[Pantontino]

I’ve been beavering away on the new North Wales Bouldering guide of late and I’ve started toying with the history section. A few thoughts occurred to me about how we record first ascents of hard problems (I’m thinking mostly grade 8s here) and whether there was a need for a reporting protocol?

i.e. should we expect all first ascentionists to name witnesses or provide first ascent film footage of their new boulder problems if they climbed them when no-one else was at the crag? Even if there were witnesses I would still like to see the footage – who wouldn’t!


As I see it, the pros are:

• we get a more continuous film record of important historical ascents (in future years the value of this will increase greatly – imagine some film festival in 2050! A load of old codgers – i.e. us lot -  carping on about the golden era of grade 8 bouldering in the early 21st century)
• we get more psyched by seeing exciting footage of hard problems
• travelling euro/yankie wads get psyched to come and try our hard problems
• sponsors get more bang for their buck
• any potential doubt is eliminated
• unscrupulous narcissists are discouraged from making suspect claims

and the cons are:

• a bit more faff for the first ascentionist setting a camera to record redpoint attempts
• occasionally someone will do a first ascent with no witness or film footage and we have to decide, on the basis of their track record whether to believe them or not - obviously if they have a previously produced film footage and/or witnesses for the majority of their fas then they will already have credibility

I know something like this was discussed a while back for the Peak and this thread ( http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10174.0.html ) made my brain hurt slightly – but what are people’s thoughts on it nowadays?

[slackline]

and the cons are:

• a bit more faff for the first ascentionist buying a camera setting a camera to record redpoint attempts owning a suitably powerful computer and attendent software (and knowing how to use it) for editing the footage together

Don't think you can realistically expect people to go out and purchase the hardware let alone be bothered to learn how to do the editing of the footage.  Some people just won't care that much about others opinions of their problems.

Liars get found out eventually anyway.

[Fiend]

Bog standard pc/laptop and windows movie maker.

[slackline]

Bog standard pc/laptop and windows movie maker.

You've missed my point which is that, believe it or not, not everyone has a computer (and video camera). 

Or as I wrote if they do it may not be powerful enough, for example my neighbour has only a lowly netbook on which you wouldn't be able to edit video due to its limited processing power and RAM.

I've never used it but I would imagine there is also a learning curve to using movie maker too, requiring an input of time from would be ascentionists.

And why should anyone be obliged to obtain these if they don't already own them just for their ascents to be believed?    (Unless of course people are lucky enough to be sponsored and have them provided as part of that sponsorship)

It will never apply to me, but I think it would be a sorry state of affairs if new boulder problems/significant repeat ascents weren't believed without this sort of corroboration.

[Bonjoy]

I think it's a good idea if folk doing cutting edge stuff have video for the reasons you've given. It would be no bad thing if this became expected, especially if the climber is not widely known about. But can't see how it could become more formal than that though.

On occasion I can imagine FAs not being keen to give away hard won beta on their creation straight off the bat. On some things I've done (of much lowlier grades) I kind of feel i'd be spoilling the fun for repeaters (and me)if I gave away the key beta up front. Sort of felt like that in retrospect with the Golden Egg vid. The sequence took me quite a few sesions to work out and it would have been nice to let attempted repeaters work it out for themself.

[Pantontino]

I agree with Fiend, the technology/expense barrier is pretty minor. We are not talking about producing complex edited films. All that is required is a piece of continuous footage.

And we are only really talking about the big grade/historically significant problems.

Obviously no-one is obliged to do anything they don't want to/can't be bothered to, but the list of pros I wrote above has many benefits for us all.

[Johnny Brown]

Wasn't there an american controversy a while back which demanded unedited footage as the only worthwhile evidence? I think the faff here is going to be filming the go you did it and not the hundred you didn't, without running out of memory or battery.

Definitely a bit uncomfortable with the idea of evidence being expected.

[Jack.G]

I guess if the FA of a new 8 was conscious enough to really want the recognintion, it should be part of his/her armoury to make sure the ascent was back-up with modern needs as mentioned sponsors, etc..

If not verified, then the FA prob doesn't give a hoot about the glory.

How often has this been a major issue anyway? Si'o, Rich, Scotty, i dont know? and yes, the liars will be found out, plently of evidence for that.

For guidebook writers, ambigous ascents should be pretty easy to isolate, especially if only 8s and above, and investigate / leave out.

Sorry, s#it weather, cant get to the boulders so ranting on the net instead.

G.

[Pantontino]

On occasion I can imagine FAs not being keen to give away hard won beta on their creation straight off the bat. On some things I've done (of much lowlier grades) I kind of feel i'd be spoilling the fun for repeaters (and me)if I gave away the key beta up front. Sort of felt like that in retrospect with the Golden Egg vid. The sequence took me quite a few sesions to work out and it would have been nice to let attempted repeaters work it out for themself.

Good point.

Perhaps you could show the footage to a website editor for verification purposes (thereby creating a rubber stamping of your ascent) but then not release it for wider consumption until a later date?

[tomtom]

Can this not all be based on trust? As presumably it has been since year dot?

All seems a little elaborate..

[slackline]

I think there is nothing wrong with the Pro's at all and there would indeed be benefits.

But look at how recurrent threads crop up in the technology thread on "Which video camera" / "Video editing software".  So yes those asking the questions have the inclination and funds to purchase the equipment and learn how to use it, but not everyone will.

There are those who aren't at all bothered about publicising their ascents, for example Gaskins and Mikey Paige spring to mind.  Are their solo ascents going to therefore be questioned if this is to be a "protocol" for reporting?


More importantly, how are you going to get the videos into the guide?


Bonjoy makes a good point about beta too.  Part of the fun of any bouldering is unlocking the problem (for me at least).

[Nigel]

Absolutely not! Gossip is what makes the climbing scene what it is. Imagaine the past few years without SiO, Rich etc. to keep us amused. 

[Nigel]

On a serious note, just read Slackers' reply - come on, everyone does have a computer, or phone, or camera, or something. And were not exactly heading in the direction of pen and paper either. Soon we'll "double blink" and start recording with our minds.

[andy_e]

Definitely a bit uncomfortable with the idea of evidence being expected.

  Guilty until proven innocent.

[Pantontino]

Definitely a bit uncomfortable with the idea of evidence being expected.

  Guilty until proven innocent.

I think you are focussing too much on the darker implications of this - the positives outweigh any negatives for me.

Just think of Mr Bransby's blog in recent times. I love watching those little films and I think he has really added something to the ongoing historical record of British climbing.

[Pantontino]

I think there is nothing wrong with the Pro's at all and there would indeed be benefits.

But look at how recurrent threads crop up in the technology thread on "Which video camera" / "Video editing software".  So yes those asking the questions have the inclination and funds to purchase the equipment and learn how to use it, but not everyone will.

There are those who aren't at all bothered about publicising their ascents, for example Gaskins and Mikey Paige spring to mind.  Are their solo ascents going to therefore be questioned if this is to be a "protocol" for reporting?


More importantly, how are you going to get the videos into the guide?


Bonjoy makes a good point about beta too.  Part of the fun of any bouldering is unlocking the problem (for me at least).

I know Gaskins has done hard stuff (post Bock debacle) which he hasn't publicised and he seemed pretty happy with that state of affairs the last time I saw him. At this stage I doubt he will lose any sleep over what anybody thinks.

As for beta - you are of course at liberty to avoid watching the film footage if you want to retain the pleasure of unlocking the sequence for yourself.

[abarro81]

I think the faff here is going to be filming the go you did it and not the hundred you didn't, without running out of memory or battery.

Indeed. Not that I'm likely to be doing hard bouldering FAs anytime soon, but as an example my little cheap camera will only shoot video for something like 30min at a time for some reason. What if I do my proj 10min after that runs out? Do you have to get your boots muddy checking every few minutes? What if I forget my camera? Or it breaks? Or I forgot to take my holiday pics and video off it and it's full? In all of those cases my response would be "f*ck the haters, I'm not doing it again unless I want to". Basically I think it's a crappy idea.

[Pantontino]

as I said above:

occasionally someone will do a first ascent with no witness or film footage and we have to decide, on the basis of their track record whether to believe them or not - obviously if they have a previously produced film footage and/or witnesses for the majority of their fas then they will already have credibility.

If you have credibility there won't be an issue, but the benefits of people making the effort to get film footage are well worth any faff incurred. Plus, I'm sure you will get the filming process wired within a couple of sessions.

[nodder]

No its a good idea, I used to think it was shit but its not.  My camera only films 10 mins it makes me rest, watching the footage helps me spot what I am doing wrong.  as long as its not cold the battery's last a couple of hours.  So far in the last couple of years I have forgotten the camera once (i think) on a day when I climbed something (Wurzel Gunnage), and not filmed Broken Direct (too windy tripod blow overs have been my biggest problem so far) i am confident that people believe I did them because I had footage of a fumble on the last hold, and a witness of said fumble on both problems.  It basicly makes it easy for people to trust you.   I wish I had started years and years ago.  Plus I am one of the biggest technophobes around.

[carlisle slapper]

I think on the whole this would be great. However it starts to feel a bit dark if all ascents MUST be recorded. I think for first ascents its great though and conducive to the problem being repeated more often. Many of Gaskins hard problems are utterly worthless now in terms of seeing them as actual "problems" which you can try as things like Traci Lords sit have no start holds recorded, beta or even a photo on one of the hold positions. Which basically means you are in exactly the same position as the FA-ist when it comes to working it out. +side is that you get more of an adventure when repeating and like jonboy says Beta can take sessions to work out. I deliberately keep some of my favourite  FA problem videos off the web (e.g. End Sequence) as i think its nice for people to look at it and think WTF how is that climbable at X grade. I've shared it with some mates who want to repeat it but thats different as its within your circle of friends. I also stuck vid stills on my blog to allude to the fact that there's a vid been made of it.

Sometimes its just not practical to video an ascent, or chance gets in the way, e.g. the amount of times i've gone out with a camera and left the flash card in my pc or left the battery in the charger have all had an effect. At Badger cove the camera ran out of battery so jonesy recorded bewilderness on his iphone, he missed the start move as he was trying dandelion and walked back to get me in shot as i started so i've got a shaky iphone vid of me doing it, I'm really glad to have it though as it's nice to reflect upon it sometimes.

On the whole though there is nearly always a phone handy nowadays so if someone is putting up hard first ascents with no videos then either they want to be hiding away, which is better if you're repeating problems. Or they are being deliberately coy about something. I think it should still be at the discretion of the ascensionist whether they release videos or not but its good to have them for posterity and proof to guidebook writers.

I think its good not to force the issue but it would be great for most hard problems to have at
least some info like starting holds etc and a few pics so you know roughly what it involves. Climbing in south Lakes is like climbing in thick mist with the amount of help you get sometimes. Albeit it was a different technological era 10 years ago but still problems like Karma of the trees sit. FA by a liar 2nd asc by a mutant who tells you nothing other than "yes i've done that" It should get 8B+ or at least hard 8B but it gets 8A. Atrocity exhibition (trowbarrow) 8A! and when mike repeated it he was told he did it wrong! Not recording FAs properly really ruins them down the line. Then again you get the impression that some people prefer their problems not to be repeated, hence the dearth of info.
There's also the issue of problems being repeated wrong if you dont give much info to start with: Backhand roof (8A WOR) has never been repeated properly AFAIK. its a marvelous problem pressing into the backhand and undercutting out and much more like the 8A Grade you'd expect from John. you see people climbing angel deelite with a bad sequence (that and people will always look for soft moves in place of harder ones) and you cant blame them as the only info about Gaskins original is a word of mouth convo that Greg had. Videos of the wrong/ new sequence have reinforced it so that its now obvious you do it that way.

If i was writing guides i would also consider refusing reporting of hard problems nowadays if people keep putting them up with no witnesses and no videos (if you have a private one it doesn't take a minute to share it on dropbox these days) as its going to be more annoying 5, 10, 20years down the line when the problem still hasn't been repeated 10years down the line when its only meant to be 8A and in line with other problems in the guide. Fair enough if you're a total board monster and cant grade but monsters can lap hard problems so they wont have a problem.

[surfchimpster]

This is the worst chuffing idea ever!! what the fuck are you on???

I do quite a bit of photography, lets apply the same logic there...if i took a really great picture say on a film camera which i do, would i need to film or photograph myself taking the picture to prove I've taken the picture
for my flicker account or business

maybee we should tag all 8a climbers?

utter nonsense ...

[leeroy]

This is the worst chuffing idea ever!! what the fuck are you on???

lets apply the same logic there...if i took a really great picture say on a film camera which i do, would i need to film or photograph myself taking the picture to prove I've taken the picture

Massive difference. You have the photo as proof that you took it. Thats hard evidence, rather than word of mouth from a potential ascentionist. Also, taking a superb photo is very impressive but making an ascent of an extremely difficult, well known project/problem that others have tried over the years is surely more so, and therefore more proof is required. In addition to this, claiming a first ascent may put off others trying to climb the problem/route (as was suggested amongst the Simpson stuff regarding A Muerte). Therefore your lieing has a direct impact on others, who may have invested alot of time and effort into trying said project.

The idea seems fair, but I understand why others don't enjoy, or cannot be bothered to make films of their ascents. The problem with the idea is if it becomes mandatory, but to be honest I don't see that happening. A combination of both trust and occassional proof (unedited videos/witnesses) is surely enough in most circumstances.

[Pantontino]

The idea seems fair, but I understand why others don't enjoy, or cannot be bothered to make films of their ascents. The problem with the idea is if it becomes mandatory, but to be honest I don't see that happening. A combination of both trust and occassional proof (unedited videos/witnesses) is surely enough in most circumstances.

Exactly!

That said, I would like to see it to become the norm for hard problems, if only so we have a complete historical record of important FAs and repeats. It dismays me the way we have treated the historical record for bouldering in the UK (one of my pet hates is guidebooks that don't bother to record FA details). If we don't grasp this stuff as it happens it will be lost in a cloud of vagueness.

But getting back to the practicalities: sure there will be occasions when footage is not available - in those cases there will likely be witnesses to confirm the ascent, or failing that we go back to that climber's track record. If there have been plenty of witnessed hard ascents and/or film footage then they have nothing to worry about.

Interesting that Nodder and Dan - just the sort of grade 8 climbers who will be called upon to play by these rules - seem quite comfortable with the idea, and are already doing it anyway.

[slackline]

Then the use of "protocol" was perhaps inappropriate as it denotes a standard by which everything is to be done (at least in my area of work), and failure to do so draws the quality/claim into question.

More people are filming themselves now anyway, as you point out two who might are already doing this, but is having a "protocol" that some others won't even be bothered with really going to change anything?  People will just continue doing what they want won't they?

I guess you could add a note in the forthcoming guide along the lines of...

"Claims of new ascents >= 8a should be sent to pantontino@boulderingprotocol.com along with eye witness accounts (signed in blood). If none is available unedited video footage is acceptable"

It dismays me the way we have treated the historical record for bouldering in the UK (one of my pet hates is guidebooks that don't bother to record FA details). If we don't grasp this stuff as it happens it will be lost in a cloud of vagueness.

Didn't John Gill do tons of hard bouldering and not bother documenting it, in part because he couldn't be bothered, but also so that others had the joy of "discovering" the problems for themselves?

[Jack.G]

Didn't John Gill do tons of hard bouldering and not bother documenting it, in part because he couldn't be bothered, but also so that others had the joy of "discovering" the problems for themselves?
[/quote]

And there it is