UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => bouldering => Topic started by: Pantontino on July 15, 2004, 05:09:34 pm
-
It's started again:
http://www.rockfax.com/forums/t.php?n=93123
If any of the haters actually have any evidence, then I'm all ears.
-
It's started again:
http://www.rockfax.com/forums/t.php?n=93123
If any of the haters actually have any evidence, then I'm all ears.
I never read planetfear - has this been raised before?
-
There were 2 nasty threads on PF a while back - basically lots of anonomous cowards sticking the boot in to Steve.
Both threads were eventually pulled.
-
don't no steve and he probably doesn't want random people sticking up for him but i've seen him climb and basically believe anything he says he's done cos he's well strong enough and got the technique to back it up so don't believe any of this bullshit u read on the internet about him.
that old planetfear thread wos a fuckin' disgrace. :evil:
-
Well I don't want to be accused of hating the guy, so I guess a little justification is in order.
I never saw the planetfear thread and I only rarely visit cocktalk so I'm not aware of any previous discussion on this subject.
I am (as those who know me will testify) very passionate about climbing, particularly where gritstone and ethics are concerned. I don't have any media profile or sponsors to worry about, so I can 'play to my own parameters'
I'm deeply concerned about the state of top-end climbing at the moment, mainly due to accusations of lying. I'm fed up about people not wanting to say anything publicly, because if anyone is even bending the truth slightly they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. It's a small scene, people talk to each other and most ascents are absolutely never doubted. So in some situations I wonder if 'there's no smoke without fire'
Whether or not people are lying, the way the sport has developed has left us pretty powerless to tackle it. The climbing media relies almost entirely on people promoting themselves, usually with staged photos. I don't see this as healthy - my own photos that have appeared in print are always of actual ascents.
So I am suspicious of any climbers who operate entirely without witnesses. Personally I couldn't lie about such things, and I find it hard to believe others can. But people have and they will continue to do so as long as they think they can get away with it. Without solid evidence I remain simply suspicious - I don't 'hate' anyone and I don't consider voicing reasonable doubts to be slagging them off.
Hopefully on UKB we can ensure a reasoned debate about this - I'd prefer it here than cocktalk as in the past Bubba's moderation has been spot on. Plus most of us know each other somehow and there's no anonymity.
So what do you think? Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?
-
Do you have political aspirations by any chance? That could have been an answer straight from 'The Today' programme :D
Are you saying that you do have doubts then??
-
You can't accuse someone of lying unless you have evidence. A lack of witnesses isn't evidence, nor are staged photos. People spreading rumours on the internet isn't evidence either. Nor are comments like "I saw X on route Y the day before he claimed it and he was falling off all over the place", or "climber A is really strong and he's failed on it numerous times, so X can't have done it".
End of story really.
-
Cheers JB, I try my best on the moderation front...
Discussion is all well and good but no witch hunts without at least some sort of evidence please.
It's also worth noting that Steve reads and posts on this forum, so may choose to comment or not; and that a man like Gaskins has given his action on Hubble the thumbs up.
As long as I've been climbing, I've been witness to these sort of rumours and in my experience, once somebody gets on the receiving end of such things, it can take years for it to leave. And as usual, there's many wannabees who just like to pull somebody better than them down.
So, as I've said many times, you've got to be there and see these people in action before passing judgement.
-
So what do you think? Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?
I suspect it is healthy in a funny kind of way - bouldering/climbing can be a pretty dry past time without a bit of human interest and it's always entertaining to see that the 'stars' might be fallible.
In terms of trusting self-publicists implicitly, I think anyone with a small amount of common sense should be able to apply their own news-filters and judgement as necessary.
-
thing is, if you say "you can't doubt anyone without evidence" and theres no need for any ascents to be witnessed, then theres nothing to stop me registering an 8a.nu scorecard tomorrow, and over time claiming ascents and reporting them to mags. i would need no photos or witnesses to satisfy a lot of people.
but think for a minute. think of how many top climbers and other climbers you can name. and think of any many total liars you've named. Now to those of you who are now thinking "there arnet any" (like i would have done not so long ago) then consider this: Climbers in the UK form a general cross-section of society, generally middle class, some working class. Like the general population, there is a percentage of climbers that are female, a percentage gay, a percentage black, a percentage of gingers, a percentage of thiefs, a percentage of egomaniacs, a percentage of narcissist, and a percentage of cheats and liars. I can think of no good reason to think why there should be no cheats or liars within the sphere of top climbers - it just wouldn't happen. Like the way if you thought all coppers or politicians were straight you'd be naive.
Thus some top climbers are cheats. Who are they then? theres never much evidence for this kind of thing, and like JB say, much less people who are prepared to shout up, and neven less public outlets for it. Makes you think. Some people are cheats. word.
-
Aye, there's undoubtably those who are bullshitters and I'm not saying everyone should believe everything that everyone else claims, but it seems that a lot of the time people are far too eager to jump on the slating/doubting bandwagon, just to be in with the current rumours.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and have confidence that time will usually out those who are liers, because in my experience, sooner or later most bullshitters slip up good and proper in their own mess.
-
So, as I've said many times, you've got to be there and see these people in action before passing judgement
My thoughts entirely. I don't believe or disbelieve anyone I haven't even seen climb. Then again, its dangerous to base opinions on someones bad day.
I have no idea why Ben Heason's name has been brought up
I've heard more rumours about him than the other two put together. And despite being at the crag with him a couple of times, I've not seen him climb. So again, niggling doubts remain.
I agree if you throw enough shit it starts to stick. But I also think there's no smoke without fire. Perhaps part of the problem is when people get a media profile they become wary of looking bad in public. So their climbing becomes more and more secretive. I'm sure that was a big part of the Dunne saga - particularly as his weight varied so much between being fit and unfit. Having said that even Andy Jack (dunne's belayer) said:
'John's a really honest guy... most of the time'
Hardly a bombproof endorsement.
-
i personally feel that sometimes there is smoke without fire. for instance when did all the shit about dunning start cropping up? i seem to remember it was when he repeated dreamtime? thats when the planetfear thread started and he seems to have been tarred with it since? he came across as a very mellow guy not a loudmouthed knob which is what u'd expect from some one whos supposed to have been lying about making two of the most importan repeats britain (and switzerland) in the past few years?
simon i presume u know and believe him as he is regulaly featured in your article for climber each month. if u seriously doubted his ascents then (i presume) u wouldn't include them?
can't speak for o'connor but he's not living the high life driving ferraris and living in a million pound mansion up in the highlands is he? lets say simply for arguements sake (i personally doubt it very much) he is lying then he's not gaining anything from it apart from a load of abuse from people?
Buox 8c's ascent of Liquid Amber
buox 8c is richard simpson?
-
the owen wrote:
Being a bit green in relative terms, I've found that this is just the way the climbing community is. Was it much different in the past? It's quite rare to meet a climber who's prepared to reserve judgement these days, even people who you'd genuinely expect to be above all this shit.
Things were indeed much different 20+ years ago. If you said you had done a route then folks would believe you unless you had a reputation as a liar.
It is getting ridiculous now. I recently had a nasty experience with some younger climbers in Wyoming. About 18 years ago myself and a friend put up a number of boulder problems and TR's in a small limestone area. I even wrote a guide to the place. Being a small venue and shit sharp very few people ever climbed there since. Couple of months ago these two lads got interested in the place and began "putting up routes." My friend who climbed there with me informed them of our previous efforts and I sent them a copy of the guide. I found out later they disagreed with my ratings on some routes, which was enough justification for them to question that I had actually done the problems. The next step was to claim their routes as first ascents, often routes with aging bolts at their tops.
Absolutely amazing.
-
That's just plain disrespectul - some people's egos just get the better of them :roll:
-
I think its really a shame that rumours like this are in the climbing scene. I have met Steve on several occasions and can say that he is a really nice guy and certainly dosent strike me as been a person who would lie about any of his ascents. I cant definetly say that he has or hasnt done the stuff he has said he has, neither can he say that i have done the stuff i have claimed, as we havent climbed with each other enough to have witnessed them personally, but i have no reason to doubt him regarding the malicious rumours that are going around and i just hope that he can prove these critics wrong by repeating some hard stuff in front of them.
Same as heason really, i dont see why he would lie about his acents either, he's a nice guy, seams honest and dosent show any jealousy or bitterness towards any other climbers.
I think the main problem is that these two climbers in particular prefer, like many to climb in small groups or by themselves, but becasue they are claiming cutting edge stuff their is alot of doubt by them.
I personally prefer to climb alone or in a small group of friends and have actually done some hard stuff alone, but fortuanately i havent had the malicous rumours spread about me like other climbers, but i think that is to do with having enough of my stuff witnessed or enough people seing that i am fully capable of doing what i have claimed.
I just hope one way or the other that these rumours are even proven or squashed, so that if the guys are innocent they can be left alone to climb what they want without getting shit for it.
-
Things were indeed much different 20+ years ago. If you said you had done a route then folks would believe you unless you had a reputation as a liar.
I don't see how is that different to today. How did you get 'a reputation as a liar'?
The old 'outside the sheffield scene' argument doesn't hold water anymore either - Heason is right in the middle of it and yet is still doubted.
I think we really need to consider a real way of tackling this problem. Blind belief isn't working - as others have noted, it just means more and more rumours spread outside the mainstream media. When the media is simply written by the self-publicists, people lose trust in it, and then we have a problem.
Don't ignore the real dangers posed by lying about ascents, particularly with the up-and-coming generation who are concentrating on on-sights. Bad information could contribute to a serious accident.
-
i think that some top climbers who don't really seek publicity don't actually care what other people think of them? its not hard to get a video camera tape yourself doing something and post it on web. they probably think why the fuck should i have to prove myself to a bunch of accusing wannabes.
-
thing is, some people do activley seek publicity, and make money out of it. and if that is based on lies or bending the truths, then everyone who's bought a magazine with their article in, or bought gear by their sponsors, or paid to see them do a lecture has effectivley been conned out of money.
I know of one very famous current climber who's already been mentioned on this thread, and i've heard pleanty few rumours about deception. And a lot of them are from credible sources who have first hand experience of it. I now do not belive anything claimed by that person, as i find the evidence too compelling. Belive me i don't want to belive it cos it sickens me, and i'd love to believe that this person is far and away the best climber in the UK, as they stand to be. Call me sinical, but something stinks.
what annoys me more is that this person does make money from the kind of things i mentioned above, and that really sucks. Like bubba says, bullshitters always come out in the end, but if they've earned £££ from you and I along the way then are we right to take such a light line on it.
-
Just so there is no ambiguity here, I absolutely endorse and back Steve Dunning's achievements as a climber.
JB tags him as a self publicist, but all I've seen is just another keen, albeit extremely talented climber wishing to share information with other hardcore climbers. So he sends me pictures and details of his new problems for my Climber column, is that a crime? If it is, it's a crime that many people are guilty of, JB included. FFS if I'd done any of the amazing ascents that Steve has done I'd be shouting it from the roof tops with a fucking loud hailer.
Maybe he should have perfected a show pony circuit at Almscliffe or the Plantation. How remiss of Steve to waste time pursuing classic first ascents and hard repeats, when he really should've been polishing his myth in front of an awestruck crowd of sycophants.
-
who dave? might as well name them. if the evidence is so compelling maybe other people will take a similar view?
-
I can see why some folk like Johnny see fit to doubt others. Of course there are bullshitters out there, amongst punters and the elite. As for Ben he's a pretty good mate and i'm damn sure i'd know about it if he was bullshitting. I haven't seen him do any of his notable ascents, to be honest i haven't seen him do anything too notable. For lot of stuff he's done he has been on his own and i think this may be why Johnny has his doubts. Maybe i'd have my doubts if i didn't know him well. However, climbing means a lot to him and despite the publicity and piccies in mags etc.. i know the main reason he climbs is for himself. Plus he's as mad as a box of matches, he's bold as fuck, verging on having a deathwish if you ask me! Si's in a similar situation with Steve Dunning, he knows him well and trusts him. Maybe we're poor judges of character. At the end of the day we can't convince the world that someones not a bullshitter, they have to make their own mind up. Also I think with Steve Dunning a lot of people forget how tall he is (not taking anything away from his ability). Anyone who climbed with a lanky bastard (i'm talking about YOU Pasquill) knows what a difference height can make.
-
who dave? might as well name them. if the evidence is so compelling maybe other people will take a similar view?
i'd rather not, simply cos anyone who's heard the rumours i've heard will already know who i mean. and if you ain't heard the rumours then i'd rather you find out for yourself and make your own decision, rather than having your opinion loaded by me giving you a name out of the blue. plus if you hear the name before the rumours, you won't beleive it anyway.
plus the rumours could all be wrong. probably a slim chance, but a chance all the same. plus i'm a coward.
-
has the person made money from there claims though? as in getting free shit and money from sponsors if so then its very very wrong but if not then don't u think that they're only kidding themselves?
-
I know of one very famous current climber who's already been mentioned on this thread ...
... what annoys me more is that this person does make money from the kind of things i mentioned above ...
If you don't say who you mean I'll jump to conclusions, and I'm bound to be wrong, so I think you should tell us all!
-
yeah go on dave my minds been racing. dunning, john dunne, ben heason, si o'connor, oooooooh the possibilities :!: at the end of the day i don't really care if people are lying its just when innocent people get shit thats when i thinks its unfair.
-
only kiddin themselves? we're not 8 years old anymore. don't you know anybody that has said they've done somethin n you've immediately thought "don't talk bollocks". people seem to have this preoccupation with money/sponsorship, meanin if they don't make money out of it why should they lie. people lie, this is an undeniable fact.
a lot of people out there put a lot of their time n effort into trying to become a better climber. a lot of people feel strongly on this one way or the other. :roll:
-
having spoken to quite a few people about various people mentioned in thsi thread, I think that inbetween all the dick waving there is something more subtle. Having heard the views from a certain person i started coming round to the fact that lying about your ascents isn't just good for you (in terms of money, sponsorship, idol status), but it can be dangerous for other people.
All the people I climb with know how well (read; crap) I climb. However, they have never had reason to doubt any of my calimb (nothing impressive). Now, if I said I had gone out and onsighted some E7 (on the sea cliffs for example) and found it pretty easy then all the people I climb with will be able to gauge the difficulty of the route. They will think, well, if he's done it it must not be that bad, and I am a better/bolder climber than him so I think I will go and onsight this route too. That person may go and try to onsight this route only to find rusty pegs, loose rock, and a potentially fatal situation. This really isn't on. I know you probably shouldn't judge whether you can do a route by whether a mate's done it, but this happens all the time. I have tried routes because a mate has said I can onsight it, and vice versa. I would never lie about any ascent because of the consequences... I wouldn't ever want someone's injury hanging over my head because I lied. There is definitely a moral responsiblity to be honest to stop that situation occuring (in my opinion).
Also, notable ascents will go down in the history of climbing. LIke Action Direct... a milestone in climbing. How would it be if we found out Gullich's ascent was a lie... it's just not on.
From everything I hear I feel i can rightly discredit some people's ascents, because their stories are so wishy washy AND there is no proof (photos, video). It's a sad state of affairs, but as dave says, in any large group of people there will always be some liars. Fuck em and just try to climb better than you did the previous day/week/month/year.
goodnight. and sorry for a rant.
-
it's hardly nuclear physics to figure out who Dave's jibing.
hey, i woulnd't say i'm jibing, i'm just saying that i've been told some things by people i mostly believe (for various reasons) which causes serious doubt, thats all. Now i'm not the kind of person who believes everything i read or hear (did you know they've taken the word "gulible" out of the dictionary?), I'm just saying i've been told some things which if true, and i think theres a fair chance at least some of it is, its very sad.
Anyway it dismays me talking about this kinda thing. lets talk about summert a bit more lighthearted, like drive-by shootings or international terrorism.
-
only kiddin themselves? we're not 8 years old anymore
true but thats the point i was tryin to make. if u know someones lyin and gettin nothing out of it let it go. let them delude themselves and encourage and praise the people who are pushin standards, they're own and world ones, and leave the bullshitters behind.
Believe me i don't want to belive it cos it sickens me, and i'd love to believe that this person is far and away the best climber in the UK
missed that bit. i'm presuming its o'connor as his 8a scorecard would probably justify that claim of best climber in uk.
-
am sorry owen but you are wrong in sayin that dave's n johnny's doubts r as bad as the anonymous postings on planetfear. why does evidence have to be proved from the doubters n not the source. has it occured to some people that names will be mentioned who will want to remain nameless etc. still there may be many more reasons for not mentionin things.
sayin we can settle things like this like adults. the simple fact is we can't, n all that will happen is we will all end up takin one side or another at some stage n slaggin each other off. just because someone believes doesn't mean someone else has to n vice versa.
n just cos pantontino has laid down the gauntlet doesn't mean that people are wrong if they don't give evidence to the contrary. it may just mean that they don't want to go over the folklore yet again.
-
you can put me in wi dave n jb, just for the record. so people know where i stand on the subject. out of all the names banded around so far, i only have respect for the big man himself. as for the others theres too much smoke not enough evidence. yes, you did read that correctly, stop rubbin your eyes. i work from the opposite side of the coin as owen. with some people i need to see before i believe.
i am not a coward, i will not mention sources etc cos that's not up to me. if any of you think that the doubters all sit round a table in sheffield wearing various states of disguise i'm afraid you're wrong. i don't know dave that well, however i do know johnny well n know that he doesn't come up with these doubts cos he's bored n wants a chat.
when i was on the subject of it endin up wi slaggin each other off, this has already begun wi pantontino havin a dig at johnny for havin a plantation circuit wired, the truth is he more or less has the peak wired.
however, johnny's ability or anyone else's, apart from the subject matter, should have nothin to do wi what we're talkin about
-
I bought this subject up because I am fed up of hearing doubts. I' m not here to throw shit about, I want to go to the crag and be impressed without people immediately raising doubts. I want things clearing up one way or another. If we can prove all these people have told the absolute truth I'll be the happiest person here.
I'm not too bothered about 'spilling the beans' because its mostly second-hand and I don't feel in a position to name the doubters. What I want is a real discussion on how to tackle the problem. Believe me, its getting out of hand.
JB tags him as a self publicist
I'm not singling him out Simon, its just the way the climbing media works and I want to point out its open to abuse. Of the names mentioned so far he's definitely the least guilty of shouting about it.
-
If we can prove all these people have told the absolute truth I'll be the happiest person here.
But isn't this where the problems start? Nobody can *prove* any of this (either way), unless they were actually there.
Too often second hand evidence is vague, sketchy or just invented, you know, like "a mate of a mate said/saw this or that". Not always granted, but often.
People can sit on either side of the fence - guilty until proved innocent, or innocent until proved guilty. Personally, I prefer the latter, probably because I'm a firm believer in that facet of our legal system.
We all know of one person who's dubious claims from last year were outed by people who were *actually there*, and since then those claims have been retracted.
-
We all know of one person who's dubious claims from last year were outed by people who were *actually there*, and since then those claims have been retracted.
That's the first I've heard actually. Would seem to be remarkably stupid.
Just for the record, I haven't made up my mind on any of the people mentioned. What's bothering me is that the unresolved doubts are spreading. Every hard ascent is now immediately questioned. This is not a healthy state of affairs and needs nipping in the bud.
What I'd really like is for this thread to inspire shy witnesses to come forward. For my own part I now carry binoculars all the time... seriously. If people feel there is even a tiny chance they may be being watched might make them think twice about making stuff up. More hopefully i'll get to see some shy heroes being awesome - and I'll be more than willing to big them up.
In quite the opposite direction, I watched and photographed Ross Cowie doing a ground-up ascent of Unfamiliar this winter. He sent Dan Honeyman over to ask me not so send them in to the mags. Fair enough, I thought, but why is he so distrustful of the media? He expressly asked to be excluded from Grimer's grit onsight article too. The we've got Tim Clifford, Matt Birch and Andy Brown who refused to be included in OTE's list of top UK boulderers. Why do they feel like that?
-
i've got more respect for ross than most of the multi-E9 media hotshots right now!
-
you listenin, keenus?
-
What's bothering me is that the unresolved doubts are spreading. Every hard ascent is now immediately questioned. This is not a healthy state of affairs and needs nipping in the bud.
I agree entireley - it's got to the stage where you need witnesses and video to be even half-believed.
For my own part I now carry binoculars all the time...
OMG :shock: You stalker !!
The we've got Tim Clifford, Matt Birch and Andy Brown who refused to be included in OTE's list of top UK boulderers. Why do they feel like that?
They're probably climbing purely for their own satisfaction and not media glory. I know that Tim doesn't fund his climbing via sponsorship (last time I met him, anyway) so maybe he can afford to sidestep the media machine and just get on with pulling down on his own terms.
-
Can any british boulderer fund their climbing entirely through sponsorship?
I agree they may be climbing for themselves, but refusing a mention in a mag? There's something deeper going on there - an active dislike of something the mags are doing?
-
Can any british boulderer fund their climbing entirely through sponsorship?
Perhaps Malcolm Smith can (sure I read it somewhere, but not sure if that's true or not), but I doubt anybody else can exist on sponsorship alone. That said, there's plenty who are trying to make some money out of the sport.
Don't get me wrong, there's nowt wrong with that - if I was at that level then I'd jump at the chance to get paid for what I loved doing.
There's something deeper going on there - an active dislike of something the mags are doing?
You maybe right - but I don't know any of them well enough to have any idea of their motives.
-
Some people lie. Climbers are people. Some climbers lie.
That has always happened before and there are a few well-known instances in the past (Gary Gibson in the Burren, some stuff in the 70s in Gogarth, some guy in who made up a crag worth of routes just by lookin etc.)
How there is a different breed of liar, there is more at stake now - fame, money - this is due to the climbing media.
Absolute proof is rare, a video of the full climb would be the best proof (even then no good for an onsight) so people have to go on trust. Maybe 10 years ago the idea of lying about climbing would of been laughable, an eccentric action, dismissed maybe with a shrug of the shoulders, this was probably due to the fact that there was so little to gain and that it was a rare event.
So people assumed that any ascent they hear of was true.
Now with the spread of rumours causing a lack of trust there is more disbelief. Some of it definitly has foundation, some doesn't. This serves to blur the boundaries even more.
So now people when hear about an ascent they might not automatically beleive it. Every person has to use their own judgement and set their bullshit filter to high and be considered about what they say. The problem is snowballing becuase people aren't uncovered as cheats, if people have a reason to doubt someone they should say that reason (people will scream for evidence but sometimes there is evidence to prove or disprove a claim). I understand that the climbing community is small and everyone knows everyone but these people are taking the piss out of all of us.
We shouldn't tolerate liars, they are making other honest people look bad, and destroying trust.
(thats just my gut reaction....)
-
For my own part I now carry binoculars all the time...
I tend to go for a newspaper with two small holes cut out.
-
Oh dear.
A word of caution, perhaps. I've heard a lot of rumours about why big JD's ascents couldn't have been done as claimed. I've just read the cocktalk thread and seen JB saying that one of the holds on Hubble was "supposed" to have a birds nest in it just after Steve's ascent.
I've also heard a lot of stuff about Fred Roughling - how he's a mutant tall freak who chips things to suit his ape-ish span. The thing is - it isn't true. The few people who bothered to check for themselves found Fred is reasonably small, and Akira looked perfectly natural.
Rumours start. People make things up. If these get repeated they become climbing folklore, and gain credibility. None of it is necessarily true.
I can use Steve Dunning as an example. Steve has come in for a ton of grief recently, and I suspect that it was started by a group of the UKs "top" climbers, who were suspicious of what Steve has claimed because, well let's face it - they couldn't climb the problems he's claimed and they think they are better climbers than him. It's fair enough to have these thoughts, and only natural. But, if you've no evidence, for gods sake keep them to yourself. Because if you don't, someone will say "there's no smoke without fire". That seems to be exactly what there is in this case.
I know one thing about the whole debacle - there's absolutely no substance behind the accusations. To debunk the "birds nest" theory above - Ru was trying hubble at exactly the same time, and wasn't having any problem with birds nests. Does Ru use different holds on Hubble to everyone else?
The same applies with other climbers. You might hear all sorts of rumours about them, but I'd recommend applying the same skepticsm to those rumours as some of you are doing to the claims of the climbers in question.
-
Johnny Brown wrote:
The we've got Tim Clifford, Matt Birch and Andy Brown who refused to be included in OTE's list of top UK boulderers. Why do they feel like that?
Actually, that's not how it happened. Rich phoned them up, and asked them what boulder problems were 8a in Yorkshire. They felt a bit silly "bigging themselves up", so for a laugh they told them that there were no hard problems in yorkshire apart from Stu's Roof, and that I was the best boulderer in yorkshire :roll:
Awfully ni ce of the chaps, but they didn't refuse to be included, they were just arseing around.
-
One more thing. You're all clever folk, so I make no apologies for dropping the SCIENCE.
You're never going to be able to prove that a climber has done all he claims, so the only logical way to proceed is to assume they have, unless you have a bloody good reason to suspect they haven't.
So, dense, that's why the doubters must always supply the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is the way forward, yes sireee.
p.s "I've seen them climb an they were crap, so how could they have done Dreamtime" is a shit reason to doubt someones claims, in case you were wondering.
-
Actually, that's not how it happened. Rich phoned them up, and asked them what boulder problems were 8a in Yorkshire. They felt a bit silly "bigging themselves up", so for a laugh they told them that there were no hard problems in yorkshire
Not the story I heard at all. There was a definite 'don't you dare put me in your stupid list' element. That's pretty amazing that we have got such different impressions despite being both well-informed and involved in the yorks scene at the time!
-
Actually, that's not how it happened. Rich phoned them up, and asked them what boulder problems were 8a in Yorkshire. They felt a bit silly "bigging themselves up", so for a laugh they told them that there were no hard problems in yorkshire
Not the story I heard at all. There was a definite 'don't you dare put me in your stupid list' element. That's pretty amazing that we have got such different impressions despite being both well-informed and involved in the yorks scene at the time!
Wierd huh?!! Maybe you're right. I know Matt sometimes lurks around here, so he might set us straight one day!
-
You're never going to be able to prove that a climber has done all he claims, so the only logical way to proceed is to assume they have, unless you have a bloody good reason to suspect they haven't
Disproving a hypothesis may be the only way in SCIENCE, but i don't agree in climbing.
I've seen, and photographed, loads of newsworthy events and could offer bombproof defence that they happened. In all the time I've climbed with newsworthy climbers, none of them has ever been doubted. Why? Cos there's always someone who saw to back them up. I think that's most people's experience, so its understandable they get confused when a climber has done absolutely loads without ever being seen. Perhaps we all need glasses - I know I've got mine :wink:
-
So why's it so wierd that someone can climb lots of hard routes without being seen? Perhaps they climb alone a lot? Maybe they work odd hours, and climb on weekdays?
The same kind of accusations could be aimed at the Welford, but everyone believes him, right? Would it be the same if John had claimed as many cutting edge FAs as he has cutting edge repeats?
I'm sorry, but "Nobody sees him climb hard problems" is also a shit reason to cause someone else so much grief. Why not set your standards of doubt a bit higher? If they truly are bulshitting, they'll slip up eventually.
-
I'm sorry, but "Nobody sees him climb hard problems" is also a shit reason to cause someone else so much grief. .
i think soemone made a good point about this kinda thing a while back on some other thread. I'll try and recall it, as its appropriate to all climbers:
Say your absolute maximum hardest grade done is 7c. now you may only climb that grade once or twice in your life or in a good year, and that ascent is only a fraction of a percentage of all climbing you've ever done. so you probably won;t have evidence of it. and thats ok. but if your best is 7c, then chances are that you've done a fair few 7b+s, and thus more chance there is evidence for them, i.e. moer chance people were there, took photos etc. you might even have 7b+s at your local crag you can lap. and again you've probably done quite a lot of 7bs, some probably flashed, and you'd have to be doing something pretty special not to have any witnesses. And again you'll have done countless 7a+s and below, probably done in trainers with a weightbelt.
but isay f you claimed to have done 7c and no-one, even people you climbed with had even seen you do the background work on easier stuff, then it seems a bit wierd. now of course theres always exception - people hit on thing that suit them, have good and bad days etc. but generally it holds true. if you think of all your mates that currently climb with you quite often, at or near their best, and think of the above paragraph, my guess it it'll hold true-ish.
-
amen to that dave.
...and I don't know anyone who hasn't seen the Welford at the crag pulling down. That's just the point - if you go out a lot you bump in to people, you, me, the welford, whoever, and you see them climb and you form an opinion, like Dave says. When you've never seen someone who lives locally and 'climbs loads' you get to wondering...
To debunk the "birds nest" theory above - Ru was trying hubble at exactly the same time, and wasn't having any problem with birds nests.
now that's what we're looking for - FACTS. Can you drop any more FACTS Stu? ...made me laff when I heard it tho... :oops:
we've had four pages of posts and thats the first FACT. Amazing...
Can I suggest you all get binos?
-
As a bit of an anorak when it comes to evidence. (if I thought I'd get any repleies I'd post a thread disucssing the stautory exceptions to the rule against hearsay and Boardman v DPP, but I'll stop now I'm getting a warm tingling feeling). :oops:
Take the following. four years ago i was working in North Nottinghamshire, had a gym at work, was getting out on the grit on average three days a week and was route setting at Nottingham Wall. I got f--king strong and managed to do some problems like Blind Date, T Crack etc. Mots of the harder problems I did at odd time like 10 am on atuesday morning when there was no-one about. 3 years later when I go to the wall twice a year, go to the gym about once a month and get out on rock once a month not suprisingly I've turned into a complete punter. Does this mean I didn't do Blind Date?
What is however evidence is for example, where x has a sudden peak and is never able to reproduce the performance.
What is evidence is x claims to have done y when the conditions were appaling.
What is evidence is x claims y on a date when no-one saw him at the crag, or x was arriving at the crag as it was getting dark etc.
What is evidence is whether x demonstrates the capacity to climb y.
Of course evidence is not proof and as Stu said the presumption should be innocence until guilt is proven.
So rather than name and shame the liars, why not concentrate on naming and shaming the doubters. If you make the allegaiton it's for you to prove it, it's generally impossibl to prove the negative.
And before anyone starts, the hold I pulled off Gorrilla Warfare or the one at the buckstone were removed without the aid of tools. It must be because I'm either very fat ort very strong, you decide. :P
-
...agreed. But everyone is allowed a few unwitnessed ascents. Its when there are no witnesses during an entire (publicised) career that people get to worryin...
-
So rather than name and shame the liars
Why would one not name and shame the liars?
-
If people want to name and shame the liars then bear the following in mind.
- It's only fair to do so if the accused are given a chance to put their side across. I would urge you to confront the "accused" in private before using this forum as your soap box.
- If what you say has an effect on the accused's career, or whatever, then be prepared for the possibility that they may take legal action against you.
- If anyone starts coming out with what I consider wild accusations with no real evidence to back them up, then the posts will be moderated. Discussion is one thing, but I don't really condone these witch hunts unless there is some strong evidence to back them up.
-
ENOUGH!
I'm really suprised about whats being said here, and from some posters I hold in high regard. Theres been 4 pages of absolute drivel, and 1 fact on the age old argument of did he/didn't he.
Everyone is always going to have doubters, and for as many doubters there are going to be as many people who will stand up for them. Its all smoke screens and playground rhetoric at the end of the day.
If no one is willing to name names in case they could be wrong, then let the matter rest. I don't think it is the place to be airing your views.
-
I think it is okay to discuss the nature of the media, how ascents are reported, the commercial imperative, human nature, modern climbing culture, especially as there is no anonymity on here and the moderation will stop things getting silly,
but,
it becomes very tricky when people start suggesting doubts without explaining their sources.
I realise that JB is only reflecting what is being said behind the scenes, and I've no wish to crucify him for wanting to discuss how fucked up things have become, but I do think we have to be very careful about the damage that we can do to a 'potentially innocent' person's reputation.
It seems that we are heading towards a situation where video proof is required. I find that pretty sad really: some people appear to have lied, therefore proof is required by everyone.
Maybe some people have lied (quite likely if you follow Dave's human nature/tyopical cross section of society argument), but I also believe there is a lot of destructive, competitive jealousy kick starting the rumour mill. Some of the things that people have said to me have shocked me. Jealousy is clearly a very powerful emotion.
-
having climbed for 30 years i heard all this stuff before .when i was an angry young man( along ,long time ago).i would challenge people to their faces(usually under the influence of mind altering substances :P ). people still lied
however if you don't question doubtful ascents 3 or 4 years later when the person is a better climber people start to belive
the roaches guide proves this i.e the woodentop brothers
-
What a minefield!
Let's face it this is pretty much everyone's favourite topic at the moment, perhaps because its gossip and we're just a bunch of old ladies, but also I think because the thought of this behaviour grates with most reasonably minded people. Perhaps the biggest question here is how to discuss it on a public forum, as there is a noticable tendency to be "too fair" and not say what you really think, which makes for naff gossip! However it also makes you think about your views, which is a good (and more important) thing.
I agree with Simon that it is perhaps more useful to discuss the commercial aspects, the modern media culture, issues of trust, issues of jealously, and what to do if you actually have proof that someone has been bullshitting, as lets face it its doing high level climbing no good - like JB points out the natural reaction these days is doubt!
Moving on to specifics: Evidence; my natural reaction would be for the doubters to prove their case. However as Sloper say its impossible to prove a negative (except in certain cases where ridiculous porkies get told - such as the climber who was witnessed NOT doing what he'd claimed!). So as distasteful as it is, I would rather see those who are doubted produce evidence of their ascents. I know this seems ridiculous but put yourself in their shoes. If someone accused you of lying about an ascent, would you rather be "principled" and shrug it off (knowing that you would get away with it if you had indeed lied!), or would you say "come on then, lets go to the crag and I'll try to repeat it for you". Myself, I'd be busting moves in minutes, sod principles!
This ties in with what Dave said, which is that a good climber can't really help being good, i.e. you can't be crap and then expect people to believe that when you're on your own you're a beast! But hey, perhaps its the God's honest truth. All I'm saying is that you can't expect people to believe it. Borrow a video camera and quash the doubters. Wouldn't you do it to save your own reputation? Like I say I know its distasteful, but wouldn't you? Of course, different folks different strokes.
Sorry I've lost my spunk now and I don't want this reply to become too unwieldy, so perhaps a brief mention of the media. At the minute on 8a.nu you can claim what you like and yes it is used as a source by magazines. Philip Moser has already "disappeared" from being in the top 10 boulderers due to being discredited. British magazines (and gear sponsorship companies) at the minute have created a very unhealthy climate by being too image-driven, they have cultivated a small pool of photographers who in turn each have a small pool of subjects. If these subjects are sponsored then they receive money (up to a yearly limit) for pictures in magazines. Hence there is a pressure on them to produce "noteworthy ascents" and then get photos in order to get paid. If they don't then they get nowt. Healthy?
-
First of all the point about the wintess stating that the ascent did not occur that is positive evidence as to what happened rather than vidence as to what did not happen. (pedantry, I know but I couldn't help it).
As for the point about doing things when you're own your own that you can't / don't do when others are about. I used to do a lot of soloing on my own (largely because I'd be at the crag at odd times etc) and there's a hidden power reserve technically known as the 'o fuck, if I fall of this now I'm fucked function' that is impossible to engage in less stressful times. It's happened to me and no doubt to most of you!
I disagree re the onus being on the person to prove the validity of their ascents with one proviso. If you're a sponsored hero and you're putting up routes at the cutting edge or doing serious repeats then there's a burden to prove what you say you've done.
-
My views exactly. If anyone doubts anything I've done i can either produce witnesses or at least make a good stab at repeating it. Why is that too much to ask of the 'famous' climbers?
-
I think I agree that once a climbers ascents start to be doubted then producing video evidence is probably the only way to sort things out. However, I think people should be FAR more cautious about muck-spreading.
The references above about nobobody seeing a climber pulling down being enough evidence to publicly voice doubts, that's bollocks. Stronger evidence would be if you had personally climbed with someone often, and they were consistently failing on hard problems. To use your example Dave, if I went climbing for a week with said 7c climber, and he consistently failed to climb 7a+ - then I'd feel confident saying he wasn't on 7c form. If he claimed 7c the next day, I wouldn't believe him. If he claimed 7c next month I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Form goes up and down. One time I climbed with Jerry on two consecutive days and he was SHIT. Two weeks later he climbed the Ace. :owned:
So I'd advise a little care. Don't spread third-hand rumours if you can't check the facts. Don't gossip if you don't have good reasons.
On the other hand, if people don't believe you, then become a media star. After all, why do you think Steve bothered filiming himself on Elder Statesman?
-
My views exactly. If anyone doubts anything I've done i can either produce witnesses or at least make a good stab at repeating it. Why is that too much to ask of the 'famous' climbers?
Producing Witnesses: You can't produce them if they weren't there. Some people are nomadic by habit.
Repeating problems: Fair enough, they could have a stab, if they can be arsed. Personally, I'd be arsed. But don't doubt them just 'cos they won't come and perform for you. Just because they don't give a shit if you think they did a problem, it doesn't mean they didn't do it.
This is the reason I think this whole "burden of proof" shit has gone too far. I got the impression that the grief Steve got was really distressing for him. Is climbing bits of rock really so important that we can ruin someones month, just because we have nebulous doubts that we're not even sure enough of to defend them in public?
-
Where do you draw the line - somebody good with Premiere could fake digital video evidence. Ok, I'm not being entirely serious there.
Steve also offered me the full unedited take of him on Jason's Roof (see video on this site). I declined the offer because I didn't think it necessary for him to have to prove it.
-
Where do you draw the line - somebody good with Premiere could fake digital video evidence. Ok, I'm not being entirely serious there.
Why not? If people are deliberately lying, do you think cutting two attempts on a problem together to make a "continuous" ascent is going to be beyond them?
-
I disagree re the onus being on the person to prove the validity of their ascents with one proviso. If you're a sponsored hero and you're putting up routes at the cutting edge or doing serious repeats then there's a burden to prove what you say you've done.
This is exactly what I meant to say but I forgot! As is clear from my reply I find this way of doing things distasteful but I'm willing to to brush that distaste aside for high level claims, obviously I'm not advocating it as a matter of course! Only for thiose who are widely doubted.
-
People will only need to start filming themselves if they habitually climb alone at odd times - this is not a case of everybody needs to prove themselves.
The vast majority of us have mates who spot, belay, brew up or just exist enough to verify our claims. plus there are very few of us whose performance is erratic enough to raise suspicion.
So I don't think its too much to ask - those lone wolves just need to be aware you can't hide your cake and have people believe you've not eaten it :up:
-
Stu you make valid points and to be honest I agree with them. I only hold the views I do because of the state of things at the minute, where the rumour mill is getting out of control and having a *very* detrimental effect on British climbing (e.g. Dunning repeates Dreamtime. Massive news? Yes. One sentence in OTE because the editor hears the rumours). All I'm saying is that perhaps it is necessary for this sort of videoing etc to happen in the *short term* so that trust is restored and the "scene" can move forward.
-
I suppose it's up to the individual as well. Some people probably don't care if the rest of the climbing community doubts them, because they know full well what they've done, and don't need the blessing of others for their comfort.
But then, some do - I remember Johnny Woodward not being believed regarding his ascent of Beau Geste. He went and did it again with witnesses and photographers. If he was less arsed about the rest of the climbing community, we might all still be sitting here putting him down as a bullshitter.
-
Why not? If people are deliberately lying, do you think cutting two attempts on a problem together to make a "continuous" ascent is going to be beyond them?
I can see there being a resurgence in the second hand market in analogue camcorders now :lol:
-
Repeating problems: Fair enough, they could have a stab, if they can be arsed. Personally, I'd be arsed. But don't doubt them just 'cos they won't come and perform for you. Just because they don't give a shit if you think they did a problem, it doesn't mean they didn't do it.
There are problems that i've done in the past that I couldn't repeat the next day or next week. Some times (and more frequently when you're on your limit) you just get lucky, the conditions are right, you're feeling good about a new job, girfriend passing an exam or what ever and it gives you that edge. After the moment has passed you return to your base level.
-
I remember Johnny Woodward not being believed regarding his ascent of Beau Geste. He went and did it again with witnesses and photographers.
'a moment of inspiration, fuelled by the desire to disprove his detractors'...eh?
-
People will only need to start filming themselves if they habitually climb alone at odd times - this is not a case of everybody needs to prove themselves.
The vast majority of us have mates who spot, belay, brew up or just exist enough to verify our claims. plus there are very few of us whose performance is erratic enough to raise suspicion.
So I don't think its too much to ask - those lone wolves just need to be aware you can't hide your cake and have people believe you've not eaten it :up:
To be honest I think that's fair enough. But you've got to meet people halfway. If you're going to require the doubted to produce video evidence, you've also got to have some self-discipline about who we doubt. No-one has any better reason to doubt steve other than the fact that they don't think he's that good, and they haven't see him do it. Personally, I don't think that's enough reason to drag his name through the mud, and there we differ, I guess.
-
Sorry I've lost my spunk now
prank calls again?
-
I've done some of my finest ascents after my girlfriend has passed an important exam. I don't know why, it just gives me such a boost.
(sorry couldn't resist)
back to the heavy shit...
-
Stu wrote:
I don't think that's enough reason to drag his name through the mud
I know the debate started over Steve, my impression is that it very qiuckly moved beyond that. I haven't been talking about steve specifically and I don't feel I've dragged his name through the mud. Personally I feel he's a side issue in this debate - I think he has been affected by the 'fashion' for doubt created by others.
i have had some very interesting PMs today...
-
I think the preoblem here is that there are several sub texts to this debate. Some people are defending Steve (although it seems the debate has shifted on from this), others are keen to challenge a particular high profile individual, but don't want to necessarily be dragged over the coals if they've got it wrong (which is still entirely possible).
And then there is, as JB has indicated, various PMs bouncing around.
I'm not sure where this is leading, hopefully closer to the truth.
-
A load of PMs flying about aren't going to get anyone closer to the truth.
If people believe so strongly in their claim that a particular individual is a liar, and they have some sort of reasonable evidence to back up their claim, then why don't they post up?
But if you're going to, then at least do the decent thing and get in touch with the person you are dissing and let them give their side to the story.
I must also make clear that it is the individual's responsibility to defend themselves should it come to anything more than forum banter. If you call someone a liar and they decide to pay you a visit, then don't blame me or ukbouldering.com.
-
PS This is called "putting your money where your mouth is".
But I don't expect there to be that many takers.
-
With regard to Dunning, he must have had a belayer on Hubble non? Surely that would sort that particular issue out?
-
Depends who the belayer is. John Dunne was belayed on many of his ascents by Andy Jack, but people just tar him with the same brush.
If Steve was belayed by Dalvinder, then I know for sure that won't satisfy the doubters.
-
i was bouldering with someone a while back and matter of factly told me Andy Jack was a figment of desperate dunnes imagination and was not real and no one had ever been able to find him or track him down to speak to him..............
Which is funny cos he stayed at our house back in the day at least 5 times :lol:
This is in no way associated with this argument cos im keeping out of it :8)
-
Bubba wrote:
A load of PMs flying about aren't going to get anyone closer to the truth.
you'd be suprised...
If people believe so strongly in their claim that a particular individual is a liar, and they have some sort of reasonable evidence to back up their claim, then why don't they post up?
because the reasonable evidence is generally from individuals not present. I'm not comfortable to drop a bombshell and say... 'x' said so - it should come straight from them
But if you're going to, then at least do the decent thing and get in touch with the person you are dissing and let them give their side to the story.
exactly - another reason people aren't prepared to 'go public' just yet. At the end of the day people would rather give others a chance to defend themselves before they are publicly humiliated...
-
Threads like that are just the problem :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Your thread strongly insinuates that you have iron-clad evidence about someone lying. Only you aren't prepared to back it up, you aren't prepared to defend the insinuations. You even provide some fairly decent reasons why you wont. That's fair enough.
But if you're not prepared to back up your accusations then shut the fuck up! Don't drop broad hints on the internet for everyone to see. honestly!
-
you'd be suprised...
What I meant was it's not going to get public opinion any closer to the truth.
because the reasonable evidence is generally from individuals not present. I'm not comfortable to drop a bombshell and say... 'x' said so - it should come straight from them
Get them to post on here then. I'm not saying the stuff you know isn't true, but lots of rumours are like "oh, 'x' said so...." but when you talk to 'x' it's "oh, 'y' said so", etc, etc. Let's have some real facts and not just endless backstabbing and sniding.
exactly - another reason people aren't prepared to 'go public' just yet.
Or when it comes to it, are they prepared to go public at all, or would they rather just throw stones from a safe position?
-
i would be so bold as to say that if someone gave you a good kicking because you said that you did'nt belive they done a particular problem.it would hardly increase peoples belief of an ascent. :bash:
but as i don't intend to accuse any one of lying at the moment i'm not about to test this theory
-
Whhoooaaa :shock:
calm down, its just a chat room :wink:
Actually the bigger revelations today have been about who has been maliciously spreading the gossip in the first place. Now as that is again second hand I'm not going name-calling.
I don't have iron-clad evidence aboout anybody lying. OK?
So stop jumping to conclusions.
-
By the way, someone who would definately know told me that Johnny Brown wears frilly girls knickers. Obviously, I won't say who, because that would be unfair, but trust me it's true :wink:
-
No surprises there - pics have been on another thread for some time!
Though its more a g-string than frilly knickers. I prefer my underwear to chafe rather than tickle
-
most strong lasses wear womens pants don't they? its only to be expected.
-
Whhoooaaa :shock:
I don't have iron-clad evidence aboout anybody lying. OK?
So stop jumping to conclusions.
oops. :oops:
-
is it your own g-string jonny :shock:
-
I heard it was a frilly g-string?
-
Wow, this threads a bit of a flyer.
Well here's my late entry, which will doubtless repeat lots of other peoples comments and not really cover any new ground.
A far as I'm concerned until there is absolute evidence that someone has been less than honest about their climbing (i.e. they ersonally come out and said 'yup, I bullshitted that whole season...') then I'll believe.
This for 3 reasons:
1) You never know the motivations of the detractors, and you get into a whole is he a bullshitter or are they bullshitters about him or blah blah blah and my little brain can't cope.
2) My meagre collection of ascents have been largely unwitnessed (I am one of those sad obsessive lonely wierdos) and it would seem churlish of me to doubt others whilst expecting them to belive my claims (not that I really care whether people belive me or not).
3) Just makes me feel kinda squidgy being all trusting an all.
Having said that I don't see a problem with asking genuine questions about ascents, but maybe this isn't the place to raise the questions that have been raised as it may have come across as rumour-mongering? To ask questions about an unrepresented individual on this forum is not the same as asking Dave (for example) when/how/who with he did Submergence etc...
Stu seems to be pretty much on the money with this one IMHO - maybe it's a short people thing?
-
Woah heavy topic, interesting read though. Somebody touched on it earliar- that if you come from the arguement from a different angle- there are so many underground rulers. Its the same in all 'extreme sports' skating snowboarding- any sport/lifestyle with cliques or hubs of action ie sheffield will have people who talk about their activities, other people like to talk about other people activities and the theres the 'others' who seem to just get on with it, and some i hide from publicity....
brings to mind that perrin article in climber about 'spinks'. Anyone shed any light im really intrigued
-
anyone else seen the new ote with steve's new problems. rhythem looks amazing.
in common with most things steve does these days he has video footage of his ascent
sad its had to come to that but at least it'll stop anyone calling him a liar anymore.
nice one steve.
-
No I haven't seen it but hopefully by getting video of his ascents then Steve will quash his doubters, good luck to him.
(Your avatar - Impropa Opera, nice pic).
-
thanx neil but its actually picnic sarcastic. come on, you're doing a topo of the place u shud have spotted that. :wink: :D
-
Oops! :oops: In my defence they look the same in a picture of that size. Erm...
-
To ask questions about an unrepresented individual on this forum is not the same as asking Dave (for example) when/how/who with he did Submergence etc...
28/02/04 14:15
the cheating way
kim and cofe present
-
28/02/04 14:15
the cheating way
kim and cofe present
And I thought I was sad and trainspottery - I mean the time FFS.
And just in case you totally misunderstood me I wasn't casting any doubts about your ascent (apart from the cheaty tallness of your technique :D ) just making the point that did anyone wish to question you about a claim then here is a reasonable place to do it cos you are here to represent yourself. Whereas some of the other people mentioned on this thread do not have the same pressence on this forum and alternative means of investigation would be more approriately deployed. I'm sure you did get the point but this is the type of topic/thread where statments could easily go misinterpretted.
So to sumarise Dave has done everything he says he has and anyone says any different i'll bite there bloody ankles, reet bo...
-
I would like to go back to some of the points about the climbing media that JB and Nigel raised.
I don't think that the commercial imperative/ego drive is that new a thing. Maybe there is more at stake these days, but, back in the 80s, expectations were lower (most hardcore climbers were poorer than yer average tramp),. Anyway, I don't think things were that different back then (as Webbo has pointed out). I've been climbing for about 20 years and apart from the first few years when I was too starry eyed and naïve to know any better, I've always been aware of disputed ascents and suspected liars within the scene.
Perhaps the climbing press has changed, in that production standards have been significantly raised (especially of late), leading most sponsored climbers to not even bother trying to get first ascent images; preferring instead to go back with a pro photographer to make sure that they get a good quality image, both for the photo incentive cash and for the portfolio, should they decide to jump sponsors at a future date. These photos are pretty much useless as evidence – everyone accepts that it is acceptable to not repeat a hard head point or boulder problem. With the former: why put your life on the line again? With the latter, a repeat ascent is unlikely for a whole host of credible reasons (the critical combination of conditions, luck, performance and first time desire).
A mag editor could accept and use more ‘actual first ascent' photos, but in the light of what I've just described – who is going to provide? Furthermore, what does a shaky dull photo tell you? This will never be conclusive evidence.
I don't think it is fair to blame the mags exclusively for the current situation. If you want to blame anyone – blame the gear companies who construct the photo incentive deals. Is there such a thing as bad publicity? Do these companies actually care if their sponsored star has a bad reputation – probably not if they're being talked about.
Controversy, to a certain extent, has a commercial worth – just look at the recent PF forum debacle for a slightly different slant on this. I'm sure that one of the reasons why the public hanging of Steve Dunning by an army of anonymous cowards was tolerated for so long, was because the site controllers felt it would bring more traffic to their site. (I did hear people mention freedom of speech at the time, but as far as I'm concerned that freedom should only be granted to those prepared to stand up and be counted, as they are on this forum.)
The internet is an interesting phenomena – it has so many positive aspects, but it is a double edged sword. There is no doubt that it has encouraged a regrettable (although occasionally comic) element of fantasy to infect our climbing scene. On the one hand it is good because it makes the whole news culture more democratic and open to players outside of the traditional cliques, yet without effective editorial control we have anarchy.
To finish my late night ramble; thinking about some of JB's comments, I guess I should accept a degree of responsibility for what is happening.
In the 4 years that I have been writing my Climber column, I have given a lot of column inches and photo coverage to sponsored climbers, and if I'm honest there is a tendency to go with the easiest option. Sponsored climbers do make my life easy – they send me prompt updates and are always keen to arrange photo sessions. When a stunning photograph of a sponsored climber lands on my desk, it is hard to not just go with it.
I guess I need to dig deeper and research more thoroughly to find the unsung heroes and underground stars, busy cranking away from the glare of the limelight.
And I guess, that top players will have to accept that video footage or a sizable roll call of credible witnesses is the only way they will keep the wolves of doubt at bay.
-
All good points from the big man...
However as a photographer I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get great shots on the day. Sam Whittaker is a case in point - on his recent ascent of Appointment with Death. The mags got great shots of a real ascent - in fact had he returned to pose I'm positive the shots wouldn't have been as good. Hanging off the jug at the end of the crux covered in logos is a poor substitute for a bit of real action. Now you can blame both climbers and photographers for taking the easy option - essentially results are less guaranteed and a little more effort is required. This debate has firmed my resolve never to take the easy option.
nik at work says he's done many of his ascents alone. Well I've met enough witnesses and seen enough photos to have no beef with whatever he says. And his ascent of Doug remains about the highpoint of gritstone on-sighting - again witnessed. What is of concern is the very few who appear to have done every hard ascent unwitnessed.
-
28/02/04 14:15
the cheating way
kim and cofe present
And I thought I was sad and trainspottery - I mean the time FFS.
one of the perks of a digital camera!
-
After the Irish Bouldering Team Manager had given us our prep talk at the crag yesterday, we got to talking about this thread, and I think I can honestly say, on behalf of everyone who was there, that I'm really disappointed this hasn't turned into a total shit flinging event, as that's what we were all really hoping to find when we got back after the weekend :cry:
Oh well, back to my copy of Heat magzine.......
-
After the Irish Bouldering Team Manager had given us our prep talk at the crag yesterday
could you drop this in a few more times andy? r u on the irish bouldering team per chance then :wink:
after all the talk on here, does anyone think any differently than before? has this been a good exercise or a waste of time for us?
-
but on another note, it has took an hour out of my life catchin up wi what's been said :D
-
after all the talk on here, does anyone think any differently than before? has this been a good exercise or a waste of time for us?
Well, when it came to the crunch and time to actually name names and come up with the goods everyone suddenly went very quiet or started backpeddling....which is just what I expected.
So, no, no real good has come of it and everyone can just go back to bitching in private and spreading the rumours :roll:
-
So, no, no real good has come of it and everyone can just go back to bitching in private and spreading the rumours
I don't agree - for one we've established this is the only place on the web such a debate can take place without descending into farce. Nice one Bubbs.... :up:
And we've also established that if people are churning out big numbers entirely unwitnessed they can expect a bit of scepticism, and not unreasonably. So maybe we'll see a bit less of it in future, which can only lead to less doubt, less bitchin and a better scene for all.
...and as I mentioned earlier, there has been a few PMs flying about that have put a few minds a rest without embarassing anyone. I know that its a bit cliquey and some of you will be foaming at the bit to know more, but its better than public slagging. If you're still foaming, bring a fiver to the next bouldrin meet and I'll tell all :wink:
...and maybe we'll see less photos of logo-plastered heroes hanging on jugs. I doubt it though... over-caffeinated sugary drink company anyone? :321:
-
After the Irish Bouldering Team Manager had given us our prep talk at the crag yesterday
could you drop this in a few more times andy? r u on the irish bouldering team per chance then :wink:
Alas, it's just a peurile piss-take of Dave 'Irish Bouldering Guru' Flanagan.
Even if such a thing existed, I think a few eye-brows would be raised at having a fat grey English punter on the team - mind you, when you look at their football team, being Irish is just a state of mind :lol:
-
n for english managers as well
-
As quite an amazing real time case study in how rumours start due to jealousy check out Marcus Bock questioning Gaskins on 8a.nu!!! :shock: Tut tut Marcus. :roll:
Just in case you are of the "no smoke without fire" persuasion, just remember that this is a single smoke particle from someone whose hardest problem ever just got done in 3 days by a visiting alien. Plus you have to also explain away:
Witnessed doing Hubble and in latter years staticing it.
Witnessed doing Staminaband-PUTP in 10 minutes.
Witnessed doing the moves on the Brandenburg Gate project, V15.
Videoed (!) basically doing Isla d'Encanta V13 in terrible conditions.
Videoed doing Anasthesia V13 wearing a fleece!
Witnessed by Mark Glaister doing all moves on Kaizen.
Witnessed by Greg Chapman doing At The Heart Of It All V14 in 2 sections (if you have seen it this will be dismaying).
etc etc....I could go on.
This is also a case study of how important it is to have witnesses/video for harder ascents these days.
-
Witnessed doing Hubble and in latter years staticing it.
Witnessed doing Staminaband-PUTP in 10 minutes.
Witnessed doing the moves on the Brandenburg Gate project, V15.
Videoed (!) basically doing Isla d'Encanta V13 in terrible conditions.
Videoed doing Anasthesia V13 wearing a fleece!
Witnessed by Mark Glaister doing all moves on Kaizen.
Witnessed by Greg Chapman doing At The Heart Of It All V14 in 2 sections (if you have seen it this will be dismaying).
etc etc....I could go on.
yes it sounds really bad for gaskins. i personally cant see it been true about him lying, he has obviously worked very hard for climbing over the last years, and someone who has put in that type of motivation and hard work would almost certainly not spoil it by lying.
However i have met Markus on occasions and he seams a very honest guy who is not the type of person to make up any shit without believing it himself. He is not a jealous guy at all towards foreign climbers repeatiing the stuff he has done in the Jura or hasnt been able to do.
So its really a shit situation to be in for gaskins, markus is very respected in germany and if he has an opinion most other climbers will believe it, the good thing is Gaskins obviously only climbs for himself so shouldnt really care what they think.
The only way he can change their opinion is to go back and repeat it in front of then, thats a sorry state of affairs.
-
seems to be the way things are going, sad to see. having said that, whytf anyone goes on 8a.nu is beyond me. What a load of bollox
Big up Dave though - 17th! :clap:
-
its gratifying to know that theres only 16 people in the uk who are better at bouldering than me.
yeah right.
-
All this 8a.nu bashing is a bit Rocktalk-esque.
-
Yeah dave your sure kicking that richard simpson guys ass :wink: .
BTW Clash of the Titans 7a, ouch!
-
i was feeling generous!
-
the way i read it. bockstar shows gaskins how to do it, he can't touch it, not nearly does it but, can't touch it. then 2 days later gaskins tells bock he's done it. then says he's done an 8b+ but when asked it turns out he's done a 7c. is anyone surprised that bock doesn't believe him?
i don't really care to read any reply from greg or nigel tellin us how strong he is. i know how strong he is, i do not doubt. however it is fairly obvious that markus does n it is his hardest bit of climbin. i also see no problem with someone altering the grade of their problem on reflection.
let me emphasize for some of you, i am not doubtin godskins but if some of you can't see why markus is ...
-
Yep, I can see why Markus has his doubts. I also find Gaskins' explanations perfectly reasonable. I can understand why someone who had been bouldering for nearly nine hours might not be able to do the moves on an 8c.
Had Markus bothered to talk to Gaskins he might have received a satisfactory explanation, but instead he sent an email to a climbing "news" website. That email will no doubt spark a whole host of rumours. And THAT, children, is why we end up with threads like this one. :(
-
is anyone surprised that bock doesn't believe him?
No, I'm surprised he's told the world about his opinions before he's talked to Gaskins about them, esecially as they'd been talking to each other and he had Gaskins' Mobile number.
He should have given Gaskins the right to reply to him before he had to reply to the arm chair critics because :
1) It's fair.
2) How would Bock look if Gaskins did have a video of the ascent that went on a web site after he'd been publically saying Gaskins couldn't have done it?
-
Well said Stu, you've echoed my thoughts exactly.
-
Quite right Stu, it is the way this has been handled that is extremely disappointing.
-
That email will no doubt spark a whole host of rumours. And THAT, children, is why we end up with threads like this one. :(
Well said Stu, you've echoed my thoughts exactly.
Hold on a minute, who authored this thread? :roll: :wink:
-
I recon we bet bockhead over here, give him a 9hour session on the bowderstone then set him going on il pirata. :lol: :wink:
-
...either way its a very bad reflection on the current scene - be nice to think this is a low point but I think we will be seeing much more of it.
-
i hope he found the moves hard after nine hours!
very bad days.
-
To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation.
I don't see a parallel with Bock/8a.nu's tabloid bullshit.
-
To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation.
But nobody on here had actually challenged it.
All i'm questioning is the implicit criticism of 'a thread like this' by the opener of said can of worms.
-
That doesn't make sense - it was already public, over on Rocktalk (and on PF a few months ago).
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have defended Steve on Rocktalk or PF? Or, are you just saying I shouldn't have started this thread? If someone makes a public statement that I believe to be untrue and unfair, I can't just stand by hoping that it will all blow over.
When I concurred with Stu, I meant that it is tragic that threads like this have to occur (reading it again perhaps he meant something different).
-
When I concurred with Stu, I meant that it is tragic that threads like this have to occur (reading it again perhaps he meant something different).
Nope, that's exactly what I meant.
-
To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation
panton
But nobody on here had actually challenged it
bonjoy
Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?
johnny brown
seems like a challenge to me.
-
i have always belived that this type of thing should be openly debated. there is usually enough evidence to support a climbers claim to an ascent if their good enough.
its the folks who are witnessed failing on hvs,s then tell you they've soloed an e4 when no one was watching or when you seen someone trying to do the 2nd ascent of a cutting edge route.you leave as its getting dark ,they then tell you they got it after you'd left.
these are incidents that i came across in the past .the climbers in question then went on to get better ,which is possible for most people with enough drive and dedication.its that their drive to be good/great was greater than their ability at the start.
-
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have defended Steve on Rocktalk or PF? Or, are you just saying I shouldn't have started this thread?
No, if you can't stand up for your mates on a public forum what can you do? Nor am I saying you shouldn't have started this thread. What i am saying is that all sides are equally entitled to express there views and shouldn't be criticised for such, least of all by the person who started the debate. I read Stu's post as meaning that threads such as this are bad per se and seeing as he's contributing to one side of the debate it must mean he thinks the otherside is entirely to blame for this badness. I would say if you really are dead set against this sort of discussion it's best not brought up in the first place.It takes two to tango blah, blah blah.... I have no real beef with anybody, i'm just making sure that the moral highground is a well kept garden. :wink:
-
To Bonjoy: All I did was defend Steve Dunning's reputation
panton
But nobody on here had actually challenged it
bonjoy
Is the Si O'Connor/ Steve Dunning/ Ben Heason debacle in anyway healthy for british climbing? How useful is it just to trust such self-publicists implicitly?
johnny brown
seems like a challenge to me.
This was after the issue had been raise. I was refering to before.
-
true no one on here had challenged it on here before but the knobs on planetfear and cocktalk had. and as soon as the thread started people were challenging it.
-
i think the people on here are pretty serious about their bouldering, i am not in the least bit interested what is said on pf n cocktalk by a bunch of fools who can't climb arguin with a couple who can. peoples views clash, this is supposed to give us a (mas)debating ground. it does not, all that happens is that people fall out amongst themselves. nothing was sorted with this thread, nothing will be. all that happens is i say he's not good enough you say he is n we only have 52 moves left. that is a general sweepin statement btw. :thissucks:
-
Lovejoy wrote:
I have no real beef with anybody, i'm just making sure that the moral highground is a well kept garden
Well its a good job you're tending the flowers, I'm always too busy enjoying the view. Ever since I got on that high horse and rode it up here, them normal people have looked pretty small - almost like ants :wink:
Owen wrote:
I'd be interested to know whether these PM's are in the vein of backing up or backing down of said allegations.
Both, in about equal measure.
-
don't you think when someone sprays doubt about an individual it says more about them than the target ie: i don't believe so and so - what about me me me........
-
no not at all. to some people it means i doubt that they did it. sometimes a cigar is just...
-
its the folks who are witnessed failing on hvs,s then tell you they've soloed an e4 when no one was watching
I doubt I'm making a relevant point but this is entirely possible, almost probable. How many people might give up trying to tick some Brown/ Whillans HVS's after their third failure, and go slab climbing, even beyond E4, on a day out at the Roaches or Ramshaw?
-
i take your point. but the situation was more like failing to get more than 10 ft up embankment rt 3 on a tope rope. then coming back and saying they'd soloed edge lane :!: this in its self does'nt matter at all.its when the guy [or girl] in question 3 or 4 years later can climb e6/7/8 etc. suddenley their previous ascents become part of climbing history.it gets even better if they write the area guide book
-
this in its self does'nt matter at all.its when the guy [or girl] in question 3 or 4 years later can climb e6/7/8 etc. suddenley their previous ascents become part of climbing history.
wise words.
on 8a.nu what's the point of tellin us that there is no doubt rouling did akira, when the interviewers saw him doing most of it 10 years later. hello. is he not 10 years stronger? hello. not saying he didn't do it but the SCIENCE works
-
Equally he could be 10 years 'weaker'.
I used to climb about 4 times a week (both outside and in) now I'm lucky to climb twice a month.
I used to go to the gym 3 times a week, now I rarely go at all.
As a result I now fail on things that used to be standard problems.
-
Equally he could be 10 years 'weaker'.
I used to climb about 4 times a week (both outside and in) now I'm lucky to climb twice a month.
I used to go to the gym 3 times a week, now I rarely go at all.
As a result I now fail on things that used to be standard problems.
You wait till Mrs. Sloppy has little sloppys, because when they are little you get out even less!
-
whereas on the other hand the guy in question has gone from strength to strength. climbing numerous hard probs in different places, n getting recognized as a strong boulderer in his own right. i know he did 9a's prior to this but it has took him a long time to become 'known' as a 'hard' boulderer