UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: DAVETHOMAS90 on August 26, 2015, 02:58:21 pm
-
I was at Raven Tor yesterday, with a friend, Steve.
Armed with the new Limestone North guide, we were trying to work out where some of the longer routes like Prow go these days.
If I remember correctly, I'm sure I watched a short film some time ago, where a hero in yellow trackies set off up a similar piece of rock, describing in his best clipped Yorkshire, how the start of the route was unusual, in that it involved wiggling a tree a bit, before "Ste.pping on.to tha roc.kk. Ron his name was, I think.
If this is true, and as I recall, did happen, he was attempting to climb an old established aid line called "The Prow" free. Later, he added another route called Body Machine, which used the same start.
I remember starting these routes years ago, emulating my hero, by wiggling the tree and stepping on.to tha roc.kk, from where I climbed directly to the next break - as I'm sure he did - and beginning the traverse rightwards. This was all part of the folklore of the day.
Myth and legend often bear little resemblance to reality, and these days, Ron's greatness is celebrated in different ways.
The new Limestone North guide describes a different start to these routes, heading off slightly rightwards from where an old tree stump suggests something of the old legend. The old ways are being forgotten.
I've recently tried to find a copy of the old film I remember. Was it called Extreme Rock (Pushing the Limits)? I've found something that again suggests something of the old legend, but when I press play, I'm told "this video doesn't exist".
I'm worried by this, and am struck by a forlornness that weighs heavy.
Can someone please help? :wavecry:
-
You sad bastard
-
You sad bastard
Sad "old" bastard.
Thanks for saving me from that one ;)
xx
-
"Ron Fawcett’s free ascent of The Prow (E6 6b) at Raven Tor in 1981 was a first big milestone. In those days, there was no Internet or youTube to bring developments as they happen to your desk at work, and we relied on the magazines of the time such as High to keep up with new developments. Ron’s ascent of The Prow, though, was the subject of one of the first rockclimbing TV documentaries, and those of us who were climbing then remember the film of his ascent with him wearing his distinctive red and yellow Hanwag boots."
Taken from http://www.up-climbing.com/en/contributions/rock/master-s-edge
... and according to Rockfax -The Prow FA. Ron Fawcett, Gill Fawcett 1982 (over 3 days). Followed the line of some of the aid route 'The Prow Route' (Bob Dearman, J.Gerrard 1963 ) although not the start or middle section. Repeated in a single day by Jerry Moffatt. Claimed as the 'hardest route in the world' in High magazine.
'Old' is only old from the viewpoint of youth. ;)
-
The eagle-eyed will have noted that Northern Limestone's pic of Ron showboating on 'Body Machine' is in fact the FA of The Prow as referenced by the OP.
-
Thinking about this Dave - the worst thing about the new guide is it's total lacy of First Ascentionist imformation - Muenchener mentioned this when we were in Outside due to heavy rain.
History is being lost or as you say rewritten, from the original start as you say, to even the name being lost. which is quite sad. People newer to climbing like me have no recollections like yourself.
-
And I thought this was going to be about Hubble or Liquid Ambar
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
(http://i.imgur.com/SpmKoAE.jpg)
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/peak-limestone-nort--web-support (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/peak-limestone-nort--web-support)
-
Its not a thread about Hubble or liquid but I don't really know what it is a thread about.
-
At college I learnt to disrespect history and take a critical approach to the varied views of the past depending on the observers perspective and also distinguish history from archiving arcane information. The archiving of noteworthy and less noteworthy climbing facts is as far as I can see in rude health. Divergent lines and sequences to classic and less classic routes are rarely forgotten and now available to past participants to correct the record online. The guidebook is a handbook for those who turn up at the crag looking to climb a route by the most popular and sensible method rather than climb imaginary trees.
-
que? Have you been writing policy for the EU recently Shark?
-
G&(slimline)T x 3
-
:D I recommend #4
-
Skip the slimline
-
Neat gin?
Intravenously injected?
-
You sad bastard
speaks the man whose main interests include wizards and orcs...
-
G&(slimline)T x 3
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - I'm not sure even The Oak is worth slimline tonic :-\
More seriously, I don't understand why you say learning to "take a critical approach to the varied views of the past depending on the observers perspective and also distinguish history from archiving arcane information" taught you to "disrespect" history? That actually sounds like a very proper respect for and understanding of exactly what history is.
-
You sad bastard
speaks the man whose main interests include wizards and orcs...
From a forum where many members spend nice sunny days sat under dank overhangs fettling bits of rock with a toothbrush ;)
-
:lol:
-
History is being lost or as you say rewritten, from the original start as you say, to even the name being lost. which is quite sad. People newer to climbing like me have no recollections like yourself.
No its not, its just not worth lugging history to the crag its in a coffee table book instead...
(https://www.v-publishing.co.uk/assets/books/images/peakrockcover.jpg) (https://www.v-publishing.co.uk/books/categories/climbing/peak-rock.html)
The previous BMC Limestone had two volumes and split history into a separate book from the routes...
(http://www.needlesports.com/imagecache/eaa65925-bf52-4a96-b3d1-9e99011b55c0_720x720.jpg)
There is also Phil Kelly's excellent efforts with The Rock Archivist (http://www.rockarchivist.co.uk/).
The history/information is in no way becoming lost.
-
The history/information is in no way becoming lost.
nai has also pointed out to me that there are the following available to download as supplements to the North Limestone guide (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/peak-limestone-nort--web-support)...
First Ascent list (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1291) (would have added 79 pages to an already big book)
Detailed guides to poor-quality and unvisited crags, crags that have become dangerous or overgrown or there are insurmountable access difficulties (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1292)
this provides a significant saving on the bulk of the book [and cost!] while still keeping the historical record of Peak climbing development.
-
G&(slimline)T x 3
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - I'm not sure even The Oak is worth slimline tonic :-\
More seriously, I don't understand why you say learning to "take a critical approach to the varied views of the past depending on the observers perspective and also distinguish history from archiving arcane information" taught you to "disrespect" history? That actually sounds like a very proper respect for and understanding of exactly what history is.
I was responding to what seemed to me to be the misty-eyed veneration of all things "historical" in the OP to be shoved down every guidebook purchasers throats justified unquestioningly because it is history. The original line or sequence isn't necessarily the best and there needn't be a duty to describe the original way if the info is recorded elsewhere.
-
The original line or sequence isn't necessarily the best and there needn't be a duty to describe the original way if the info is recorded elsewhere.
Except the Green Traverse? :tease: :worms:
Sorry Shark, couldn't resist.
-
The original line or sequence isn't necessarily the best and there needn't be a duty to describe the original way if the info is recorded elsewhere.
Except the Green Traverse? :tease: :worms:
Sorry Shark, couldn't resist.
Not even the Green Traverse. The thing is to try and nip these things in the bud. I hope dropping down to the crimps remains the accepted and best way to do it and so justifies being described this way in guides but if a tipping point is reached where the majority choose to bypass the drop down move and other shenanigans then the guidebook should describe it like that even though that reinforces the change.
-
When describing routes or probs that have multiple ways of being climbed guides can mention differing grades - as per Pilrimage (post Barrows) and Silk Cut in parisellas or Battle of the Little Big Orme on LPT. That way you're reporting the facts, givng a respectful nod to history, and not mandating.
-
Quick thought, if were pedantic about how a boulder problem is done (ie how it was originally done before other holds were scrubbed and cleaned etc like the Green Trav, hence why it was orignally named) then surely this is the same for routes?
Indecent, BM & Prow all started at the overhang at the top of the tree, things evolve and there is no tree there anymore. The present start to indecent was a variation done by various in the 80's, the bm start etc was not climbed as such due to the tree being in the way.
-
The new Limestone North guide is a definitive work. The current descriptions for Prow and Body Machine are for the new variation, which in my view is inferior, and simply a rationalisation; it's the popular way of doing the route in one pitch, but that is, and never was Prow or BM.
The historical perspective is of great value to many people. To simply omit the original way of starting the route, and apply the same name to the new variant just negates the old, and reduces the name to something colloquial. A meaningless splitting off between signified and signifier, which is a very common problem. This, in my view is what gives rise to the sort of basic mistakes we see in, for e.g., the photo of Ron on "Body Machine" which the esteemed mrjonathanr of this parish mentions. (Above.)
I can imagine there are many people who would like to turn up at the Tor and climb The Prow the way that Ron did, but there is no mention of this in the current guide. AFAIK. I couldn't find it. This, in my view IS a sad loss. I think it's worth pointing out that UKClimbing describe the current Body Machine start as Body Machine Direct, listing Body Machine separately. How simple is that?
I watched Ron Fawcett climb The Prow last night in Pushing the Limits; Extreme Rock. As it stands, if I climb Prow with the new start, I'll be saying "I.t's rea.lly loose i.s that. Gill" when I get to the Cream Team break, which is obviously silly - a bit like saying "come on arms, do your stuff" when I'm setting up the belay at the top of Lord..
The Prow is such a significant and iconic route. Again, UKClimbing differentiate between The Prow and The Prow (Classic).
I'm inclined to think that "us locals" - obviously referring to a particular sector of the climbing community - become so accustomed to popular ways of climbing rationalised versions of old routes, that we can forget what we're talking about.
There are obvious difficulties, practical and financial limitations to be considered in the production of any major guidebook like the new Peak Limestone North guide, but in my view, the omissions here suggest editorial policy which, in part, is more in line with the sort of personal opinion more appropriate for the production of a selective guide, rather than definitive.
-
There's no tree anymore, why would you write a guide talking about starting up the tree? A brief aside or footnote, nothing more. Same as if holds fall off.
If you're talking about describing it in pitches then that's the same, and the same as previous aid ascents - a historical aside, not something for the main text of a guide.my bag's heavy enough as it is
-
There's no tree anymore, why would you write a guide talking about starting up the tree? A brief aside or footnote, nothing more. Same as if holds fall off.
If you're talking about describing it in pitches then that's the same, and the same as previous aid ascents - a historical aside, not something for the main text of a guide.my bag's heavy enough as it is
Yeah, of course, I'm not really referring to the tree. You can still climb Indecent without it, up which these routes used to start.
Mind you, I've been considering planting another tree. Just something tall enough to poke you in the bum if you fall off.
-
1963 July Prow Route (A3) Bob Dearman, John Gerrard
Sheffield University Mountaineering Club members engineered the top aid route
of its time. Originally the line started up The Mecca. The direct start was added
by Bob Dearman and Michael White on 14th March 1965. In the early Seventies,
Ed Ward-Drummond made a very bold and ethically pure bolt-free ascent of
Prow (as it was then known) using skyhooks on small ledges.
First attempted free ascent by Ron Fawcett in July 1982. First free ascent of
the original aided line pitch 2 by Malcolm Taylor in 1992, - renamed Rage.”
...
1982 July
The Prow Ron Fawcett, Gill Fawcett
A free ascent covering about 50% of the line of The Prow Routes, approaching
from The Prowler and incorporating a new middle section to the right of the
original aid route.
The ascent of Britain’s top super route was spread over three days, graded E7
and rated harder than many 5.13s. Lauded in the climbing press as the hard-
est route in the world. The original (Mecca) and direct starts remained as aid
routes.
Jerry Moffatt repeated the route in one day, abseiling off for a whistle-stop brew
at the Wriggly Tin Cafe!
The direct start was freed as Revelations in 1984 and the middle section freed
as Rage in 1992. Ron’s version was climbed in one pitch in 2003 by Mark Pretty
with a final bolt added by Simon Lee to connect to the Crucifixion belay.
-
So hold on, you don't actually object to the historical start being left out, since it doesn't exist, but you'd like the route described with the indecent start, even though that's not historically how it was done because there was the tree, despite the fact that it's less direct and has worse climbing on it?
I'm really glad you don't write guidebooks.
-
Hi Dave etc,
I'm trying to see if I have understood your original post; are you saying that, because the routes described as The Prow in the guidebook is not exactly the same as Ron Fawcett did on a video you once saw, then is shouldn't be described as it is but as it was? It does mention that the routes originally started up a tree that is no longer there.
It's not a policy of rewriting history, more a policy of what would be the best guidebook for the user.
And Kelvin, leading on from that, putting the FA list online saved about 70 pages. Maybe in some ways it would be a better book with those extra pages added, but it would have made it a bit of a monster.
And yeah, Ron on Body Machine. Error. They happen.
The Prow E6 7b
Start up the tree and step onto the rock at a break. Those lacking in historical respect may wish to follow the holds and bolts that lead diagonally up and right.
-
The Prow E6 7b
Start up the tree and step onto the rock at a break. Those lacking in historical respect may wish to follow the holds and bolts that lead diagonally up and right.
is the tree in good enough condition to be climbable at only 7b ?
-
The Prow E6 7b
Start up the tree and step onto the rock at a break. Those lacking in historical respect may wish to follow the holds and bolts that lead diagonally up and right.
is the tree in good enough condition to be climbable at only 7b ?
I see your grade strategy Lagers - going for the low hanging fruit...
-
Has another tree been planted, due to be integrated by 2035?
-
Are yew serious?
-
Don't do that it annoys the Dense.
-
Plant a nice quercus cerris so that shark doesn't have to drive all the way to Malham every other day.
-
1984 May
The Body Machine Ron Fawcett
Immortalised on video. The route involved a rest from a foot jammed above the
head in a horizontal break. The direct start was added by Mark Pretty in 2007.
:shrug:
-
Plant a nice quercus cerris so that shark doesn't have to drive all the way to Malham every other day.
He might get it ticked quicker; stand on the seed and wait.
-
Hi Dave etc,
I'm trying to see if I have understood your original post; are you saying that, because the routes described as The Prow in the guidebook is not exactly the same as Ron Fawcett did on a video you once saw, then is shouldn't be described as it is but as it was? It does mention that the routes originally started up a tree that is no longer there.
It's not a policy of rewriting history, more a policy of what would be the best guidebook for the user.
And Kelvin, leading on from that, putting the FA list online saved about 70 pages. Maybe in some ways it would be a better book with those extra pages added, but it would have made it a bit of a monster.
And yeah, Ron on Body Machine. Error. They happen.
The Prow E6 7b
Start up the tree and step onto the rock at a break. Those lacking in historical respect may wish to follow the holds and bolts that lead diagonally up and right.
Hi Grimer.
This is difficult, but lots of points here I think.
As far as I remember, Prow and BM were straightened out after the demise of the tree. Focussing on the lack of a tree to start up, fails to acknowledge that the routes used to start up Indecent.
It's not simply that it isn't "exactly the same as Ron Fawcett did on a video you once saw". That's the way the route was established and subsequently climbed by most people. It can still be climbed that way, albeit for 10 feet of extra climbing at the bottom. I feel very strongly that this is the way The Prow - or The Prow (Classic) - should be described, with the new version described as the direct.
This is my opinion, of course, but the decision, I think, possibly reflects the question of what purpose the guidebook serves.
"what would be the best guidebook for the user"? Is a question open to personal interpretation, but I do feel that definitive guidebooks serve a particular purpose. I would like to think that this consideration comes before a second guessing of what the consumer might want; if you like, "how popular" it is.
This raises a lot of very difficult questions of course, about the viability of producing the guide. But I think these are questions very well worth considering before we try to win any battles over what "is" right or wrong.
I was at Stoney the other day, and we were chatting about the possibility of making all the historical notes formally available as a separate pdf format book, or similar, downloadable for free, if you bought the guidebook. Or for a fee if not. This could be continually reviewed, amended, added to etc over time. What a wonderful reference resource that would be!
I was going to send you a message the other day, passing on the comments of a visiting climber about the impressive production quality of the Peak guides; this is a good opportunity to do that. We're all lucky to have benefited from the tremendous effort put in by a few people to produce guidebooks that are not primarily commercial endeavors.
However, I think it's important to bring to bear, the questions and criticisms that some people feel are important, to help ensure the right balance is struck between ethos and viability; where is it appropriate to cut corners.
Of course, errors do happen, but I think they also often reflect underlying philosophy.
Best wishes,
Dave.
-
So hold on, you don't actually object to the historical start being left out, since it doesn't exist, but you'd like the route described with the indecent start, even though that's not historically how it was done because there was the tree, despite the fact that it's less direct and has worse climbing on it?
I'm really glad you don't write guidebooks.
Not quite.
Many routes lose important starting holds/trees, yet they still get described.
Where an old line is no longer possible, in most of my guidebooks, it is still briefly described, but often with (now defunct) or similar, written after. This can obviously be further amended when reestablished.
In this case, the traditional start is hardly defunct, just lacking a tree, so why is it not included. Again, in many guides, this might be described separately as in "(original start)".
-
The new Limestone North guide is a definitive work. The current descriptions for Prow and Body Machine are for the new variation, which in my view is inferior, and simply a rationalisation; it's the popular way of doing the route in one pitch, but that is, and never was Prow or BM.
The historical perspective is of great value to many people. To simply omit the original way of starting the route, and apply the same name to the new variant just negates the old, and reduces the name to something colloquial. A meaningless splitting off between signified and signifier, which is a very common problem. This, in my view is what gives rise to the sort of basic mistakes we see in, for e.g., the photo of Ron on "Body Machine" which the esteemed mrjonathanr of this parish mentions. (Above.)
I can imagine there are many people who would like to turn up at the Tor and climb The Prow the way that Ron did, but there is no mention of this in the current guide. AFAIK. I couldn't find it. This, in my view IS a sad loss. I think it's worth pointing out that UKClimbing describe the current Body Machine start as Body Machine Direct, listing Body Machine separately. How simple is that?
I watched Ron Fawcett climb The Prow last night in Pushing the Limits; Extreme Rock. As it stands, if I climb Prow with the new start, I'll be saying "I.t's rea.lly loose i.s that. Gill" when I get to the Cream Team break, which is obviously silly - a bit like saying "come on arms, do your stuff" when I'm setting up the belay at the top of Lord..
The Prow is such a significant and iconic route. Again, UKClimbing differentiate between The Prow and The Prow (Classic).
I'm inclined to think that "us locals" - obviously referring to a particular sector of the climbing community - become so accustomed to popular ways of climbing rationalised versions of old routes, that we can forget what we're talking about.
There are obvious difficulties, practical and financial limitations to be considered in the production of any major guidebook like the new Peak Limestone North guide, but in my view, the omissions here suggest editorial policy which, in part, is more in line with the sort of personal opinion more appropriate for the production of a selective guide, rather than definitive.
-
1984 May
The Body Machine Ron Fawcett
Immortalised on video. The route involved a rest from a foot jammed above the
head in a horizontal break. The direct start was added by Mark Pretty in 2007.
:shrug:
Hi Neil.
Thanks for the historical notes.
I don't think the distinction is made clear, between what Mark climbed in 2003 and subsequently in 2007, just the implication that one way must be more direct. This could just as easily imply that the current description fits what Ron did, and the direct is something else.
In the main text, there's no distinction made AFAICT, between the way the route was climbed for many years, and the way it is now described.
-
Just to stir things up even more Brachiation Dance used to traverse in to its start as well mainly I think to avoid placing bolts on the lower wall......no tree was involved....not the direct version everyone does now.
I think Dole did this as well.
Routes become hybrid and change, what I think Daves getting at is that there is no mention of historically of what was done first.
-
"The traditional start is hardly defunct, just lacking a tree"
That's pretty damn defunct in my opinion!
-
I don't have anything to add to the debate about Dave's missing tree, but the loss of First Ascent information within a guide is something I'd take issue with. To my mind a definitive guidebook is more than simply a guide to lines taken up rock, but a record of an area's climbing.
I accept that the lengthy historical chapters of old have had their day but the raw facts of what was climbed when and by whom should not be left out, and really need not take up too much space...
The history/information is in no way becoming lost.
...
First Ascent list (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1291) (would have added 79 pages to an already big book)...
Apologies to Slackline and Grimer, but the claim that the FA list would require 79 additional pages is over egging it a little I fear. Looking at that Download it's clear that 18 pages (i.e. photos, blank pages, cover and intro, etc.) either don't have FA details or wouldn't be required were this content within the book. Arranging things over two columns and separating it by crag, rather than just a single chronological list as some guides do, also contributes to wasted space (see pages 20, 21, 33, 35 etc.). Taken together this accounts for about 5 pages. All this is before thinking about if anything should be saved by reducing the point size of the type a bit, secondary leading, etc. and whether the text could actually be edited down.
Granted 56 pages or so is still a big chunk, and could require an additional 64 dependent on pages per section, but I'd personally prefer this info was included and don't think it's fully appreciated what is being lost...
Legal deposit has existed in English law since 1662. It helps to ensure that the nation’s published output (and thereby its intellectual record and future published heritage) is collected systematically, to preserve the material for the use of future generations and to make it available for readers within the designated legal deposit libraries.
Peak Limestone North will have been deposited at the British Library, has the BMC deposited its PDF supplements? Either way the FA list is now separate from the book, which may be fine now but in 100 years will it be so readily available? Printed media endures, Peak Limestone North will be on library bookshelves long after climbers have exchanged it for the latest edition, but digital media is by nature ephemeral. Sure we can access the FA list now but is it as well preserved for the use of future generations as the book itself is?
I should add that I appreciate the cost and work evolved in producing guidebooks (and the need for keeping them concise and user friendly); I only say this through concern that the worth and viability of definitives may be undermined as much by the choices of those producing them as by the popularity of alternatives.
Anyway, sorry all for the long rant, and well done team BMC for producing the guide which I'm sure is excellent.
-
I appreciate what you're saying Jooser. It was a tough call. The reason it was done was, as I said before, to save a significant amount of pages. I think the book's about as big as it could possibly be without being unwieldy. But definitely takes your comments on board.
-
I appreciate what you're saying Jooser. It was a tough call. The reason it was done was, as I said before, to save a significant amount of pages. I think the book's about as big as it could possibly be without being unwieldy. But definitely takes your comments on board.
Cheers for the reply grimer - I know it's all about space but it is meant to be a definitive guide and as such, I sorta expected at least as much info as Rockfax put in theirs but with all of the climbing lines described. If that meant North, South and Back End of Nowhere volumes, would that so bad?
Still a great guide however :-)
-
Just to be clear, my post isn't about the loss of a tree.
The start of many (most/all) routes at the Tor have lost holds, but they're not defunct.
Why not just describe where the route goes - in this case, up Indecent to the first break, and then traverse RW. If this is less popular/seldom climbed these days, just list it separately. E.g. "original start".
This is what is being lost, in my view, for no reason; the guidebook is misrepresentative in this respect, and effectively selective. I'd much rather climb the classic route rather than the modern interpretation, why negate it?
-
I appreciate what you're saying Jooser. It was a tough call. The reason it was done was, as I said before, to save a significant amount of pages. I think the book's about as big as it could possibly be without being unwieldy. But definitely takes your comments on board.
I can see the logic of having the bulk of the history online. Space is unlimited and it can be amended on an ongoing basis. It's a good idea.
I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count. Both pieces of info tell you something about what to expect from a route I think, as well as adding to the 'feel' of the route. Knowing the chronology also tells you what is the original line and what are the variants. That said I do first ascents so it's hard to to tell how much of my fondness for having this info on the page is a fondness for reading my own name.
-
I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.
:agree:
-
I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.
:agree:
:agree:
For me, the history and background of a route conveys so much meaning, and is often the primary motivator for me wanting to climb a route.
Growing up in Devon, it was the Littlejohn and Fowler routes which captured my imagination most, that held the most cache. Fawcett routes, at the time, were another imaginary realm altogether. What a privilege to repeat them.
I'm highlighting The Prow as an example. As described, would it read Mark Pretty 2007? I appreciate that it's the T20 version, but Test cricket isn't dead yet.
-
I do think though that the fa name and year of ascent in small font size could have been tagged onto the end of the route descriptions with negligible affect on page count.
:agree:
:agree:
For me, the history and background of a route conveys so much meaning, and is often the primary motivator for me wanting to climb a route.
I agree with you Dave, I always read the history sections of guidebooks and I was disappointed not to find one in the recent limestone guide- I downloaded and read it as soon as I found out that it was online. If appreciate why it's been missed out but I would prefer to see the name and date next to the route rather than nothing.
-
+1 to name and date, however describing an inferior and indirect start that isn't even the original start would be absurd.
-
Fwiw, basically what FBSF and bonjoy said, use the online to make extra PDFs to explain the way previous history. Great thread, I've read it all in one go, makes a super read. Balanced and fair discussion. Thank you.
-
If I was a Peak local I would have been pretty disappointed about the lack of at least the FA name and date. It's details like this that make British guides so much better than foreign ones. It's all a bit forensic without, just a bunch of lines with no regard for how it all came to be.
-
I think you mean 'clinical' you daft twat.
'forensic
adjective:
1. relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.'
On the other hand maybe you're right..
-
+1 to name and date, however describing an inferior and indirect start that isn't even the original start would be absurd.
Isn't your position on this one just a bit contrary?
The original way of doing the route - i.e start up Indecent is still there, you just can no longer start up the tree - obviously - and have to do 4 more moves on the rock. I'd prefer to do it that way - as close to the original as possible, and the same way I used to start up Body Machine. People still climb indecent, so no problem. I'm a bit baffled by your remark that the old start doesn't exist, though granted it has changed, as all routes do.
You clearly prefer the new start; good for you, and you're not alone. To not include the traditional and original start based solely on individual preference and current popularity is not the right call for a definitive guidebook in my opinion; it's disrespectful to the F.A. if nothing else.
To some, this may seem like such a minor point, but for me, it strikes at some of the most important parts of the climbing experience, and what we hope to preserve in the definitive guides. It has certainly started some of the debate I'd hoped for.
For what it's worth, there are routes of mine in W-C-J that ARE unclimbable in their current state, hidden under Ivy, yet I think they're fully described.
-
If I was a Peak local I would have been pretty disappointed about the lack of at least the FA name and date. It's details like this that make British guides so much better than foreign ones. It's all a bit forensic without, just a bunch of lines with no regard for how it all came to be.
+1
:yes:
-
I think you mean 'clinical' you daft twat.
'forensic
adjective:
1. relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.'
On the other hand maybe you're right..
Same shit...
-
unclimbable
that's such a 19th century attitude
;)
-
+1 to name and date
I agree in theory this would be great, but (as this thread illustrates) for many routes on lime it's hard to pin down. First aid ascent? Free with 1 rest point? First all-free? First sans-tree? The routes evolve, for different generations different versions will be the definitive.
I'd still be in favour though, for Body Machine you could have Fawcett/ Various 1963-12.
-
+1 to name and date
I agree in theory this would be great, but (as this thread illustrates) for many routes on lime it's hard to pin down. First aid ascent? Free with 1 rest point? First all-free? First sans-tree? The routes evolve, for different generations different versions will be the definitive.
I'd still be in favour though, for Body Machine you could have Fawcett/ Various 1963-12.
I would argue that that's a different take on the use of the word "definitive".
Who gets to decide the current "popular" way of doing the route is the "definitive", when the original way still exists (OK, without a tree, so a little more climbing)?
I prefer the old (pre 2007) way, as do others, yet it isn't even described. This, I see as a liberty (especially on a route such as this), possibly borne of editorial policy not in keeping with a definitive guide. ?
And that's the question.
I thought the comments from A Jooser were particularly insightful:
"I should add that I appreciate the cost and work evolved in producing guidebooks (and the need for keeping them concise and user friendly); I only say this through concern that the worth and viability of definitives may be undermined as much by the choices of those producing them as by the popularity of alternatives."
By the way, just a thought, what about putting the bouldering in a separate guide? That's bound to happen sooner or later.