[priscilla wimbush]

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50619

Well done Mike! 

[dave]

that looks deee-litefull.

[Jaspersharpe]

How badly written is that first bit?! Doesn't make sense at all. Has Mike repeated Dan's problem and confirmed it at 8B+ or has he done a lower start? The latter would seem to make more sense but that's not really what the article says!

Oh and bloody good effort once again. What a fucking monster Mike is. 

[dave]

maybe tony or i'm-not-tony will post up here and clarify, or not.

[Andy W]

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50619

Well done Mike! 

the Cornish bit is 'old news' first reported here on the 28th Oct   

http://web.me.com/andrewwhall/blocspenwith/Blog/Blog.html

[TomP]

Where is this crag? Esoteric peak limestone?
Great effort btw

[priscilla wimbush]

Where is this crag? Esoteric peak limestone?

If you're names not on the list you can't come in.

[TomP]

Where is this crag? Esoteric peak limestone?

If you're names not on the list you can't come in.

So what's the point of reporting it on a large public website?
This cool, new and hard problem has been done but you can only try it at invite only? That sucks balls

[slackline]

So what's the point of reporting it on a large public website?
This cool, new and hard problem has been done but you can only try it at invite only? That sucks balls

  Poor journalism on that front, could easily have substituted in the sit-start to Brad Pitt as an exemplar of Mick's prowess.

[BenF]

I think access to the buttress with this particular problem on is fine and open actually, certainly that's what I've been told previously (apologies if proven to be wrong).  As we know though, the other bits of the area (eg Beef, hidden roof and Gypsy buttresses) are off limits and wouldn't get a write up like this. 

And again, I may have got the wrong end of the stick when I was told about Mick's latest escapade, but I understand that he repeated Dan's start and felt that 8b+ is a worthy grade for his efforts.  Obviously becoming a father has really slowed Mick right down.

[nik at work]

Good effort Mike.

On a separate couple of points:
Where's this "it would be a short E7/8" bobbins come from, since when did trad routes get sit starts? And the collection of mats in the photograph suggests it was hardly approached in a trad stylee. Seems to me like a complete bit of non-information added to the news report to get some more big numbers in it, "Extra, extra, read all about it, new 8A+ is also new E7/8".

This "your names not Danny you're nor coming in" crap about hush hush venues near Sheffield is a big sack of watery stool juice. If you want a secret climbing venue to develop with your mates, fine, find one and develop it. If you want a new venue for all to enjoy, fine, find one and look into getting official access. But this "only heroes allowed" bollocks is, well, bollocks when combined with numerous blatant references in the press (both online and paper). If it's secret keep it secret. It's like a bunch of school kids in the playground "we know something but we're not telling you, na-na-na-na-nah". Just my opinion...

[dave]

I think access to the buttress with this particular problem on is fine and open actually, certainly that's what I've been told previously (apologies if proven to be wrong).  As we know though, the other bits of the area (eg Beef, hidden roof and Gypsy buttresses) are off limits and wouldn't get a write up like this. 

And again, I may have got the wrong end of the stick when I was told about Mick's latest escapade, but I understand that he repeated Dan's start and felt that 8b+ is a worthy grade for his efforts.  Obviously becoming a father has really slowed Mick right down.

that buttress is fine access-wise but the rock in low down won't stand a lot of traffic. hence the low-key thing. also as ben says the stuff in the immediate vicinity has dodgy access, and since people are likely to visit both places in one visit/session, its not likely to do access at the  dodgy buttresses any favours if this one became full public knowledge.

[Stubbs]

I want to try and answer most questions on this as the news post has seams to have become somewhat confussing. (also I have lost my password for UKB so if anyone on here can post this on there as well it would be good thanks)

Mike has (in his own words) just repeated Serendipity and confirmed 8b+, but has started this from its logical start at the two lowest holds on the back wall(not in the roof). He is not claiming a new problem (as most of the climbing was done by Dan and it is his forsight that lead to this low start) as it was already confusing with names and what goes where.

Anway Serendipity now starts as low is can and is just the most impressive line at the crag (not to mention the hardest)

Tony

It seams that some folks are getting a bit upset that this place is secret.

If this is the case why would I or Dan have post news about it on a public site.

The problem is at a place called the impossible roof in the woods above the sewerage works off abbey lane, near Maltby.

Please note that this is the only crag in the area that climbing is allowed on. Please do not climb on any crags that are on Lord Scarbourgh's Land. inc Roache Abbey without permission.

Cheers

T

[nik at work]

Blood from a stone...

[carlisle slapper]

that UKC post is a bit mubblefubbled to say the least. Mike has repeated serendipity (serenity from a dipped start at the back of the roof), which starts off the 2 low crimps on the back wall LH on the higher one, as far as i can remember this is what i did on the day unless new holds have appeared since? mike uses RH on my LH hold so might have started with left low?. As far as i know Injured old daddy Dolph was left with nothing left to do (literally) so lowered his standards to try my derogatory eliminate on what is one of the best problems in the peak. funnily enough he managed to do it (like everything he tries) but actually found it took him more than a few sessions. which is nice for both of us. Mike used a different sequence to my backhand gaston lunge, but is just as hard (i can't touch it that way). which is nice as it means that no matter what your span is the problem is still pretty engaging. Now if we can just both heal our digits properly then some more good stuff might get done in the next few months.
With his poor track record of having done so few >8a problems around the UK i'm not sure Mike is qualified to comment on such bug numbers

[granticus]

Good effort Mike!

From a SW view it is nice to see a sitter to Barney's problem done, are we saying this is an E7/8 from standing (surely the sit start can't add to the E factor?) in which case props to Mr Carver for sending the stand in the first place.

We're just pleased that Exmoor delivered bad weather and explorations were scuppered...   

[Dolph]

I have just written this on ukc and thought i put it here as well

"I don’t like making a fuss in the public domain but just to try to sort a few things out before it gets silly:

I have at no time ever said that The groove would warrant an E7/8 grade. I presume this is Tony's opinion and one that I presume is exaggerate? It is however a highball problem and is scary but has only ever been approached as such so describing it any other way is pointless! A few other points of note are this was originally graded as a V8 highball. I repeated this and felt it was probably worth about 7b+ font, so about right. Tony then ripped of the biggest crimp off which more importantly was also the largest foot hold higher up. Now I don't know about the first accensionist sequence but this made a huge difference to the difficulty of the stand up for me. It made it harder at the bottom crux and also much more difficult at the top where before it had all been easy for me. The sit start down and left was an obvious harder extension which coupled with the now harder top section is where the grade comes from. The rest is as the report says. I personally felt it was a lot harder than the other 8a's that I had climbed down south. Reguardless of the grade it is a quality extension to a quality problem at an undersold venue. So if your ever down there check it out.

As for Serendipity this was first climbed by Dan, which I witnessed, it is a low start to a problem called Serenity of mine. At the time there was some doubt as to weather Serenity was 8a+ or 8b. Dan added a low start to this which he graded as 8a in its own right. Because of the unconfirmed grade and his own modesty he said that the grade for serendipity was a hard or top end 8b. Now the grade for Serenity has settled at an 8b, so if you are going to grade an extension start as 8a the logical outcome is that the grade for Serendipity is probably an 8b+. My own personal experience is that Serendipity is a lot harder than Serenity. It was also for me harder than other 8b’s I have done. So although I have trouble wanting to stick my neck out it probably is 8b+

Hope that Helps - Mike A"

[nik at work]

Nice clarification Mike. Just to be clear I wasn't directing my criticism at you when writing about the E7/8 grade. I presumed it was an ill-considered editorial addition by UKC, or maybe it was a comment by Tony. I dunno. I've re-read my post and I think it's pretty clear I wasn't being critical of you for the E7/8 bit but just thought I'd make sure it was obvious. Anyway it wasn't that the E7/8 is an overstatement of the difficulty (that is a different can of worms) but rather the comment seemed to make no sense in the context of the ascent of the problem (i.e. approached as a boulder problem, mats etc). It would seem we agree on this point.

I still feel that the location of Serenity has been a lot of smoke and mirrors, with vague hints of location but no definitive information leaking out from the circle of people in the know. This impression may not reflect the impression from your (and other people in the knows) perspective, but from my external view that was the appearance. I first read reference to Serenity some time ago and yet today is the first time I've heard of the exact location. There may have been no conspiracy to hide the location, but at the same time there certainly wasn't a sense of information being volunteered. Just my perspective. Again none of this is directed specifically at you, more a general comment at how "elitism" was perceived. Maybe I (along with others who have made comments to me about this) was excessively sensitive to this perceived secrecy?

Anyway as I said before, good effort all very impressive.

(sorry if this doesn't make much sense, I'm writing this whilst playing shopkeeper with my two year old)

[Johnny Brown]

I'm sure if you'd wanted to go to Serenity, a PM to any of the folk who have been would have come up trumps.

There is a big grey area between 'banned' and 'not banned' crags - plenty where access is either unclear or mostly tolerated. Widespread spraying about these venues may not be a good idea.

Then there is the fact that available info tends to reflect the no. of problems, their difficulty, proxomity to other known venues, and how long the place has been developed. This venue doesn't score highly on any of these counts, so perhaps the lack of an online topo and step-by-step directions is understandable?

Caveat: I haven't been, nor am I likely to go soon. But this really doesn't stink of a clique-only venue to me, just a small, undeveloped one.

[nik at work]

You're right JB I probably could have got the lowdown on this venue, and I don't have a problem with low-key local specialised venues. I understand the need for sensitivity with respect to access etc.

My thinking is that in this case there has been too much publicity of the problems (I have read several reports about Serenity/Serendipity) with no information about its whereabouts, and that does come across a cliquey.

Should there be an online topo to this venue? Probably not (I genuinely don't know having not been there) but by the same token there shouldn't be news reports about it. Places either are in the public eye or they aren't. You can't have underground venues with problems that feature in news articles without creating an impression of elitism/cliquey-ness.

Anyway it's just an opinion, enough already. We are just passing the time until we die after all...

[Dolph]

You're right JB I probably could have got the lowdown on this venue, and I don't have a problem with low-key local specialised venues. I understand the need for sensitivity with respect to access etc.

My thinking is that in this case there has been too much publicity of the problems (I have read several reports about Serenity/Serendipity) with no information about its whereabouts, and that does come across a cliquey.

Should there be an online topo to this venue? Probably not (I genuinely don't know having not been there) but by the same token there shouldn't be news reports about it. Places either are in the public eye or they aren't. You can't have underground venues with problems that feature in news articles without creating an impression of elitism/cliquey-ness.

Anyway it's just an opinion, enough already. We are just passing the time until we die after all...

I happen to totally agree with you on this one! Left to me i would have kept it as a personal matter (That's whats important about climbing to most of us anyway). Some people just can't keep there mouths shut it seems.

If you are going to visit this area please behave responsibly!

[granticus]

Reguardless of the grade it is a quality extension to a quality problem at an undersold venue. So if your ever down there check it out.

Clodgy is well worth a visit and has a little bit of something for everyone..

[Richie Crouch]

That groove looks amazing. Nice one Mike 

[Jaspersharpe]

Always said a one move 8A into an 8B must = 8B+ Varian you undergrading bastard! 

Awesome stuff.

[n_man]

Nik at Work: presumably nobody should ever mention Crag X as theres no topo or public access?