[Johnny Brown]

...either way its a very bad reflection on the current scene - be nice to think this is a low point but I think we will be seeing much more of it.

[a dense loner]

i hope he found the moves hard after nine hours!
very bad days.

[Pantontino]

To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation.

I don't see a parallel with Bock/8a.nu's tabloid bullshit.

[Bonjoy]

To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation.

 But nobody on here had actually challenged it.
 All i'm questioning is the implicit criticism of 'a thread like this' by the opener of said can of worms.

[Pantontino]

That doesn't make sense - it was already public, over on Rocktalk (and on PF a few months ago).

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have defended Steve on Rocktalk or PF? Or, are you just saying I shouldn't have started this thread? If someone makes a public statement that I believe to be untrue and unfair, I can't just stand by hoping that it will all blow over.


When I concurred with Stu, I meant that it is tragic that threads like this have to occur (reading it again perhaps he meant something different).

[Stu Littlefair]

When I concurred with Stu, I meant that it is tragic that threads like this have to occur (reading it again perhaps he meant something different).

Nope, that's exactly what I meant.

[Fingers of a Martyr]

To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation

panton

But nobody on here had actually challenged it

bonjoy

Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?

johnny brown

seems like a challenge to me.

[webbo]

i have always belived that this type of thing should be openly debated. there is usually enough evidence to support a climbers claim to an ascent if their good enough.
its the folks who are witnessed failing on hvs,s then tell you they've soloed an e4 when no one was watching or when you seen someone trying to do the 2nd ascent of a cutting edge route.you leave as its getting dark ,they then tell you they got it after you'd left.
these are incidents that i came across in the past .the climbers in question then went on to get better ,which is possible for most people with enough drive and dedication.its that their drive to be good/great was greater than their ability at the start.

[Bonjoy]

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have defended Steve on Rocktalk or PF? Or, are you just saying I shouldn't have started this thread?

 No, if you can't stand up for your mates on a public forum what can you do? Nor am I saying you shouldn't have started this thread. What i am saying is that all sides are equally entitled to express there views and shouldn't be criticised for such, least of all by the person who started the debate. I read Stu's post as meaning that threads such as this are bad per se and seeing as he's contributing to one side of the debate it must mean he thinks the otherside is entirely to blame for this badness. I would say if you really are dead set against this sort of discussion it's best not brought up in the first place.It takes two to tango blah, blah blah.... I have no real beef with anybody, i'm just making sure that the moral highground is a well kept garden. :wink:

[Bonjoy]

To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation

panton

But nobody on here had actually challenged it

bonjoy

Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?

johnny brown

seems like a challenge to me.

 This was after the issue had been raise. I was refering to before.

[Fingers of a Martyr]

true no one on here had challenged it on here before but the knobs on planetfear and cocktalk had. and as soon as the thread started people were challenging it.

[a dense loner]

i think the people on here are pretty serious about their bouldering, i am not in the least bit interested what is said on pf n cocktalk by a bunch of fools who can't climb arguin with a couple who can. peoples views clash, this is supposed to give us a (mas)debating ground. it does not, all that happens is that people fall out amongst themselves. nothing was sorted with this thread, nothing will be. all that happens is i say he's not good enough you say he is n we only have 52 moves left. that is a general sweepin statement btw.  :thissucks:

[Johnny Brown]

Lovejoy wrote:

I have no real beef with anybody, i'm just making sure that the moral highground is a well kept garden

Well its a good job you're tending the flowers, I'm always too busy enjoying the view. Ever since I got on that high horse and rode it up here, them normal people have looked pretty small - almost like ants :wink:

Owen wrote:

I'd be interested to know whether these PM's are in the vein of backing up or backing down of said allegations.

Both, in about equal measure.

[al]

don't you think when someone sprays doubt about an individual it says more about them than the target ie: i don't believe so and so - what about me me me........

[a dense loner]

no not at all. to some people it means i doubt that they did it. sometimes a cigar is just...

[Paz]

its the folks who are witnessed failing on hvs,s then tell you they've soloed an e4 when no one was watching

I doubt I'm making a relevant point but this is entirely possible, almost probable.  How many people might give up trying to tick some Brown/ Whillans HVS's after their third failure, and go slab climbing, even beyond E4, on a day out at the Roaches or Ramshaw?

[webbo]

i take your point. but the situation was more like failing to get more than 10 ft up embankment rt 3 on a tope rope.  then coming back and saying they'd soloed edge lane :!: this in its self does'nt matter at all.its when the guy [or girl] in question 3 or 4 years later can climb e6/7/8 etc. suddenley their previous ascents become part of climbing history.it gets even better if they write the area guide book

[a dense loner]

this in its self does'nt matter at all.its when the guy [or girl] in question 3 or 4 years later can climb e6/7/8 etc. suddenley their previous ascents become part of climbing history.

wise words.

on 8a.nu what's the point of tellin us that there is no doubt rouling did akira, when the interviewers saw him doing most of it 10 years later. hello. is he not 10 years stronger? hello. not saying he didn't do it but the SCIENCE works

[Sloper]

Equally he could be 10 years 'weaker'.

I used to climb about 4 times a week (both outside and in) now I'm lucky to climb twice a month.

I used to go to the gym 3 times a week, now I rarely go at all.

As a result I now fail on things that used to be standard problems.

[Big Frank]

Equally he could be 10 years 'weaker'.

I used to climb about 4 times a week (both outside and in) now I'm lucky to climb twice a month.

I used to go to the gym 3 times a week, now I rarely go at all.

As a result I now fail on things that used to be standard problems.

You wait till Mrs. Sloppy has little sloppys, because when they are little you get out even less!

[a dense loner]

whereas on the other hand the guy in question has gone from strength to strength. climbing numerous hard probs in different places, n getting recognized as a strong boulderer in his own right. i know he did 9a's prior to this but it has took him a long time to become 'known' as a 'hard' boulderer