[SA Chris]

Very Few. Although I always thought the fox in the adverts had a bit of a mean streak.

[Houdini]

Come on!  Come on!

There has to be more!

[SA Chris]

Let it go, it has ended.

Unless you want to start something with me?

[Houdini]

How about a duel?  On Duel in Cuisiniere.  Between JB & 8C?  It'd need to be filmed like.

[Doylo]

Those who want DVDs pm or email me your addresses and what you want, santa claus will do the rest

[chris]

i will take a copy of stoned love and obsession - you can give em matt before you depart for hueco

[SA Chris]

How about a duel?  On Duel in Cuisiniere.  Between JB & 8C?  It'd need to be filmed like.

In a Highlander / Cioch Style?

"Can you feel it? It's the Strengthening!"

[Johnny Brown]

Final word.

Yes. I am studying Law, but the fact remains even if I where to be studying Horticultural science, it still wouldn’t be difficult to remember the occasion/s when I heard you, amongst many others, make outright remarks that Ben is a liar. It also seems I am not alone in hearing these remarks, and Chris has heard you too. Yet you go onto to deny it publically, thus it’s getting silly and should end here. But we both know the truth.

Well your frequent re-edits of posts in this thread suggest you, too, sometimes say things in the heat of the moment that you later realise are not your considered opinion. After several pints during pub banter I may have overstated what is my considered opinion, which is that there is not enough evidence available for anyone but Ben to know the truth. You opinion, I think, is based on having had more chances to see him climb than I have. Fair enough. I'm suprised you don't remember the pm's we had at the time? One line was 'if he is lying he is playing a very clever game'. Is that something I would say were I convinced he was lying? Likewise, I don't feel able to say I believe him - there simply isn't the evidence to say that either. As a result you may remember simply 'I don't believe him'. The difference may be subtle but, I think, important. As such I retain an open mind on this - my motivation is to get to the truth.

Why must the concepts of wanting to know the history of an ascent and desiring a degree of verification from top climbers as a matter of course, be endlessly conflated with calling someone a liar??? Climbers always want to know a bit of background but these days don’t want to ask because to do so seems to imediately to attract accusations of doubting, when all they are is curious

I think this is the very nub of the problem. I do a lot of asking questions about ascents because I am genuinely interested in the circumstances and details. I occasionally write articles about them, or record them in guidebooks. Its generally fair to say you often get more objective, accurate and interesting information from witnesses rather than the ascensionists. If I know the climber well I may speak to them, if I know the belayer/ spotter better I'm more likely to chat to them. Often it just depends who you bump into first. To me this seems completely normal - lots of folk have them and between them all they serve as the 'evidence' on which the hsitory of climbing is based. Magazine editors usually ensire they have some of this kind of corroboration before printing.

Occasionally these conversations throw up inconsistencies or simply a lack of information. This is what has happened in your case - a lack of information. This has been explained by you (in a pm) by the fact you instructed your friends 'to say nothing'. (And, I think, under pressure they actually made stuff up instead). By doing this you prevented the normal process of verification and created questions in people's minds where they needen't exist. I can't understand why you did this. Having been told there were no witnesses by a close friend of yours it seems pointless to ask you the same question. Then when others ask to see your videos you refuse on the grounds that 'they don't deserve to see them' it all starts to seem most irregular.

On a final note, you claim there are no videos of me climbing

When? I asked you to put some online, that was all.

It seems to me none of this would have happened if you hadn't asked your friends to 'say nothing'.

[Houdini]

A duel, in sporrans, on Duel?  Filmed at night under floodlamps?  Accompanied by a didge quartet? You've strange idea's Chris, but why not?

[Buoux 8C]

Thanks for your response. May I also add this is my last post on the matter, and is purely one to clear up a few loose ends.

Well your frequent re-edits of posts in this thread suggest you, too, sometimes say things in the heat of the moment that you later realise are not your considered opinion.

No. I removed one piece of writing for re-structuring, any other editing was simply to correct typo's, as my dexterity when using a keyboard is bad at the best of times (you try hanging off a strip of wood on one finger for two years and see how the co-ordination in your digits is affected.).

After several pints during pub banter I may have overstated what is my considered opinion, which is that there is not enough evidence available for anyone but Ben to know the truth. You opinion, I think, is based on having had more chances to see him climb than I have. Fair enough. I'm suprised you don't remember the pm's we had at the time? One line was 'if he is lying he is playing a very clever game'. Is that something I would say were I convinced he was lying? Likewise, I don't feel able to say I believe him - there simply isn't the evidence to say that either. As a result you may remember simply 'I don't believe him'. The difference may be subtle but, I think, important. As such I retain an open mind on this - my motivation is to get to the truth.

Fair point.

I do a lot of asking questions about ascents because I am genuinely interested in the circumstances and details. I occasionally write articles about them, or record them in guidebooks. Its generally fair to say you often get more objective, accurate and interesting information from witnesses rather than the ascensionists. If I know the climber well I may speak to them, if I know the belayer/ spotter better I'm more likely to chat to them. Often it just depends who you bump into first. To me this seems completely normal - lots of folk have them and between them all they serve as the 'evidence' on which the hsitory of climbing is based. Magazine editors usually ensire they have some of this kind of corroboration before printing.

Again a valid point. But what I struggle to comprehend is why, if you wanted information regarding my ascent’s you never chose to ask me outright? Firstly, this would allow the retrieval of correct information, thus making any writing you are doing correct. Secondly, it is not as if you did not see me on a regular basis. Now I am aware of your perspective regarding if Keith didn’t know anything what would you gain by asking me? But for me it does not seem a logical conclusion. For future reference, please feel free to approach me directly for any reason, as opposed to asking people that do not know me particularly well. I will always try my best to resolve any arising matters.

Occasionally these conversations throw up inconsistencies or simply a lack of information. This is what has happened in your case - a lack of information. This has been explained by you (in a pm) by the fact you instructed your friends 'to say nothing'. (And, I think, under pressure they actually made stuff up instead). By doing this you prevented the normal process of verification and created questions in people's minds where they needen't exist

Just for the record. Firstly, my instructions to Keith and Chris, after I’d already heard the hurtful comments, were, simply to suggest that you approach me directly, as opposed to obtaining information third hand. Both Keith and Chris have confirmed that this is what they told you- yet you never approached me.

Again, if your idea of 'normal verification' as you quite eloquently put it, was the same as mine, then I believe that neither of us would be in this situation. I believe that in order to verify something, you must make an effort to speak to the ‘organ grinder’ as opposed to the ‘monkey’ (no offence Keith/Chris), or in this case, approach the climber in question in the first instance. I do believe approaching me outright would have helped matters substantially, saving both time, effort and more importantly, enabling you to obtain reliable and accurate facts, as opposed to hearsay. I hope that we can both learn from this.

Having been told there were no witnesses by a close friend of yours it seems pointless to ask you the same question

I do not believe that any of my close friends would have told you this…. Keith? Chris?... as they are both aware of the extent of my witnesses.

Then when others ask to see your videos you refuse on the grounds that 'they don't deserve to see them' it all starts to seem most irregular.

Again, this is not the case. I have admitted that I did not supply the Careless video to Sam and Rhys for reasons stated in the previous reply. The only other case which you can refer to, is the one you mentioned in your pm, regarding my apparent refusal to supply James Pearson with video evidence. This is not entirely the case and I am sure that James would be the first to admit it. I told James I would not be willing to give him a copy of evidence to use solely to pass onto anonymous doubters, who were not willing to ask for a copy themselves. Instead, I told James to refer the 'anonymous’ doubters to me, where I would be more than willing to provide them with evidence and put their minds at rest. Hardly an outright refusal in anyone’s book. James, can you please confirm this, as I believe this was the case?

When? I asked you to put some online, that was all.

Ok. And I made you aware of videos that were already online, or available.

Now I have spent a considerable amount of time clearing this situation up. I have provided responses in an honest and civil manner. All I ask is that if anyone does still have sincere doubts about my climbing, please approach me (preferably after x-mas) and I will try my best to put your mind at rest. If you are not willing to approach me, then can I urge you not to continue the mindless gossip and pub rumors, which are both upsetting for me, and a bad reflection on the climbing scene.

Can’t say fairer than that, can I?

[james]

Just to confirm,
When talking over pm about the CT Vid, rich told me the reason he didnt want it to apear on Winter sessions.  I then sugested that he show me the video and then I could tell others that I have seen it and hopefuly squash these rumors. This is part of his reply:

I do however find it unfair that this conversation is between you and I, rather than myself and any doubters.For that reason i will be unwilling to use you as a messenger to these anoymous people. i think this would be entirley unfair on myself (not knowing who exactly is making these comments) and also unfair in the fact that the people making these comments would be given an easy ride, and have saved alot of face when proved wrong.

Hope that clears it up

James

[Bonjoy]

I would be happy to show you, when I get hold of a copy from home

Cheers Rich. Am well psyched!

[ian h]

 I do not know any of you , and therefore have no reason to doubt anyone, but i would like to add, i like many others  (i would have thought ) would just really like to see this type of footage.

Nothing to do with doubt, or personal attacks on peoples ability , just appreciating the quality of what is going on out there.

In my opinion it really is a loss to everybody who has purchased the winter sessions dvd. It would have obviously been a highlight of the film.

[fatdoc]

Yep...

[dobbin]

Wow. Its taken fully 20 minutes to read this thread.

I would love to see the CT footage too. Its an amazing line and I have never seen it climbed. I have no concept of what you have to do to climb it, and think it one of the best lines in the peak. Get a copy to Jon and I will pop round.

[Nibile]

ok, nothing better than a trip north to climb a get the vid.

from what i've read on here thats not all you'll get if you go rumaging under dylo's bed.

heh, i have a degree in criminology, i know what to expect!!!

[Nigel]

Is it just me, or is the obvious solution to all this "did he/didn't" he nonsense for some "scapegoat" to take it upon themselves to formally (in writing, preferably proper calligraphy) accuse Rich of being a dirty snotty nosed liar. Whereupon Rich fulfills his offer to ease the mental anguish of said "genuine" doubter with all the videos and vital statistics of witnesses a boy could wish for; hence the "scapegoat" then disseminates the evidence thus obtained to his shady Sheffield mafia backers.

All thats needed is a suitable scapegoat (scapegoose?).

I nominate Andi e.

[fatneck]

 

[Huffy]

Fook me, reading this makes me glad i dont climb anymore.

Shame to see sound characters (all equally psyched for the same amazing sport) arguing over what is essentially bullshit. 

Rich is WAY too talented and beastly to doubt,
Johnny Brown spends far less time indoors than out,
What i do find unbelievable is this rediculous bout,
...for which you could both do with a bloody good clout !

(merry christmas)

[SA Chris]

All thats needed is a suitable scapegoat (scapegoose?).

You need a lawyer to ensure no wrong doings are conducted during this interaction. Someone who's integrity is beyond doubt.

Unfortunately all we have is Sloper.

[Dr T]

You need a lawyer to ensure no wrong doings are conducted during this interaction. Someone who's integrity is beyond doubt.

Unfortunately all we have is Sloper.

well...... there is Buoux 8c... but that might entail a slight conflict of interest..... 

[SA Chris]

Is he a fully qualified "law talking guy" already?

[Paz]

I don't think this thread has been all bad.  Far from it.  Apart from dredging up the debacle, which I ain't going near right now.  One of the inspiring things I heard that really got me psyched is from johnnybrown:

the great advancements in world climbing at the moment are taking place on the big granite faces. The UK's top climbers are conspicuous by their absence save for

I have two questions:  1)  How do I get involved?

This is a classic sickeningly naive internet question, which is both a) on the wrong thread (and probably the wrong site), and b) answerable by going to The Valley rather than sitting here, so I apologise for any annoyance.  Specifics would be grand though.

2) How do you measure how hard these advances, or big granite routes are?  I am interested in this in its own right, as part of my quest to find out what the hardest boiled egg in the world is, but the more important thing is 1).  Again the answer is probably `go and do some big granite routes and find out for yourself', but please try to elaborate anyway, I need to get psyched for going and finding out, to happen in the first place.  I like all that travel wanderlust, being in touch with the sense of place, on a given day, but if I'm going over there for this purpose I want something to get psyched about - ideally a route.  Muchos repsect to my mates who did The Nose (aid, I don't even want to mention aid - I was hoping that freeing was the point),
but given the queues on it, and trade route status, if you were talking about world advances then I presume you had something else in mind.

I'm not the only one who's bewildered by the seemingly disparate nominations for the Piolet D'Or etc., and the answer to what is best -`whichever gives the judging panel of esteemed bearded mountaineers the biggest hard on' isn't useful.

With grit, or bolted lime, or even steep granite, I know how to get good at that, there're grades to help me.  The top practitioners making world advances, in these areas, are doing the same as I'm doing, only harder.  Doing big granite faces obviously uses the same basic skills and more fitness and speed (and jamming, but hopefully not too much loose rock), but I don't know where to start, where to work my way up from (the ground obviously, bub um tish), don't know what the progression is, or even what makes it hard?  I don't really want to start off being completely crap at it either, unless I see that it's worth it.  It sounds effing cool though, and I'm sure it is, so please tell me all about it.

Training is bit of a rubbish word, as it is currently used.  I haven't climbed indoors for ages - all change for me, I should probably give Pantontino some credit for this.  I've read all that about mesocycles, ectomorphs etc. and just know I'm never going to bother with any of it in any formal or structured way.  Training referring to this is obviously a massive turn off to a great many people.  The important thing when you've got limited time, as in the UK winter, in order to improve or to maintain your standard, is to climb hard.  I'd love to be able to do these technical grit problems, but some of them I basically do no climbing on as I can hardly pull off the matt.  I wouldn't underestimate technique, but often it's a case of being strong, physically strong, at a given technique, as well as being technically gifted.  For me to do them I need time, as without this I've got to do something closer to a flash or onsight of them.  You need time to learn how to do the problem.  I can be very fast mentally, under stress, but I generally learn pretty slowly.  It's similar to kung fu or whatever, the most important part of your body is your brain.  Without going in to engrams, counterintuitively that's why you're sometimes not conscience of your climbing - your body's got a better idea of how to climb than you do (though technically even though you're not conscience of it, it's still down to your brain).  Personally this is why I junked the anti ego rock warriors way thing in my own climbing.  Apart from not remembering it, I'd be surprised if everything I've learned about how to solve problems (a lot, especially linear ones), including climbing ones (much less), was unrelated to my conscious thought and ego, so for me simply lopping the dragon's head off, as Aano Ilgner puts it, would make me a weaker climber.  The door is left wide open for merciless piss taking there..

Sometimes it's just a better use of your time to try a problem that you actually get to do some climbing on, whether you do it or not, than one that you spend all your time sat on your mat throwing everything you can think of at it and getting nowhere.  All you're doing is training failure.  There's more than one reason the best place for the crux is at the top.  Maybe I'm just trying problems that are technically too hard for me, but this in itself is solved by a piece of training SCIENCE - drop your load and increase your volume (maybe I should say lower the load - the difficulty, before someone starts - but feel free to use piece of advice in other areas of your life).  If you try longer problems, like traverses, or longer up problems, or basic problems, dynos even, where you can try `the' move, you can feel like you're improving from go to go.  I hesitate to say you feel like you're training, but the fact of the matter is you will improve - and as a bonus it keeps you warm in winter. 

Being told that sitting out bad weather is part and parcel of climbing big granite faces will not make me particularly enthusiastic.  For me, finding and exploiting the best conditions is part of climbing.  Sitting out bad weather's what you do at work.

For me this is great for doing things that I imagine climbing `big granite faces' is like, but I'd imagine increased strength and its associated power and fitness would be even better.  Maybe the point is that all the strength and power in the world is no use if you can't climb with it?

[Dr T]

Is he a fully qualified "law talking guy" already?

Think he's still a trainee "law talking guy" but nevermind.........

[a dense loner]

fuck me paz