[Bonjoy]

It’s a while since I wrote up any new probs so have a fair number, hence splitting into three threads for different areas. I’ve put the names of the best things in bold for skim readers.

Gardom’s Far South – These probs are in the woods below Moorside Rocks and back towards Stump Hole. No total classics but some good quality nonetheless and a well situated alternative warm-up for harder stuff on G South or Moorside. Bo Line and Sheepshank are probably the best of the bunch, Not Now Bernard climbs a fairly impressive feature. There’s scope for more circuit fillers and a couple of short hard routes with bad landings.

Disillusioned/Indignant Fox 6A The first block visible over the wall when approaching from the direction of Birchen is an overhanging cracked prow. Sit start and climb the front direct. Alternatively finish up the left arete at a grade less.

Fly Lichen Eagle 6B Just left of the cracked prow is a vertical wall boulder. Climb the right arete from a sit start.

Run Lichen Antelope 6A+ Climb the flaked wall, starting with one hand undercutting the slot.

Leng Roach 6A 100m left of Fly Lichen Eagle is a collection of higher rocks including a prominent high jutting prow.
Right of the prow is a wall with a wide mid height break. Climb the centre with a long stretch out of the break.

Not Now Bernard 6C The right arete of the big jutting prow is a spicy layback

Bo Line 6A+ About another 100m left and on the other (Moorside) side of the drystone wall is a biggish vertical face undercut at the base. Climb the lovely vague central rib on slopey edges. A sit start on the left arete bumps it to 6B+. Possibly done some years back by Alain Gordon-Seymour (it looks like the thing he told me about doing yonks ago anyway).

The Sheepshank Redemption 6C – Tight but good line up the wall just between the left arete and BL, from a sit start.

eatswood

I’ve always wondered how much of the cave at the end of the traverse is buried under blocks (presumably the remains of an old bivi/shelter), some of which I’d previously moved in about 2007 to make the landing on the trav less treacherous. The answer is a fair bit, enough to add worthwhile low extensions to probs up the left arete and a low traverse. I finished the roof probs up the none eliminate version of HFP, on UKC this is called Hats for Me or Kristian’s Problem depending on whether you start on the left or right. The harder righthand start probably includes some of the 7C low start to Hat’s for Weasels mentioned in the VG guide (anyone know details of this?), though I imagine it must have been mighty bum scraping indeed with all the blocks in place.
I’ve gone into this detail as the guidebooks’ inclusion of eliminates and undefined sit starts and their exclusion of the obvious all-holds-in line has made things a bit complex/confusing. As crag author for one of the guides I’m more to blame for this than anyone else.

New Hats for Me 7A+ Sit start low on the far left on an undercut and dish, slap up crimps to gain the jug rail in the roof , then use everything to gain the big jug on the arete.

eatswood Roof 7B+ Start low on the right matched on the big sidepull undercut. Use the shothole out left to get some sidepulls then slap for the jug rail. Finish as above. A good and independent none eliminate.

Rubble Rouser 7C Start along the eatswood Traverse, once at the big jug/flake a few moves in, drop down and make tricky moves into a pair of old drill holes thence a ‘sports’ rest on a kneebar. Another hole helps gain holds leading left into the last move of the normal trav.

Rubble Rouser is good and not at all bum scraping (such is the volume of blockage shifted). It could well be 7C+ especially if you aren’t very good at resting in sketchy kneebars and/or have normal sized digits, I have dainty lady’s fingers and it’s still a squeeze fitting back-twos into the drill holes. Sport climbers and folk with 8a.nu scorecards will note that there is now huge potential for link-ups.
Note: The last hold before joining ET is on a fair size block which flexes a bit. I intend to re-inforce this when I get a chance, but in the meantime be careful how you use it.
Gritlad took vids of the up probs.

Seagull Tor

Face Arete is now clean and I’ve sealed the footer on the arete which was eroding badly. Good prob, well worth doing.

Crab Nebulous 6C – On the boulder below Boeing (same boulder as the world’s hardest grade 5 prob rocking onto a slab which is currently very mossy). A SS rising R-L trav starting in the long slot.

Parapet 6B – The roundy arete left of Parachute on its left side

[Bonjoy]

Not Now Bernard

[dave]

Disillusioned/Indignant Fox 6A

Good name word.

[Ru]

The low start to hats for weasels was something I did. Sit start at the back of the cave, pull on and do a large reach pop for the jug in the middle of the roof where hfw starts. Not really sure why it wasn't started there in the first place. I think the first holds were kind of low, but can't remember that well - it only took a couple of goes after doing HFW and possibly doesn't increase the grade. I moved a block or two, but there was still a lot more that could have been shifted. Does that help?

[a dense loner]

That's a worse claim than mine 

[Bonjoy]

Cheers Ru that makes sense, I thought that must be what the 7c in the guide was. I've added a further couple of moves but they aren't especially hard. I gave it the generic name as it's more a tidy up prob than fa. With the none eliminate finish it's the obvious logical line.
I fixed the creaky block on the travel yesterday BTW.

[Bonjoy]

Here's a topo of eatswood Cave to help make sense of its many variants.

[monkey boy]

Tom 'Gangle' Newman repeated Westwood with the original method.

[Bonjoy]

Great stuff, such a good move. Was that from the same sit? Did he reckon still 7c+ or harder?

[Ru]

I've done the "Westwood move" i.e. stand up westwood without "K" but pulling on using the crack and a pebble like rugosity to get left foot on the lip. This is about 7c.

[monkey boy]

He thought 8a. I have done the move too but for some reason coming into it from sit just makes it that much harder. I think 7c+ for the move doing it the original method.

[Bonjoy]

Will change to 8a.
Sorry, I suspect that little hold might be out of reach on the stand start now Ru (without stacked pads) after I cleared all the blocks out from the landing. Doubt you could use it as an intermediate on 'the move' from sitting, so it falls a bit between the 4b and the 4c stools, 4b.5 if you will.

[Paul B]

You can also finish the trav by going lower just after J (useful when the end slopers are wet). Likely this can just be summed up as a different sequence but it'll be a whole lot less bum scraping after your digging efforts (which seem quite substantial).

[Bonjoy]

That's kind of a reverse version of the reverse sequence. Yeah, there're no bum scraping moves at all now even on the low traverse now. The landing is friendly enough now to comfortably do the traverses with only two pads (one at a push if you don't mind getting muddy) and nobody to move them along for you. I also disassembled the blocks wedged in mud masquerading as ledgy footholds at the base of Corpse Crack which now makes G the logical start position for the right to left.

[Bonjoy]

Anything to avoid bouldering indoors or on lime at the tail ends of the season and wet days really.

[Bonjoy]

New version will say:
4. The Pessimist 8A – F to D
   a.   Westwood Original 8a – J to D, eliminate K.
   b.   The Westwood Move 7c+ – Stand start LH J, RH crack/undercut to D, eliminate K.
   c.   Stand Start 7C – Stand start to D

[shark]

I also disassembled the blocks wedged in mud masquerading as ledgy footholds at the base of Corpse Crack which now makes G the logical start position for the right to left.

Bugger. That's going to make the last moves on the Reverse harder and worse still vindicates Kristian claiming they were out

[Bonjoy]

Sorry, you now also need to do an extra move or two at the start to do it from a proper sitter. Finishing up Corpse Crack is probably now the best most logical finish for the reverse. It's not all bad news though, maybe the extra bits on each end will bump it up to 7c.


Topo (see above) is now updated.

[Andy B]

I,ve been biting my tongue on the lime eliminates threads, but retro eliminates on the grit!?!

If K makes Westwood easier then it's an easier problem not a different one.

[monkey boy]

I,ve been biting my tongue on the lime eliminates threads, but retro eliminates on the grit!?!

If K makes Westwood easier then it's an easier problem not a different one.

I agree to be honest. I think it is the same problem but with different beta. Both are probably 8a anyhow.

[Bonjoy]

Totally true, but it’s not a different problem it’s an eliminate. Personally I think there is a time and a place for the recording of eliminates. I think a one sheet internet topo of a rainproof climbing wall style venue is a good example of such. As someone who goes to this place regularly, due largely to a reluctance to go indoor or boulder on lime at the tail ends of the grit season or when it rains, I do treat it somewhat like an outdoor climbing wall. I don’t intend to put things like Connoisseurs Version or Westwood Original on pb.info as full entries, though I suppose others might. It’s a fair argument that treating places in this way might encourage proliferation into inappropriate areas but I don’t think this is reason enough not to do it for places that really fit the bill. The existence of sub-problem entities, which eliminates are in most cases, in the right context only detract from the lines they bastardise if people are daft enough to let them, as is the case at Crag X where most of the none eliminate versions of things aren’t recognised problems. This is also the reason why I have used numbers and letters. The numbered problems in the main being the all holds in lines, with the lettered problems being variants/eliminates on that theme. I think if anything my documentation tries to re-prioritise away from eliminates, for example see the way Hats For Weasels/ Kristain’s prob is arranged.
As a fan of Pinches Wall I assume you appreciate the value of eliminates in some contexts, so I assume it’s the where and when that you differ with me on. I don’t think you need to bite your tongue about this though. Geeky as it may be I think there’s a valid, nay important, debate to be had about where eliminates enhance bouldering and where they detract.

As to Westwood Original my justification is that I think K has perhaps been altered since the FA. It could just be my poor memory but I recall it being much less user friendly at the time. It is also arguably better climbing than the no-holds-barred version involving one of the most impressive moves I’ve ever seen executed. In the context of the nextdoor problem having a long established eliminate version (one which only makes sense as a wet weather version of Kristain’s problem, as the exclusions are otherwise a bit random and the new climbing not exceptional enough to justify a name let alone be the soul recorded problem up the line in three guides). It also defines the worthy challenge (IMO) of linking the low roof on the left into Westwood. The other point is that this topo is just the world according to me, it’s not presented as definitive or the product of any consultation, I trust people who write future guides understand this. However maybe I’ve got it all wrong and James’ way is actually still the easiest way to do the move from that sit position, in which case I’m just muddying the waters. It could be so as everyone I know of  whose done this bit of climbing from sitting came in from the right. I’ll ask Tom (or any other repeaters who come to light) next time I see him.

[Ru]

I,ve been biting my tongue on the lime eliminates threads, but retro eliminates on the grit!?!

If K makes Westwood easier then it's an easier problem not a different one.

I agree in general, but I thought Varian said that old Westwood was still a valid problem as you couldn't use 'K' if you started where James did when he did Westwood?

[SA Chris]

Totally true, but it’s not a different problem it’s an eliminate. Personally I think there is a time and a place for the recording of eliminates. I think a one sheet internet topo of a rainproof climbing wall style venue is a good example of such. As someone who goes to this place regularly, due largely to a reluctance to go indoor or boulder on lime at the tail ends of the grit season or when it rains, I do treat it somewhat like an outdoor climbing wall. I don’t intend to put things like Connoisseurs Version or Westwood Original on pb.info as full entries, though I suppose others might. It’s a fair argument that treating places in this way might encourage proliferation into inappropriate areas but I don’t think this is reason enough not to do it for places that really fit the bill. The existence of sub-problem entities, which eliminates are in most cases, in the right context only detract from the lines they bastardise if people are daft enough to let them, as is the case at Crag X where most of the none eliminate versions of things aren’t recognised problems. This is also the reason why I have used numbers and letters. The numbered problems in the main being the all holds in lines, with the lettered problems being variants/eliminates on that theme. I think if anything my documentation tries to re-prioritise away from eliminates, for example see the way Hats For Weasels/ Kristain’s prob is arranged.
As a fan of Pinches Wall I assume you appreciate the value of eliminates in some contexts, so I assume it’s the where and when that you differ with me on. I don’t think you need to bite your tongue about this though. Geeky as it may be I think there’s a valid, nay important, debate to be had about where eliminates enhance bouldering and where they detract.

As to Westwood Original my justification is that I think K has perhaps been altered since the FA. It could just be my poor memory but I recall it being much less user friendly at the time. It is also arguably better climbing than the no-holds-barred version involving one of the most impressive moves I’ve ever seen executed. In the context of the nextdoor problem having a long established eliminate version (one which only makes sense as a wet weather version of Kristain’s problem, as the exclusions are otherwise a bit random and the new climbing not exceptional enough to justify a name let alone be the soul recorded problem up the line in three guides). It also defines the worthy challenge (IMO) of linking the low roof on the left into Westwood. The other point is that this topo is just the world according to me, it’s not presented as definitive or the product of any consultation, I trust people who write future guides understand this. However maybe I’ve got it all wrong and James’ way is actually still the easiest way to do the move from that sit position, in which case I’m just muddying the waters. It could be so as everyone I know of  whose done this bit of climbing from sitting came in from the right. I’ll ask Tom (or any other repeaters who come to light) next time I see him.

Very true (i stopped reading at the second line)

[Bonjoy]

I'll maybe do another rehash based on the assumption starting at J makes a difference without the need of a rule, though someone is bound to then traverse down into the Pessimist....

[Andy B]

That was a long answer!

It was more that, unless I missed it, Westwood (as in the true non eliminate line) isn't in the topo.

Personally, I think you can have a lot of fun on eliminates, but recording them just detracts from the quality of the true lines. I think a surprising number of people will take Topos like this and other stuff they read about rules on problems as gospel a very short distance down the line.

If hold K has changed after the first ascent it's been recently.

It's still possible to use K from James' start.

[Bonjoy]

Wrote this before reading your reply Andy:

Right here’s the puzzle. If the easiest way to get from J to D is via James’ sequence then Westwood and the Pessimist are two distinct problems. If though it is easier to traverse from J rightwards into a position on the Pessimist and then finish as for that then the Pessimist isn’t a problem worthy of a name, it’s just the logical sit start position of Westwood which was missed by the FA (or has become such since J broke).
If the former then the two should just get called by their names and all is right in the world. If the latter then you either take the line that you guys seem to, which is that retro-eliminates are verboten, in which case surely the Pessimist should get abolished and renamed Westwood? Or you could just accept that people do refer to ‘the original way on Westwood’ and define an eliminate based on that….



So to reply to your last post Andy, to record Westwood and Pessimist as two none eliminates doesn't make much sense. I hate hidden rules and short of those it sounds from what you're saying that Westwood is now just a crap way to start the Pessimist. Surely seeing as James climbed the line first the two should jest get bundled under his original name?
PS. I defer to your better memory of hold K as you no doubt tried the prob properly, whereas I mostly just watched.

[Andy B]

I don't see any hidden rules.

I see Westwood and the pessimist as two different problems as they have different starts but happen to share the same hard bit. Whether you find Westwood easier by a big throw between jugs or boning filth will depend on the climber, and if like Dave says they are the same grade, then we don't need any rules or eliminates, it's just horses for courses.

I still can't believe you really thought I love pinches wall that much!

[Andy B]

Re. The guide book writers seeing sense etc. I think a significant, and growing number of boulderers are turning straight to the tinterweb and often bypassing guides altogether for their crag/ problem info.

As an (unrelated) example of the sorts of leaps of logic people can make from inter web information: following the tor eliminate stuff on here recently, I heard a guy (I won't embarrass him cos he comes on here) telling some friends how he'd done Bens roof "properly" without the knee bar. When asked about his sequence he explained that he used the knee bar for one or two of the moves but didn't rest on it, so that was OK.

[Bonjoy]

I don't see any hidden rules.

I see Westwood and the pessimist as two different problems as they have different starts but happen to share the same hard bit. Whether you find Westwood easier by a big throw between jugs or boning filth will depend on the climber, and if like Dave says they are the same grade, then we don't need any rules or eliminates, it's just horses for courses.

I still can't believe you really thought I love pinches wall that much!

Fair point, it being fortunate if both are 8a, though it seems sad that described thus Westwood becomes a bit of a none entity, a historical curio, for all but a rare bread of power mutant with relatively weak fingers. What we need is someone to link in eatswood roof and that line of climbing will make sense again.

Good to hear I've climbed Ben's Roof properly.




On the general point of eliminates being only a bit of fun. If only everything fitted neatly into that view. There are plenty of examples of problems where an obvious rule is essential to vastly improve a problem, in such cases the eliminate to all intents and purposes IS the true line. What would Big Boss or T-Crack be if you used everything in reach? Many effective eliminates hide behind vague descriptions like ‘climb direct’, ‘bear left’, which can just be a description of the direction of travel but often really means ‘climb direct as holds either side are out of bounds’. Personally I’d rather things where well defined even if that means admitting that a lot of supposedly pure things are actually a bit eliminate.

[abarro81]

I heard a guy (I won't embarrass him cos he comes on here) telling some friends how he'd done Bens roof "properly" without the knee bar. When asked about his sequence he explained that he used the knee bar for one or two of the moves but didn't rest on it, so that was OK.

  I like that

[Andy B]

It’s a fair argument that treating places in this way might encourage proliferation into inappropriate areas but I don’t think this is reason enough not to do it for places that really fit the bill. The existence of sub-problem entities, which eliminates are in most cases, in the right context only detract from the lines they bastardise if people are daft enough to let them, as is the case at Crag X where most of the none eliminate versions of things aren’t recognised problems.

Crag X is a good example of where eliminates detract from the quality of the true line. So much so in this case that people have much less knowledge of and interest in the true lines than the eliminates, even though the true lines are quality, and the problems are regularly under debate which, again detracts from the quality of the venue as a whole.

I agree about T Crack and Big Boss. That's what makes them crap problems.

I don't think what I've said makes Westwood into an historical curio. They are just two different and equally valid starts.

[Ru]

Doesn't the Pessimist start at the same point as Bonners has put the eatswood Traverse starting - i.e. on the juggy shelf?

[Bonjoy]

It starts on a the big flatty/jug, the traverse starts a few moves right with one hand in crack

[Ru]

Ok, funny perspective on the topo photo.

[monkey boy]

I don't think original Westwood will become a none entity, like Andy says horses for courses. For one I will never have good enough skin to bone that horrid crimp! Power move all the way for me. I think it's a really hard problem whichever way you choose to do it.

[Bonjoy]

Ok good, I'll give it another makeover on Monday

[Bonjoy]

[Bonjoy]

Here's a vid of Rubble Rouser, now with extra few moves at the start. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest 7c+ for this, but might well be only 7c, needs a repeat. Warning - this vid has a a minute and a half of kneebar resting, consider yourself warned.




There's a few other new things I'll get round to writing up in a day or so when I can update the topo (again), including a good 8a from Ned.

[dave]

 Good resting skills.

[Yoof]

Amazing effort with all of these, and the topo! Have a wad point (think it's the first one I've given)!

It seems I'll have many new link ups to try when everywhere else is wet

[Bonjoy]

Cheers Yoof.

Those new things and another topo revision:

Underwood 7b + - From a low sit start (undercut and sidepull) left of the midway jug on the traverse gain the lip direct (i.e. eliminating midway jug) and finish along the traverse.

Lip Up Fatty 7b – Sit start Kristian’s Problem from the midway jug. Though this is a bit of a link-up it is a good logical none elimate. Quite probably done by other before.

Bone Machine 8a – The obvious high start to the R-L traverse. Start on the ledge at the base of the crack and burl along undercuts and small lip holds to a hard drop down into the midway jug, then finish as per the eatswood Traverse. Bring kneepads. FA Ned Feehally. Ned also did a reverse of the hard section, low jug to crack/ledge at 7c+.

I’ve climbed Rubble Rouser and the eatswood Trav from the new logical start, which makes sense as the default for both now I think. I’d say it pushes up the notional sport grade a notch on ET but not the bouldering grade and I think it nudges RR to 7c+. Talking of notional sport grades I’ve added them to the traverses on the topo, take them with a pinch of salt especially my total guess for Bone Machine.
The new topo also includes things on the slab side of the arete. Cave Arete and the rockover finish to any of the steep arete problems are excellent and well worth doing if you’re then in dry conditions.
It’s worth a mention that this place has been bone dry every day (except the mega drizzle day maybe) through all the recent crappy weather, it doesn’t suffer seepage, it’s semi-shaded most of the time and is very conditions independent for grit.

[Paul B]

Bone Machine 8a – The obvious high start to the R-L traverse. Start on the ledge at the base of the crack and burl along undercuts and small lip holds to a hard drop down into the midway jug, then finish as per the eatswood Traverse. Bring kneepads. FA Ned Feehally. Ned also did a reverse of the hard section, low jug to crack/ledge at 7c+.

Awesome. Tried this a bit with Nacho (F to N direction), is there a video?

[Bonjoy]

Have only got footage of it in sections unfortunately. Forgot camera on second visit. The moves a fairly different depending on if you go L-R or R-L, either way they look great. L-R is a touch easier move for move and you don't need two kneepads on but overall would probably be a harder grade if the start of eatswood Reverse was added.

[shark]

I sense a bit of social engineering to encourage people to do the new start to eatswood Traverse by giving it a harder French grade.

The original was still 8a IMOFWIW

[Yoof]

I sense a bit of social engineering to encourage people to do the new start to eatswood Traverse by giving it a harder French grade.

I always thought the "start with one hand in the crack" rule was a bit arbitrary, and I think "start at the beginning of the cave" makes a bit more sense and will improve the problem.

I have no idea about route grades >7a

[Bonjoy]

I sense a bit of social engineering to encourage people to do the new start to eatswood Traverse by giving it a harder French grade.

The original was still 8a IMOFWIW

Yeah maybe. Adding six moves does make it feel significantly harder by the time you get to the crux, but given that I think TET is lowish 7B+ I personally didn’t think it pushed up the bouldering grade, but others might disagree. A couple of the new 7Bs are perhaps harder than TET but it’s hard for me to factor how much of that is over familiarity. If I’d given TET 7C it would seem well out of kilter with the rest of the cave. Maybe the new version is f8a+. Any way round it is a bit of an ill fit tbh.
Generally the grades on the new ones are rough at the moment as I haven’t been bouldering much elsewhere and my only recent frame of reference is other eatswood probs, which includes a 7A+ I can’t do and a 7B+ I can path  . Needs some repeats for second opinions really.

[El Mocho]

...Rubble Rouser, now with extra few moves at the start. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest 7c+ for this, but might well be only 7c, needs a repeat.

but given that I think TET is lowish 7B+... ...If I’d given TET 7C it would seem well out of kilter with the rest of the cave.

Went and did Rubble Rouser, didn't use knee bar, would like to claim for ethical reasons but actually just don't own one and I didn't want to loose my lower leg (it is sharp). Was good and fairly pumpy/tired core by the end. Prob right for F8a+.

I failed (once again) to do TET which is MUCH harder than Rubble Rouser.

Did: Rouse A Rubble (pretty self explanatory) but reverses Rubble Rouser, slightly different sequence and again I didn't knee bar. Harder move in reverse but it comes at the start so felt slightly easier.

It was hot.

[Bonjoy]

Good work. Pleased to see you sorted the grades out then 

[Johnny Brown]

didn't use knee bar, would like to claim for ethical reasons but actually just don't own one

lol.