[Alan James, Rockfax]

...and that none of the other critics do.

Well, we haven't established that actually.

One thing I have learnt after 15 years of writing guidebooks is that there is little to be gained by slagging the opposition (especially before you have seen the book). It is almost inevitable that, with a back catalogue of 20+ books, you will have committed the same mistake yourself sometime in the past. By far the best action is to learn from your mistakes, and those of others, and go away and produce a better guidebook yourself.

I am sure you know the expression about "glass houses and stones". Well Ground Up haven't even built their glass house yet, but they seem pretty keen on chucking stones around.

Alan

[Pantontino]

Alan, just thought I'd make a couple of quick comments, before you get too carried away with your bullshit conspiracy theory.

Neither myself, nor the directors of Ground Up are the keepers of Greg, Neil or Adam. They are free to say what they want, and when they want.
They, along with others, such as Dan Varien, Trev Suddaby or tc (none of whom have any connection to Ground Up) clearly feel very passionately about how their favourite crags and boulders are to be represented, not just by your book, but any book. It seems entirely natural to me that they would end up making comments on your database, (It does invite comment after all.) or being drawn into a discussion on this forum.

Instead of trying to score points against these people (and Ground Up), you should be thanking them for their feedback, especially Greg who was good natured enough to respond to Johnathan Lagoe's requests for help with the RF guide. Why would Greg do this, if, as you seem so hell bent on suggesting, all he wanted to do was to attack the RF guide? He did it because he cares about the Lakes bouldering scene, and doesn't want to see it misrepresented.

[al]

Well Ground Up haven't even built their glass house yet

we are in progress though, and our house has a double garage and a hot tub  

[Mick Ryan]

......clearly feel very passionately about how their favourite crags and boulders are to be represented......He did it because he cares about the Lakes bouldering scene, and doesn't want to see it misrepresented.

All guidebooks are subjective by nature. Each author represents them in a subjective way, they have their own perspective. There is no guidebook that can truly represent an area, it's impossible.

No guidebook is complete, again impossible.

The landscape we play on is rich beyond imagination. A guidebook gives you enough to get started. It is a map and a field guide, it isn't the territory itself. It most certainly is not the experience, you can't read about that.

Some climbers who are passionate and care about their areas do not want guidebooks at all, such is the depth of their passion and respect for what they see as sacred.

This discussion is merely a pissing match of the ego.....much of it is about claims of who put chalk on a particular hold and used it in conjuntion with another hold.

[tc]

This discussion is merely a pissing match of the ego.....much of it is about claims of who put chalk on a particular hold and used it in conjuntion with another hold.

A typically trite, cramped and blinkered comment and thoroughly unrepresentative of this discussion, in my view. I am sorry that you feel that way. I don't.

[Mick Ryan]

This discussion is merely a pissing match of the ego.....much of it is about claims of who put chalk on a particular hold and used it in conjuntion with another hold.

A typically trite, cramped and blinkered comment and thoroughly unrepresentative of this discussion, in my view. I am sorry that you feel that way. I don't.

OK tc what is it about and what do you feel?

[tc]

That'll do Mick. I have nothing more to say to you

[Mick Ryan]

That'll do Mick. I have nothing more to say to you

That was expected from just another anonymous slagger.

[SA Chris]

...much of it is about claims of who put chalk on a particular hold and used it in conjuntion with another hold.

But isn't that what climbing, climbing guides and first ascent recordingare  all about anyway. You've been pretty passionate about these issues in the past, why the change of heart?

[Mick Ryan]

...much of it is about claims of who put chalk on a particular hold and used it in conjuntion with another hold.

But isn't that what climbing, climbing guides and first ascent recordingare  all about anyway. You've been pretty passionate about these issues in the past, why the change of heart?

To a point. I've never a been a huge fan of the definitive guidebook as it can take something away rather than give something. After all we all don't want the same things, maybe some differentiation between coverage. Myself and Wills have been discussing this whilst putting the Bishop bouldering together, do we record every variant, include every problem and every area, or do we leave some things out so that others can discover for themselves.....and then of course there are environmental considerations. Do we help guide climbers to pristine areas that although good have not had much traffic and impact?

Of course this particular debate, at least from one side, is about who is more authentic, when from one point of view both sides are authentic and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

M

[account_inactive]

North Wales Limestone  

by Alan James, Jon Barton and Paul Evans
Published - May 1997
Price - £13.95 - Buy Now

The only available source of information for the fine climbing found on the Ormes of Llandudno. The only definitive Rockfax guidebook with information on every route. The book also contains a basic bouldering guide for the whole of North Wales.

[tc]

That'll do Mick. I have nothing more to say to you

That was expected from just another anonymous slagger.

So, Mick, I refuse to rise to your pushy demands for clarification of a point I do not wish to discuss with you, so you act like a spoiled child and resort to petulant abuse? This makes you look foolish.
I am not anonymous on this forum, nor would I describe my criticism as 'slagging'. I use the pseudonym "tc" (an acceptable convention on the internet) consistently, with an email address that works. Most people here know who I am.

[Mick Ryan]

I do not wish to discuss with you

That's the modus operandi of many. Bit of slagging then off they run. Most are more interested in scoring ego points than gaining any understanding and insight.

[Bonjoy]

My two penneth on the Rockfax debate.
 I was well psyched back in the day when Rockfax came along and produced good topo guides for sport areas like Yorkshire, North Wales Limestone and Dorset. They provided much needed info at a time when the BMC was still rather snotty about sport routes and french grades.      Likewise it was great to have quality english guides to euro sport crags like Mallorca and El Chorro. I've always liked Rockfax guides for my sport climbing and probably prefer using their new Northern Limestone guide to the YMC definative guide (but i've got both and the YMC is a much better read, when I get home).
 However I wasn't so keen on the Eastern grit guide and have never bought it. I just don't think the Rockfax style does the crags justice. Also, I can understand why the cherry picking of routes and buttresses was done, but the choice of what to include seems very pedestrian. So many times i've been out and done a really great route which deserves more attention, looked in my mates guide and found it, or the buttress it's on missing. The guide feels dumbed down and lacking in depth. To my mind the guide re-inforces the often spurious good/bad status of routes, and thereby does the crags in it a disservice. Many people only use this book and think the buttresses not included must be second rate, 'otherwise they'd be in the book, right ?'. Popular areas become more popular and trashed, other areas become more dirty and overgrown.
 In short, I like Rockfax sometimes. In the first instance it filled a need, in the second it did a worse job than what was already available, producing a guide which served to reduce peoples knowledge of the crags they climb on, intentionally or otherwise simply cashing in on people's laziness. Having said that, there may be truth in the argument that EG was the spur that forced the BMC to up it's guide writing game, if so it did a good job ( i still think it's a punter's book though ).

[Alan James, Rockfax]

However I wasn't so keen on the Eastern grit guide and have never bought it. I just don't think the Rockfax style does the crags justice. Also, I can understand why the cherry picking of routes and buttresses was done, but the choice of what to include seems very pedestrian. So many times i've been out and done a really great route which deserves more attention, looked in my mates guide and found it, or the buttress it's on missing. The guide feels dumbed down and lacking in depth.

This is a good point and one which I am very aware of. Ideally we would have liked to put a lot more routes in PGE, even made it virtually definitive for some crags. However the BMC would have certainly taken us to court if we'd done that. In the end we had to chop several quite substantial sections just to keep them happy. Additionally, it served a purpose in its selective state since those who want more have an alternative, those who want less, get away with purchasing one guidebook.

So a lot of the content of our books is done because of the time and circumstances it is created in, and also what else exists - no current Clwyd or North Wales Limestone guides means that we put as much as we can in. Possibly Mick and I don't agree 100% on this point but he has been influenced by the very different guidebook situation in the States.

I also frequently state that, by including the crags in the way we did, we actually spread people onto some areas that they didn't go to when using less visually inspiring, text-based definitive guides that existed at the time. It was a case of more equals less when everything is included without much to differentiate between them.

Alan

[SA Chris]

However the BMC would have certainly taken us to court if we'd done that. In the end we had to chop several quite substantial sections just to keep them happy. Alan

On what grounds Alan?

[chappers]

However the BMC would have certainly taken us to court if we'd done that. In the end we had to chop several quite substantial sections just to keep them happy. Alan

On what grounds Alan?

yeah, on what grounds? surely not that they already had information in print about said climbs? does much of the lakes info not already exist elsewhere? and therefor can you print that?

[Alan James, Rockfax]

Summary is  - the legal ins and outs of who owns what were looked into in great depth. Plain copyright was not an issue but the significantly greyer area of database law was. The only problem with this is that no-one, and I mean no-one, has yet thoroughly tested it, despite it being in existence for nearly 10 years. In very simple terms, they claimed to own the database of routes on the Eastern Edges, based on the fact that they had documented it for many years. I claimed that the database belonged to the people who created it, namely the volunteers who had put it together and climbers who had climbed and described the routes - we had the support of several of the most significant of those volunteers. Additionally, Rockfax were in effect creating our own different database by producing a selective guide. Also, database law was created to protect electronic databases and not print databases (although it doesn't actually state that anywhere) and also didn't apply to any database created before 1982 (which the bulk of the eastern Edge databases were). All very uncertain and never was it ever going to lead anywhere apart from financial ruin for one or both of us. In the end a compromise was reached (routes dropped, guidebooks plugged, acknowledgements added) but that was at an emergency meeting at Rockfax Towers, 2 days before the book was printed.

In the case of the Lakes Bouldering, it wouldn't be an issue since we have loads of stuff that is unique to our book, and plenty of the overlap information comes from none LakesBloc sources, and (as we are discovering in this thread) there are significant differences between the two sets of information.

Bet you wished you'd never asked now. It was not a nice episode and, I would like to add, not representative in anyway of the BMC guidebook people at this present moment (apart from one,... maybe).

Alan

[webbo]

I do not wish to discuss with you

That's the modus operandi of many. Bit of slagging then off they run. Most are more interested in scoring ego points than gaining any understanding and insight.

mick.do you practice at being an arse or does it come naturally.

[tc]

Mick, your appetite for childish conflict is obviously greater than mine. You need to respect a person's right to withdraw from arguments when they wish, regardless of your desire to prolong them. It is all part of growing up.