UKBouldering.com

Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham (Read 56000 times)

Banana finger

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 154
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • daft lad
#300 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 24, 2021, 06:22:31 pm
Not surprised Malc has deleted that post, seemed like a real random one.

Totally agree with Fiend, I think Gav's comments would have been far better directed at Malc (particularly given he is one of the few forum members who might have his number). Having reread the last couple of pages pretty much every post is looking at Malc's comment and concluding it is baseless, or discussing drugs in sport in a general way. The only post that could be read as endorsing Malc's conclusion makes more sense as an attempt to work through his logic.

The enthusiastic endorsement of Gav's post suggests either I've missed something major, or there are a lot of skim-readers on the forum.

I'm sure as baffled and disappointed by Malc's comments as Neil probably is, there must also be an acknowledgement that you don't attract bizarre criticism form such high profile pundits without doing something pretty exceptional in the first place. I'm actually struggling think of a bigger compliment to your training than Malcolm declaring you must be on drugs, it's like when people start quizzing you about what chalk or rubber you're using because they can't quite believe the gulf in performance. Fucking skill mate.

Getting accused of being on steroids is the best compliment you can have over your training.

If there was a drug to give you the cahoons like Neil and Steve, I want some.

coke

jakk

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 53
  • Karma: +3/-1
#301 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 24, 2021, 07:12:19 pm

I don't think there's many pro climbers making an actual living full stop, but theres definitely people who are trying to be pro climbers, and make money from just going climbing.

There was some interesting talk about this topic in a recent episode of the Climbing Gold podcast (honnold's one) with the US national team where they touched on the relative incentives there vs in Europe.

In the US it is relatively easy to earn actual money from shoe sponsors etc from climbing hard stuff outdoors, since for whatever reason that's what they value, but in Europe money for climbing is more likely to come from a federation, and so you ended up with this split of more strong comp climbers here and more strong outdoor climbers there.

It's obviously more complex than that but it's at least part of the incentive structure. This was from the people running Team USA, so they were trying to basically give more support themselves so more younguns do comps instead of goimg to live in a van in the mountains.

DAVETHOMAS90

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Dave Thomas is an annual climber to 1.7m, with strongly fragrant flowers
  • Posts: 1726
  • Karma: +166/-6
  • Don't die with your music still inside you ;)
#302 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 24, 2021, 10:51:14 pm
I've a feeling the comment from Malcolm Smith was take out of context. I can't find it now but there was a couple of follow ups between NG and MS along the lines of 'I put it down to this and this', 'nice work, you've done well', 'I train better and harder than when we used to train together years ago'. I'm not sure there *was* an accusatory subtext.

I can't find the comments now and wonder if they've been deleted because of the way this thing has grown legs and been (mis)read??

Just what I was looking for Steveri  ;D

You beat me to it.
I didn't like the inference that Malc is now some sort of washed up old man, dribbling from his armchair.
I can't imagine there being any beef between them (Gresh/Malc), and was thinking that Malcolm will have known the physical level we're talking about here.

In that context, I can see how his remarks about Hubble sans pad may have been directed towards cutting through the spin.

Replying to Barrows:

"it's very possible to write nerdy things about training and be unable to smash out multiple one armers!"

I won't take it personally. Thanks.
 ;D

shurt

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • nincompoop
  • Posts: 713
  • Karma: +38/-1
#303 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 24, 2021, 11:48:09 pm
This thread is approaching a new low point for the site, a bitter, armchair critic, old mans club, low point.

I can see there has been a fair amount of mug slinging yes but I think it's fair to say that if you are expecting a Gresh back slapping fest then this isn't really the place. People question stuff, points are made about grades or even steroids. So what, it's an internet forum. I don't remember anyone actually directly accusing him. People aren't beyond criticism because they've climbed an E11. I'm not sure the 9 page write up on UKC helped.

Neils done more for UK climbing than the rest of us put together and whilst he can come over as overtly commercial for many tastes i have no idea how you all think he deserves the shit talk that has being going on in this thread.

I think Neil has done more to promote Neil Gresham than anyone else, yes he's done some good stuff for UK climbing, nice one. People are allowed to not like the way he goes about promoting himself and re: shit talk we should remember that massive shit done at the bottom of that route in the Lakes that he was involved in.


Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
#304 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 08:41:51 am
Yes, let's not forget some completely unrelated gossip from years back.

Fiend

Offline
  • *
  • _
  • forum hero
  • Abominable sex magick practitioner and climbing heathen
  • Posts: 13413
  • Karma: +676/-67
  • Whut
#305 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 08:57:39 am
Turdgate was great fun but IIRC Gresh was on the other side, i.e. it seemed to be that someone did a shit beneath a potential new micro-route to prevent some young lass doing the first ascent which was going to be promoted as some VS-to-E7 fa fairytale and partly attributed to Masterclass coaching, thus he was one of the "victims" in the debacle.

shurt

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • nincompoop
  • Posts: 713
  • Karma: +38/-1
#306 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 09:36:40 am
Ok, I should have put loads of emojis or something with the final comment. Not entirely serious just trying to inject some brevity into the situation...

ali k

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 944
  • Karma: +38/-1
#307 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 09:41:08 am
Turdgate was great fun but IIRC Gresh was on the other side, thus he was one of the "victims" in the debacle.
Unnecessary details. Not the right thread for facts this one. Anyway it was Franco that did the shitting - it’s all in the new Alastair Lee film.

Wellsy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1405
  • Karma: +102/-8
#308 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 09:43:59 am
They could have used the turd as a +1 E grade due to the hygiene risk and claimed E8. Missed a trick there.

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#309 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 01:43:13 pm
I can see there has been a fair amount of mug slinging yes but I think it's fair to say that if you are expecting a Gresh back slapping fest then this isn't really the place. People question stuff, points are made about grades or even steroids. So what, it's an internet forum. I don't remember anyone actually directly accusing him. People aren't beyond criticism because they've climbed an E11.

It's a climbing forum. Clearly it is fair game. If you just want back-slapping stick to congratulatory commenting on Instagram and characterising absolutely anything else as 'the haters'.

Obviously it is 'fair game' to criticise and people aren't 'beyond criticism' but I'm struggling to understand what he's being criticised for (and its pretty infantile to use the defence of "no one directly accusing him" when we all know what's gong on, if anything the dog-whistling is worse as people do it to weasel out of what they earlier said, e.g Will Hunt's "desire to see some rationality applied" or Shurt's "trying to inject some levity").
If this place isn't the place for giving climbers a bit if back slap (not sure that's true, Power club and YYFY threads are full of people thirsting for validation of their own) why does it have to be a place of low level sniping?

So what is the mud slinging about? So far we have:
The route - in my 30+ years I've been reading tales of routes on that wall, I've said on here that BB's attempt on Impact Day was one of the most iconic ascents of the era but now, suddenly, this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach! He never said he climbed the LGP of the lakes but spotted a line that joined ID on good rock with good climbing, since confirmed.

The grade - I'm not sure what's expected here, he gave it a high E grade but then gave comprehensive break down (for which he was criticised) with V grades for individual moves, sport grade for over all, length of fall, details of gear so its not like he was trying to hide anything. Other top end routes might have more accurate E grades but you've really less idea of what's involved. He may have got this wrong but it seems it is harder than some E10s out there. Hang the over grader!

The write up - There was an article on UKC, which dropped off the front page after a week. This month we've also had an article on there about a sponsored male climber repeating an established E9 so it would be odd if this didn't make a splash. The article might be long winded but if someone gave me a platform to talk about my best ever climbing achievement I'd probably ramble on a bit and also mention other people involved. Sure he could have mentioned an existential crisis about a ladybird on a hold or being dive bombed by the demons of Bosch but I expect he would then be criticised for not being specific enough. I've had long conversations about a single hold and this site is full of nerdish climbing threads so this criticism seems particularly weak.

Social media presence - Wake up granddad, my bathroom fitter has an insta account for his work. A small ground engineering company I know has a social media manager. Follow any route setter or coach on Insta and you will see that NG is far from the worst offender.

Doping - Monkey tennis?

This is not to mention the lingering impression that people like to give that he's somehow how not authentic, someone in it for the money, a bit corporate etc. This often comes from people who've been climbing 5 minutes and never venture further than 30 mins from their door. You don't climb as hard as you can, as often as you can for over 30 years if you don't love climbing. You don't choose to try and make a living out of climbing if you don't love it.






but, but...he moved to London.....

« Last Edit: September 25, 2021, 01:53:33 pm by Teaboy »

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#310 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 01:51:04 pm
Yes to most of that.

But, where the fuck can I watch the Monkey Tennis?
Best idea of 2021!

northern yob

Offline
  • ***
  • stalker
  • Posts: 258
  • Karma: +29/-0
#311 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 04:44:20 pm
This is a climbing forum people are going to talk about climbing, some of it will be positive some of it will be negative.

I don’t think anyone has accused Neil of taking PED’s on here. If anything I’d say he’s been staunchly defended with regard to this and rightly so.

I don’t recall Neil’s achievements or his obvious enthusiasm and love for climbing being doubted

The quality of the climbing is pretty obvious and hasn’t been doubted.

The article on Ukc has had some criticism, it’s not to my liking and fair game I think. If you play the media game (which Neil does very well) in this style you should expect some backlash from certain quarters.

The consensus of people who know the wall well or have been on his Dove crag route seems to be that it’s over graded,I’ve heard  his Malham 8c+ isn’t tough for the grade… Both these routes received significant media attention yet little grade scrutiny. He then gives something the biggest number that exists I’m not a C&@T for questioning it.

The quality of the climbing hasn’t been doubted!

The wandering line and gear in existing routes wasn’t mentioned in the very in depth article, therefore I think questions are valid. If it’s a bit contrived like rhapsody that’s fine, but it should’ve been mentioned, If it makes sense to have the gear where it is (and not put some higher in sixpence) fair enough.

If people genuinely think this thread is a pile on or the bottom of the barrel I would suggest they grow a backbone or maybe stop reading it.

Fiend

Offline
  • *
  • _
  • forum hero
  • Abominable sex magick practitioner and climbing heathen
  • Posts: 13413
  • Karma: +676/-67
  • Whut
#312 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 05:32:39 pm

Is it?? And if so, what are you going to do about that?? Forums are what contributors make them, what people post influences the direction a forum goes, as well as the moderation and keeping behaviour in check of course. The Karma system can works both ways as it seems to get used a lot to praise good / entertaining / informative contributions from what I've seen.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 10:30:54 am by shark »

IanP

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 700
  • Karma: +34/-0
#313 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 25, 2021, 06:36:25 pm
SInce I was picked up as one of the people who queried the grade I may as well come back on it. 

I wasn't really accussing NG of overgrading, more questioning in general what trad grades now mean at the higher end.  Think I'm possibly stuck in the 90s a bit but as stated my view was that trad grades covered approx 2 sport grades. back in the day Zoolook and Revelations were given E7 iirc, standards went up to E9 as sport standards when up to 8c+ (or even 9a!?) in the 90s.  Sport grades going up to 9a/9a+ over the next couple of decades then gives a lot of space for E10 trad routes of differnt difficulties.  If the gaps are staying the same then E11 has to be bloody hard. Steve took 100 days(?) to climb Rainman 3 years ago, he certainly repeated Lexicon a lot, lot more quickly than that. 

If its the case that its been decided that trad grades need to cover less wide grade spans in the higher grade thats fine, and possiblty makes sense as standard are increasing more slowly, just think the question is worth asking and  maybe even interesting for the very geeky. 

Tony S

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 146
  • Karma: +7/-8
#314 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 02:06:29 pm
Obviously it is 'fair game' to criticise and people aren't 'beyond criticism' but I'm struggling to understand what he's being criticised for....

Firstly, I don't think it's all criticism, nor is it of NG as a person. I'd say it is largely critical review of how NG expressed some things in his write-up. So, critique, if you will.

Quote from: Teaboy
The route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!
Said no one in this thread. People questioned the extent of the new climbing on the pitch Vs common ground (shared with ID), and how this was reported.

Quote from: Teaboy
He never said he climbed the LGP of the lakes but spotted a line that joined ID on good rock with good climbing, since confirmed.
NG wrote "make the line independent apart from a junction with Impact Day in the easier middle section" and that it would be "an epic 8b+ power-endurance burn". As above, the reporting made the extent of the common ground very unclear (UKC has "crosses briefly through the easier climbing on ID"), especially given the clarity of everything else. Also the route is very close to Eclipse/Sixpence at the bottom and Sixpence again higher up but this isn't mentioned at all - just an observation, don't take it as a criticism!

Quote from: Teaboy
The grade - I'm not sure what's expected here, He may have got this wrong but it seems it is harder than some E10s out there. Hang the over grader!
My comments highlighted that 2 out of 2 of NG's recent trad routes have been considered (by people who have repeated or previously climbed parent routes) over-graded. Specifically, Fearless: E8 vs E9 (not really any harder than parent route); Final Score (given E10) not meaningfully harder than ISWN (E9, but which has become easier after its FA and 2nd ascent due to a block coming off).
Given this, one might think that it may be prudent to be more conservative with one's grading; especially when applying the equal maximum grade currently in use for UK trad.
NG wrote, "[Simon Nadin highlighted the] phenomenon ... 'Old Man Over Grading Syndrome' ... this certainly caused me to check my work."
He still gave it a definitive (no maybes/perhaps) E11. A strong statement. Surely open to comment/questioning?

Quote from: Teaboy
The write up - ... The article might be long winded but if someone gave me a platform to talk about my best ever climbing achievement I'd probably ramble on a bit and also mention other people involved.
I think people were largely/entirely criticising UKC rather than NG here.

Quote from: Teaboy
Social media presence
I don't think anyone made any criticism that NG has a social media presence. I think it was just pointed out that if you only want to read congratulatory notes without any critical review then you're better off visiting athletes' social media pages.

Quote from: Teaboy
but, but...he moved to London.....
Not me guv'. No idea what this was about. Not really read that stuff or the doping stuff.

----

I hope this has helped you, Teaboy, with your understanding of the comments in this thread.

I hope you also understand that critiquing need not imply disrespect/dislike or that any achievement is somehow made void. It is not "mudslinging".

As I've written before, let's not demonise critical review. The world would be very dull indeed if we all thought the same way and couldn't engage in an open exchange of views.  :kiss2:

Duma

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5751
  • Karma: +226/-4
#315 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 02:27:50 pm
Simon Nadin highlighted the phenomenon  'Old Man Over Grading Syndrome'

OT, but anyone have a link to this blog or article?

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#316 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 03:17:25 pm
Simon Nadin highlighted the phenomenon  'Old Man Over Grading Syndrome'

OT, but anyone have a link to this blog or article?

It was no more than a humorous comment on Instagram

www.instagram.com/p/CTAkpHmjqDh

chris j

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 589
  • Karma: +19/-1
#317 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 03:59:47 pm



Quote from: Tony S link=topic=31488.msg644810#msg644810
[quote author=Teaboy
The route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!
Said no one in this thread.

[/quote]

Oh yes they did...  :jab:


Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?

Tony S

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 146
  • Karma: +7/-8
#318 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 04:22:26 pm
Oh yes they did...  :jab:

Wrote no one (sane, operating in the modern metric system?!) in this thread.

It is common tactic of trolls to highlight minutiae irrelevant to the general thrust of an argument...

Just saying.

Fultonius

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4315
  • Karma: +138/-3
  • Was strong but crap, now weaker but better.
    • Photos
#319 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 04:30:33 pm



Quote from: Tony S link=topic=31488.msg644810#msg644810
[quote author=Teaboy
The route - this is a scrappy bit of rock 40' high above a rambling slab approach!
Said no one in this thread.


Oh yes they did...  :jab:


Is the whole crag even 40' high? Or would an 80' lob including some subterranean catering action?
[/quote]

Wait a fuckin minute here. I'll happily accept "poorly worded query that could have been fact checked and therefore irrelevant" but I have never said it looked shit or scrappy, just that falling 24.38m might in fact put you sub soil. Given I've never been to pavey arc, it's not an unreasonable (just lazy) question, and yes, it was prompted as a bit of knockdown as it seemed a bit of an overly self congratulatory write up...

If Steve had done the FA and the only news was his write up I doubt ANY of this thread would exist....

Anyway, I realise most of my contributions to this thread have been negative. For the record, I've got no beef with NG. The climbing looks great, if a bit on the silly side of bold. Good effort etc. etc. I just got triggered on many levels by his general online demeanour and the article just ramped that up and tipped me over the edge.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2021, 04:46:31 pm by Fultonius »

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#320 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 26, 2021, 05:57:53 pm
I'm confused about how high this crag is supposed to be.

NG's write up:
Quote
With Impact Day, there's a peg which effectively splits the headwall into two separate runouts. These runouts are big by anyone's standards and those who've taken the ride from the crux have described it as a solid 40-footer, including rope stretch.

40 feet = 12.25m metres. Firstly is it correct that a fall from ID is 12+ a bit metres? That's around the height of many UK sport routes - like falling from the lower-off on Mecca to ground level.
Great Ness Wall is reported by Steve Mc as being 18 metres high in total. The beacon lead walls are around 14m, 17m at the highest. So falling the length of the beacon walls except for the highest point?


NG's write up:
Quote
Yet with this project the fall would literally be twice the length.
80 feet = 24 metres.

So falling the whole height of Great Ness Wall, plus add another 6 metres - i.e. add on the height of falling out the top floor of a house to the whole height of Great Ness Wall.
My bullshit radar is starting to ping loudly now...

I wondered what I could use as an example of a 24 metre (80 feet) fall. I came up with the famous bridge in the Bosnian town of Mostar. Funnily enough I 'visited', in a military vehicle, the Stari Most bridge in Mostar in 1995 not long after it had been destroyed in fighting. It's since been rebuilt and is 24 metres above the river at it's central point.
Here's a vid of a guy jumping from it to show a 24 metre (80 feet) fall: 

Also, the fall from ID was said to be 'including rope stretch' - my pretty basic take on the physics says to me that it doesn't follow that a fall from a similar height as from the headwall of ID but without 'the peg that splits the runout' on ID is going to be twice the length of the fall from ID - which is what it appears from NG's write-up to be the logic being used. Longer yes but not twice as long, as the rope stretch shouldn't be double it should be a design engineered percentage of the overall force. Unless the rope is a special one that increases its stretch % with every doubling of fall length.   

No doubt this photo of ID is foreshortened. 12+ metres fall? https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/pavey_ark-342/impact_day-265496#photos&gid=1&pid=2

So I find it difficult to believe that the report of a 24 metre fall is true. If the evidence shows that I'm wrong then I'll happily accept I'm wrong.

Even if the fall were 15 or 20 metres instead of 24 metres that's still a pretty massive and scary fall - 50 to 65 feet. Just not 80 feet.. So around a 20-35% overestimation depending.


NG's write up:
Quote
If you look at the breakdown of Lexicon (8b+ with 80-foot fall potential from a last move crux and the promise of a hard strike)

Hmm..

Is it wrong to want accuracy and factual reporting of things in climbing? I find it ironic that for a pastime so popular amongst academics there's so much that goes unexamined and unquestioned. I'll be happy to have my doubts proven to be unfounded.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2021, 06:17:30 pm by petejh »

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#321 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 27, 2021, 08:56:06 am
Whoops - I seem to have removed the topic by mistake - now reversed

 :sorry:

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4287
  • Karma: +341/-25
#322 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 27, 2021, 09:08:26 am
I have no idea how far these falls are, but I've been amazed on multiple occasions just how far people fall on some trad falls, despite not being far above gear (presumably because of stretchy thin ropes + soft catch + belaying with doubles being harder?)  e.g. 3min in, falling with feet maybe 4ft above last runner but goes a long way...  . Looks v different to the bridge jump example because you're decelerating for a large proportion of the time in the air rather than still accelerating.
That said, 80ft is a long way... I think Will is about right with 30m (~100ft) for this one, which is fuckin' huge:
« Last Edit: September 27, 2021, 09:22:35 am by abarro81 »

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2574
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#323 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 27, 2021, 09:12:10 am
Whoops - I seem to have removed the topic by mistake - now reversed

 :sorry:

There was me thinking Gresh’s Inner Temple legal team had been in touch!

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
#324 Re: Lexicon, E11 7a FA for Neil Gresham
September 27, 2021, 09:35:53 am

Is it wrong to want accuracy and factual reporting of things in climbing?  I find it ironic that for a pastime so popular amongst academics there's so much that goes unexamined and unquestioned.
No. Especially not where there's a fairly definitive objective answer. I always take people's descriptions of fall length as being measured in the same units as fish that got away, so knowing if this holds true for newsworthy ascent is of interest.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal