[Averageman]

It seams to me that there is a lot of pressure on climbers to "climb well" and of course reach certain grades, this pressure alone i believe is responsible for many to, lets say, big themselves up. Now as far as i am concerned i don't climb that well, and what i do climb i do for myself. But i do agree if someone claims to be able to do something then, well prove it.

[account_inactive]

agreed

[Carnage]

In my line of work, I want every assertion substantiated and most of time the people making those assertions don't run off crying because someone asked them to provide evidence to back them up.

There is nothing insulting or derogatory about asking for proof - It happens in so many other areas of life and I don't see why climbing is any different.

[Averageman]

If i pull something out of the bag that is worthy, i am normally so fired up i cant wait to show someone and share it with them. And it does happen once in a blue moon.

[Paz]

I would ask "have you seen my DVD copy of The Real Thing" seing as i appear to have mislaid it.

Have you checked your Gains?

I'd just like to make it clear that noone but me accuses my belayers of being lying bastards.  When they're climbing, it seems time can't pass quickly enough, but when I'm on the lead all of a sudden their watch starts whizzzing around Mary Poppins style.

Also, I'd need a lot mind, but I'd give the truth serum to John Dunne.... 
.... so I could get that the contents of that `little black book' of grit projects out of him.

[Jim]

forgot to say there is a downside to taking a video camera


presure of doing the route just for the camera for one.

your not wrong, see the how not to climb thread

[Jaspersharpe]

I don't have a video camera and I climb on my own quite a lot but I feel no justification to prove my ascents whatsoever. I don't make things up and anyone who knows me knows that I never would anyway. I mean who'd come back after a session on their own admitting to falling off the 4A finish of La Barre Fixe twice if they were going to fabricate anything?!

However, aside from this the thing is that at the puntering level at which I climb, what would be the point of making stuff up? I WOULD just be cheating myself, especially as I've climbed much harder in the past and am certainly only in this game to test myself against myself rather than anyone else. Nobody cares about what I'm doing apart from me and this is the point.

There is a huge difference between this and someone claiming something that is cutting edge. Something that makes the whole scene sit up and say "fuck me! That's amazing". Something that goes down in history. If I was going to claim something at that level I would ensure I had some sort of evidence. Or I'd keep it to myself and feel smug. 

[neil h]

There is a huge difference between this and someone claiming something that is cutting edge. Something that makes the whole scene sit up and say "fuck me! That's amazing". Something that goes down in history. If I was going to claim something at that level I would ensure I had some sort of evidence. Or I'd keep it to myself and feel smug. 

well said that man, and I think thats the point. for us meer mortals, its not important, we all know how hard each other climb and how shit we all are compared to the real world, who gives a toss if we dont have evidence to prove our 5+ ascents.

I think the point is yes if you are going to do something historical and you are a relative unnkown, yes the world will find out so yes have something to back up your cliam, even if just your spotter says yes he crushed it. but not one person has witnessed said event. from what i have been reading. there are a few people that know this guy and back up his claims of being a wad. personally for me this is good enough, give the man credit.

As said earlier, shef is a very small place and everyone knows everyone. You lot will bump into him at the crag, at the wall and see for yourself the power he has.

[lagerstarfish]

Also, I'd need a lot mind, but I'd give the truth serum to John Dunne.... 
.... so I could get that the contents of that `little black book' of grit projects out of him.

I've been out of the scene for quite some time now, but it might be worth asking if that overhanging prow thing to the right of Brail Trail is in his little black book of projects to be done - although someone else might have done it by now?

[Jaspersharpe]

If they have then I'd want to see some proof.

[Fiend]

Ummmmm....??

[mark s]

forgot to say there is a downside to taking a video camera


presure of doing the route just for the camera for one.

years ago,2001'ish i'd not been climbing that long.took my vid cam up to the roaches.i warmed up on a v-diff crack,placed camera in boot and proceded to solo piece of mind.just below where it gets tricky i spotted my dog stood dead in front the camera watching me.tried the usual shouting of "cats" and "who's that" to no avail.rather than carry on i had to down climb send the dog off and do it all again.camera's make you do silly things

[dave]

thats genius. maybe you could have mimed throwing a stick, dogs always seem a sucker for that one.

[mark s]

if i had a toothbrush could have winged that for her.

she did similar a few years later at Nth cloud.i went up on my own to solo judge dredd.she was stood right in my landing zone.didnt want to kill her if fell.after a few minutes of shouting she moved.i carried on to the top,scareing myself almost to the polluting of pants level

[dave k]

I have always been impressed/amazed by the climbing worlds acceptance of peoples claims, without evidence. I will never boulder near the cutting edge which i accept is where it matters historically.

However I have done 1st ascents of a few relatively longstanding projects in the Peak (Bright Concept -Eagle Stone, Fifty Pence Project-Gentleman's amongst them). I had no camera, spotter (my mum once!) and was amazed no-one cast doubt or asked for evicence. Having said that I would not have been bothered if they had and would have been more than happy to help other repeat said problems (and attempt a repeat myself.)

[Johnny Brown]

If you'd given them 8b it might have been different...

[Bonjoy]

This is a tricky one since in terms of defamation the onus is on the person making the defamatory statement to prove, on a sliding civil scale of the balance of probabilities the statement is correct (I don't think the Reynolds defence or qualified public interest comes in here, Ru is probably better placed than I to comment in this regard).

If we take this as being akin to a presumption of innocence then, as I have agrued before, the accuser needs to have good grounds for doubting the ascent / claim and demanding evidence.

You are coming at this from the point of view of an accuser trying to prove a falsehood.
To my mind the issue is, does the climber want to be doubted or believed fully. Doubt (which is not the same as disbelief!) is a given when a claim is impressive, the climber is not well known and the evidence is scant/non existant. It’s a given, whether the doubt is verbalised or not does not change this.
It’s therefore primarily an issue for the climber to deal with. It’s fair for the climbing populace to politely request some back-up and it’s fair for the climber to say no, assuming they are happy for the doubt to remain unresolved. The climber must live with people doubting their claims, or provide supporting evidence. It’s as simple as that.
Proving falsehood is a whole different ball game. In most cases it’s nigh on impossible. Unless the case is very strong, it’s not worth pursuing publically.
Threads around doubted claims always descend into farce when people move away from asking reasonable questions and start making accusations.

As a matter of interest, can you be accused a liable for saying you don’t believe someone? Surely saying you don’t believe someone and even going as far as to point out why you don’t, is simply stating a personal opinion, which is a far cry from calling someone a liar which is an accusation ie slanderous. If a website or mag states that a claim is unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated, they are stating a fact, not making a libellous defamatory accusation, no?

[Fiend]

Doubt (which is not the same as disbelief!) is a given when a claim is impressive, the climber is not well known and the evidence is scant/non existant.

Is it??

This is what I personally don't understand - is it now the status quo within the climbing community to doubt ascents?? Is this how it usually is and has always been?? Throughout my perception of the climbing scene, I've never seen doubt being that prominent - apart from, historically, accusations against John Dunne - which seemed to me to be an isolated and controversial event.

Proving falsehood is a whole different ball game. In most cases it’s nigh on impossible. Unless the case is very strong, it’s not worth pursuing publically.
Threads around doubted claims always descend into farce when people move away from asking reasonable questions and start making accusations.

Agreed. I still think, at a milder level, there should be some case to justify doubting.

If a website or mag states that a claim is unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated, they are stating a fact, not making a libellous defamatory accusation, no?

Going back to what I wrote above, to state that a claim is unsubstantiated as a matter of stating a fact, implies to me that substantiation is regarded as necessary or de rigeur - is that really the case in the climbing scene?? Otherwise why bother stating it??

I eagerly await being told that I am naive, out of touch with the climbing scene, and shouldn't believe everything I read in the mags etc etc 

[Bonjoy]

Doubt (which is not the same as disbelief!) is a given when a claim is impressive, the climber is not well known and the evidence is scant/non existant.

Is it??

Yes it is. History would seem to back me up on this.
As I went into great detail about earlier, I and presumably most thinking climbers, will reserve judgement to a degree on wild claims, by unknowns, when no back-up is present. That’s not to say they think the claim is false, just that they reserve judgement. The fact that a few utopianists believe that climbers tell the truth 100% of the time doesn’t change this.

This is what I personally don't understand - is it now the status quo within the climbing community to doubt ascents?? Is this how it usually is and has always been?? Throughout my perception of the climbing scene, I've never seen doubt being that prominent - apart from, historically, accusations against John Dunne - which seemed to me to be an isolated and controversial event.

I think this a rose tinted view of the past. The present status quo is much the same as it ever was

Proving falsehood is a whole different ball game. In most cases it’s nigh on impossible. Unless the case is very strong, it’s not worth pursuing publically.
Threads around doubted claims always descend into farce when people move away from asking reasonable questions and start making accusations.

Agreed. I still think, at a milder level, there should be some case to justify doubting.

I disagree. I think that if a claim is sufficiently impressive/historical, this alone puts onus on the climber to provide back up.

If a website or mag states that a claim is unsubstantiated or poorly substantiated, they are stating a fact, not making a libellous defamatory accusation, no?

Going back to what I wrote above, to state that a claim is unsubstantiated as a matter of stating a fact, implies to me that substantiation is regarded as necessary or de rigeur - is that really the case in the climbing scene?? Otherwise why bother stating it??

No it's simply a case of accurately reporting a detail of the ascent. It is a point of detail relevant for people to be able to make their own judgement regards an ascent, it forces no conclusion on the reader. I'm not suggesting mags make a point of saying it often, just that I doubt it could be called liablous or defamatory.

[Johnny Brown]

I have to agree with Jon - asking for more information is not necessarily expressing doubt.

Its simply wanting to know more about remarkable achievements.

As I keep saying, normally this happens without prompting over the days following - photos appear, spotters, witnesses etc pop up. And naturally this leads to widespread acceptance. If it doesn't happen, folk start asking for it. And if it still doesn't appear, folk start to wonder why.

[Jaspersharpe]

This is what I personally don't understand - is it now the status quo within the climbing community to doubt ascents?? Is this how it usually is and has always been?? Throughout my perception of the climbing scene, I've never seen doubt being that prominent - apart from, historically, accusations against John Dunne - which seemed to me to be an isolated and controversial event.

I think this a rose tinted view of the past. The present status quo is much the same as it ever was

No "I think" required. This is simple FACT. Doubt, whether correct or misplaced, has always played a part in the climbing scene. Fiend, as a climbing nerd surely you know this?! It's in the nature of an activity that relys to a certain extent on trust and honesty that there will be some who abuse that trust. There will therefore always be those who rightly or wrongly question the claims of others. The only difference is this used to go on in the pub/Foundry/cellar (and very occasionally(and usually well after the fact!) creep into the magazines or (years later) into books) and now it goes on on here for all to see and discuss.

[Fiend]

The only difference is this used to go on in the pub/Foundry/cellar (and very occasionally(and usually well after the fact!) creep into the magazines or (years later) into books) and now it goes on on here for all to see and discuss.

Well if I wasn't in the pub/Foundry/cellar then I wouldn't know about the level of doubt, nor would all the others in the same position as me. So it could seem that a lot of doubt has....appeared, when as you say, it hasn't really, it's just there's a more public arena to express it in now. God bless the interweb!!

I guess this thread is usefully confirming that there is a general status quo of doubting/questioning in the climbing scene. Which is fair enough.

Funny that I'm still involved in this debate when it's really not close to my heart. Anyone for a debate on over-grading classic grit "testpieces" or the value and neglect of esoterica .

[Jaspersharpe]

Well if I wasn't in the pub/Foundry/cellar then I wouldn't know about the level of doubt, nor would all the others in the same position as me.

I suppose, although as a 14 year old living in Sussex i knew plenty about rumour, bullshit and accusation in the history of climbing simply by having a voracious appetite for reading anything about climbing I could get my hands on. I can assure you that I didn't have my finger on the pulse of "the scene". 

So it could seem that a lot of doubt has....appeared, when as you say, it hasn't really, it's just there's a more public arena to express it in now. God bless the interweb!!

Yeah that's definitely correct. Look at the Heason/Simpson stuff. That would still have happened but only a few people (relatively speaking) would have heard about it instead of it being common knowledge.

I guess this thread is usefully confirming that there is a general status quo of doubting/questioning in the climbing scene. Which is fair enough.

Totally.

Funny that I'm still involved in this debate when it's really not close to my heart.

It's not funny as you'll crap on about anything.

Anyone for a debate on over-grading classic grit "testpieces" or the value and neglect of esoterica .

Fuck off.

 

[Bonjoy]

No "I think" required. This is simple FACT. Doubt, whether correct or misplaced, has always played a part in the climbing scene. Fiend, as a climbing nerd surely you know this?! It's in the nature of an activity that relys to a certain extent on trust and honesty that there will be some who abuse that trust. There will therefore always be those who rightly or wrongly question the claims of others. The only difference is this used to go on in the pub/Foundry/cellar (and very occasionally(and usually well after the fact!) creep into the magazines or (years later) into books) and now it goes on on here for all to see and discuss.

I have sympathy for people whose genuine ascents get questioned, but not much sympathy because it’s pretty self inflicted pain when people ignore the obvious lessons of the past.
As Jasper says, it’s a trust based sport, but as such is vulnerable to abuse. Though people on all sides seem to go about these threads the wrong way, and the results tend to be messy, the fact that anomalies now get rapidly chewed over in a public space is arguably a healthy thing for the climbing world. Such issues are perhaps better out in the open rather than bubbling away for years under the surface and a degree of healthy scepticism is both an honest reflection of peoples thinking and can help dissuade potential bullshitters going down that road in the first place. If the price of keeping things real is a bruised ego or two, is it not a price worth paying?

[Fiend]

@ jasper: cunt