[Will Hunt]

Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation 

It was actually you that pointed us to the punters.

Have a look at my punters too.
It's a long term beef.   

[ashtond6]

Goes way back before the puntering, but thanks for the observation 

It was actually you that pointed us to the punters.

Have a look at my punters too.
It's a long term beef.   

Don't think anyone wants a blow by blow account & it is hardly a secret that said person likes to gob off at randoms online 

[petejh]

Fiend could have been caught cyber-bullying the entire GB youth climbing team (he hasn't yet afaik). That wouldn't make his specific points about headpointing and ethics any less valid, whether or not you agree with those points. As Will said GAFG.

[ashtond6]

Fiend could have been caught cyber-bullying the entire GB youth climbing team (he hasn't yet afaik). That wouldn't make his specific points about headpointing and ethics any less valid, whether or not you agree with those points. As Will said GAFG.

Man who abuses people regularly gets band and feels like a victim over it, please help me find sympathy 

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah.  I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.

It's context.

I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak. 

The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.

I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.

First, a declaration.

I haven't read the rest of this thread. (Edit. Good bloody job! Oops. Not a ref to your post TT) I hope this doesn't mean I've transgressed house rules.

Adam, agree with a lot of your points re potential damage to rock.

It's why I'm not a fan of what people call "ground up" above a stack of pads.

At my level, Crescent Arete was always a worthy challenge without pads  still is.

Loads of great, classic "easier" lines damaged.

Fiend, your post was (in my view) an expression of concern over the implications and consequences.

But we should put all that to one side.

You clearly hadn't learnt your lesson, and only have yourself to blame 

It's interesting to contrast the reaction to your post, with the level of criticism (of reporting) which is allowed in the HYS threads on the BBC Sport site.

I have a suggestion. Can UKB please produce a "Fiendish" squeezy stress ball? I'd like something that causes a bit less damage than my smartphone when I throw it.

[tomtom]

Can UKB please produce a "Fiendish" squeezy stress ball?

In camo red please

[Fiend]

Ashton, you seem very persistently focused on personal conflict, I'm really not sure that's helpful.

I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed, highlighted as headpoints, nor have unsuitable grade claims for them. It should be obvious that these are critical of the actions people are choosing and the photos they are choosing to post.

AFAIK I have received some actual abuse in response. Maybe that is fair tit-for-tat.

I also have, over the years, received personal abuse and targetted downvoting on my photos, from different people. If you have big concerns about abusive photo comments, then it would be good to apply that to all equally.

I have not been banned for "abusing people regularly" (even the mistaken reasons Alan gives don't go that far), and I am not interested in "victimhood", I am interested in sensible moderation on a public site.




Dave, you can squeeze my balls any time.

This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings: If, hypothetically, I was to be allowed back on UKC, then I would have learnt another rule I could not have predicted: "Users may not post critical posts in response to news items / articles (at all, or without partaking in further discussion)". I could probably abide by that but I couldn't agree with the principle of it!

[tomtom]

This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings: If, hypothetically, I was to be allowed back on UKC, then I would have learnt another rule I could not have predicted: "Users may not post critical posts in response to news items / articles (at all, or without partaking in further discussion)". I could probably abide by that but I couldn't agree with the principle of it!

I think you could adopt a grumpy teenager approach with this. Just randomly post "yeah", "fo-sho", "OUTRAGEOUS!", "Absolutely" every 5 responses. Then you are taking part in the conversation....

[jwi]

A while ago someone went through my photos (https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?nstart=0&id=10178) on UKclimbing and gave every single photo a 1. Most pointless aggression ever as I have no idea why...

[ashtond6]

Ashton, you seem very persistently focused on personal conflict, I'm really not sure that's helpful.

I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed, highlighted as headpoints, nor have unsuitable grade claims for them. It should be obvious that these are critical of the actions people are choosing and the photos they are choosing to post.

AFAIK I have received some actual abuse in response. Maybe that is fair tit-for-tat.

I also have, over the years, received personal abuse and targetted downvoting on my photos, from different people. If you have big concerns about abusive photo comments, then it would be good to apply that to all equally.

I have not been banned for "abusing people regularly" (even the mistaken reasons Alan gives don't go that far), and I am not interested in "victimhood", I am interested in sensible moderation on a public site.

Hello Fiend,

Fair & reasoned response - maybe you are mellowing with age. However don't delude yourself that you are simply discussing climbing styles with those randoms.

You enjoy trolling people, I just like to give you some back 

[user deactivated]

I’d be curious to know what the beef is Ashton? You’re* alluding to insulting and offensive and personal posting / emails etc. What actually was the content? Otherwise your posts do seem a bit weird.

[SB]

Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah.  I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.

It's context.

I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak. 

The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.

I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.

I couldn't agree more..... It's an issue of particular relevance in Northumberland,  and while Franco acknowledges this, it is worth reiterating that as a strategy it TR and 'headpointing' (A sexy name for top roping) almost certainly accelerate wear and tear on the rock. As do repeated, often futile attempts at a boulder problem. It's an approach that is all about the climber and not the rock. We don't have to be able to climb everything. It's OK to walk away.

[ashtond6]

I’d be curious to know what the beef is Ashton? You’re* alluding to insulting and offensive and personal posting / emails etc. What actually was the content? Otherwise your posts do seem a bit weird.

Haha, well it's nothing really, I was gonna park it.

It is no more than I've said above, he likes to abuse people for their methods of ascents for fun, publically sneering at their 'little' achievements etc

When I called him on it once or twice he bit big time.

Now I just enjoy winding up the wind upper, since i find it amusing that he likes to give it so much, but can't take it.

[user deactivated]

Ah ok cool. Yeah I’d probably leave it as was sounding quite bad when that actually isn’t the case. Fiend has been and continues to be a great contributor to climbing in the uk over the years which is most important here.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

This is a different lesson from previous comprehensible bannings

- I'd suggest it isn't though, is it.

I hope my comment was read in the spirit intended! Fiend, it all just seems as though you've been banned for daring to return.

The more criticism/debate we have about these things the better. Not always comfortable, but important.

The responses do come across as being very much to the man - and not at all addressing the motives/concerns raised. So who is preventing the debate?

Sorry, I appreciate that's all very obvious.

Some great posts. Liked the one from JB about the Parthian Flake.

I feel it was really disappointing for Alan's post to be left as the "last word".

[user deactivated]

Why are you allowed to declare what the sport "should" be doing? I feel a bit like banging my head against a wall saying this again, but each to their own, being honest, not damaging the rock blah blah blah.  I find it very hard to believe that the odd bit of toproping is more damaging to rock than people flailing on well protected routes ground up.

It's context.

I can understand the article. It's Franco enthusing about what he does and I don't have a big problem with that. What he misses is that his is a very niche pursuit. It's actually vanishingly rare that you get someone who is both talented and dedicated enough to be a top climber and also obsessed enough with scrubbing up mossy bits of rock in obscure places. There are much easier ways to raise your climbing profile nowadays. There's also the fact that potential for this barely exists in developed areas like the Peak. 

The other point he swerves is that toproping that doesn't end in a successful headpoint is just toproping. So in presenting a piece like this to the UKC masses, the likely result is not a rash of quality new routes. It's punters spending all weekend thrashing about on a famous E8 they can't touch. These routes are fragile and are already showing wear. Despite what folk always raise about failed onsights also being potentially damaging (to the placements mainly) the barrier to entry is far, far higher. Any idiot can kick a pebble off on top-rope, just the thing for a wet weekend. Whereas you would be unlikely to get on damp rock onsight, and struggle to over-brush a hold during a sight lead.

I chose not to pursue headpointing because, in the Peak at least, it was obvious the quality lines had been done, but very few repeat ascents had even matched the original in style. It seemed a far more obvious challenge to onsight these classics than to ferret about unearthing crap new routes destined for obscurity.

In 27 years I’ve never seen a punter dangling around on an e8 not even on a wet weekend 😂. I have seen plenty of ‘top’ climbers doing that though, many of which pull off pebbles or crumble holds etc I’m sure. I’m totally unconvinced by the less damage ground up sentiment. Even a quick clean / de-scrittle and pull on the crux is certainly less taxing on the rock than multiple goes from the ground. I do agree that an improvement in style is important though, but again a very personal affair. Can’t really stand being told what to do in climbing by anyone taking a morally / ethically superior vantage point ppppffffttt

[Ged]

I have occasionally (not regularly) posted critical comments on people's photos when they have been obvious headpoints of easy routes, often with the onsight grades highlighted, because I don't believe these routes should be headpointed,

Again, this is BS.  Surely you can't think it's ok to publicly have a pop at strangers for the style that they choose to attempt a route (assuming they haven't made big public claims about doing it in better style).  It's quite simply none of your business, you don't own rock climbing.  One of the reasons people love climbing is because there's no f*cker telling them what to do and how to do it.

I live in a relative climbing backwater, so there's no danger of any routes round me getting ruined by topropers, so maybe I'm missing something.

Like I said, I love onsight climbing.  Last winter, I wanted a big goal for myself, and devoted quite a bit of time to a well known route on the N coast of Devon.  It took me 5 sessions on  mini traxion to link it, and needless to say in that time there was lots of scrabbling, flailing, a few holds snapped, and I almost certainly made some incremental wear on the holds.  I started feeling ready to think about leading it after a couple more sessions, but ultimately weather, a knee injury, and then a baby have put it firmly on hold for now.  So is this wrong? Are you telling me I should never have done that?  It happens that this particular route has never been onsighted, but if it had would that be different? I don't have a blog, any social media, and have no interest in publicising it when I do it.  Does that affect things?  I am not attempting to further the sport in any way, I just like going climbing.

Sorry for the probably slightly inchoherent post, but it just makes me cross that you think you can tell other people what they should be doing.

[T_B]

Yeah the Parthian thing is bollcks. I applaud the GU ethic and have nothing but the highest respect for the protagonists involved in trying Parthian GU, but let’s be honest, falling repeatedly onto soft/brittle gritstone damages placements.

We’re all selfish bastards at the end of the day. I still have aspirations for routes that could be done by a better climber GU but personally that won’t stop me chucking a rope down

[petejh]

I bet F****o* is loving this, getting to see his name on ukb every day! Shark should change the forum code like they did with Red Bull (r e d b u l l) so that every time 'Franco' is entered (so to speak...) it shows up 'Over-caffeinated attention seeking bouncy climbing troll'.

[Will Hunt]

I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s.

I don't agree. The top percentiles of climbing ability have improved. The top precentile of onsight trad climbing has improved microscopically in the last 20-30 years. Regardless, the average onsight grade is probably about where it was. If we say now that the level at which headpointing becomes acceptable is to be raised in accordance with what the 1% are doing, that just limits opportunities for the average or merely better than average climber.

The ethics should be centred around what's best for the rock. The elitist approach works at Stanage and Froggatt where it protects the rock from being overclimbed; but there are heaps of climbs in Yorkshire that would benefit from traffic. There's really impressive 3 star lines at Eavestone and Guisecliff (and others) that are effectively not onsightable now without sending your mate to clean them first.

I would advocate ethical headpointing at any and all grades, permissable where the act of headpointing will rejuvenate or repeat a defunct or seldom climbed route.

Disclosure: I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything (other than one FA).

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Disclosure: I have neither read the article, nor headpointed anything (other than one FA).

Will, that's the rub though, isn't it.

Like the Brexit debate, this is presented as a binary do/don't top-rope/headpoint, but your post here says a great deal. We can all have feelings for/against many things.

It's the debate which informs what we do, for so many different reasons, in many different cases. I agree very much with the sentiment of Fiend's post, and yet I've climbed many routes with at least prior inspection - mostly new ones - the odd bit of top-rope practice etc.

[mrjonathanr]

A while ago someone went through my photos (https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?nstart=0&id=10178) on UKclimbing and gave every single photo a 1. Most pointless aggression ever as I have no idea why...

Was it because you have a picture of Moby doing Midnight Lightning?

[andy popp]

I'm unashamedly elitist. The ideal in climbing should always be towards an improvement in style, particularly as gear improves, and the level at which headpointing is "acceptable" should be a moving target; it shouldn't sit today where it sat in the 1990s.

I don't agree. The top percentiles of climbing ability have improved. The top precentile of onsight trad climbing has improved microscopically in the last 20-30 years. Regardless, the average onsight grade is probably about where it was. If we say now that the level at which headpointing becomes acceptable is to be raised in accordance with what the 1% are doing, that just limits opportunities for the average or merely better than average climber.

I was careful in framing my arguments in terms of ideals towards which we should move. So its about aspiration and progression rather than trying to impose rules on what others do (which neither I nor anyone else can do anyway). If onsight trad standards have stagnated so much (I've no idea where they stand today) then maybe we should ask why and what can be done to encourage progression again -  a contextless advocacy effort on behalf of headpointing is definitely not the way, in my view. Franco's article needed some balance and history; a discussion of when headpointing was introduced, by whom, and for what purpose. That could highlight how headpointing has advanced standards in cutting edge trad first ascents but that onsighting standards have not kept up.

No-one is ever going to run out of routes to do so so there's no real limitation on opportunities. Unless we happen to be Caff we all have to accept there are thousands and thousands of routes we're never going to be good enough for.

[shark]

in my view. Franco's article needed some balance and history; a discussion of when headpointing was introduced, by whom, and for what purpose. That could highlight how headpointing has advanced standards in cutting edge trad first ascents but that onsighting standards have not kept up.

Good points.

I think on an individual level the path into headpointing can equally be via sport climbing and bouldering (or a blend of the two) where standards have risen.

Harder onsight trad climbing these days is a relatively time consuming, faffy option for a day out compared to other attractive options which goes some way to explaining the discrepancy. Less travelled harder trad routes can become increasingly dirty and unattractive (not to mention harder) for onsighting too.

Also useful to make a distinction between route types. A boulderer looking for a challenging high E grade will naturally choose one of many options on grit whilst a fit sport climber will make a beeline for Stennis Ford.

[lagerstarfish]

Incidentally I have been banned for my post,

that does surprise me

no additional threatening communications?