UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => shootin' the shit => the log pile => Topic started by: Will Hunt on July 22, 2015, 01:57:36 pm

Title: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Will Hunt on July 22, 2015, 01:57:36 pm
From a different thread:

And he understands that all you need is a phone to film it

I'm not saying that at the top level there is no need to provide proof, especially if your track record is under scrutiny.

However, the above is not correct. You either need:
a) a camera with a long battery life and a large, empty SD card; preferably (perhaps necessesarily) with a tripod;
or b) a friend who isn't required for spotting and a phone.

When you're trying something hard there is no telling if/when you're going to get up it. So you need to do option a and leave the camera running. This sort of setup is actually quite expensive. Perhaps not to the media obsessed film maker who loves spending their money on fancy kit, but almost certainly (perhaps prohibitively so) to the budding climber who is more interested in climbing rocks than making movies.

If you just have a phone you cannot take this approach as there is a significant chance that it will run out of memory/battery before you get the problem. Even if you have a friend with you who is acting as cameraman, you are likely to miss it. We are climbers, not footballers. The other people at the crag are not our entourage, they want to climb too. You can't expect to have somebody standing ready to film you at all times.

This is why I have more footage of me failing to repeat stuff for the camera than I have of me actually getting up stuff. Obviously nobody cares as I have a track record for not telling porkies about what I've done, and the climbs are generally on esoteric bits of rock at a grade that nobody gets all excited about. The same principles apply though.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: cowboyhat on July 22, 2015, 02:04:31 pm
From a different thread:

And he understands that all you need is a phone to film it


However, the above is not correct. You either need:
a) a camera with a long battery life and a large, empty SD card; preferably (perhaps necessesarily) with a tripod;



Thats ok then it should have at least been picked up on one of Keiths permanent camera stations from when he did Gourmandsie.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on July 22, 2015, 02:08:57 pm
Can't agree with you Will. I always use a phone to film. I press start before I'm having a go - then press stop afterwards. If it's crap/no good I delete it. Never had any battery/memory issues.

If anything it's good for my 'redpoints' as it forces me to rest for longer...

Edit: plus if it was one of my projects/hardest thing s I've done is want a film for my own satisfaction/interest..
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 22, 2015, 02:10:31 pm
I've done it with a cheapy camera and a £2 mini tripod. With a 4GB card.
I just deleted every time I took a break.
I have an old (2011) Olympus Mu and a spare battery. Always managed a full day.

Caveat:

Have never achieved anything worth filming.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on July 22, 2015, 02:51:50 pm
What tomtOMM said, filming stuff is a piece of piss. Without spotter / tripod / fancy kit. The only tricky bit is in a boggy / muddy area and walking back and forth to camera.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: petejh on July 22, 2015, 03:03:00 pm
What Fiend said about what TomtOMM said. Filming's piss with a phone - play, stop, delete, repeat. Mini tripods are a tenner - invoice it to the sponsor..
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: cowboyhat on July 22, 2015, 03:06:34 pm
But it still isn't mandatory.

And yet this subject lingers. I don't know Ellis Butler Barker, how many watts/KG is he pushing?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: andy_e on July 22, 2015, 03:06:50 pm
Shoepod.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: 36chambers on July 22, 2015, 03:19:44 pm
If I were a sponsored climber, doing what may possibly be my hardest/most significant climb to date, I'd want at least 3 different camera angles of the ascent, along with drone footage, footage of the drive to the crag and walk in, perhaps footage of me caressing the holds, cleaning my shoes, drinking coffee, falling a few times. Ideally whilst topping out once. Anything less and there's no point bothering really.

 


 
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Doylo on July 22, 2015, 03:41:00 pm
And your Grandkids can look at your YouTube channel when you're dead and wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 22, 2015, 03:53:33 pm
Look, unless something has changed (since Brian?), as far as I know the sponsorship amounts to some free t-shirts and shoes and not much more. His Spanish trips were mainly self funded.
I don't expect he's in a position to invoice sponsors, even if they contributed to his trip.

It's not quite the same as a sponsor funded, organised, camera crew equipped exped; with 4* hotels and Limos/Helo transfer to the crag.

I think he will probably remember to take a camera next time.

I hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Will Hunt on July 22, 2015, 04:04:13 pm
wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.

Walking back and forth between a camera to hit record, stop, and delete.

It sounds like for some the act of filming oneself climbing is as much a thing to enjoy as the actual climbing itself. That's fine, but please don't forget that not everybody will share this sentiment. To me it's an added chore that interferes with and inhibits the process of climbing. Hence why I normally try and repeat for the camera. I'd rather get up something and not have it filmed than have lots of film of a fruitless endeavour.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on July 22, 2015, 04:30:37 pm
If I were a sponsored climber, doing what may possibly be my hardest/most significant climb to date, I'd want at least 3 different camera angles of the ascent, along with drone footage, footage of the drive to the crag and walk in, perhaps footage of me caressing the holds, cleaning my shoes, drinking coffee, falling a few times. Ideally whilst topping out once. Anything less and there's no point bothering really. 
FFS, if there's no footage of you actually brewing the coffee, you might as well be filed under Si O'Connor....I mean who knows what stimulants could be in it.

I think the issue in the EBB case is not "young relatively new climber doing something significant e.g. 8B", but "y r n c doing something very significant indeed i.e. first ascent of fatman after holds have broken rendering it desperate", if I understand right?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Monolith on July 22, 2015, 04:40:50 pm
And your Grandkids can look at your YouTube channel when you're dead and wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.

I dread to think what future micro Doyles will gleam from their doylo99 experience.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Sasquatch on July 22, 2015, 05:17:48 pm
wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.

Walking back and forth between a camera to hit record, stop, and delete.

It sounds like for some the act of filming oneself climbing is as much a thing to enjoy as the actual climbing itself. That's fine, but please don't forget that not everybody will share this sentiment. To me it's an added chore that interferes with and inhibits the process of climbing. Hence why I normally try and repeat for the camera. I'd rather get up something and not have it filmed than have lots of film of a fruitless endeavour.

Indeed it can be.  I enjoy watching climbing videos, even of myself.  It brings me back to things I'd often otherwise forget.

However, I grant that there's a case to be made for filming being a Major P.I.T.A. 

Cost shouldn't be an issue though. As mentioned by a few, phones are readily available to use or cheap cameras.  I upgraded this year to a new gopro(total outlay of $500 for really nice setup), but as I was shopping, I found 1st or 2nd edition second hand gopros available for under $100, an extra set of batteries is 20, and a 64gb(4+hrs of 1080hd footage) memory card for $40.  Add in a cheapo tripod and you're at under $200. So less than the cost of a single pad.  I don't think cost is a really an issue. 

Quote
I think the issue in the EBB case is not "young relatively new climber doing something significant e.g. 8B", but "y r n c doing something very significant indeed i.e. first ascent of fatman after holds have broken rendering it desperate", if I understand right?

This is it to me.  First of all, the logic doesn't work.  He lists it as 8B, which was the original grade.  Do you honestly expect me to believe that with all of the ridiculously strong local and traveling climbers coming through font that no one re-climbed Fatman in a decade if it's only 8B?  I'm sorry, but that makes me extremely skeptical. I want to believe, but I'd bet that the same thought is going through ALOT of people heads.  Video, pictures, sequences, open discussion would all go along way to clearing it up.  Maybe he thought he did Fatman, but he did something different, maybe he did do Fatman, maybe he's lying.  Who knows?  He does, and the 4? people there with him.  It'd be great if he did it, it's a problem with history and importance. 
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: bendavison on July 22, 2015, 05:38:27 pm
Look, unless something has changed (since Brian?), as far as I know the sponsorship amounts to some free t-shirts and shoes and not much more. His Spanish trips were mainly self funded.
I don't expect he's in a position to invoice sponsors, even if they contributed to his trip.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A mate of mine asked him a couple years ago what his deal with Mammut was. IIRC it was £2500 worth of stuff from them, and I think he was allowed to take some of that as cash towards trips. So less than fuck all compared to football or tennis, but a lot to an at-the-time ~16 year old lad who'd just done his first 8b, and pretty good compared to the majority of young sponsored climbers I'm aware of. and enough to buy a freakin camera and tripod

Split thread?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: a dense loner on July 22, 2015, 05:55:11 pm
Yep pls split the thread
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on July 22, 2015, 06:02:38 pm

wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.

Walking back and forth between a camera to hit record, stop, and delete.

It sounds like for some the act of filming oneself climbing is as much a thing to enjoy as the actual climbing itself. That's fine, but please don't forget that not everybody will share this sentiment. To me it's an added chore that interferes with and inhibits the process of climbing. Hence why I normally try and repeat for the camera. I'd rather get up something and not have it filmed than have lots of film of a fruitless endeavour.

If I'm trying something hard (for me) then I'll only have 4-6 attempts on it with lengthy (5-10min) breaks in between. So tbh I'm normally looking for something to do whilst resting - filming can fill part of that.

Anyway - for those of you for which the trek to phone and back again is too arduous - have a look on eBay and you can get a key fob sized Bluetooth remote for iOS or android devices that starts/stops video remotely etc for less than a fiver.

Either way and whatever your crag behaviour preferences might be - there's little excuse for not filming stuff if it's significant etc.. As most here seem to say.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on July 22, 2015, 07:37:14 pm
Squatch: Reading about the "chossy Peak lime / Parisella's eliminate" style bollox and rules that rodma was describing on the other thread, maybe the simplest explanation is EBB climbed something about 8B somewhere in that roof and assumed it was Fatman as he's used to the clear outstanding lines that Devonian limestone bouldering is world-renowned for, and didn't know about the Fatman issues / variants etc...
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: petejh on July 22, 2015, 08:26:50 pm
But it still isn't mandatory. (to film)

Nor is it mandatory to seek external recognition or reward by climbing rocks. Nobody who really matters gives a shit what you climb.

The two go hand-in-hand - choosing to seek recognition/external reward for high achievement can't (or certainly shouldn't) fail to bring with it the burden of providing evidence of your claimed talent.

How much do you need that stroke..

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on July 22, 2015, 08:30:37 pm
I seem to remember Dan Varian giving a very good post about filming/not filming things and how there was no real excuse not to...
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Jim on July 22, 2015, 08:47:50 pm
But it still isn't mandatory.

And yet this subject lingers. I don't know Ellis Butler Barker, how many watts/KG is he pushing?
More importantly what time can he run a mile in?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: a dense loner on July 22, 2015, 08:59:54 pm
Whoever came up with the name Ellis Butler Bullshit deserves a wad
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Bonjoy on July 23, 2015, 08:54:05 am
This has been discussed better and more thoroughly on UKB before. Since then nothing has changed except kit has got cheaper/easier and apparent bullshitters have got rarer (unsurprisingly).
It’s as simple as this, it isn’t a rule it’s a choice – you can say you’ve climbed anything under the sun. You’re not obliged to film anything and neither is anyone obliged to believe anything you say. If it looks dodgy they won’t and you’ll eventually end up the subject of a thread such as this if your claims are significant, or merely the subject of crag gossip if they aren’t. Do you want to be believed or do you want people to argue about whether or not you are a liar? The choice is yours.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: SA Chris on July 23, 2015, 10:27:04 am
And your Grandkids can look at your YouTube channel when you're dead and wonder what the fuck you were doing all your life.

Don't need to wait for Grandkids, my kids do it already. "Daddy what you watching?" "Daddy why did you fall off".

I record all my ascents for the occasion when I fall off and hurt myself so badly it ends up on YBF. Jut editing recent clip of that.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on July 23, 2015, 11:01:56 pm
 Will Hunt +1

What an effing pain in the butt all this filming is.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 09:35:53 pm
So I know I'm a bit late on the Bandwagon of Ellis bashing but here goes nothing. Ellis is a good friend of mine and we have been on a few climbing trips together including the Font trip he climbed Fat Man and the magic woods trip he climbed Dark Matter.
Fat man is super old news! and i can't really be bothered to go there! I didn't see him climb it. But I did see him do all the moves and a link from one move in. I Don't know but I believe it has been repeated since the break by others and maybe if some of you would like to send me a photo of the official start holds I will confirm if he climbed it or not! But I do (probably) In my harddrive have some footage of him doing it from one move in. But as far as I know he climbed it from what we believed gathered to be the start holds from 7+8.

As for Dark Matter I can with %100 certainty say he did climb it! I was working darkness to sunshine while he was working dark matter. To my knowledge and from what the guide says it has 3 official starts! the first in the sit start from the back of the cave at 8B+/8C, the second is a stand from the same start as Remembrance at 8B/+ and the third as from darkness to sunshine 7c+/8a(alot of / grades). Ellis climbed the middle start. While I was with him I saw him make two major links on the route both times falling off on a droppable 5b(ish)move right at the very end. He then took a rest day and climbed the full line. He went off at 6 in the morning to get good conditions and I said I would meet him down there as I'm not a morning person. He returned around 8/9 while I was having breakfast and had done the route.
Yes route it's Fucking long!

Although I didn't see him climb it having been down there most of the time he was working it I am surprised he didn't get it quicker! He was so close so many times and made the 7c/8a section look like 6a!
And I truly believe that if any of you that doubt him had simply been climbing with him even on an off day there would not be a question in your mind! He puts an unbelieveable amount of effort in and it makes me so angry to see a group of angry old men setting at their computers putting down the achievements the stronger younger climbers.

The climb is very hard to film and impossible to get in one angle! anyone who has actually been to magic woods would know this! I have uploaded some footage ellis took a few days earlier of a warm up attempt.

I decided not to film anything that trip as I normally end up spending more time filming people fall off stuff than actually climbing anything myself! I ended making a video of two probables on our last day as a reply to the constant badgering of James Squire and Ed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXiuqjqrzs4 Skip to 2:50 to see his attempt. It is not from the start holds! But it's all I have! That and mine and his word, which should be enough really.

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Will Hunt on February 05, 2016, 10:41:46 pm
Thanks for posting that Mr Pajamas. Personally I have no interest in this. I really couldn't give a monkeys. However, the people who do won't take kindly to being insulted on the net. It's not necessary.

The issue that the proof seekers will have with your post is that despite the obvious demonstration in the video that the lad is a good climber, there is still no proof of him climbing the problem - that is that a human or camera saw, with their own eyeballs/lens, him climb the problem from the start holds and top out. Anything else is not proof, I'm afraid. I'm not saying I think he did or didn't do it either way, I'm just saying what proof is.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: abarro81 on February 05, 2016, 10:47:23 pm
Indeed. As with Simpson, no-one was ever wondering about ability or potential, only execution
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 11:03:14 pm
Personally I felt I was quite contained compared to some of the language I have seen used to describe my friend. Not by anyone on this feed though!. I personally find this tedious, annoying and pointless. It's just a bloody rock! and no real offence was meant!

But that is besides the point! I agree it is not proof but! It is no longer just heresay. It is my word. Obviously none of you have ever met me or probably ellis for that matter. But if there was even the slightest doubt in my mind I wouldn't have gone through the effort to bring up a almost forgotten topic. As far as I'm concerned he climbed the problem(dark matter) and I believe that should be good enough for most. And next time I will film the the absolute balls off it.
 
Here is a picture of the holds I believe Ellis used to start Fat Man after checking the first ascensionist video the original line starts a few holds lower and I'm not sure if what he climbed is or isn't an official climb but the breakage explains why we struggled to determine the start holds! Whatever he did do was still hard enough that I couldn't pull on although might not be worthy of the full grade? But who am I to tell!

... How the hell do you attach an image? :P
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 05, 2016, 11:05:29 pm
Ellis Butler Bullshit is a genius moniker, who should I wad?>>>>>
Title: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 05, 2016, 11:07:48 pm
Ellis Butler Bullshit is a genius moniker, who should I wad?>>>>>

Will ;)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 11:10:26 pm
Ellis Butler Bullshit is a genius moniker, who should I wad?>>>>>

apologies but I don't speak UKB. What are you on about?   
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 05, 2016, 11:14:51 pm
Maybe grab a dictionary Ellis
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Jim on February 05, 2016, 11:15:58 pm
As for Dark Matter I can with %100 certainty say he did climb it!
Quote
Although I didn't see him climb it
genius
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: User deactivated on February 05, 2016, 11:20:43 pm
Maybe grab a dictionary Ellis


  :clap2:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 11:23:23 pm
As for Dark Matter I can with %100 certainty say he did climb it!
Quote
Although I didn't see him climb it
genius

God damn! I knew I should have never even bothered.

I am %100 sure because I %100 believe he could have done it that morning! If he was going to lie about why not say he did it on one of the tens of times he tried that trip without me and save the 7 days of consistent effort.

But then again none of you actually care you just having nothing better to do on a friday evening(me included).
Should have gone to the pub.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 05, 2016, 11:24:56 pm
As for Dark Matter I can with %100 certainty say he did climb it!
Quote
Although I didn't see him climb it
genius

God damn! I knew I should have never even bothered.

I am %100 sure because I %100 believe he could have done it that morning! If he was going to lie about why not say he did it on one of the tens of times he tried if that trip without me and save the 7 days of consistent effort.

But then again none of you actually care you just having nothing better to do on a friday evening(me included).
Should have gone to the pub.

Suspension of disbelief is more believable, have you never seen Mouse Trap?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 11:29:27 pm
yeah sure. But I also know him! I also watched him climb every move on the problem at least seven or eight times. Twice from the start to a considerably easier move at the very end!

I will not press my point anymore! Believe me or not he climbed it.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Jim on February 05, 2016, 11:35:11 pm
Quote
you just having nothing better to do on a friday evening(me included).
Should have gone to the pub.
you brought this on yourself I'm afraid
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 05, 2016, 11:40:56 pm
Quote
you just having nothing better to do on a friday evening(me included).
Should have gone to the pub.
you brought this on yourself I'm afraid

Yeah I know! Anyway! I have said my bit for a friend. Hope you'll get out climbing over the weekend.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: 36chambers on February 05, 2016, 11:41:45 pm
He's still young. He'll most probably climb many harder things, rendering this insignificant. If he wants mass recognition, divorced from doubt, I'm sure he now knows how to achieve it :beer2:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 06, 2016, 03:35:25 pm
As I previously said I'd be really interested to see photos of Ellis on fatman, let alone footage of individual moves. Please post them up

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 07, 2016, 01:07:50 pm



 
Here is a picture of the holds I believe Ellis used to start Fat Man after checking the first ascensionist video the original line starts a few holds lower and I'm not sure if what he climbed is or isn't an official climb but the breakage explains why we struggled to determine the start holds! Whatever he did do was still hard enough that I couldn't pull on although might not be worthy of the full grade? But who am I to tell!

... How the hell do you attach an image?[emoji14]

Please post up some photos of Ellis on it. Or if you have some footage of him which isn't scattered amongst Rocklands goers then post that up too/ instead

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Paul B on February 07, 2016, 01:30:38 pm
A personal opinion on all of this is that some of the burden of/for proof should fall with the sponsors and reporting websites.

I'm amazed sponsors aren't more stringent than this (contracts I've seen mention things such as not acting in a way that would be bad for the brand) as it could lead to some very bad press.

I'm less surprised that certain websites seem less than bothered but really they ought to be rather than just re wording blog posts and calling it journalism.

I can see how Fatman could all easily be a misunderstanding, there are an awful lot of poor undercuts in that roof and younger generations who haven't seen it climbed to an eclectic mash of percussion instruments may not fully understand the history there (or know what a VHS is).
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: PipeSmoke on February 07, 2016, 01:50:11 pm
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=347961

Here's an 8A he did, turns out to be quite easy after someone repeated it. Not entirely relevant, but surely he'd have a better grasp of grades than that?

Also this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=358933

Also I am not calling him out , just seems to add to slightly dubious behaviour
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: shurt on February 07, 2016, 04:12:32 pm
I can see how Fatman could all easily be a misunderstanding, there are an awful lot of poor undercuts in that roof and younger generations who haven't seen it climbed to an eclectic mash of percussion instruments may not fully understand the history there (or know what a VHS is).

Love that film...
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Will Hunt on February 07, 2016, 04:33:17 pm
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=347961

Here's an 8A he did, turns out to be quite easy after someone repeated it. Not entirely relevant, but surely he'd have a better grasp of grades than that?

Also this:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=358933

Also I am not calling him out , just seems to add to slightly dubious behaviour

You always have to bear in mind that grading FAs is really really difficult and there's a load more effort involved than just walking up to an established problem, with an established set of holds and beta, and climbing it.
 :worms:
Title: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 07, 2016, 04:36:27 pm
I can't pm everyone.
- He really can climb.
- He's young.
- There is a backstory.
- At a guess and after talking privately to several that were "around" at the time, he probably did it. I think. Maybe.
- I have not always had the best relationship with him or his ex.
- He really can climb.
- No-one has been willing to swear that he did it (except PJ's above not sure who that is).

I would guess he's probably learnt a lesson? I started out quite sceptical, now 6/10 in favour of "he did it".

Edit

It's also none of my business and I know that. Just feel compelled to comment and look into it because of a loose connection to the lad. He always struck me as the type who might let ego overcome common sense though. I say this as an established Pot to his Kettle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 07, 2016, 04:48:25 pm
This is not the thread about religion. All I want is a photo of him on fatman.

There's talk from pj further up about him maybe doing it from a few moves in, but there only are a few moves on the roof. A photo would really help tell what problem was being attempted. If nothing else

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 07, 2016, 04:51:35 pm
I can see how Fatman could all easily be a misunderstanding, there are an awful lot of poor undercuts in that roof and younger generations who haven't seen it climbed to an eclectic mash of percussion instruments may not fully understand the history there (or know what a VHS is).

Love that film...
++1
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 09, 2016, 06:25:20 pm
Sorry Rodma I've been busy this week and last! (http://file:///Users/Tomwright1/.Trash/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-05%20at%2022.35.19.png)

Still not sure how to add an image... :/ Is it possible? once I know I will add it. Although I sure its about two move into the original line. But according the the vague description in 7+8 "Start low on a mono in the middle of the roof and undercling underneath" i could have easily been there. The start ellis did was two / three moves off the dyno to the lip. If that helps.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: 36chambers on February 09, 2016, 06:29:06 pm
Sorry Rodma I've been busy this week and last! (http://file:///Users/Tomwright1/.Trash/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-05%20at%2022.35.19.png)

Still not sure how to add an image... :/ Is it possible once I know I will add it.

Upload the image onto http://www.imgur.com/ and paste the link in this thread?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 09, 2016, 06:32:50 pm
There is the link.
I know the left hand is obscured but it's the best I have. The first move he did was a left hand bump then I believe a right hand move then right again to the lip.

http://imgur.com/PrW1YcT

(http://imgur.com/PrW1YcT)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 09, 2016, 06:36:54 pm
Judging by some pictures on bleau.info its only a slightly different left hand hold from how these people have started it. https://bleau.info/rempart/356.html
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fultonius on February 09, 2016, 07:14:25 pm
There is the link.
I know the left hand is obscured but it's the best I have. The first move he did was a left hand bump then I believe a right hand move then right again to the lip.

http://imgur.com/PrW1YcT

(http://imgur.com/PrW1YcT)

 :lol:  :slap:  Oh the irony!  I take it you didn't to post a photo of some lad standing on the ground touching a boulder?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Jim on February 09, 2016, 07:45:01 pm
You aren't doing your friend any favours in this thread! Now where is that photo of me stood infront of dreamtime  :whistle:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 09, 2016, 07:46:49 pm

 :lol:  :slap:  Oh the irony!  I take it you didn't to post a photo of some lad standing on the ground touching a boulder?

Firstly it's not really ironic is it? Secondly the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense.
Also It's a screen grab from an attempt, cant be bothered to go digging in my hard drive again and take a second screen grab of him pulling on.

 :wall:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Climbing in Pajamas on February 09, 2016, 07:53:49 pm
You aren't doing your friend any favours in this thread! Now where is that photo of me stood infront of dreamtime  :whistle:

I was merely trying to settle the issue of starting holds. Rodma asked for the photo. 
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fultonius on February 09, 2016, 08:02:40 pm
OK...my bad - I thought the photo was meant to be someone on a problem, not just someone fondling a starting hold.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Sasquatch on February 09, 2016, 08:12:11 pm
Why not upload the attempt to vimeo/youtube and then just share that link...  It would settle any questions about starting position.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: phenocryst on February 09, 2016, 08:13:10 pm
If you've gone to the trouble of getting a screen grab the clip of the actual attempt might
slightly less obtuse / more illuminating, no? :popcorn:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Will Hunt on February 09, 2016, 08:13:19 pm

 :lol:  :slap:  Oh the irony!  I take it you didn't to post a photo of some lad standing on the ground touching a boulder?

Firstly it's not really ironic is it? Secondly the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense.
Also It's a screen grab from an attempt, cant be bothered to go digging in my hard drive again and take a second screen grab of him pulling on.

 :wall:

This really isn't doing Ellis any favours. If its a screen grab from a video then just chuck the video on youtube and let people see it and then the speculation can be over. You've spent so much time replying to this thread now, you could have just "dug in your hard drive" (how hard can that be? Its not a room full of filing cabinets), posted it, and this could all be over.
Title: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 09, 2016, 08:27:38 pm

 :lol:  :slap:  Oh the irony!  I take it you didn't to post a photo of some lad standing on the ground touching a boulder?

Firstly it's not really ironic is it? Secondly the rest of that sentence doesn't make any sense.
Also It's a screen grab from an attempt, cant be bothered to go digging in my hard drive again and take a second screen grab of him pulling on.

 :wall:

This really isn't doing Ellis any favours. If its a screen grab from a video then just chuck the video on youtube and let people see it and then the speculation can be over. You've spent so much time replying to this thread now, you could have just "dug in your hard drive" (how hard can that be? Its not a room full of filing cabinets), posted it, and this could all be over.

Things are a bit different down here in Devon, our technology is a bit advanced for you Northern Mill workers to grasp...

Mrs PJ's is working on your request.

(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160209/f7093383067fbf845dc6424b17751f63.jpg)

Now, where did I leave my cows...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Three Nine on February 09, 2016, 09:00:45 pm
I can't pm everyone.
- He really can climb.
- He's young.
- There is a backstory.
- At a guess and after talking privately to several that were "around" at the time, he probably did it. I think. Maybe.
- I have not always had the best relationship with him or his ex.
- He really can climb.
- No-one has been willing to swear that he did it (except PJ's above not sure who that is).

I would guess he's probably learnt a lesson? I started out quite sceptical, now 6/10 in favour of "he did it".

Edit

It's also none of my business and I know that. Just feel compelled to comment and look into it because of a loose connection to the lad. He always struck me as the type who might let ego overcome common sense though. I say this as an established Pot to his Kettle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The obvious (to me) analogy is with Rich Simpson. Video footage of him doing some pretty tricky climbing (but not actually doing anything). Pathological liar. Massive massive ego. I don't think he did Action Direct.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 09, 2016, 09:32:33 pm
This thread is amazing. Claims, friends backing up claims and half naked boys on broken Font roofs.
It's amazing how Simpson gets it in the neck (not that I'm defending him), yet this all started out with him calling Heason out! Ben escaped a bullit there  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 09, 2016, 09:42:33 pm
Righty oh

I was really meaning a photo of him on it, but that suffices to at least show what holds you were on about.

When I was trying gourmandise (raccouri), I used those undercuts ( bumping along them) for my left hand to help turn my hips square on to the rock. On stronger attempts on gourmandise (raccouri) I even dropped fully onto those cos I had decided that was the way ( could go from the lip on gourmandise into those undercuts then up the arete, but didn't manage it from the start.

The rh mono on fatman is immediately left of the start holds on gourmandise raccouri ( it's the one that American used on the dernier fleau video on bleau. Info ) and the lh start hold is no longer attached to the rock.

I can certainly understand the confusion and whilst pulling off the deck on those high underlings in the photo would be difficult, it's not 8b difficult.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Moo on February 09, 2016, 09:58:39 pm
So can we conclude that Ellis thought he had done Fatman, but turns out that due to the vague description he started in the wrong place?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 09, 2016, 10:00:12 pm
Bingo! We have a winner  :chair:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 09, 2016, 10:19:59 pm
So can we conclude that Ellis thought he had done Fatman, but turns out that due to the vague description he started in the wrong place?
No

Nothing to do with vague description, there is still a mono on the roof, just much further back.


Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Moo on February 09, 2016, 10:30:56 pm
So we can conclude that Ellis started in the wrong place?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 10, 2016, 12:22:03 am

So we can conclude that Ellis started in the wrong place?

That depends if it's on the video.... ;)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tommytwotone on February 10, 2016, 09:03:15 am
I'm sure this will all be cleared up when his bike riding Spanish spotter surfaces with a blurry phone camera video footage.



Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on February 10, 2016, 10:42:55 am
Squatch: Reading about the "chossy Peak lime / Parisella's eliminate" style bollox and rules that rodma was describing on the other thread, maybe the simplest explanation is EBB climbed something about 8B somewhere in that roof and assumed it was Fatman as he's used to the clear outstanding lines that Devonian limestone bouldering is world-renowned for, and didn't know about the Fatman issues / variants etc...
Called it...
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 10, 2016, 11:06:15 am
No
He climbed the very end of an 8b, which would ( if you had to grade it) would possibly be around the 7c mark

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: petejh on February 10, 2016, 11:40:25 am
Can someone translate that into emoji?
Is it:
 :weakbench:  :worms:
instead of
:strongbench:  :ninja:

?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: punkpunk on February 10, 2016, 11:44:30 am
As a side note pretty sure he has also claimed traverse grades as full font grades....

Sent from my ST26i using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: standard on February 10, 2016, 12:28:20 pm
As a side note pretty sure he has also claimed traverse grades as full font grades....

Sent from my ST26i using Tapatalk

Fou Rire?

Possibly a genuine mistake.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: User deactivated on February 10, 2016, 12:42:12 pm
On his 8a scorecard for dark matter stand he says no score taken-why would you do this if you'd done it? He has taken the score for it incidentally.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: punkpunk on February 10, 2016, 12:51:49 pm
As a side note pretty sure he has also claimed traverse grades as full font grades....

Sent from my ST26i using Tapatalk

Fou Rire?

Possibly a genuine mistake.
Possibly, big difference between 8b and ~7c+ though

Sent from my ST26i using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 10, 2016, 12:58:01 pm
I can see how climbing with people that think you are awesome could quite quickly lead to the belief that you have climbed something hard. especially if some of them believe that they too are capable of climbing a similar grade, but have failed to manage to even pull onto whatever you were trying.

to me it seems like an extreme case of "the blinkered wannabe hero down the wall" who climbs with an entourage of  (slightly less capable) others that continually reinforce the belief that he is a beast, which isn't very helpful for anyone involved. at least you can have a laugh at the wall hero's expense



Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 10, 2016, 01:07:56 pm
is it time this thread was split into an EBB split from film proof discussion split from significant repeats, or is it just logpile time?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: andy popp on February 10, 2016, 02:14:50 pm
Log.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 10, 2016, 03:43:39 pm
I meant to thank mr pj for coming up with some info, but forgot and just spouted bile instead. Thanks pj

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: jwi on February 10, 2016, 03:54:37 pm
Without knowing any of the particularities, I think it is much better to air this kind of things in public forums than handle it like it's handled in France, Catalonia or Sweden. “Everyone” knows that certain climbers ticklists are partly or mostly pure fantasy, but nobody says anything publicly, it's just Chinese whispers all around. Questionable routes might be featured with name and grade in guidebooks but in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink fashion, as only gumbies/outsiders would assume from their presence in the guidebook that they have been climbed.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 10, 2016, 07:10:38 pm

Log.

I'll only believe its been log piled when someone posts a video of Shark log piling it....
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: lagerstarfish on February 10, 2016, 07:20:26 pm
I've got a photo to prove it

(http://i63.tinypic.com/2m2xcux.jpg)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 10, 2016, 07:23:24 pm
That's a fake! Everyone knows the log pile is red!
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Jim on February 11, 2016, 05:43:23 pm
why has this been log-piled out of curiousity?
Obviously its not a particulary pleasant topic but does need to be out in the open
(plus its some juicy gossip now I'm old, decrepid and generally out of the loop!)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Doylo on February 11, 2016, 05:51:15 pm
why has this been log-piled out of curiousity?
Obviously its not a particulary pleasant topic but does need to be out in the open
(plus its some juicy gossip now I'm old, decrepid and generally out of the loop!)

Knackers yard for you PregnantHorse
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 11, 2016, 06:31:57 pm
That's a fake! Everyone knows the log pile is red!
Well I did suggest splitting it as the other option, since it had become entirely devoted to one man's 8a account
why has this been log-piled out of curiousity?
Obviously its not a particulary pleasant topic but does need to be out in the open
(plus its some juicy gossip now I'm old, decrepid and generally out of the loop!)


Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 11, 2016, 07:45:38 pm
Interesting to view mr PJ's Instagram.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: mrjonathanr on February 11, 2016, 07:49:35 pm
Sorry Rodma I've been busy this week and last! (http://file:///Users/Tomwright1/.Trash/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-05%20at%2022.35.19.png)

Still not sure how to add an image... :/ Is it possible? once I know I will add it. Although I sure its about two move into the original line. But according the the vague description in 7+8 "Start low on a mono in the middle of the roof and undercling underneath" i could have easily been there. The start ellis did was two / three moves off the dyno to the lip. If that helps.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: rodma on February 11, 2016, 09:36:30 pm
Interesting to view mr PJ's Instagram.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Link?

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: ferret on February 11, 2016, 10:24:40 pm
So a witness sees him link Dark Matter to the last move (8B link?) and he started Fatman in the wrong place, not the most controversial stuff I've ever heard.

I wanna hear how he ran a 10 second 100m and beat up Dolph Lundgren in no rules street fight!
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 11, 2016, 10:54:19 pm
(http://cdn.ukc2.com/i/172087.jpg)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: ferret on February 11, 2016, 11:14:21 pm
we need a hornets nest emogi for when can of worms isn't enough
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: ferret on February 11, 2016, 11:19:27 pm
That's a really big rucksack!
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: SA Chris on February 12, 2016, 08:53:47 am
It might just be really close?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on February 12, 2016, 09:09:07 am
Really tiny climber. And surely  :off:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: lagerstarfish on February 12, 2016, 09:53:40 am
it's too easy to photoshop stuff to make bags look really big in stills

I think we should be shown some video evidence of the size of the bag
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: andy_e on February 12, 2016, 09:58:53 am
It's what they use to carry Nik to the crag in so his little legs don't get tired.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 12, 2016, 12:02:16 pm
Really tiny climber. And surely  :off:

Not sure how that's off topic, unless you want to rename this thread "calling out Ellis". It just seems like a bit of a witch hunt going after one young lad
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: a dense loner on February 12, 2016, 01:42:01 pm
Looks more like a discussion on bags :tumble:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 12, 2016, 02:24:20 pm
(http://www.collins303.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/handbags-150x150.png)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: ferret on February 14, 2016, 02:51:11 am
Really tiny climber. And surely  :off:

Not sure how that's off topic, unless you want to rename this thread "calling out Ellis". It just seems like a bit of a witch hunt going after one young lad

Not a climber that is sponsored or seeking sponsorship (as far as I know)
Not a Last Great Problem
Not an active project of (an)other climber(s)
Not a problem of national/international difficulty or significance
It's just a hard problem at a very esoteric crag

Why would it need video evidence?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Mumra on February 14, 2016, 08:08:32 am
Well both appeared on Ukclimbing seeking publicity  :shrug:
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 14, 2016, 10:18:29 am

Well both appeared on Ukclimbing seeking publicity  :shrug:

Is that like going on the Jeremy Kyle show?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: nik at work on February 14, 2016, 11:20:16 am
Well both appeared on Ukclimbing seeking publicity  :shrug:
I can't speak for Eric Bibbler-Bobbler but UKC approached me I didn't seek anything.
However if you choose to think that i didn't actually climb that problem that's fine. I can't prove I did.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Fiend on February 14, 2016, 11:27:10 am
....and now you've disappeared off to Isle Of Man with a string of E9+ first ascents coming, eh, Nik O'Jennings  ;D :P
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: a dense loner on February 14, 2016, 01:30:25 pm
Have I missed something?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: webbo on February 14, 2016, 02:53:52 pm
Mumbra seems to have doubts about Niks problem on that crag below Hepponstall. I can't remember what it's called.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 14, 2016, 04:06:32 pm

Have I missed something?

That depends on how you define something.. ;) if your idea of UKB based tittle tattle is something then yes. Otherwise move along please...
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 14, 2016, 04:06:58 pm

Mumbra seems to have doubts about Niks problem on that crag below Hepponstall. I can't remember what it's called.

Are you calling out Nik then Webbo? ;)
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: webbo on February 14, 2016, 04:32:55 pm
Not at all Dense asked had he missed something and I told what had been implied by others.
I have time to provide a public information service at the moment as on a day to day basis I have fuck all to do.
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: a dense loner on February 14, 2016, 04:53:57 pm
Oh wondered why that pic was on? Thought has someone captured ebb without cans on! Cheers webbo
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 14, 2016, 04:56:49 pm
It's always worth filming and posting, successful or not, sometimes it can be damn funny.

https://vimeo.com/155239515


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Danny on February 14, 2016, 07:08:36 pm
I have nothing to add WRT EBB, but this:

Do you honestly expect me to believe that with all of the ridiculously strong local and traveling climbers coming through font that no one re-climbed Fatman in a decade if it's only 8B? 

...is something I might have thought sensible enough at the time. But the whole rake of L'Alchimiste post-break ascents well-demonstrates that this sort of situation can and does occur.     
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: tomtom on February 14, 2016, 07:13:40 pm

I have time to provide a public information service at the moment as on a day to day basis I have fuck all to do.

You could start up some sort of search service - maybe with a stupid name like Google - or maybe Ask Webbo...?
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: webbo on February 14, 2016, 09:15:34 pm
That might work if I could actually work my way round a computor.
For example I found this video on how to open a quick link on a bike chain yesterday. To day after 40 minutes searching I reckon it must have been an hallucination.
It works though. :-\
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 14, 2016, 09:32:30 pm
I found this new iPad alternative that old gits like me can use, even without too much assistance from tech support.







(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160214/26dd16c85defcef4ebee181a2a974f8d.jpg)

It's called an iBacus...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: SA Chris on February 16, 2016, 08:33:20 pm
Great name, it will drive you to wine!
Title: Re: Film proof discussion split from significant repeats
Post by: lagerstarfish on February 16, 2016, 08:42:49 pm
Aye, Bachus

It will that
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal