UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => chuffing => Topic started by: remus on October 20, 2021, 06:16:06 pm
-
Does anyone know which (if any) of Rich Simpson's claimed ascents actually happened? i.e. where there's a reliable witness or it's on film.
There's a list of some of the things he's claimed here https://www.8a.nu/user/richard-simpson/sportclimbing
-
I knew and climbed with Rich 15 years ago. Unfortunately, doubt is thrown on all his claims due to the controversy that took place. To my knowledge, there is no known uncut footage or reliable witnesses to any hard ascents. Please correct me if I am wrong. Of course this was in an era when video was less common than today.
-
Can we throw in a list for Gaskins too?
And, errr, Si Connor actually maybe not that won't be a very long list will it.
-
I'd love to interview Rich. I'm not all that interested in what he actually did, but I find it fascinating that someone who was clearly so strong bothered to lie so many times. Maybe one plausible lie opens the door? Obviously they got outrageous in the end, but many were quite believable to a casual observer, at least in terms of what he looked capable of.
Old magazine interviews with him are a good read, even more so given what happened later.
While I'm not interested in the did he/didn't he part, establishing what pedigree he can confirm with credible witnesses is of interest to me. He surely has some hard ascents that can be verified?
-
There were lots of witnesses to his board strength indoors, notably at the school. Outside everything seemed to have a cloud of smoke around it.
I’m not sure why you’d want to interview a pathological liar. Do you think he’d be truthful? He led a load of us a merry dance promising to reveal evidence if certain conditions were fulfilled, then moving goalposts (both for himself and when he publicly doubted Ben Heason). Of course nothing came of it.
-
There were lots of witnesses to his board strength indoors, notably at the school. Outside everything seemed to have a cloud of smoke around it.
I had to laugh once when someone from this parish suggested Rich was never all that strong anyway. I climbed with him plenty in the school and he was a total monster.
-
Based on exchanges with his belayer I think he did Liquid Ambar despite thinking he’s a cunt.
-
Rich has a history of lying that goes beyond climbing so it's clearly driven something quite underlying..
-
I’m not sure why you’d want to interview a pathological liar. Do you think he’d be truthful? He led a load of us a merry dance promising to reveal evidence if certain conditions were fulfilled, then moving goalposts (both for himself and when he publicly doubted Ben Heason). Of course nothing came of it.
Probably a similar sort of morbid fascination as all the recent programmes proporting to delve into the minds of serial killers. I do find it quite intriguing how extreme examples of narccissism develop, and how they can twist and turn almost anything to suit their narrative.
-
Based on exchanges with his belayer I think he did Liquid Ambar despite thinking he’s a cunt.
Who, Rich? Or his belayer (Dan)?
And it’s queynte. Some decorum please ::)
-
Can we have a quick "Things Rich Simpson Claimed He Did" summary? My only knowledge of Rich Simpson is seeing his name mentioned in old threads on here. What exactly are some of these outlandish claims that he made?
Based on exchanges with his belayer I think he did Liquid Ambar despite thinking he’s a cunt.
I'm guessing this one fell into the contentious bracket then
-
Can we have a quick "Things Rich Simpson Claimed He Did" summary?
Look no further than his 8a.nu scorecard linked to above
-
Rich Simpson - with a little help from Doylo - you cock ;D - just inspired me to try progressing to one finger levers on the fingerboard (well 2 + 1 first). Good go first, then just decked out fully with a horizontal slam onto bare boards.
It really hurt.
Sorry for the off topic.
Simpson is still an inspirational figure for some of us.
Good to ask the questions.
-
Can we have a quick "Things Rich Simpson Claimed He Did" summary?
Look no further than his 8a.nu scorecard linked to above
Completely missed that, cheers.
Maybe his biggest crime was claiming Hubble then only giving it 3 out of 5 stars. SteMac and Will beg to differ!
-
Simpson is still an inspirational figure for some of us.
There’s no doubt that his strength and training feats are inspirational.
Shark did you mean you think he’s a Next Tuesday or his belayer does?
-
Rich Simpson was the Velvet Underground of climbers - he didn't actually climb much, but everyone who saw him, trained really hard and became a beast!
Ed, have you seen Doylo's Perky Pinky? I suspect it's a large part of the legend that preceded the fall - 6 minutes of Rich Simpson crushing School Room problems. The last 30s alone, when he warms down with a load of one-armers off an old resin fingerboard, possibly accounts for a lot of the benefit of the doubt he initially had.
https://vimeo.com/5126177 (https://vimeo.com/5126177)
-
That’d be me. Tearing into Ben Heason whilst being a bullshitter himself
-
I only recall climbing outdoors with Rich twice. Once at the Plantation where he basically moaned about it being cold and didn't really pull on. Once at Long Tor Quarry, where he failed repeatedly to redpoint a 6c+. Inspirational stuff.
-
9 one armers will buy most cats the benefit of the doubt for a while.
The saddest thing about the whole shit show is he couldve been one of the best in the world if he'd chosen to
-
I only recall climbing outdoors with Rich twice. Once at the Plantation where he basically moaned about it being cold and didn't really pull on. Once at Long Tor Quarry, where he failed repeatedly to redpoint a 6c+. Inspirational stuff.
That's because unbeknownst to you, he was wearing a 20 kg weight vest, and ran 10k and did some sparring in a boxing gym earlier that day. I STILL BELIEVE!
-
He had shit technique. I'm not sure 9 one armers and shit technique is a solid foundation for being a best in the world class climber.
Also he was fundamentally uninterested in climbing, it was just a convenient ego vehicle. Again, not a good starting point for actual greatness.
-
The saddest thing about the whole shit show is he couldve been one of the best in the world if he'd chosen to
Just like Happy Gilmore. ;)
-
Can we have a quick "Things Rich Simpson Claimed He Did" summary? My only knowledge of Rich Simpson is seeing his name mentioned in old threads on here. What exactly are some of these outlandish claims that he made?
As Barrows said - he also claimed to have run a sub 4 minute mile and 2.5hr marathon. And be on the Olympic team for boxing or something.
-
Don’t forget soloing the Brandler Hasse
-
Rope soloing Brandler-Hasse in 1hr 37 min is an absolutely bonkers claim.
-
My one experience of climbing with RS was after he’d transformed himself into a self-proclaimed super-alpinist-in-waiting. I took him to a drytooling crag. He wasn’t great at it. He spent the day regaling me with stories of his boxing - apparently he would have been in the Olympic team for the London olympics, but at the last minute he got a shoulder injury. Tragic…
I let him talk and pretended to be if not impressed then at least interested. Told me how he kept in shape by knocking out one 8c per year despite having dropped sport climbing. How sport was all just all about power endurance (kinda true). Various other bollocks. He was clearly a pathological liar and a troubled mind. Bonjoy’s point that he was fundamentally uninterested in climbing rings very true, had never considered it like that before (the uninterested bit. Was obviously about ego).
What scares me is when I think about potential consequences if/when people with such profound honesty issues yet talent for pulling the wool become professionals with responsibilities beyond just themselves.
-
The country’s run by one.
-
The only conclusion one can really make about Rich's lack of hard outdoor ascents, is that all the problems on the school board are clearly soft. Just saying :whistle:
-
The country’s run by one.
;D
I think there's a question of who/why people find comfort in myth. That's as relevant, whether you've decided to position yourself on one side of the debate - or not.
I hope Remus was prepared for the response, and it doesn't hamper a more forensic assessment of things.
Good to hear the comments about Liquid Ambar.
I can imagine there was a lot more claimed that was closer to the truth than people want to accept.
I know the story around him self-tutoring his way into Cambridge was dismissed, though true. I remember him talking for a long time about having not run a sub-4 mile, before that claim was made.
Re the boxing, there were credible words of support about Rich's potential from Richie Woodhall, before a poor showing in the Varsity matchup. He was training at the Woodhall gym.
I think the remarks about Simpson being uninterested in climbing are really unfair. Driven, he certainly is, and there are many stars in many pursuits whose underlying insecurities (maybe) are more apparent then their love and enthusiasm for the activity itself.
I'd say the drive and the playfulness come from the same place in all of us. For a lot of us, the later exceeds the former, and we have an easier time of it.
Hopefully some facts can come out of this. Would be good.
-
Thanks for the knowledge everyone, much appreciated. For context I was adding some more detail to https://climbing-history.org/climber/470/richard-simpson and noticed his 8a.nu page had a lot of stuff claimed that I haven't seen widely discussed (e.g. lots of old school 8cs in france). Given how much he made up It feels like there would have to be solid proof which doesn't seem to exist, so a big question mark is inevitably gonna hang over them.
Dave, it does seem a little harsh to write off all his ascents based on a lack of evidence for his harder stuff (it is generally nice to give people the benefit of the doubt), but I think in the context of accurately trying to record what is most likely to have happened the burden of proof is now much higher than we'd typically apply because he's known to be a prolific fantasist.
Shark, this is a total stab in the dark, but you mentioned in one of the old threads that you had a facebook/email exchange with his LA + hubble belayer. I'd be really interested to see it if you still have it around somewhere!
-
I'm amazed that anyone can be inspired by someone who clearly lies about most things they open their mouth about. Whats there to be inspired about other than feats of strength which are fairly par for the course (among a particularly strong cohort obviously) these days surely? Why is he more inspiring than any of the people doing lock offs on instagram?
I'm sure Richie Woodhall was more than ready to big up whoever was paying to train at his gym...boxing is after all famous for being honest about boxers limitations! :lol:
-
Ed, have you seen Doylo's Perky Pinky? I suspect it's a large part of the legend that preceded the fall - 6 minutes of Rich Simpson crushing School Room problems. The last 30s alone, when he warms down with a load of one-armers off an old resin fingerboard, possibly accounts for a lot of the benefit of the doubt he initially had.
https://vimeo.com/5126177 (https://vimeo.com/5126177)
I hadn't - looks like a strong bloke. Although lots of choppy cuts mid problem doesn't fill me with confidence. Maybe these days we're blessed with lots of uncut footage but it's hard to confirm he actually got up any of those problems!
As Barrows said - he also claimed to have run a sub 4 minute mile and 2.5hr marathon. And be on the Olympic team for boxing or something.
The 2.5 hr marathon is kinda believable, if he was into his running and naturally very quick. Sub 4 mile is something else though
Rope soloing Brandler-Hasse in 1hr 37 min is an absolutely bonkers claim.
18 pitches in 1:37??? 5.5 mins to climb, strip and jug each pitch. No chance.
Seems like a troubled man to get into telling all these sorts of stories. I hope he's found a way to settle down from the lies and being happy with what he actually did, which is still no doubt impressive - I would love to be able to do those one armers, for example!
-
Ultimately, he now comes across as a pitiful figure. It could be argued that not many people suffered from his lies. I guess a few might have lost out on sponsorship opportunities but this was probably offset by a general raising of the profile of climbing. Whilst the claimed feats were top end, they were hardly ground-breaking - just ripples in climbing history. I can't deny I get a lot of pleasure in reading about the exposure of his outlandish claims, so in that respect I feel he has given me more than he has taken away...
... Gaskins' lies on the other hand appear to have had a profound and lasting effect.
-
I think there's a question of who/why people find comfort in myth. That's as relevant, whether you've decided to position yourself on one side of the debate - or not.
I hope Remus was prepared for the response, and it doesn't hamper a more forensic assessment of things.
Good to hear the comments about Liquid Ambar.
I can imagine there was a lot more claimed that was closer to the truth than people want to accept.
I know the story around him self-tutoring his way into Cambridge was dismissed, though true. I remember him talking for a long time about having not run a sub-4 mile, before that claim was made.
Re the boxing, there were credible words of support about Rich's potential from Richie Woodhall, before a poor showing in the Varsity matchup. He was training at the Woodhall gym.
I think the remarks about Simpson being uninterested in climbing are really unfair. Driven, he certainly is, and there are many stars in many pursuits whose underlying insecurities (maybe) are more apparent then their love and enthusiasm for the activity itself.
I'd say the drive and the playfulness come from the same place in all of us. For a lot of us, the later exceeds the former, and we have an easier time of it.
Hopefully some facts can come out of this. Would be good.
It's not an idle slur Dave, it's based on spending quite a bit of time with Rich. My now wife was very good friends with Rich's girlfriend of the time, and I had plenty of opportunity to discuss climbing with Rich as well as climb with him (most often indoors). He held the view (as expressed in Doylo's film) that technique is a myth and strength alone is enough to climb anything. This led him to claim various grit things which though superficially trivial in grade compared to all the sport stuff, he was preposterously incapable of climbing, or even understanding why he was unable to climb. He talked about climbing a lot but only in the context of how good he was, how easy it was, who he was better than etc. Never once would he enthuse about the actual climbs, except in the context of their historical important, which again was just a way of bigging up his own significance.
Like you say Dave...
I think there's a question of who/why people find comfort in myth.
The object of Rich's climbing was to gain admiration. To him it was irrelevant whether he climbed something or not. Climbing something unwitnessed for him would be a huge waste of effort, as he gained no more from it than he did from an empty claim. For this reason amongst others (including lots that isn't fit for a public climbing forum) my belief is that anything unwitnessed (i.e. everthing hard and most of the rest) is bogus.
-
The 2.5 hr marathon is kinda believable, if he was into his running and naturally very quick.
Yeh potentially. Although what surrounded the event is what makes it unbelievable, as it follows the same pattern as most (all?) of his hardest ascents - it had to become unverifiable. In this case it was supposed to have happened at the NY marathon, but you won't find his name recorded because he only got his place by someone unknown dropping out and giving him his number.
I hope he's found a way to settle down from the lies and being happy
Yeh me too.
-
Timely thread, as I was reading one of the old log pile RS threads a few days ago bored at work. I was wondering if any of the supposed footage would ever emerge, or any reconciliation with the climbing community after an apology over what were some outrageous claims and recoconition for any real accents restored. However separating the two would be rather complicated given the history. I think deep down I still want to believe some of the magazine articles with the inspirational shots were real. Not sure if the want to believe some were real still is for him, or for myself being in denial that nothing was true outside of being exceptional strong on a campus rung and those inspirational shots on AD were no more real than many childhood fantacies.
-
I think the remarks about Simpson being uninterested in climbing are really unfair.
:shrug: When I first started climbing all the Simpson interviews in mags and websites were just him saying how he wasn’t interested in climbing. It was a right buzzkill.
-
I thought he was good fun.
-
I thought he was a nasty piece of work.
-
Given what we now know for sure about his dishonesty (eg 4 minute mile) his final post on the UKC thread (that was deleted, but I’d copied it given sponsors of BH were phoning me up for my ‘opinion’) makes for interesting reading…
Having just returned home I have had a brief look through the majority of crap that has been written. I have however read bens reply and feel, along with what Ben asked, that it is better that I sort this out with Ben. I am not interested in supplying the people that read these forums with gossip, and things they can spend their days trying to criticise. The only post I have written on this forum is the first one. It neither states that Ben is a liar or that he is honest, it just asks for anyone who has witnessed Ben climbing impressive things to come forward. So far not one person has come forward to support Ben but that is neither here or their.
The point is everyone who is concerned within this matter will be contacted by me and will have the ability to contact me in person. Everyone else will have to just not know what has been going on until their is an agreed outcome by both Ben and myself. I have not set out to sabotage Ben in any way. I just want the truth, in fact as a person Ben is someone I like, but at the same time it’s hard to forget that I feel he is dishonest when speaking to him. I am not questioning Bens climbing ability; I am questioning the validity of some of his ascents. If he can prove I am wrong I will publically apologise via this forum and the mags. If he can’t prove I am wrong I will continue to feel that he is dishonest.
Reply how you like to, criticise how you want; you will not get another reply from me until this matter is sorted. The people that are owed a reply or are concerned will get one. The majority of the people that post on this forum are owed nothing from me.
If you have a problem with what I have done, or written. theirs no need to voice it on here, I will not read it and will not care. If you really feel I have done wrong, confront me next time you see me, I will be happy to answer questions from anyone who confronts me personally.
I understand that the majority of people that post on here are either bored at work or bored in life, but this is no reason to expect information you have not got anything to do with and know nothing about. In fact the amount of information that has been posted on this thread by people who haven’t the slightest clue in this topic is beyond me, surely in life if you are uniformed about things you say nothing? It’s obvious this is not the case with the majority of the posts on here.
Think what you want about me, I don’t care, anyone that knows me will know what im like, and to the rest it will just be assumptions.
I am not owed a living by anyone, and have no reason to tip toe around people, I don’t want a living from climbing so have no need to build either a good reputation with anyone I don’t want to.
I am not however stating I have no proof, I do, but this is between me and Ben and the other people involved, if you are involved, you have nothing to worry about, you will see the proof. If you don’t see the proof theirs a good chance its nothing to do with you anyway.
Thanks for reading this. Their should be no real reason for anyone to post again on this topic, fish as much as you want you wont get anything else. Like I said if you have a problem you know what to do.
-
Thanks. That’s tedious. Glad he didn’t get into Cam to read English. Accusing BH just seems like a smokescreen through whataboutery to me. Would love to read Grant F’s take on that.
-
I hadn't - looks like a strong bloke. Although lots of choppy cuts mid problem doesn't fill me with confidence. Maybe these days we're blessed with lots of uncut footage but it's hard to confirm he actually got up any of those problems!
Well you can rest easy with the majority of those (PP aside) plenty of people saw him get up the 'lesser' problems. I have a distinct memory of him having done Pumping Pistons... and asking me to have a go and finding the positions 'strenuous' shall we say. This was when I was going at my best ever on that specific board and whilst a few of the problems evaded me, the majority didn't; Rich was another level of strong by comparison. Anyone that disputes the above is plain mad IMO.
-
I sometimes boulder indoors with a chap who is a lot better than me on all kinds of problems in the gym. He is also stronger on training apparatuses. Last winter he tried to redpoint my regular warmup at a local crag, to no avail. I am not sure he did all the moves despite impeccable conditions. If I had not seen him climb outdoors and he'd told me that he had done a 9a I would not bat an eyelid.
-
I hadn't - looks like a strong bloke. Although lots of choppy cuts mid problem doesn't fill me with confidence. Maybe these days we're blessed with lots of uncut footage but it's hard to confirm he actually got up any of those problems!
Well you can rest easy with the majority of those (PP aside) plenty of people saw him get up the 'lesser' problems. I have a distinct memory of him having done Pumping Pistons... and asking me to have a go and finding the positions 'strenuous' shall we say. This was when I was going at my best ever on that specific board and whilst a few of the problems evaded me, the majority didn't; Rich was another level of strong by comparison. Anyone that disputes the above is plain mad IMO.
Doylo said in another thread that he didn't actually manage PP in that session, hence the spliced footage. But yeah given the amount of talk of him in the school room being a beast, I'd be pretty happy to accept that he was very strong.
Interesting to find out all this info now, from everyone else's retrospective views on it - having never known anything of him, I've got no reason to believe either side. But the evidence is certainly not in his favour IMO - overwhelming disbelief from a majority of people who comment on the matter, as well as some truly outrageous claims that seem borderline impossible. I keen for a reasonable amount of skepticism of ascents in general, and most of this stuff seems to be failing to pass that test.
Disappointing really, it'd be nicer if this kind of thing never happened. Maybe we're moving towards the point where this would be almost impossible, given how easy it is to film things/get in contact with belayers, witnesses. Having said that, the Said Belhaj stuff was only a couple years ago, so maybe not :-\
-
I'd hope if he could go back, he wouldn't do it again. Must be a stressful way to live.
I heard he's an osteopath now, but rumour so not sure if true
-
I sometimes boulder indoors with a chap who is a lot better than me on all kinds of problems in the gym. He is also stronger on training apparatuses. Last winter he tried to redpoint my regular warmup at a local crag, to no avail. I am not sure he did all the moves despite impeccable conditions. If I had not seen him climb outdoors and he'd told me that he had done a 9a I would not bat an eyelid.
That wasn't the point of my post though (which was a direct reply to someone).
-
What scares me is when I think about potential consequences if/when people with such profound honesty issues yet talent for pulling the wool become professionals with responsibilities beyond just themselves.
I hear he is now an osteopath............
-
From the sound of it he’s always been a something opath.
-
That wasn't the point of my post though (which was a direct reply to someone).
I did not post it as a reply to you, but more as a general point. The point I was trying to make was that we should perhaps not take strength on indoor climbing, or even worse strength on auxiliary exercises like deadhangs as supporting evidence for ability.
-
That wasn't the point of my post though (which was a direct reply to someone).
I did not post it as a reply to you, but more as a general point. The point I was trying to make was that we should perhaps not take strength on indoor climbing, or even worse strength on auxiliary exercises like deadhangs as supporting evidence for ability.
It's the sort of cautionary tail which should be well known to everyone when planning their own approach to climbing really; strength and power are not the be all and end all of success in climbing.
-
But f*ck me are they useful :lol:
If only I had a bit more of them both!
-
I'd say that they're more useful than people think. Ben Moon once said it was 65% fingers and 25% core and 10% everything else etc and that's fair enough but it's easy to say that when you can bang out one armers. I think that a lot of the time people who climb, and especially boulder, forget just how physically fucking hard it is.
-
It depends what you are doing to a great degree. If you are tradding, the ability to make good decisions and act on them quickly is more useful than power on most routes imo
-
I'm disappointed nibs hasn't posted up about power being the only truth in climbing or something.
-
I’ll step up.
Technique is no substitute for power.
-
I'd say that they're more useful than people think. Ben Moon once said it was 65% fingers and 25% core and 10% everything else etc and that's fair enough but it's easy to say that when you can bang out one armers. I think that a lot of the time people who climb, and especially boulder, forget just how physically fucking hard it is.
Says the man just doing his first 7As whilst posting fingerboard scores that would please many 8A boulderers ;)
-
I've never met Rich, and I don't care how strong he was or what he did or didn't do. What he tried to do to Heason was unforgivable. For that reason alone I'd rather we stopped talking about him, and just forgot him.
-
Feels like a life time ago now all that. What ever happened to that Scott lad and the Spanish witness? I used to re-read all those threads, while at work on the sly, like some sad voyeur. Is the age of the liar dead now? Any others about?
What’s the scene with the Hubble undercut being ‘improved’?
-
I've never met Rich, and I don't care how strong he was or what he did or didn't do. What he tried to do to Heason was unforgivable. For that reason alone I'd rather we stopped talking about him, and just forgot him.
That is a fair point
-
What’s the scene with the Hubble undercut being ‘improved’?
Never heard that before, not aware of any improvement. Where did you hear that?
-
Went to the Tor and Will Bosi was on it again for some reason. My mate said he was on it to check that specific hold after hearing a rumour. might be bullshit. Do some fishing between burns next time you’re down 8)
-
The 2.5 hr marathon is kinda believable, if he was into his running and naturally very quick.
Yeh potentially. Although what surrounded the event is what makes it unbelievable, as it follows the same pattern as most (all?) of his hardest ascents - it had to become unverifiable. In this case it was supposed to have happened at the NY marathon, but you won't find his name recorded because he only got his place by someone unknown dropping out and giving him his number.
I hope he's found a way to settle down from the lies and being happy
Yeh me too.
Long time arm chair viewer just getting back into climbing. A 2:30 marathon is hard. As in really good going like 5.40mm pace I don't think the NY marathon is a fast one either.
-
At the time, I asked the guy I shared the office with—who was a national level 10k runner—if an amateur could run a 4 min mile and a two-and-a-half hour marathon the same year. Even though all the best marathon runners have done a 4 min mile in their youth he was not sure there was enough time in a year to go from the former to the latter.
Still, a lot more believable to me than a sub four-hour rope solo of Hasse Brandler (not to speak of the preposterous time of 1h37min).
-
I'd say that they[strength and power]'re more useful than people think. Ben Moon once said it was 65% fingers and 25% core and 10% everything else
It's not an either or these days. The best climbers are extremely powerful and have immaculate technique. Long gone are the days when you could get away with sloppy technique and still rank among the best. You've only got to watch a bit of competition bouldering to see that all the top competitors are strong AF but it's more often than not technical superiority that get the medals. Even taking that quote about percentages seriously, I reckon it's the hardest 10% to maximise and the one with the greatest marginal returns in some climbing disciplines.
-
Given what we now know for sure about his dishonesty (eg 4 minute mile) his final post on the UKC thread (that was deleted, but I’d copied it given sponsors of BH were phoning me up for my ‘opinion’) makes for interesting reading…
Having just returned home I have had a brief look through the majority of crap that has been written. I have however read bens reply and feel, along with what Ben asked, that it is better that I sort this out with Ben. I am not interested in supplying the people that read these forums with gossip, and things they can spend their days trying to criticise. The only post I have written on this forum is the first one. It neither states that Ben is a liar or that he is honest, it just asks for anyone who has witnessed Ben climbing impressive things to come forward. So far not one person has come forward to support Ben but that is neither here or their.
The point is everyone who is concerned within this matter will be contacted by me and will have the ability to contact me in person. Everyone else will have to just not know what has been going on until their is an agreed outcome by both Ben and myself. I have not set out to sabotage Ben in any way. I just want the truth, in fact as a person Ben is someone I like, but at the same time it’s hard to forget that I feel he is dishonest when speaking to him. I am not questioning Bens climbing ability; I am questioning the validity of some of his ascents. If he can prove I am wrong I will publically apologise via this forum and the mags. If he can’t prove I am wrong I will continue to feel that he is dishonest.
Reply how you like to, criticise how you want; you will not get another reply from me until this matter is sorted. The people that are owed a reply or are concerned will get one. The majority of the people that post on this forum are owed nothing from me.
If you have a problem with what I have done, or written. theirs no need to voice it on here, I will not read it and will not care. If you really feel I have done wrong, confront me next time you see me, I will be happy to answer questions from anyone who confronts me personally.
I understand that the majority of people that post on here are either bored at work or bored in life, but this is no reason to expect information you have not got anything to do with and know nothing about. In fact the amount of information that has been posted on this thread by people who haven’t the slightest clue in this topic is beyond me, surely in life if you are uniformed about things you say nothing? It’s obvious this is not the case with the majority of the posts on here.
Think what you want about me, I don’t care, anyone that knows me will know what im like, and to the rest it will just be assumptions.
I am not owed a living by anyone, and have no reason to tip toe around people, I don’t want a living from climbing so have no need to build either a good reputation with anyone I don’t want to.
I am not however stating I have no proof, I do, but this is between me and Ben and the other people involved, if you are involved, you have nothing to worry about, you will see the proof. If you don’t see the proof theirs a good chance its nothing to do with you anyway.
Thanks for reading this. Their should be no real reason for anyone to post again on this topic, fish as much as you want you wont get anything else. Like I said if you have a problem you know what to do.
Reading this again I wonder what Ben Heason did to upset, offend or wound him. Classic Narcissistic personality disorder. Cross or challenge me and you will pay for it.
-
Reading this again I wonder what Ben Heason did to upset, offend or wound him. Classic Narcissistic personality disorder. Cross or challenge me and you will pay for it.
I’m dredging the memory bank a bit here so could be wrong on some details but IIRC Ben was on the Frankenjura trip and called bullshit on his Action Directe ‘ascent’ so it was a case of attack is the best form of defence.
-
Went to the Tor and Will Bosi was on it again for some reason. My mate said he was on it to check that specific hold after hearing a rumour. might be bullshit. Do some fishing between burns next time you’re down 8)
Top quality gossip this. I want more!
-
Reading this again I wonder what Ben Heason did to upset, offend or wound him. Classic Narcissistic personality disorder. Cross or challenge me and you will pay for it.
[/quote]
Pure speculation but around the time he attacked Ben rumors were starting to circulate about the validity of some of RS claims. There were also a few rumors about Ben that had been circulating.
In both cases they basically amounted to yeah I know he's a good climber and done a,b,c but nobody ever saw him do x,y,z.
In RS case there was some stuff not widely circulated that seemed to have teeth. I always presumed his attack on Ben was an attempt to suck all the oxygen from the room and stop the rumors about him getting any traction. A classic Trump "but what about Hilary's emails" kind of move.
-
I'd say that they[strength and power]'re more useful than people think. Ben Moon once said it was 65% fingers and 25% core and 10% everything else
It's not an either or these days. The best climbers are extremely powerful and have immaculate technique. Long gone are the days when you could get away with sloppy technique and still rank among the best. You've only got to watch a bit of competition bouldering to see that all the top competitors are strong AF but it's more often than not technical superiority that get the medals. Even taking that quote about percentages seriously, I reckon it's the hardest 10% to maximise and the one with the greatest marginal returns in some climbing disciplines.
Anyone who is unsure how much correct climbing movement matters could do worse than checking Master of Stone II on youtube, and see for themselves how really strong climbers could struggle on 8as.
-
What scares me is when I think about potential consequences if/when people with such profound honesty issues yet talent for pulling the wool become professionals with responsibilities beyond just themselves.
I recall a mature student from my life training healthcare professionals who told wild stories from his previous careers that were almost certainly complete fabrications. They came worryingly close to qualifying but their final dissertation was entirely plagiarised and they never finished their degree or became an xxxxxx to my great relief.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
I don’t think he lied about having cancer.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
I don’t think he lied about having cancer.
Oops sorry, I got that wrong, my disappointment was about him lying about having doped when all that came out and he got stripped of his titles. I got mixed up with somebody else who had lied about having cancer.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
Maybe it's because I'm a fan of Olympic Weightlifting but I don't see taking PEDs as being the same as a Simpson-esque lie. At the end of the day he did win those races (and its not like his competitors weren't on drugs either, they absolutely were, they just never got caught or did and it wasn't newsworthy). Sure he cheated but like, Ilya Ilyin was clearly on drugs when he won the weightlifting gold, and I don’t really give a shit.
-
Good lies are undervalued. Whatever else, Simpson's fabrications were pretty imaginative - not limited to one facet of climbing of even just climbing.
My favourite lie is that Belgians don't wear trousers when driving. Told with a straight face it is remarkably plausible.
The really boring lies are the mundane lies, for instance if someone was repointing a route for ages and got really, really close, so might as well just say they got it.
When good lies become bad is the collateral damage when they try to protect them e.g. Simpson with BH and Armstrong with Emma O'Reilly and lots of others.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
Maybe it's because I'm a fan of Olympic Weightlifting but I don't see taking PEDs as being the same as a Simpson-esque lie. At the end of the day he did win those races (and its not like his competitors weren't on drugs either, they absolutely were, they just never got caught or did and it wasn't newsworthy). Sure he cheated but like, Ilya Ilyin was clearly on drugs when he won the weightlifting gold, and I don’t really give a shit.
Not arguing your point Wellsy, but by many accounts Lance was also a colossal prick (see his behaviour with regards to Greg Lemond) so there's plenty of other good reasons to be disappointed in him.
-
I don’t think he lied about having cancer.
That's true. He certainly used it as a means to deflect criticism and garner support from his fans and sponsors whenever he needed to bully the disbelievers and shut them up though. He really was a nasty piece of work and made a lot of people's lives a misery in order to save himself.
-
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
Maybe it's because I'm a fan of Olympic Weightlifting but I don't see taking PEDs as being the same as a Simpson-esque lie. At the end of the day he did win those races (and its not like his competitors weren't on drugs either, they absolutely were, they just never got caught or did and it wasn't newsworthy). Sure he cheated but like, Ilya Ilyin was clearly on drugs when he won the weightlifting gold, and I don’t really give a shit.
Not arguing your point Wellsy, but by many accounts Lance was also a colossal prick (see his behaviour with regards to Greg Lemond) so there's plenty of other good reasons to be disappointed in him.
For sure, and he also did cheat and get rightfully stripped of his wins etc. But if Simpson had done those problems/routes but was just on a lot of gear I think that the discussion would be different.
That said yeah fuck Lance Armstrong he was a dick
-
Rope soloing Brandler-Hasse in 1hr 37 min is an absolutely bonkers claim.
To be fair (!) he said he free soloed most of it and just back-roped the cruxes with the rope loop method, leaving a carabiner at the belay. It at least showed he’d read up on Alpine soloing strategies.
Lance Armstrong lied about taking drugs and having cancer so it just shows how lying is out there is professional sport. I remember in the 90's looking up to him as an inspirational figure but after all that came out feeling really let down and disappointed.
Cycling is made for Simpson isn’t it? I bet he has an e-bike and is logging incredible times on Strava.
-
Lance Armstrong.
Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.
Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.
-
Lance Armstrong.
Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.
Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.
Can't agree with you on this one. He was a very good cyclist before he had testicular cancer, but so were many others.
After he recovered from his chemo, he became the main protagonist in one of the most professional doping regimens seen in sport. I don't see how that makes him an incredible cyclist ....
Inspirational? Perhaps someone like Bethany Armstrong who won the national surfing championship after losing an arm to a shark for sure...not Armstrong
-
I find drawing the line between all the drugs he took to not die of cancer (apparently perfectly acceptable) and all the drugs he took to win at cycling (apparently unacceptable) really hard.
His performance after all, was much improved by not being dead and that was due to a shit tonne of drugs.
This seems a common feature with a lot of modern doping in sport (tennis) where people have doctors prescribing them drugs for medical problems. Whilst the medical problems may not exist, the uplift from the drugs certainly does.
-
I find drawing the line between all the drugs he took to not die of cancer (apparently perfectly acceptable) and all the drugs he took to win at cycling (apparently unacceptable) really hard.
His performance after all, was much improved by not being dead and that was due to a shit tonne of drugs.
This seems a common feature with a lot of modern doping in sport (tennis) where people have doctors prescribing them drugs for medical problems. Whilst the medical problems may not exist, the uplift from the drugs certainly does.
His improvement didn't come from his oncology treatment. It came from dedicated doping after he returned to the sport.
-
Lance Armstrong.
Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.
Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.
Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.
Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.
-
His improvement didn't come from his oncology treatment. It came from dedicated doping after he returned to the sport.
You can't tell me that "not having died of cancer" had no performance enhancing effect.
How many dead cyclists (at the time of winning) have won the tour?
-
Lance Armstrong.
Was he a cheat? Yes.
Was he a nasty piece of work? Yes.
Did he achieve some of the greatest sporting feats of his era in the face of fearsome medical problems? Yes.
Regardless of his other very significant shortcomings you can't just ignore what an incredible cyclist he was. I can see how that on its own would be inspirational to some people.
Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.
Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.
Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.
Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly. He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.
-
Anyone who is unsure how much correct climbing movement matters could do worse than checking Master of Stone II on youtube, and see for themselves how really strong climbers could struggle on 8as.
Well, that's my slap bass and jazz/rock fusion needs for the week fulfilled.
What's interesting about this is that surely this was the era in which top climbers climbed on real rock for a hugr proportion of their time? Some climbing walls but basic compared to now. If they were on the crag every day how come their movement skills were so shonky?
-
I've never really followed the Armstrong saga in much detail, but if he had testicular cancer, surely a prescription for testosterone and a TUE would be completely reasonable after that? (assuming damaged / removed testes). Obviously the TUE wouldn't extend to supraphysiological levels of it, or EPO...
-
Anyway.
Was RS on performance enhancing drugs in order to not actually climb routes.
If your special skill is making shit up presumably any drug that stimulates the imagination is performance enhancing.
-
Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.
Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.
Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.
Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?
Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.
That's exactly how it was though.
He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.
Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?
Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.
-
For anyone vaguely interested who hasn’t seen it, I thought the 2 part BBC thing on Armstrong did a great job at looking at his impact both good and bad, and there’s also a lot of face to face stuff so you get an idea of his character
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08qzcqr
-
Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.
Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.
Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.
Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?
Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.
That's exactly how it was though.
He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.
Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?
Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.
I'm just saying it's not like Armstrong sat around twiddling his thumbs. He was genetically talented (for taking drugs and cycling) and he took drugs AND he trained really hard. As hard as Lemond or anyone else did.
His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's I.e not really but still mega relevant, as were Lemond's, or Ondra's, or Aiden's. He had the right stuff from day 1.
-
Greg Lemond was an incredible cyclist.
Lance Armstrong's gifts were determination and genetics that allowed him to take more drugs than others before breaching the primitive anti-doping thresholds of the time. Pre and post cancer he used drugs to turn himself from a mule into a racehorse, that doesn't make him an incredible cyclist in my view.
Greg Lemond was also an incredibly genetically talented cyclist. If you are a professional athlete you are genetically talented. 99% of people could not do what Greg Lemond did with all the training in the world. Lemond was genetically fortunate and trained hard.
Well yes, that's obvious and what we expect from elite athletes right?
Plus, this idea that Lance Armstrong was just talented and took drugs is silly.
That's exactly how it was though.
He also trained incredibly hard. If he hadn't taken drugs he would also have done things that 99% of the population couldn't do even if they'd have trained forever. Genetics matter. Elite sport is not egalitarian.
Hence my point about his determination, and I don't disagree that he wouldn't still have made a mark, but when the genetics are favourable to drug taking that's not something worth praising now we know what was happening surely?
Also, we're now way off topic but maybe it's good there's less chat about RS anyway.
I'm just saying it's not like Armstrong sat around twiddling his thumbs. He was genetically talented (for taking drugs and cycling) and he took drugs AND he trained really hard. As hard as Lemond or anyone else did.
His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's I.e not really but still mega relevant, as were Lemond's, or Ondra's, or Aiden's. He had the right stuff from day 1.
I think the point is that they all worked really hard. We praise good genetics when that means natural ability or a good response to training. We don't know how good Lance's response to training alone was (relative to his competitors), we only know how good his response to drugs and training was. I assume some people get a better response to the drugs than others, so he may or may not have been the hardest worker or most naturally gifted sans drugs.
-
You'd absolutely be right there, yeah. Some people's bodies fucking love drugs, others really don't. I guess I don't really praise any genetics; they are what they are, and then you go and try to do something with them, but also I guess every time you're impressed by a pro you're on some level impressed by genetic capabilities.
-
His genetics are as praiseworthy as anyone's
When it come to drug taking in a 'clean' sporting context they really aren't.
He absolutely did work hard, and I was a fan while it was all happening until it slowly dawned on me what was really going on. That legacy is not something to be celebrated.
For anyone vaguely interested who hasn’t seen it, I thought the 2 part BBC thing on Armstrong did a great job at looking at his impact both good and bad, and there’s also a lot of face to face stuff so you get an idea of his character
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08qzcqr
Nice one for linking, genuinely interesting program.
So hard to take what you see at face value when you know how good they've been at lying, deflecting and presenting the face they want to be seen in the past. He's a complex character.
-
Do many of these comments not hinge on the rest of the peloton being clean? Which it most likely wasn't. Armstrong might have been a better cheat than everyone else, but he certainly wasn't the only one at it. I don't think you can take his achievements out of that context.
-
But that’s also the point, isn’t it? Highly successful drug users force clean athletes into an impossible bind: compete at a disadvantage and almost certainly fail, or play dirty.
It robs people of the career they should have had, potentially(given the dangers of drug use) the long term health they should have had, and the public the fair competition they should have enjoyed.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in any way, that is praiseworthy about that.
-
Going back to the original topic, Gonzalo says hi.
-
But that’s also the point, isn’t it? Highly successful drug users force clean athletes into an impossible bind: compete at a disadvantage and almost certainly fail, or play dirty.
Textbook prisoners dilemma I would say. Unless drug use is strictly policed the rational athlete will have to assume that everyone else is using drugs.
Anyone who is laissez-faire about performance enhancing drugs should watch Secrets of the Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR9CUGBVH-Q
-
I don’t have anything to add regarding RS, but it reminds me one episode in my formative years.
I started climbing at school, we had one of those DR walls: rocks cemented into blocks in the wall and a pocketed concrete overhang. There was also the Nottingham wall, which was a more modern affair. After a couple of years I was getting reasonably proficient at this climbing thing. A new guy joined the school in my year, a strong climber apparently. He’d sometimes come and hang out at the DR wall and shoot the breeze on climbing – or rather, regale us with big talk about the things he’d done down at the Nottingham wall. He was getting a bit of a reputation for tall tales in other areas of school life, but I didn’t have any reason to disbelieve his climbing claims, after all he’d never actually pulled on to demonstrate his abilities to us. Tired from one of his cellar sessions at the wall, I suppose.
Yes, the cellar in the Nottingham wall was where the real connoisseurs dwelled. A basic steep board down in the dark, dusty bowels of the building. The kind of board with holds fashioned from bits of old chair leg, all varnished, pulley-busting globules. Climbing to the top of the thing by any means was desperate. Amongst the problems recorded in the cellar’s crinkly notepad, one stood out that was given the barely imaginable grade of English 7a. The physics of it looked impossible. But our new school colleague had repeated it – amazing! In fact, he bragged, it had only had two ascents: one by him and one by his mate – I shit you not – Si O’Connor.
-
There is an addendum to this anecdote. One of the other claims this chap made to burnish his hard-man reputation was that he was a drug dealer and could get us various substances. We could all see this for the bluster it was of course. Until, that is, the police turned up, broke into his locker and recovered various substances. At which point he was expelled. So maybe it was all true?
-
I don’t have anything to add regarding RS, but it reminds me one episode in my formative years.
I started climbing at school, we had one of those DR walls: rocks cemented into blocks in the wall and a pocketed concrete overhang. There was also the Nottingham wall, which was a more modern affair. After a couple of years I was getting reasonably proficient at this climbing thing. A new guy joined the school in my year, a strong climber apparently. He’d sometimes come and hang out at the DR wall and shoot the breeze on climbing – or rather, regale us with big talk about the things he’d done down at the Nottingham wall. He was getting a bit of a reputation for tall tales in other areas of school life, but I didn’t have any reason to disbelieve his climbing claims, after all he’d never actually pulled on to demonstrate his abilities to us. Tired from one of his cellar sessions at the wall, I suppose.
Yes, the cellar in the Nottingham wall was where the real connoisseurs dwelled. A basic steep board down in the dark, dusty bowels of the building. The kind of board with holds fashioned from bits of old chair leg, all varnished, pulley-busting globules. Climbing to the top of the thing by any means was desperate. Amongst the problems recorded in the cellar’s crinkly notepad, one stood out that was given the barely imaginable grade of English 7a. The physics of it looked impossible. But our new school colleague had repeated it – amazing! In fact, he bragged, it had only had two ascents: one by him and one by his mate – I shit you not – Si O’Connor.
I'm tearing up. Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
-
Going back to the off thread bit. Armstrong was using PED’s before he got cancer. He first admitted using to one of the doctors treating him. There is also an incident pre cancer where he buys off a European rider in order to win a three race series with I think a million dollar prize fund.
Pre cancer he was a good one day rider but not very good at stage racing even with drugs. Post cancer he stepped up the drug programme to something even the Russians would have been envious of.
-
There is an addendum to this anecdote. One of the other claims this chap made to burnish his hard-man reputation was that he was a drug dealer and could get us various substances. We could all see this for the bluster it was of course. Until, that is, the police turned up, broke into his locker and recovered various substances. At which point he was expelled. So maybe it was all true?
finding that they were all performance enhancing drugs would complete this nicely
-
Going back to the off thread bit. Armstrong was using PED’s before he got cancer. He first admitted using to one of the doctors treating him. There is also an incident pre cancer where he buys off a European rider in order to win a three race series with I think a million dollar prize fund.
Pre cancer he was a good one day rider but not very good at stage racing even with drugs. Post cancer he stepped up the drug programme to something even the Russians would have been envious of.
From one of the documentaries on him I gained the impression that a common side-effect of one of the PEDs he was taking was testicular cancer.
-
Anyone who is laissez-faire about performance enhancing drugs should watch Secrets of the Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR9CUGBVH-Q
Seeing the harm caused to the athletes by drugs is upsetting viewing, frankly. Like you say, anyone who is blasé about the impact drug use has should rethink. It’s horrible.
-
I don’t remember much about it all now (prob due to a bang on the head in Ogwen a few years ago) but on the subject of bikes I remember Simmo launching one at Dense in the school. Don’t think it was Lance’s though.
-
even though i'd rather be reading about what RS or other shady climbers did or did not climb, i just have to comment on the lance armstrong bashing.
he was the best at cycling in the tour the france and doping in that era, and it is hard to disconnect the two.
if anyone was cheering for any elite/top 10 cyclist back then, you were probably cheering for a doper.
in some of the tours he won you have to go back to number 15 or something like that to find the first person who has not been caught/implicated.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/12/31/cycling-in-the-epo-era-65-per-cent-dirty-and-probably-more-311201/
-
Reading this again I wonder what Ben Heason did to upset, offend or wound him.
I’m dredging the memory bank a bit here so could be wrong on some details but IIRC Ben was on the Frankenjura trip and called bullshit on his Action Directe ‘ascent’ so it was a case of attack is the best form of defence.
Back on topic it turns out my memory bank is as faulty as I thought, and half of this recollection is wrong. BH and RS were in Frank at the same time but Ben never confronted him or accused RS of bullshitting. Simpson just went rogue by the sound of it - most likely to deflect from the doubts that were swirling around him.
-
Whether Lance was the best is impossible to prove. However what he was the best at was cheating which I guess makes the connection with Richie Simpson but whether RS was a good a cheat is debatable. Given Lance made millions out his lies.
-
Why are we still on talking about lance Armstrong on a thread titled "Things Rich Simpson Actually Did" ?
I'll mirror kingys comments about being disappointed with the whole affair really. I think when I was younger and watched the likes of the real thing and then Simpsons stuff, I just thought I'd climb on a board and get well good. I climbed on a board a lot, but rather than well good I ended up thoroughly broken.
I would still like to know if he actually did anything he'd claimed however. I recall him writing about a hard first ascent in spain where he only did it because some local wizard shouted beta up to him from the ground, does that ring any bells?
-
That might have been Keith Sharples who spotted him from
the ground doing something obviously whack when he was dogging A Muerte.
-
I love this story - if climbing was more like cycling or football then there'd be a Hollywood film about RS, starring Barry Keoghan as RS and Cillian Murphy as Doylo.
Re cycling - there was an amateur RS in California: https://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/who-is-thorfinn-sassquatch-the-mysterious-case-of-a-los-angeles-strava-legend/ (https://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/who-is-thorfinn-sassquatch-the-mysterious-case-of-a-los-angeles-strava-legend/)
-
What happened to the guy in the article Yoss?
One of my mates was going out with Emma O’Reilly (the whistleblower) for a couple of years recently. It was interesting talking to her about Lance and the years she spent working with him.
-
He runs a very high-end made to measure cycling clothing company in LA - https://brandt-sorenson.com/pages/about-us (https://brandt-sorenson.com/pages/about-us)
I'm not sure what happened re the potential sentence / fine / jail, etc.
I'd be interested to hear about any decent pop psychology books about bullshit artists. I've known a number of varying degrees of ability and ambition. In the words of Janey Katz vs Alan Partridge, RS is clinically fascinating. It's the assuredness and the sense of entitlement. As someone said further back in the thread, doing a load of one armers is the climbing equivalent of Anna Sorokin's Hermes Birkin which convinced everyone that she was actually worth $60million and in the process of opening a private art museum, as opposed to being a grubby con artist.
-
I'll mirror kingys comments about being disappointed with the whole affair really. I think when I was younger and watched the likes of the real thing and then Simpsons stuff, I just thought I'd climb on a board and get well good. I climbed on a board a lot, but rather than well good I ended up thoroughly broken.
Where I lived before there was a complete mythomaniac climbing. He managed to convince some beginners that he was the man, a lot better than anyone else in the area, and that they should train with him using his frankly insane training methods. A lot of wasted time and effort for anyone involved. I tried to intervene one time when they did something that was unusually risky, because I was young and did not know better.
He also sold a 55 m rope to his girlfriend (!) claiming it was 60 m. She got stranded on a rappel when she did not reach down to the next belay station.
There are still some active climbers who are widely believed to be making up ascents. Among them an 8c+ climber with delusions of having done multiple 9bs. (A good sanity check is if the ascent was mentioned in Grimper Magazine or not... If there is an international level ascent mentioned elsewhere but not mentioned in Grimper it is usually because there are rumours swirling around)
-
Is that a reference to the younger Zehani (sp?)
-
Thanks Yoss.
Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder). I’m not a big fan of DSM diagnosis but this type of behaviour falls in and around Narcissism.
-
Anyone who is laissez-faire about performance enhancing drugs should watch Secrets of the Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR9CUGBVH-Q
Seeing the harm caused to the athletes by drugs is upsetting viewing, frankly. Like you say, anyone who is blasé about the impact drug use has should rethink. It’s horrible.
Some of the anecdotes from the EPO heyday are bananas. There were some in the (amazing) Marco Pantani film where riders would set alarms for the middle of the night and wake up to cycle on a turbo trainer to stop themselves having a heart attack. What a life...
Tom de Gay thank you for the Notts Wall hilarious anecdote. I loved that wall when I was growing up and the cellar there was something I never ventured down to. Someone told me a guy lived down there for a week eating nothing but Power Bars. Looking back it could well have been Si O'Connor!!!
-
IIRc the trigger for rich simpsons beef with ben h was about some wild country sponsorship; RS discovered that ben was on a better deal than RS and then up and coming james Pearson.
RS was outraged because he thought nothing Ben had done was hard, then he discovered the faint whiff of doubt about a couple of Bens ascents, (TBH I don't think there was doubt it was more that there were no witnesses), then Rich went for it in the whataboutery style. He obviously didn't understand any of the soft skills involved in representing a brand.
I've always been intrigued by the Simpson story, I guess in the same way I don't understand most human phenomenon. To just lie to people, and for what.
And also because no stranger to the alter of power Keith told me, years later, something along the lines of paraphrasing
Ive climbed and trained with Tyler and Mickey, I've seen euro wads and etc; no one is as strong as Rich on a board.
So why did he lie? I ask
Keith shrugs. I don't know.
This is the strangest part for me, was he impatient? What? Bonjoy has said the most illuminating things here, obviously RS was a troubled chap, searching for something through which climbing was a conduit. And where is he now, a lot older. Perhaps he's had therapy and improved as a human.
-
Anyone know where he is nowadays?
-
Being strong at basic power problems and being good at rock climbing are not quite the same thing. Reading this thread it’s hard not to wonder if RS found that deeply frustrating to the point of being prepared to rationalise failure.
It’s much easier (and more certain) to just lie than get better, after all.
-
Ive climbed and trained with Tyler and Mickey, I've seen euro wads and etc; no one is as strong as Rich on a board.
So why did he lie? I ask
Keith shrugs. I don't know.
This is the strangest part for me, was he impatient? What? Bonjoy has said the most illuminating things here, obviously RS was a troubled chap, searching for something through which climbing was a conduit. And where is he now, a lot older. Perhaps he's had therapy and improved as a human.
Perhaps he knew that where it really matter, on the rock, he was a wannabe? Maybe deep down he realised he didn't have the skills, or the motivation to actually become world class. (or not in the timeframe he wanted?)
-
Being strong at basic power problems and being good at rock climbing are not quite the same thing.
To go back to the original question of this thread, I find it really difficult to understand how someome who was so strong on a board didn't manage to get up something on rock. Surely he managed something or other of even moderate difficulty? Anyone?
Board strength does transfer to rock after all, it's just not the only factor. Unless he just never actually went rock climbing, which I suppose would be believable.
-
I think you are going to have to be really, really strong to get up something like Action Directe with mediocre technique.
-
Should have done a couple of Dawes slab-hopping masterclasses :yes:
-
[
To go back to the original question of this thread, I find it really difficult to understand how someome who was so strong on a board didn't manage to get up something on rock. Surely he managed something or other of even moderate difficulty? Anyone?
The frustrating thing is that he probably did a lot of the hard stuff what he said he did, i.e. Liquid Ambar, A Muerte, even Action Directe for all we know. However, credibility counts for a lot and in the absence of proof or witnesses vouching for ascents and in light of the controversy, we may never know. Granted a few bits have come to light in this thread re Liquid Ambar in regards to email exchanges with his belayer but they are nothing substantially new or game changing as far as I can see.
-
I'm a bit surprised this is still being discussed but I guess there remains so much mystery. This post won't help resolve any of it.
I climbed with Rich quite a bit. Indoors at the school, at his home board, my home board, etc etc. I've also been lucky to climb with a number of other strong climbers, although never with anyone from the new breed of superwad. I can honestly say that Rich was a level above anything I'd ever seen on a board. I can't remember exactly which problems he did or didn't do on which board, but I do remember his level. I do remember being on perky pinky with him and I can remember him not being able to do it in a oner but he could piss the moves. I hear this is pissed all over these days by the young superwads but it's still an ok benchmark relative to everyone else who was climbing in Sheffield at the time.
I also climbed with Rich outdoors. In fact, I was with him for most that fateful trip in Frankenjura where we wrote off a car, he littered his jizz tissues all over my bed, and he probably didn't do Action Direct. I belayed him on lots of different routes. I did see him warm up on 8b routes (as in, actually doing them). I belayed him on some 9a's which he later claimed although I didn't see him do them. One of those was action direct. I belayed Rich for several sessions on Action Direct. I remember how bad conditions were some days with holds turning black instantly. I remember some days he was really struggling on the route and couldn't do the moves. Other days he would link sections consistently. I also saw him climb from just after the first jump to the top. That's when I realised Rich could definitely do it and it was a case of conditions and a good go. But then I left to go the UK for a week of exams and when I came back he'd ticked off a bunch of stuff... including Action Direct.
From experience, I know the gap between climbing from one move in to the full ascent can be massive, sometimes it's infinite. Most people have experienced that to some extent. I don't know the truth of the Rich situation, or his ascents, but he was a very strong climber, both indoors and on rock. I also think he was probably a bit troubled due to a bunch of personal/family reasons and I don't think they should be discussed publicly (and I don't know about them either but speak as an observer).
It's a shame that anyone should feel the need to lie but ultimately lying about climbing a piece of rock is pretty low impact. It's nothing compared to Lance Armstrong and even that is basically nothing compared to someone like Trump/Bolsonaro/Jong-Un etc where the lies are genuinely costing lives.
-
Ted - What makes you say probably re A Muerte and AD? Belayers/witnesses were never identified let alone came forward. You seem to be assigning equal probability to his claim for Liquid Ambar with the other two. Given a belayer was happy to respond to my messages and corroborated the Liquid Ambar (and Hubble) ascents the likelihood he redpointed those is substantially higher. I’d say the other two were improbable by comparison.
-
Ted - What makes you say probably re A Muerte and AD? Belayers/witnesses were never identified let alone came forward. You seem to be assigning equal probability to his claim for Liquid Ambar with the other two. Given a belayer was happy to respond to my messages and corroborated the Liquid Ambar (and Hubble) ascents the likelihood he redpointed those is substantially higher. I’d say the other two were improbable by comparison.
Nothing other than that he was prepared to say he did them and was operating at a level where people at the time were prepared to believe him. I know nothing more than anybody else does
-
I think you are going to have to be really, really strong to get up something like Action Directe with mediocre technique.
Well I'm almost not interested in the AD claim. The whole point of the thread was things which others can verify he actually did, and I would include slightly easier things than AD. Uncle's mention of witnessing him warming up on 8bs is a perfect example. At that point in time that's a pretty high level no?
I was also struck by Bonjoy's mention of seeing him struggle on a 6b or something. For someone as clearly strong as he was on a board, the idea he would find something that easy anything other than a path just doesn't make sense to me!
-
Uncle's mention of witnessing him warming up on 8bs is a perfect example. At that point in time that's a pretty high level no?
No. Ben and Jerry were warming up on 8bs in 1990.
-
What grade someone "warms up on" is not, and never will be, a measure of how good someone is. It's total ego driven bollox and is merely an indication of what grade they are willing to do as their first route of the day. Presumably in full view of lots of people.
-
I also climbed with Rich outdoors. In fact, I was with him for most that fateful trip in Frankenjura where we wrote off a car, he littered his jizz tissues all over my bed, and he probably didn't do Action Direct. I belayed him on lots of different routes. I did see him warm up on 8b routes (as in, actually doing them). I belayed him on some 9a's which he later claimed although I didn't see him do them. One of those was action direct. I belayed Rich for several sessions on Action Direct. I remember how bad conditions were some days with holds turning black instantly. I remember some days he was really struggling on the route and couldn't do the moves. Other days he would link sections consistently. I also saw him climb from just after the first jump to the top. That's when I realised Rich could definitely do it and it was a case of conditions and a good go. But then I left to go the UK for a week of exams and when I came back he'd ticked off a bunch of stuff... including Action Direct.
Thanks for that Uncle, exactly the sort of thing I was hoping might come up when I started the thread (maybe not the jizz tissues bit though).
Uncle's mention of witnessing him warming up on 8bs is a perfect example. At that point in time that's a pretty high level no?
No. Ben and Jerry were warming up on 8bs in 1990.
I think it's kinda harsh to suggest warming up on 8bs in Frankenjura isn't "high level", maybe not world class but I bet there wasn't many people in the UK performing at that level at that time (Steve Mc, Malc, Dunning, Ben Moon...probably missing a few but it's a pretty select group). I was hoping to eek out some harder stuff that unequivocally happened and this is a decent example.
What grade someone "warms up on" is not, and never will be, a measure of how good someone is. It's total ego driven bollox and is merely an indication of what grade they are willing to do as their first route of the day. Presumably in full view of lots of people.
For me whether it was really a warm up kinda misses the point. The impression I get from Uncle's post is that he did some 8bs in the Jura and made them look piss. Obviously not evidence that he actually did any of the harder stuff, but it's a starting point for establishing what he's actually done.
-
Anyone know where he is nowadays?
Turns out I do. He now frequents a wall near me that a few of my friends go to on the regular. Seems he wants to keep a low profile now, but from what I can gather he's still fairly strong but not wad strong.
-
Sorry Simon I have just looked at the entry for Hubble and Liquid Ambar on the Climbing History site and see the witness confirmations. I must admit I hadn't fully mentally processed this yesterday or since I saw it earlier on in the thread, having been a sceptic for years. However, perhaps it is time to add him to the definitive list for both ascents? I see the disclaimer but surely a witness is a witness? Who are we to analyse the credentials of the belayer when we don't know them?
-
This "warming up on 8b" thing is disingenuous bollocks, since Ben and Jerry have never onsighted the grade and Rich only a few ( :worms: )
-
Jerry did chuck 5 laps on La Rose at the end of Buoux sessions though according to Buoux 8c... :)
-
I once “warmed up” on an 8a+ despite having 8b as my best rp grade.
-
I was also struck by Bonjoy's mention of seeing him struggle on a 6b or something. For someone as clearly strong as he was on a board, the idea he would find something that easy anything other than a path just doesn't make sense to me!
Have you met Bojan?
-
I don't want to side track this thread but related to AD etc, did any evidence come out in the end to confirm Said Belhaj's ascent (or any of his ascents above 8c)?
-
Anyone know where he is nowadays?
Turns out I do. He now frequents a wall near me that a few of my friends go to on the regular. Seems he wants to keep a low profile now, but from what I can gather he's still fairly strong but not wad strong.
That's great to hear. I withdraw my sarky Strada comment upthread.
-
I just checked what the state of play on climbing-history.org was. Is there any reason to still exclude Liquid Ambar and Hubble? We have a belayer who says he's done it and the belayer is vouched for by Doyle.
-
I was also struck by Bonjoy's mention of seeing him struggle on a 6b or something. For someone as clearly strong as he was on a board, the idea he would find something that easy anything other than a path just doesn't make sense to me!
Have you met Bojan?
Not seen him sport climb to be fair.
-
I was also struck by Bonjoy's mention of seeing him struggle on a 6b or something. For someone as clearly strong as he was on a board, the idea he would find something that easy anything other than a path just doesn't make sense to me!
Have you met Bojan?
Not seen him sport climb to be fair.
Few have. Slightly flippant but I'm sure we've all seen board monsters who aren't as good as you'd expect on the rock.
I'm not saying Bojan isn't as good as I'd expect on rock but I have seen him back off a 5b top-out and take about 10 minutes to do a Font 4 slab finish to something at Rylstone.
-
I loved that wall when I was growing up and the cellar there was something I never ventured down to
Reminds me, back in the early 00's when we used to go to the monthly comps at St Werburgh's, shurt and I definitely witnessed RS fail on a problem for the nth time, throw a massive paddy, kick his chalk bag, tear up his scorcecard and storm out. Much to our amusement.
-
Few have. Slightly flippant but I'm sure we've all seen board monsters who aren't as good as you'd expect on the rock.
I'm not saying Bojan isn't as good as I'd expect on rock but I have seen him back off a 5b top-out and take about 10 minutes to do a Font 4 slab finish to something at Rylstone.
I'm not sure Bojan is a good example, given he's recently done things like Zoo York, Fluid Dynamics, Primitive Notion and Diluvian it's tricky to argue he's shit on rock....maybe just shit at certain styles, which is true of anyone.
-
He's definitely not shit on rock. But doing some hard things doesn't make you great at all the easy things, like grit 6Bs (as per the Rich Simpson example).
The point is that people expect board or fingerboard strength to translate consistently to any style of climbing and it is never ever that simple.
-
The point is that people expect board or fingerboard strength to translate consistently to any style of climbing and it is never ever that simple.
I’m not sure anyone expects that!
-
The point is that people expect board or fingerboard strength to translate consistently to any style of climbing and it is never ever that simple.
I’m not sure anyone expects that!
Except perhaps the Lattice deciples.
-
I just checked what the state of play on climbing-history.org was. Is there any reason to still exclude Liquid Ambar and Hubble? We have a belayer who says he's done it and the belayer is vouched for by Doyle.
I'm open to changing it.
I left LA and Hubble off for the mo as they'd be the only hard things on the list, and given Rich's history of blatant BS it feels like too much of a coincidence that the one witness is not well known, has given up climbing and moved to thailand. Maybe Im being overly skeptical?
-
The point is that people expect board or fingerboard strength to translate consistently to any style of climbing and it is never ever that simple.
I’m not sure anyone expects that!
Agreed!
Especially since the things RS claimed were not gritstone slabs...
-
I'm a bit surprised this is still being discussed but I guess there remains so much mystery. This post won't help resolve any of it.
No. It was a great post.
Just one thing I want to ask though.
Did you actually do that one-armer? Seems a bit of a cut/shut to me ;D
Also, great to hear he's still climbing. This thread helps makes things a little less polarised.
-
Anyone know where he is nowadays?
Nice one, you hope he may have come out of the other side of it with a better perspective and new motives.
Turns out I do. He now frequents a wall near me that a few of my friends go to on the regular. Seems he wants to keep a low profile now, but from what I can gather he's still fairly strong but not wad strong.
-
It appears that one thing that RS actually did is to jerk off a lot on Uncle's bed.
The mind boggles.
-
He definitely had sex in my bed with a women. There were no doors either.
-
The story that keeps giving.
Who was her?
-
The story that keeps giving.
Who was her?
D****e from Conwy.
I tell a lie there was a door but it wasn’t very soundproof. Similar to this . Saloon style:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rzR67cfZ/7089-A855-C67-B-442-B-BB9-D-270-F2-C40176-D.webp) (https://postimg.cc/rzR67cfZ)
-
D****e from Conwy.
Damn that's a bit disappointing. I was hoping she was a local freulein struck by AD ascent.
-
He's definitely not shit on rock. But doing some hard things doesn't make you great at all the easy things, like grit 6Bs (as per the Rich Simpson example).
The point is that people expect board or fingerboard strength to translate consistently to any style of climbing and it is never ever that simple.
I think it translates to limestone boulder problems. I've done several 7As and 7A+s this year on lime, and generally churn through most everything in the 6s, and I think it's basically cos I've got very strong fingers. I've scraped my way desperately up grit 7As at best after very long sieges and often get shut down on mid 6s on grit all the time, because you can't just pull harder with your fingers to get you through. The moves are weird.
Daily I lament I am not Swiss or Spanish tbh. But anyway. Boards are good for some stuff way more than others. But they are good for that stuff. I guess there's a reason everyone uses em.
-
I think it translates to limestone boulder problems. I've done several 7As and 7A+s this year on lime, and generally churn through most everything in the 6s, and I think it's basically cos I've got very strong fingers. I've scraped my way desperately up grit 7As at best after very long sieges and often get shut down on mid 6s on grit all the time, because you can't just pull harder with your fingers to get you through. The moves are weird.
Daily I lament I am not Swiss or Spanish tbh. But anyway. Boards are good for some stuff way more than others. But they are good for that stuff. I guess there's a reason everyone uses em.
No, but are you American? Or is "most everthing" slipping into the UK Lexicon (E11, 20m fall potential) these days?
-
Not last I checked, no
-
given Rich's history of blatant BS it feels like too much of a coincidence that the one witness is not well known, has given up climbing and moved to thailand. Maybe Im being overly skeptical?
My 2p's worth is there is no requirement for a witness to be famous. Whether they have now given up climbing is irrelevant to whether they can remember the event. Their current whereabouts is also irrelevant, people move around all the time and 2005 was a long time ago. Emails can be sent from anywhere.
Dan has voluntarily confirmed the ascents of Hubble and LA independently of Rich. Are we seriously suggesting that he may be lying for him years after the event? Seems a bit Machieavellian - why would he lie on Rich's behalf?
-
No, but are you American? Or is "most everthing" slipping into the UK Lexicon (E11, 20m fall potential) these days?
:-\ ::)
-
I loved that wall when I was growing up and the cellar there was something I never ventured down to
Reminds me, back in the early 00's when we used to go to the monthly comps at St Werburgh's, shurt and I definitely witnessed RS fail on a problem for the nth time, throw a massive paddy, kick his chalk bag, tear up his scorcecard and storm out. Much to our amusement.
This is not to cast aspersions as it's ok to cry, but there were quite a few tears in addition to the tamtrum
-
given Rich's history of blatant BS it feels like too much of a coincidence that the one witness is not well known, has given up climbing and moved to thailand. Maybe Im being overly skeptical?
My 2p's worth is there is no requirement for a witness to be famous. Whether they have now given up climbing is irrelevant to whether they can remember the event. Their current whereabouts is also irrelevant, people move around all the time and 2005 was a long time ago. Emails can be sent from anywhere.
Dan has voluntarily confirmed the ascents of Hubble and LA independently of Rich. Are we seriously suggesting that he may be lying for him years after the event? Seems a bit Machieavellian - why would he lie on Rich's behalf?
Good points. For some reason I had it in mind that Doylo got in touch with Dan just after the ascents, didn't spot that that it was 5+ years. I've updated climbing-history.org.
-
On a somewhat related note... Was told last night that apparently Ron Fawcet belated Gaskins when he did Hubble... Can anyone confirm/deny? Or know Ron to ask?
-
Ron and Gaskins engaged in belatio at the Tor, what a mental image ;D
-
On a somewhat related note... Was told last night that apparently Ron Fawcet belated Gaskins when he did Hubble... Can anyone confirm/deny? Or know Ron to ask?
I think, when Gaskins 'did it' think it was his dad belaying, I believe it was Malc Smith belayed by Ron
-
Gaskins was belayed by his brother who was also trying it.
-
Who needs one belayer when you can have 3 :lol: