[IanP]

Will - You are talking utter rubbish. Any climber who posts to social media has this level of scrutiny.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXKjb9tg7IU/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again

As understand this shows Will making a move right to use an off route hold for a shake, seems to claim the the Prow and post it on social media 

[teestub]

I totally agree with that Bonjoy, but I think the real 5* problems are those where there’s no opportunity to wander at will as the holds lead you very firmly in a direction. In my mind The Prow was such a problem, so it’s a bit of a shame to see that it’s actually further down the Spectrum ov Purity

[Will Hunt]

It's like saying you saw some punter at Stanage climb on wet rock with mud on his shoes and no-one told him off so nobody should tell anyone good off for posting a video about climbing wet rock in muddy shoes because that would be holding them to a different standard.

If you think that being rude adds weight to your opinion, Barrows, you're wrong. To use your analogy, I see this as being lots of people going round climbing wet rock in muddy boots unchallenged (and putting it on social media), and one climber in particular getting stick when he does the same. I'm saying that nobody should climb in muddy boots and that people should call others out equally when they see others climbing in muddy boots. Does that help?

Another example is one of the Lawsons filming himself climbing Armistice using the crack on the left (in this case I pointed this out and Joe/Sam accepted the comment in good spirit because they're a top lad). This should be more common and not seen as spiteful.
For what it's worth I think there's some overlap with people finding new, easier sequences for things but reporting it with the old grade given for the harder sequence (but let's not even go there).

[Andy F]

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.

Why is that?

Is it because he had a history of claiming huge grades on the N.Yorks moors without any history or repeats of routes with similar grades around the country? Then said routes get repeated (quickly) and downgraded.

Is it because there's a documented history of him claiming things and not having climbed the actual line?

History counts. Style counts. Honesty counts.

I'm not slating his abilities, he's clearly got a style and boldness that work exceptionally well in certain situations on certain rock types. His self promotion, dubious claims and chequered history do, IMHO, count against him.

BTW, I have no personal beef with Franco, it's just a healthy scepticism given what I've read and seen of him.

[mrjonathanr]

Will - You are talking utter rubbish. Any climber who posts to social media has this level of scrutiny.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BXKjb9tg7IU/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again

As understand this shows Will making a move right to use an off route hold for a shake, seems to claim the the Prow and post it on social media 

Back around.

[carlisle slapper]

I'd say that Franco ought to have put up his nice video and said that he'd climbed The Prow a slightly different way and suggested a different grade (or indicated it's the same grade), else say he's climbed a variant on The Prow. Not knowing much about how this feature climbs I can't really say which of those is the better option.

Yeah thats basically all that needed to happen and what any other logical person would've done. 

Oh and Will next time you lie about me falling off a route of francos to back up its grade maybe check with me first yeah? i mean you've got my deets from guidebook writing. i couldnt be arsed getting involved that time but im here now so hey ho (i've never decked off nothing lasts but i have decked off a project just left of it, funnily enough i was stood at sandy chatting to franco about how the other side of the arete is a different line albeit sharing the RH holds and LH holds and we amicably agreed on that point when it was right next to his route and i'd found lots of gear... Its normally bomber, but basically i rushed an ascent on this due to rain and needing to meet katie and the kids back at the car and didnt check my gear, dry fired way up high (bout 12m) and didnt manage to recatch myself, fall was ok though even though i decked from the E5 and me and alex trotted back so make of that what you will as that fall is where the independent part of NL ends)

This arete stuff has happened to me a number of times in my life. Franco isnt being singled out. If bleau.info hadnt changed you could go and read a chat between me and olive lebreton about arete de boissy assis where i acidentally climbed the other side of the arete to his FA and we agreed to give it a different name and hence i somehow have an 8b+ FA in font purely by accident, i was a bit sarky and said he just did a link from devine and he was a bit sarky saying i just whacked my feet in hiphop, all a good laugh. I Should've called it Olive le twaton or something but then i respect that guy massively and all he's done for Font hence the chat with him to clarify what he wanted to do. Already mentioned arc royal.
and when someone is STILL whinging on insta 4 years after getting burned off on a proj i'd hardly say they're soo laid back carefree! i mean jesus 4 years!

Remus if you look at my initial post there's no malice, i'm just pointing out that wasn't the prow. It seems like most people can see that its not a prow or arete being climbed but the RH wall. Happy to have a rhymy childish name for my troubles and i thought it deserved a more curt retort. If Steve Crowe want to rescind all the other repeats after 11years lets go for it. nothing like having a hold 30cm to the right out of bounds after all the hard climbing ends to inspire repeaters. Andys original also lost two good feet the day me and micky and Ned were on it, that's the main reason it went up from 7C/+ which Andy originally mooted, so the original was never exactly possible anyway. Micky Page deserves all the credit for cleaning it and egging me and Ned onto it that day.

[Will Hunt]

Oh and Will next time you lie about me falling off a route of francos to back up its grade maybe check with me first yeah?

My sincere apologies, Dan. Can't remember where I heard that but I took it at face value. Had I known it wasn't true then I wouldn't have repeated it.

[abarro81]

Don't worry Will, I'll apologize on Steve's behalf for him not having started more threads about videos of climbing damp rock at stanage. Hope that helps.

If the word punter is too rude for you I'm happy to edit to "some knob" instead.

P.s. to safeguard the validity of expressing myself on the next thread about kneebars I'd like like to point out in advance that megos, kruder and bock are all idiots.

[Fiend]

[joel182]

🔒&🪵

no way, this is great. after all, the best climber is the one having the most words written about them.

[ferret]

Personally I find Franco impressive, interesting and at times (deliberately?) controversial. British climbing has a long history of characters that would also fit this description and it's one of the things I've always loved about it.
I hope Franco continues to do his thing and that others continue to voice their opinions on it.
I disagree with him here as I did with The Young but I'd love to see some of his stuff get repeated and especially if they hold their grades.

[Doylo]

Seriously!? Why do You want to stop an actual entertaining thread about bouldering? You got another  one about BatFlu lined up, or Meghan Markle perhaps?

[Steve Crowe]

I'd say that Franco ought to have put up his nice video and said that he'd climbed The Prow a slightly different way and suggested a different grade (or indicated it's the same grade), else say he's climbed a variant on The Prow. Not knowing much about how this feature climbs I can't really say which of those is the better option.

Yeah thats basically all that needed to happen and what any other logical person would've done. 

Oh and Will next time you lie about me falling off a route of francos to back up its grade maybe check with me first yeah? i mean you've got my deets from guidebook writing. i couldnt be arsed getting involved that time but im here now so hey ho (i've never decked off nothing lasts but i have decked off a project just left of it, funnily enough i was stood at sandy chatting to franco about how the other side of the arete is a different line albeit sharing the RH holds and LH holds and we amicably agreed on that point when it was right next to his route and i'd found lots of gear... Its normally bomber, but basically i rushed an ascent on this due to rain and needing to meet katie and the kids back at the car and didnt check my gear, dry fired way up high (bout 12m) and didnt manage to recatch myself, fall was ok though even though i decked from the E5 and me and alex trotted back so make of that what you will as that fall is where the independent part of NL ends)

This arete stuff has happened to me a number of times in my life. Franco isnt being singled out. If bleau.info hadnt changed you could go and read a chat between me and olive lebreton about arete de boissy assis where i acidentally climbed the other side of the arete to his FA and we agreed to give it a different name and hence i somehow have an 8b+ FA in font purely by accident, i was a bit sarky and said he just did a link from devine and he was a bit sarky saying i just whacked my feet in hiphop, all a good laugh. I Should've called it Olive le twaton or something but then i respect that guy massively and all he's done for Font hence the chat with him to clarify what he wanted to do. Already mentioned arc royal.
and when someone is STILL whinging on insta 4 years after getting burned off on a proj i'd hardly say they're soo laid back carefree! i mean jesus 4 years!

Remus if you look at my initial post there's no malice, i'm just pointing out that wasn't the prow. It seems like most people can see that its not a prow or arete being climbed but the RH wall. Happy to have a rhymy childish name for my troubles and i thought it deserved a more curt retort. If Steve Crowe want to rescind all the other repeats after 11years lets go for it. nothing like having a hold 30cm to the right out of bounds after all the hard climbing ends to inspire repeaters. Andys original also lost two good feet the day me and micky and Ned were on it, that's the main reason it went up from 7C/+ which Andy originally mooted, so the original was never exactly possible anyway. Micky Page deserves all the credit for cleaning it and egging me and Ned onto it that day.

Ouch! All I tried to do was describe how Andy Earl originality climbed The Prow.

“Just for interest and discussion I thought I should perhaps clarify that The Prow, as climbed by Andy Earl climbs up the steep prow until forced slightly right high up where it eventually finished as for Hostile Environment an E4 that traverses out across the wall from the corner. Dan and Will both use an extra hold on the right that Andy avoided. Franco has climbed direct to that good hold which is on  Hostile Environment. I've posted the sequence Andy climbed on Instagram for anyone who is interested.”

I think you’d agree that extra hold in question is beyond all the hard climbing of The Prow and after it joins the relatively easier E4 traverse of Hostile Environment which does exactly the same finish as The Prow. Furthermore I’d like to suggest that perhaps Franco has climbed a direct start to Hostile Environment rather that a variation on The Prow?

[highrepute]

It seems to me that Franco has basically made the most brutal version of that passing hiker shouting "there's an easy way up round the back".

There's no doubt it my mind he's done it deliberately to wind people up because he thinks it's funny. And to be fair to him, this thread has been quite funny.

[carlisle slapper]

Hostile Direct Varian-t , now that wouldv'e been a better name. I know what you were getting at Steve dont worry, just a few people took it that the prow is eliminate from it. Andy had stared at it since he was a kid hadn't he? Can fully understand the sequence he used on the FA, like i said i had the same deal on arc royal.

Will no worries at all, i thought it was funny how chinese whispers work when some mates text me. Although in some ways if i'm being too pedantic about completely different sides of arete's and angles, maybe it is the same climb.

[ali k]

Now Will and Barrows just need to make up and we can all be one big happy family again 

[SA Chris]

Fuck that, I hate peace.

[SA Chris]

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).

This whole thing looks confected to me. The backlash was so inevitable and so easily avoided you can only assume it's a deliberate stunt.

Of course it is. I expect he's reading these 6 pages worth and pissing himself.

[Nails]

I did a search on YouTube for some videos on "Franco" but got diverted into watching an interesting documentary on the Franco-Prussian war.

[C Coldwell-Storry]

This is genius.

Let's be honest, everybody knows what the craic is! Possibly excluding Will Hunt, altho i cant tell if he's just out for a bit of banter as well.
Absolutely love reading these threads and Im praying Franco comments. After calling me and Alex out for climbing on wet rock from behind his computer i'm surprised he's kept quiet on this topic. Shame.

[Will Hunt]

Unless you're at an eliminates venue, we should generally climb lines, not prescribed sequences. If there are any features which are out then this should be obvious and logical.

The idea that things are either eliminate or non elimninate is naive. Most climbs are somewhere on a spectrum of purity. The point along this spectrum at which we consider something eliminate is rather arbitrary in practice, and varies from climber to climber, and from crag to crag. The fact this is underacknowledged is part of why this sort of thread/argument exists. The idea that boulder problems which are to any extent eliminate only belong in special ghettos and you can wander at will on problems everywhere else is nonsense. Rock produces illogical and inconsistent challenges which we do our best to make consistent and logical by applying minimal and sensible rules where it makes things better. Bouldering would be very limited and a lot less interesting if we didn't.

Hmm. What do you see as an eliminate? For me, something is eliminate if it avoids the use of an obvious hold or feature which would otherwise help you get up the problem. There are certain basic exemptions which we intuitively know, e.g. the floor is never in, and nor are adjacent boulders.
So if you're struggling to get your arse off the ground because you've been told that you're not to use a toe-hook around the arete - that's eliminate. If you're eyeing up a hard move and having to fight the urge to grab the within-reach arete/pocket/ledge/break/whatever - that's eliminate. It's normally quite obvious if things are eliminate.
Where a problem needs rules specifying then it might be that you've created something worthwhile, maybe even really good, but it's likely that it's still eliminate to some degree. This, to my eye, always detracts from the quality in some way. That's not to say that eliminates can't be very good, but wouldn't it be better if that inconvenient thing that you're avoiding just never existed in the first place? Wouldn't that make things less forced and thus better?

Often you'll find that a developer has (in my view) mistaken difficulty for quality and climbed something in an eliminate way and written it up as such - often with no mention of the rule that they stuck to. Have an eliminate variation if you must, but don't describe that as the principle way to climb a thing. When developing, people should try and create the best problems they can rather the hardest they can reasonably get away with - they should see where the rock takes them and think about variations/eliminates as an afterthought.

I agree completely with what Stubbs said above. When I think of the problems I admire the most I don't think any of them are eliminate in any way whatsoever.

[Bonjoy]

Hmm. What do you see as an eliminate? For me, something is eliminate if it avoids the use of an obvious hold or feature which would otherwise help you get up the problem. There are certain basic exemptions which we intuitively know, e.g. the floor is never in, and nor are adjacent boulders.

I don't think it's that useful to insist on a binary eliminate/non-eliminate categorisation. Clearly things fit neatly into the boxes at either end of the spectrum, but trying to split things in the middle ground is hugely contingent/contentious and creates perverse incentives. One person's 'intuitively know[n]' exemption is another person's presumably included feature - just look at this discussion of The Prow.
My preference is for wider acceptance of rules where they are beneficial. Which means being explicit about even things which you think should be implicit and even when this make's your supposedly pure classic look a bit contrived.
The sooner boulderers get over the unrealistic idea that the crag is or should be full of striking inescapable stand alone lines, the sooners we can start enjoying the rock in all it's flawed beauty, in whatever way makes for a most enjoyable and interesting challenge.

Where a problem needs rules specifying then it might be that you've created something worthwhile, maybe even really good, but it's likely that it's still eliminate to some degree.

I wholly agree, but so long as 'eliminate' is a dirty word then this is problematic and reduces our enjoyment of the rock.

This, to my eye, always detracts from the quality in some way. That's not to say that eliminates can't be very good, but wouldn't it be better if that inconvenient thing that you're avoiding just never existed in the first place? Wouldn't that make things less forced and thus better?

Of course it would be better if every boulder problem was a stone cold stand alone classic! In the same way it would be nice if we were all born with the genetics of Adam Ondra, supermodel looks, and a set of incredibly rich and generous parents. To state the obvious, it's a case of not making the perfect the enemy of the good. I'm not saying rules based problems are better than problems without rules, I'm saying both can be good (or shit) and life if richer if you can appreciate something for what it is. The whole sport is contrived, why balk at an extra level of contrivance.

Often you'll find that a developer has (in my view) mistaken difficulty for quality and climbed something in an eliminate way and written it up as such - often with no mention of the rule that they stuck to. Have an eliminate variation if you must, but don't describe that as the principle way to climb a thing. When developing, people should try and create the best problems they can rather the hardest they can reasonably get away with - they should see where the rock takes them and think about variations/eliminates as an afterthought.

I think what's more often the case is developers, who are looking for quality, want things to be better than they really are and climb features in a blinkered way as a result. Repeaters, who are looking for a quick tick (quantity), often do whatever they think they can get away with and still claim an ascent. Both sides are deluding themselves. But sometimes a single simple rule can make a problem objectively superior to the non-rules version, and make it impossible for the repeater to plead ignorance when cheating. To my mind it's totally legitimate to assert this as the principle line in this case.

I agree completely with what Stubbs said above. When I think of the problems I admire the most I don't think any of them are eliminate in any way whatsoever.

Yeah, I get it, and your favourite Queen/Beatles/Dylan album is the 'best of'  .
Out of interest, can you list some of these, so I can see what you consider  as not 'eliminate in any way whatsoever'?

[carlisle slapper]

I agree completely with what Stubbs said above. When I think of the problems I admire the most I don't think any of them are eliminate in any way whatsoever.

Yeah, I get it, and your favourite Queen/Beatles/Dylan album is the 'best of'  .
Out of interest, can you list some of these, so I can see what you consider  as not 'eliminate in any way whatsoever'?

  looking forward to this Will.

[36chambers]

I agree completely with what Stubbs said above. When I think of the problems I admire the most I don't think any of them are eliminate in any way whatsoever.

Yeah, I get it, and your favourite Queen/Beatles/Dylan album is the 'best of'  .
Out of interest, can you list some of these, so I can see what you consider  as not 'eliminate in any way whatsoever'?

Scrittly Arete Sit at Windy Choss Clough?

[Will Hunt]

I can see where you're coming from and agree to a a greater or lesser extent with most of what you're saying. I think in the context of this discussion about one of the UK's very best lines, at one of the most enigmatic crags in one of our noblest climbing areas, we're talking about purity and beauty in pretty strict terms. We're splitting hairs at the highest level of quality because we venerate rock climbing.
What Franco's done poses questions: what is The Prow? Is The Prow the feature or is it Earl's solution to it? Has Franco repeated The Prow? What about Dan/Ned/Will? Is The Prow everything that we'd imagined it to be? I'm leaning towards saying that Franco has climbed the prow, even if not The Prow - he's done a pretty cool looking right-hand variant. I think the fact that such a skirting was possible diminishes The Prow somewhat - I expect it's still 3-stars but some of the shine has come off (remember that I think that tight lines and rules are more illogical at height than they are on lowballs).

Out of interest, can you list some of these, so I can see what you consider  as not 'eliminate in any way whatsoever'?

OK, I'll take the bait. This should be fun!
Off the top of my head (these aren't necessarily my favourite climbs, I haven't even been on some of them, but they're all good and not eliminate):

Matterhorn Arete
Not To Be Taken Away
Fight on Black
Groovejet
Ron's Groove
Aye n Ard Crack
Ju Ju Club
Zoo York (I presume. Never touched it)
High Fidelity (Presumably, obvs)
Sole Fusion
Ben's Groove
Crystal Method
The Great Flake
Pinky
Whisky Galore
Successor State
Layby Arete
Heaven in your Hands
Make My Heart Fly

I suspect I could go on and on and on.