every new problem should have a video online somewhere, but if there were no witnesses why not film a decent proprtion of one's FAs?  At least if someone later starts to doubt, those doubts could easily be dealt with.

I think times have changed a lot- people were always given the benefit of the doubt, but this has been rather dented by recent cases where people have been exposed.  Sad really.

[Snoops]

Forgive me if this seems a simple solution:

(A) You are a climber who either likes the limelight, want or/need sponsorship, or are keen for people (outside your close friends) to know that you bagged the 1st/2nd ascent of a route etc (You want your name in the guidebook). Then the prerequiste is a some phone footage. You have decided you want people to know, therefore you can take the  (little) time and effort to do this.
Failure to this means you will be ignored - after all I can't tell you all the earth doesn't spin without showing some evidence.

(B) You are a climber who is not interested in the limelight. You prefer to do you own thing, and shun publicity. Ergo you won't want or need to take video footage. So you can climb in peace, and being the chilled content soul that you are, it doesn't matter if someone else claims your 2nd ascent etc because - you weren't bothered and you had your moment to yourself.... but you can't whine when your name's not in the book......

[slackline]

Failure to this means you will be ignored - after all I can't tell you all the earth doesn't spin without showing some evidence.

Yes you can, but you will be doubted until you provide evidence!

[Oldmanmatt]

Or it was a cave link up with split sport grade too then it could be 8A/+(8b/+)[(KB 7C/+ (8a/+)) U]. Which if I'm not mistaken was the formula used at CERN for discovering the Higgs Boson.

😄😄😄😄😄😂

In other sports, who have had to face-up to an increasing "professional" element (and I don't mean instructors etc); this sort of question has become the domain of "Governing bodies"...

We have one of those ( ish... Loosely... Sorta...).

My skin crawls at the thought of some committee, ruling on on such matters.

Imagine the "National institute of Guidebook writers" code of practice for new route inclusion...

But...

The court of public opinion, sucks.

By and large, we get by fairly well.

Video's nice, hard to argue with and it's great to see some uber wad doing things I can only dream of.

It has to come down to the guide writer/Editor/reporter's judgement at time of reporting. If later evidence proves their initial judgement false, no blame lies with them.

There are, after all, few certainties in life and if someone wants to bullshit; they will.
Not only does it become easier to record video footage as time goes by, it also becomes easier to fake it (I guess, not my area). A sophisticated liar is still a liar.

[Bonjoy]

Creating a fake unedited ascent of a hard problem would be extremely difficult even for a hollywood studio I suspect. I cannot forsee this ever becoming much easier due to the nature of the excercise.

[jwi]

Much as I enjoy this epistemological debate Hume's said it all when he wrote "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence".

[Sasquatch]

Creating a fake unedited ascent of a hard problem would be extremely difficult even for a hollywood studio I suspect. I cannot forsee this ever becoming much easier due to the nature of the excercise.

Don't be so sure. On many problems there would be easy ways to "cheat" the video based on camera location....

Much as I enjoy this epistemological debate Hume's said it all when he wrote "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence".

[Bonjoy]

Creating a fake unedited ascent of a hard problem would be extremely difficult even for a hollywood studio I suspect. I cannot forsee this ever becoming much easier due to the nature of the excercise.

Don't be so sure. On many problems there would be easy ways to "cheat" the video based on camera location....

Much as I enjoy this epistemological debate Hume's said it all when he wrote "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence".

Sasquatch - Maybe on a small proportion of lines (e.g arete with hanging rope round corner). Even so I don't think it's easy enough or likely enough to be a major issue.

jwi - Maybe so and a wise bullshitter will therefore proportion his bullshit according to other people's wisdom.

[Sasquatch]

Sasquatch - Maybe on a small proportion of lines (e.g arete with hanging rope round corner). Even so I don't think it's easy enough or likely enough to be a major issue.

Remember that climbers cheat their asses off all the time.  i.e. the "American" sit start (that isn't actually a sit start, but is actually a squat start), Stacking pads to reach a different starting position, etc.  I can guarantee that the same people willing to lie are willing to fake a video.  I had a problem I did this summer (new FA of top difficulty in AK) where on the go before I sent, I dabbed really hard.  I knew it helped alot, but finished anyway and went back and did it again clean.  On the video, you don't even notice the dab.

I honestly think witnesses are better than video. 

On a lighter note, Everyone, please keeping videoing and posting the hard stuff, because I find it inspiring to watch people crush! and you get the bonus of establishing a higher level of integrity. 

[Danny]

Sasquatch - Maybe on a small proportion of lines (e.g arete with hanging rope round corner). Even so I don't think it's easy enough or likely enough to be a major issue.

Remember that climbers cheat their asses off all the time.  i.e. the "American" sit start (that isn't actually a sit start, but is actually a squat start), Stacking pads to reach a different starting position, etc.  I can guarantee that the same people willing to lie are willing to fake a video.  I had a problem I did this summer (new FA of top difficulty in AK) where on the go before I sent, I dabbed really hard.  I knew it helped alot, but finished anyway and went back and did it again clean.  On the video, you don't even notice the dab.

Aye, but you were obviously pretty close to doing it on the dab go in any case, which in itself counts for something. Imagine if someone posted a vid of a few moves being strung together on Shadowplay, for example - even something like that would substantially change the nature of the Gaskins related conversation. 

I agree with bonjoy; faking unedited ascent footage would almost always be next to impossible.