UKBouldering.com

Franco's ground up ascent of The Young at Callaly (Read 9431 times)

teestub

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-3
  • Cyber Wanker
Hereís the vid that is on UKC for reference, does a good job of showing where the crack is in relation to the climb.


Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 10288
  • Karma: +523/-19
Okay fair do's that does look like bullshit now I've seen the vid!

Moo

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1193
  • Karma: +58/-5
I recall going to look at this with Andy Cowley many moons ago before it had been repeated. I must confess that franco's write up left me scratching my chin a bit but it was a while ago so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However having seen the video and refreshed my memory, I've gotta say, Franco what are you on about? It doesn't matter how much word salad you throw at your description you still didn't do it the bloody thing. Yeah you climbed some easier variation and kudos to you for being honest in a round about way, but why not just say that instead of making excuses.

Better still, get yourself back up there and get it done bottom to top, you're clearly capable as per your description and it's one of the best highball boulder problems anywhere, so crack on.



Bradders

Offline
  • ***
  • stalker
  • Posts: 291
  • Karma: +14/-1
From my armchair perspective watching the video, particularly 30s to 1min when Ned does the first boulder problem, starting up the crack looks to be the equivalent of starting off a ladder, I.e. you're still up high trying moves without prior inspection etc. but you're not ground up.

Or to put it another way, it's like stepping off the Matterhorn to do the top of Chiasmata at the Cliff; fine if you want to work the top out and void the ground up but you've not done the problem!

In short, this is in no way a ground up ascent of The Young; this is an admittedly still fairly impressive case of "worked and did the top of the problem, need to come back for the link", in my humble opinion.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 5099
  • Karma: +374/-82
    • Unknown Stones
While we're all giving Franco a hard time, please bear in mind that Franco has merely written a blog and posted an Instagram about what he's done which, for him if noone else, is a significant piece of climbing.

Unfortunately I posted up on the significant repeats thread without first hearing the caveats. My bad.

IanP

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 341
  • Karma: +6/-0
Got to admit that having watched the vid it didn't seem that far off what Franco said assuming I'm looking at it right. 

Obviously missed some hard climbing but the big resting hold is to the right and pretty close to the crack he climbed up.  And doesn't look to me to have missed 2/3 of the climbing and if its 'only 7a' some pretty strong climbers appeared to be have some difficulties with the moves from the jug.

countyyoungin

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Tim Blake
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +1/-0
Get back up and do the whole thing, your capable of it. Get it done innit. I tried this for a session with Franco and he did the bottom half so I can confirm he can do the whole thing. He just seems to deliberately land himself if these debates ahah

monkoffunk

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 512
  • Karma: +50/-0
  • sponsored by black coffee and beta alanine
Devils advocate here, do you think maybe itís because alongside the very honest description of what he did there is a blog post titled with a route name that he didnít do and an awful lot of description about the legendary status of a route that he didnít do? And a name and a grade written in the Instagram post, again of a route he didnít climb?

It just seems odd to publiscise something he describes as personally meaningful in that way, when you havenít done the legendary route in question.

Again, itís great he has done something meaningful to him but itís pretty obvious when you then promote such an ascent that it is going to draw some comment. 

Edit: And donít get me wrong, Iím personally impressed by the boldness and the difficulty of what he has done. Obviously itís well above the level of most.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 08:07:26 pm by monkoffunk »

Danny

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 704
  • Karma: +34/-3
Got to admit that having watched the vid it didn't seem that far off what Franco said assuming I'm looking at it right. 
I agree. Clearly have to keep the blinkers on at one point.

Franco

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 94
  • Karma: +39/-40
Get back up and do the whole thing, your capable of it. Get it done innit. I tried this for a session with Franco and he did the bottom half so I can confirm he can do the whole thing. He just seems to deliberately land himself if these debates ahah

It's weird. It didn't cross my mind after I topped out to do the whole thing again. I'd been wondering for a while which line was best and was in two minds, but when I did it I was just happy and the atmosphere was definitely one of completing it. If I'd done it from the start each time, it would only have been to satisfy other people. I see why as a boulder problem, you want to climb the whole thing, but the top feels like a route, so maybe it's kinda caught in limbo.

Anyway, I'm totally happy with what I did and we had another new line to try at a different crag in the afternoon (no luck on that), so left pretty early.  If I was up there with pads again, I suppose I could go up it without great risk now I know how to do the top, but I'd prefer to climb one of the other great highballs here abouts, or Trad projects etc...

I watched the video of Ned F trying it. It does look less escapeable on there. Maybe I'm just bigger or it's more my bag? I've uploaded my own video of the start from an early go, showing the section of climbing we're on about and the rest being close to the crack (looks like NF misses the right foothold, thus the good rest). You can clearly see it would be a minor reach into the crack. Like I say, I really don't think what we're on about is a big deal, but if others do, so be it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXwmE26xZBQ&feature=youtu.be

El Mocho

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 511
  • Karma: +91/-1
Why did the vid stop there? I was getting into it. Good spotting, nice dog, those stupid trousers you wear, highball problem - all the makings of a classic.

I like how you wear a helmet, makes me think of Tom De Gay.

countyyoungin

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Tim Blake
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +1/-0
 :chair:I suppose in my mind I wouldn’t be done until I had completed it from bottom to top like Andy did it originally. If your trying to get the same experience as the FA then that’s where youv got to climb. But what ever floats your boat really I suppose, like I said the top would have been very exiting non the less so kudos for that. But you know what I think I wanted to stick to my guns that day and tried it from the start Andy used rather than the crack (I think I had one go like that but kind of felt like I was ruining the challenge for myself and put in a half arsed effort) but that’s just because I wanted to do what Earl did to prove to myself I could climb it like him. For me it’s about aiming to improve or meet standard. That’s what drove me (and Alex) to do that dark side like we did. Is there still room for improvement? Definitely but I don’t think Franco’s that arsed he did want he wanted to do
« Last Edit: March 26, 2019, 09:08:39 pm by countyyoungin »

teestub

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 653
  • Karma: +66/-3
  • Cyber Wanker
Franco, seeing as you started up the crack, did you think about placing some side runners (or runners I guess) to protect the top, or would the crack not take good gear (hard to tell from the vid)?

bendavison

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 335
  • Karma: +19/-0
Quote from: Franco
Like I say, I really don't think what we're on about is a big deal, but if others do, so be it.

As a couple others have said, it's great that you've been (relatively) honest about your approach/style etc, but I think the contention is that you claimed (at the surface) to have climbed The Young when you did not. Yes, you explained what you did in your blog but the lazy reader may not have got that far through.

Also, the way you have written your blog is misleading: (1) you're not clear about the breakdown of the climb; (2) you claim there are two rests when there is only one, and you suggest the rest is better than it is (in your vid, for example, you shake out just a couple times). In doing so (bigging up the rest), you seem to be implying that the bottom boulder doesn't add difficulty to the overall climb, and therefore that what you climbed is of comparable difficulty i.e. doing the bottom is the same as starting from the crack, because either way you get the rest. This might be true if you're Ramon J-P or Seb Bouin, but I'd bet isn't true for you. (3) you don't give an overall assessment of the difficulty of the climb you did and how it might differ from that of The Young. Instead you imply that the route you climbed is of comparable difficulty, which I'm confident is not true.

Basically, it comes across as if you're trying to say either that (1) you climbed the young or something of comparable difficulty and boldness. I don't think what you did is as bold as The Young as you'd have been more tired at the top had you climbed the bottom, and therefore more likely to fall off; or (2) although you didn't climb the Young, you could have if you thought it was the best line, and doing so wouldn't have been harder than what you did climb. This makes your blog come across as somewhat disingenuous at worst or poorly-written at best.

It reads as deliberate deception in order to big up your achievement. This might not be true, but it's the way it comes across.

:chair:I suppose in my mind I wouldnít be done until I had completed it from bottom to top like Andy did it originally. If your trying to get the same experience as the FA then thatís where youv got to climb. But what ever floats your boat really I suppose, like I said the top would have been very exiting non the less so kudos for that. But you know what I think I wanted to stick to my guns that day and tried it from the start Andy used rather than the crack (I think I had one go like that but kind of felt like I was ruining the challenge for myself and put in a half arsed effort) but thatís just because I wanted to do what Earl did to prove to myself I could climb it like him. For me itís about aiming to improve or meet standard. Thatís what drove me (and Alex) to do that dark side like we did. Is there still room for improvement? Definitely but I donít think Francoís that arsed he did want he wanted to do

In short, he didn't do The Young. The rest of this comes across as bragging and excuse making for having not done it - there's no need.

Quote from: Franco
I'd been wondering for a while which line was best

Sorry but I really struggle to believe this. Going up the center is the obvious line and the obvious challenge. In my mind, it is far more contrived to say 'you're allowed the crack up to there, but then you have to leave it' than to say 'just don't use the crack'.

Quote from: Franco
I see why as a boulder problem, you want to climb the whole thing, but the top feels like a route, so maybe it's kinda caught in limbo.

Really? Surely part of the challenge of doing it is the difficulty, whether it's a route or a boulder. The bottom boulder adds considerable difficulty to the climb as a whole and would have made the top harder.

I don't mean to take away from what you did, only to try and make it clear where the contention has arisen.

Dan Cheetham

  • Guest
It seems from the vid that runners in the crack would not protect the upper section Tim, and popping off any lower down would result in a pretty miserable sweeping fall with gear in. Best off with a pile of mats safety wise.
The parallel with WSS is a good one as a lot of people climb the bottom and traverse off claiming the Ďtickí. This appears the other way round.
Not climbing the original start into the top is to not climb the line - that is an indisputable fact. I can really understand county younginís desire to climb this in original style, as this might feel more complete or whole in some way.
Does this make the ascent better or worse, good or bad, to me not at all. It just is what it is. The suggestion in the thread that Franco should go back and do the route properly is an interesting one. The ascent in its current form reminds me of Gary Gibson bringing the rock down to Ďhis levelí. Thatís what we all do when climbing naturally lends itself to ideas of success vs failure.
One thing that I am curious about is the need to identify with being a particular type of climber e.g a Ďtrad climberí and in doing this create an opposing position. The irony being that no such thing really exists particularly in the form in which this route was climbed

countyyoungin

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Tim Blake
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +1/-0
Quote from: Franco
Like I say, I really don't think what we're on about is a big deal, but if others do, so be it.

As a couple others have said, it's great that you've been (relatively) honest about your approach/style etc, but I think the contention is that you claimed (at the surface) to have climbed The Young when you did not. Yes, you explained what you did in your blog but the lazy reader may not have got that far through.

Also, the way you have written your blog is misleading: (1) you're not clear about the breakdown of the climb; (2) you claim there are two rests when there is only one, and you suggest the rest is better than it is (in your vid, for example, you shake out just a couple times). In doing so (bigging up the rest), you seem to be implying that the bottom boulder doesn't add difficulty to the overall climb, and therefore that what you climbed is of comparable difficulty i.e. doing the bottom is the same as starting from the crack, because either way you get the rest. This might be true if you're Ramon J-P or Seb Bouin, but I'd bet isn't true for you. (3) you don't give an overall assessment of the difficulty of the climb you did and how it might differ from that of The Young. Instead you imply that the route you climbed is of comparable difficulty, which I'm confident is not true.

Basically, it comes across as if you're trying to say either that (1) you climbed the young or something of comparable difficulty and boldness. I don't think what you did is as bold as The Young as you'd have been more tired at the top had you climbed the bottom, and therefore more likely to fall off; or (2) although you didn't climb the Young, you could have if you thought it was the best line, and doing so wouldn't have been harder than what you did climb. This makes your blog come across as somewhat disingenuous at worst or poorly-written at best.

It reads as deliberate deception in order to big up your achievement. This might not be true, but it's the way it comes across.

:chair:I suppose in my mind I wouldnít be done until I had completed it from bottom to top like Andy did it originally. If your trying to get the same experience as the FA then thatís where youv got to climb. But what ever floats your boat really I suppose, like I said the top would have been very exiting non the less so kudos for that. But you know what I think I wanted to stick to my guns that day and tried it from the start Andy used rather than the crack (I think I had one go like that but kind of felt like I was ruining the challenge for myself and put in a half arsed effort) but thatís just because I wanted to do what Earl did to prove to myself I could climb it like him. For me itís about aiming to improve or meet standard. Thatís what drove me (and Alex) to do that dark side like we did. Is there still room for improvement? Definitely but I donít think Francoís that arsed he did want he wanted to do

In short, he didn't do The Young. The rest of this comes across as bragging and excuse making for having not done it - there's no need.

Quote from: Franco
I'd been wondering for a while which line was best

Sorry but I really struggle to believe this. Going up the center is the obvious line and the obvious challenge. In my mind, it is far more contrived to say 'you're allowed the crack up to there, but then you have to leave it' than to say 'just don't use the crack'.

Quote from: Franco
I see why as a boulder problem, you want to climb the whole thing, but the top feels like a route, so maybe it's kinda caught in limbo.

Really? Surely part of the challenge of doing it is the difficulty, whether it's a route or a boulder. The bottom boulder adds considerable difficulty to the climb as a whole and would have made the top harder.

I don't mean to take away from what you did, only to try and make it clear where the contention has arisen.

Ha. Iím not making excuses nor am I bragging. Sorry did I say I could do it? No. Could I do that climb in a session? Could I fuck. Giving my account on the route (wth Franco) and yes trying to say he hadnít done it but in a fairly nice way donít think thatís bad thing.

36chambers

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1103
  • Karma: +76/-1
Franco, just call it an FA and call it a day. The Foung 7C, 3 stars.

If the start to the other problem does fall apart then your line becomes the star attraction :smartass:

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 5099
  • Karma: +374/-82
    • Unknown Stones
I've lost track of who has been up this bit of rock now. Is it fair to say that, in fact, nobody has repeated Earl's The Young? Dan used a different sequence on the crux which doesn't accord with Tim's ambition and he certainly used a rope to top out. Micky bottled it and traversed off left. Are there any more takers?

Funny. I don't seem to remember such scrutiny of Micky when he climbed the rock and the footage then appeared captioned as The Young 8A+ in a commercial film. Or when Dan did it and pulled on a rope to top out.
http://beastmakerblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/

Dan Cheetham

  • Guest
Really good points Will, and possibly related to who seems Ďin vogueí and desirable to identify with rather than recognise the facts. Another recent example off this is the climbing on Ďwet grití scenario where some v diff plodders were demonised along with the bmc for promoting this yet Pete and Toms rainy day Staffordshire nose appeared to be applauded as an outrageous success.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 5099
  • Karma: +374/-82
    • Unknown Stones
At this rate I expect we'll find out that Andy dabbed on the first move and the first ascent will be up for grabs.

Andy W

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 440
  • Karma: +14/-0
    • http://andywhall.com/
Itís a bit like doing a crouch start rather than a sit start.

turnipturned

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 549
  • Karma: +79/-1
This looks amazing, been on the list for ages. I heard itís hard to find? How far is the walk in? Does it need a long time to dry out?

Sorry not read the thread at all, just saw the title, and how many pages itís got to, so my blind guess is, Franco kinda did the young, but placed a tricam half way, pulled on it, then stood on it, claimed it was logical method, gave it H8.5, wrote some meandering weird blog post, sent it to UKC and then claimed it not as good as his half fallen down cliff in North Yorkís moors? Am I correct?

I like him, he is entertaining, good on you for whatever you did, bet you had a good time, thatís whatís itís about right?

Ru

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1653
  • Karma: +79/-0

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2671
  • Karma: +218/-22
Devils advocate here, do you think maybe itís because alongside the very honest description of what he did there is a blog post titled with a route name that he didnít do and an awful lot of description about the legendary status of a route that he didnít do? And a name and a grade written in the Instagram post, again of a route he didnít climb?

It just seems odd to publiscise something he describes as personally meaningful in that way, when you havenít done the legendary route in question.

Quite.
Just give it a different name and grade, or if you think it's the same grade then give it a different name and the same grade. It's clearly not "The Young". Now that might mean that The Young is a crappy eliminate and this is "the line"... it would be disappointing for a classic to turn out to be elim/escapable but it wouldn't be the first time. The deal with the crack being accessible from the rest doesn't imply that climbing the crack is the same thing... otherwise everyone who did La Reina Mora would get to tick La Rambla at the same time.. or everyone who's done Chimes gets to tick Devo too.. etc.. plenty of different routes share starts/finishes, but are just that - different routes. It's hard for me to see where any confusion about this arises, so I can only assume that Franco wanted some attention/discussion/to piss people off/couldn't think of a good pun to use as a new name

SA Chris

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 23672
  • Karma: +499/-10
    • http://groups.msn.com/ChrisClix
Franco, just call it an FA and call it a day. The Foung 7C, 3 stars.

If the start to the other problem does fall apart then your line becomes the star attraction :smartass:

The Dung?