[andy moles]

What I'm reading from this, backed up by Tom's helpful clarification, is that if you're a vert tech wizard the right wall method is the natural line of least resistance, whereas if you're a boulder wad you've got enough to spare that sticking more truly to the prow doesn't feel especially contrived.

Everyone's a winner 

[Bradders]

Funny that nobody on here has ever, to my knowledge, had a pop at all the people who have done Vicious Streak in recent years by traversing over into Crystal Method and then doing a pointless traverse back along the top of the block so that they can top out in the right place.

Err, I have

Happy to help.

[remus]

I have to disagree with you on this one Remus, it's pretty easy for things to be very different climbing one set of holds to the side (i.e. your left hand where the other sequence would have the right hand). Especially if that takes you onto another angle of rock. If you climbed fire in the rain at anston (albeit I think since hold break it doesn't exist anymore) like that you could probably turn it from 8B+ to 7B or something... It does unfortunately make the original problem contrived, but sometimes that's the way it goes, especially in bouldering...

What I find frustrating is the lack of clarity and the retrospective roasting Franco's received for not following some unwritten rule. Fire in the rain is very clearly described as an eliminate, there's literally a big box on the topo around holds that aren't in plus details in the description. If the prow isn't written up as an eliminate then finding a new sequence that works for you is surely all part of the fun? Maybe you have to deviate from the most aesthetic line but that's life. If it is so eliminate that the correct sequence of holds has to be prescribed then so be it but making the rules up after the fact is a nonsense.

[Ged]

 I really don't think that looks a case of an eliminate being avoided. He starts on the same holds then literally climbs off in a different direction, onto a different feature. Bouldering always seeks the line of most resistance doesn't it. It doesn'tean its all about contrived rules. What franco climbed looks great and hard, but clearly isn't the prow!

[remus]

I really don't think that looks a case of an eliminate being avoided. He starts on the same holds then literally climbs off in a different direction, onto a different feature. Bouldering always seeks the line of most resistance doesn't it. It doesn'tean its all about contrived rules. What franco climbed looks great and hard, but clearly isn't the prow!

If it's not just a case of 'climb the easiest line to the top' and there's some rules to follow (i.e. get the pocket with your right and move left up the prow to a mono, then you're allowed to swing right on to the face, but not before!) then that feels pretty eliminate to me.

[Ged]

I really don't think that looks a case of an eliminate being avoided. He starts on the same holds then literally climbs off in a different direction, onto a different feature. Bouldering always seeks the line of most resistance doesn't it. It doesn'tean its all about contrived rules. What franco climbed looks great and hard, but clearly isn't the prow!

If it's not just a case of 'climb the easiest line to the top' and there's some rules to follow (i.e. get the pocket with your right and move left up the prow to a mono, then you're allowed to swing right on to the face, but not before!) then that feels pretty eliminate to me.

But that makes the whole of rock climbing an eliminate! Which it is i suppose.

It's been a while since I've been to back bowden, but if you pulled on to the start of the dark side, I'm pretty sure you could traverse along the bottom of the crag to an easier route, climb it, then traverse back along to the top of the dark side. That definitely doesn't make the dark side an eliminate! In fact the same could be said about most crags and routes in the country.

I suppose the first ascent doesn't always end up being the most logical way of climbing a bit of rock. But equally, there are often multiple obvious ways of climbing a bit of rock. If you're claiming to have done a challenge laid down by someone else, then what you climb needs to at least resemble that.

Ultimately, climb what you want. Nobody can argue with that. But when you take to social media to publicize your achievements, I think it's fair to expect this kind of scrutiny.

[joeisidle]

I really don't think that looks a case of an eliminate being avoided. He starts on the same holds then literally climbs off in a different direction, onto a different feature. Bouldering always seeks the line of most resistance doesn't it. It doesn'tean its all about contrived rules. What franco climbed looks great and hard, but clearly isn't the prow!

If it's not just a case of 'climb the easiest line to the top' and there's some rules to follow (i.e. get the pocket with your right and move left up the prow to a mono, then you're allowed to swing right on to the face, but not before!) then that feels pretty eliminate to me.

But that makes the whole of rock climbing an eliminate! Which it is i suppose.

It's been a while since I've been to back bowden, but if you pulled on to the start of the dark side, I'm pretty sure you could traverse along the bottom of the crag to an easier route, climb it, then traverse back along to the top of the dark side. That definitely doesn't make the dark side an eliminate! In fact the same could be said about most crags and routes in the country.

I suppose the first ascent doesn't always end up being the most logical way of climbing a bit of rock. But equally, there are often multiple obvious ways of climbing a bit of rock. If you're claiming to have done a challenge laid down by someone else, then what you climb needs to at least resemble that.

Ultimately, climb what you want. Nobody can argue with that. But when you take to social media to publicize your achievements, I think it's fair to expect this kind of scrutiny.

Theoretically yeah I'd agree that rock climbing/bouldering is one big eliminate but in reality 90%+ of my experiences within it have felt like finding the line of least resistance using whatever tricks are available and would have been a much worse experience if I'd have had to be actively second guessing what the first ascentionist's intentions were whilst climbing/considering sequence options.

[abarro81]

Escapable rather than eliminate surely? Plenty of those things around, guides even have a habit of pointing out when trad routes are escapable. Kaabah can be climbed via Mecca extension instead, but that makes Kaabah an escapable direct version rather than an eliminate (to my mind at least).

On a boulder the line for escape vs different sequence is tighter than on a route, same as how the escape from a hard bold wall into the easier crack to the side would count as a different route on the grit but the obvious sequence halfway up an alpine route.

I agree it's a pity when things aren't clear, but I guess sometimes people don't realise something's escapable until someone looks for that method? And yeah, it's better when things aren't escapable, but the rock doesn't always do what we want...

[ali k]

To me a prow feature in climbing terms means overhanging arete. So by that definition it would go without saying that a route/problem called ‘the prow’ sticks as much as possible to the overhanging side. I wouldn’t call that an eliminate though, personally, and if I wasn’t staying on the overhanging side I’d be questioning whether I’d done it. Andy/Dan/ Bosi etc obviously felt it possible to stick to the overhanging side more than Franco.

[Bradders]

Theoretically yeah I'd agree that rock climbing/bouldering is one big eliminate but in reality 90%+ of my experiences within it have felt like finding the line of least resistance using whatever tricks are available and would have been a much worse experience if I'd have had to be actively second guessing what the first ascentionist's intentions were whilst climbing/considering sequence options.

It's not that hard in this instance surely, he called it The Prow, not The Wall!

[remus]

To me a prow feature in climbing terms means overhanging arete. So by that definition it would go without saying that a route/problem called ‘the prow’ sticks as much as possible to the overhanging side. I wouldn’t call that an eliminate though, personally, and if I wasn’t staying on the overhanging side I’d be questioning whether I’d done it. Andy/Dan/ Bosi etc obviously felt it possible to stick to the overhanging side more than Franco.

And Andy stuck more to the overhanging side than Dan, Ned and Will. Does that mean they haven't done it?

[abarro81]

I was just following on from the final sentence of your previous post ;sorry, made sense in my head!

Ah yeah, I see what you mean now, my bad!

[remus]

Escapable rather than eliminate surely? Plenty of those things around, guides even have a habit of pointing out when trad routes are escapable. Kaabah can be climbed via Mecca extension instead, but that makes Kaabah an escapable direct version rather than an eliminate (to my mind at least).

Two sides of the same coin I think, in both cases you're adding rules about what's allowed and what's not.

I agree it's a pity when things aren't clear, but I guess sometimes people don't realise something's escapable until someone looks for that method? And yeah, it's better when things aren't escapable, but the rock doesn't always do what we want...

Completely agree, but then it seems a bit harsh to start having a go at someone because the line turns out to not be so obvious.

[Ged]

I don't think the vast majority on this thread are having a go at franco (apart from Andy f, obvs). Just engaging in discussion!

[remus]

No harm in discussion but this felt unwarranted in my opinion.

I feel sorry for Andys routes getting this kind of treatment as it really isnt hard to climb this thing up the overhang. With the 8C+ strength from most of the youth coming through they can climb lots of highballs using loads of variations, coming in and out where they wish. We did this with careless, the whole line can be traversed into and out of easily, you can stem out the corner off superbloc into its top out and those are two of the peaks best lines. Its just classic worm tactics to claim the same climb but be climbing up a different face when repeating something like this. I mean basic bouldering 101 is that different sides of aretes are very different climbs, just because this one is rounded doesnt change things, the top section doesnt change much really as all the hard climbing ends at the good hold, its the section upto there which dodges all the steep that changes the problem. King of Shunts is a better name

[abarro81]

Two sides of the same coin I think, in both cases you're adding rules about what's allowed and what's not.

Yeah, but many good routes have rules about what is and isn't allowed beyond "climb the easiest way to the top", and many good (or at least very worthwhile) routes even start and finish in the same or almost the same places... La Rambla is not La Reina Mora; Guns in the Sky is not Mandela; climbing the crack that Parthian Shot starts up is not Parthian Shot; Batman is not Bat Route etc.. Clearly pure independent routes/problems are better, and these examples are more clear cut because they're routes, but the general principle stands. Dan gave some Font examples too, though I'm not familiar with them. Plus the obvious example of climbing an arete on either side - not generally considered the same boulder or route, at least on single pitches.

I wouldn't read most of this thread as people having a go - just arguing about whether this is a different sequence on the same problem, or a different problem. Which is kind of what has to happen when something new like this comes along - you have to establish a consensus on what it "is". Dan's post perhaps shows a bit of beef, but I don't really mind that in climbing, it makes it more interesting, and Franco could have avoided that kind of response if he'd wanted to... The sequence is different enough that I would probably have expected someone posting about it on insta to be more circumspect about calling it the same thing and perhaps pose more of an open question about whether it was a repeat or was a new thing? Especially if you've clashed with people over claims in an area before (e.g. The Young) and wanted to avoid "robust discussion". If Franco is happy to give and take some shit on the internet then of course smash on (I assume he is, if not then he should really change his internet persona!), but that also means Dan's response is fine and warranted IMO.

[Bradders]

Maybe Dan's comment was a little harsh, but this is the second time Franco has claimed an ascent of a hard classic highball in Northumberland when, arguably, he's not actually done either of them (admittedly more debatable this time, The Young claim was just incredible). These are nationally significant problems and it's fair therefore to expect scrutiny.

I guess this comes down to the extent to which you venerate the difficulty + purity of a line. It's no surprise to see which voices are on each side of the debate. For me it's clear; the line is The Prow, as the name suggests, and the problem should therefore follow that line as much as possible. Deviating away from the line is exactly that.

[petejh]

Climber A: ‘I just did Left Wall High, yay!’
Climber B: ‘No you didn’t, you did Left Wall… Left Wall High takes that slightly higher line of holds half a metre above Left Wall after the cross-through move. It’s much pumpier.’
Climber A: ‘But that’s a bit contrived. What I climbed was the logical line’.

Since when was bouldering about the most logical and easiest lines?

[NaoB]

It definitely detracts from the quality of a route more than from a boulder problem if it's eliminate in my opinion. I basically got told off the 'locals' that I hadn't done vertical speed at heptonstall because I placed gear in the hard-line crack and also used a flat hold next to the crack that apparently the first ascentionist didn't use (although you end up standing on it later anyway). I followed the guide description from the old ymc guide, as well as having been told that other ascentionists had used the same method I did. So it turns out that, if you are in the know, there are strict rules for it, which makes it a far less classy proposition.

Anyway, that situation could have been improved with a more detailed set of rules / information in the route description. To be fair, in the newer guidebook it now specifies only using "the edge of the hardline crack" and has its own finish noted. I was a bit cheesed off by the whole episode because I really wanted to do the route and genuinely thought what I did was legit at the time (it still felt e7 anyway!). In Franco's Prow situation, he had way more info to go on, including videos of previous ascents, so it was a conscious decision to use a different set of holds. He can't really claim that he's climbed the same line, and I'm saying that from a position of sympathy! Good effort to him though, it looks really good and interesting climbing with plenty of spice still.

[remus]

Climber A: ‘I just did Left Wall High, yay!’
Climber B: ‘No you didn’t, you did Left Wall… Left Wall High takes that slightly higher line of holds half a metre above Left Wall after the cross-through move. It’s much pumpier.’
Climber A: ‘But that’s a bit contrived. What I climbed was the logical line’.

Since when was bouldering about the most logical and easiest lines?

If the conversation started off with

Climber B: There's this cool traverse of the left wall called 'Left Wall High', you should try it.

then climber A might understandably be a bit confused that actually there was some rules that needed to be followed, but weren't mentioned.

[remus]

I guess this comes down to the extent to which you venerate the difficulty + purity of a line. It's no surprise to see which voices are on each side of the debate. For me it's clear; the line is The Prow, as the name suggests, and the problem should therefore follow that line as much as possible. Deviating away from the line is exactly that.

Have Will, Dan (and presumably Ned) not done it then? Andy was pretty stuck to the prow the whole way whereas they swung right on to the face at the top, getting the big pocket with the left and using an extra pocket out right (this is all sounding a bit familiar).



To be clear I think everyone who has claimed to have done it has done it, just with different sequences on the same line. Nitpicking about which holds are in/out is the least interesting part of bouldering in my view, and if a few aesthetic lines have to be sacrificed (and downgraded) at the altar of "doesn't climb as good as it looks" that seems like a good trade off. There are plenty of good lines out there after all (Masters Edge, Sean's Arete, Finnish line etc.)

[Fiend]

I agree that the grades of the two sequences are completely different, and if you were grading this as an eliminate boulder problem then they would be two different grades. But if it was graded as a trad route then I’d say it’d have to be downgraded, with the new sequence being used.

The Kyloe Prow (E9 7a / Font 8a)

I hope it's obvious that the carefully concocted Cookson controversial personality is fully aware that this would cause a fuss, and is relishing in the attention from it as usual.

And yes I feel slightly soiled adding another post to it, I might go thoroughly revise the "different energy systems" thread as penance.

[Doylo]

If he'd just called it Prowed Wall 7c or whatever there would have been a few 'nice one's (prob even from Carlisle) and that'd be that. But where's the fun in that! He's obviously a narcissist but at least he creates some entertainment (clearly does it on purpose and revels in it).

[Teaboy]

Presumably if this variation/eliminate/king line turns out to be harder than the Prow all this goes away as this is mostly a concern that Franco has cheated his way to a tick he’s not worthy of?

[Will Hunt]

this is mostly a concern that Franco has cheated his way to a tick he’s not worthy of?

That has always been the first and last concern that people have about Franco. As we've seen on this thread, he is consistently held to a different standard to everyone else. It's a good job he enjoys the attention, and an even better job that his ego isn't made of glass.