[Pantontino]

I've always assumed 'leaving problems unrecorded for others to discover' was a euphemism for: 'I found some crappy problems that I was too embarrassed to show anybody else'.

 

[slackline]

 

[ducko]

It's great to have footage of hard ascents but ultimately I don't think you should have to prove your ascent with footage, cameras can be a faf unless you have a partner then they can do it but like others have said you may not catch the ascent on film, I was recently in font did one of the best problems I have ever done camera battery died 5 mins before I completed the problem, it's nice to think that people wouldn't lie about these things but I understand where your coming from.
On the plus side I really enjoyed watching the video of robins climbing new 8b in Ogwen so maybe it's not such a bad idea after all.

[Sasquatch]

I love shooting and putting together video's, but if I "had to" I would quit doing it out of sheer rebellion. 

I don't video myself and others climbing to "prove we did something", I do it because I want to share our experience with other people.  I would hope the same goes for everyone out there.

 

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.

I find the bolded part interesting as I am in the middle of writing a guidebook and myself and my editor/publisher have made the conscious choice to not include FA information.  We have a history section where we talk about sgnificant contributions to bouldering development as a whole, but nothing about the FA's.

[petejh]

Good idea imo. As Si says there will more often than not be either a witness or a credible track record to back up >8a FA claims. In the few instances where neither of these thing are present then a short mobile phone vid really isn't much to ask for. The pros are many. There'll always be the rebellious streak in some climbers and I can imagine myself saying fuck them, except I'll probably never climb a significant >8 boulder prob unless Nodder gives up on his first 8000'er then I'm straight in like a rat.

Also - if there's no vid/witness/track record then how about your guide adopting the old system of dagger or a dreaded black spot for uncorroborated FA claims >8a?

Funny - talking about the burden of proof for hard boulder problems puts into context how easy it is to corroborate hard sport or trad first ascents/repeats where a witness is, by necessity, present. Simpson was such a (strong) bullshitter.

[c.j.d.]

Honest opinion on filming?  I love watching them, it inspires me.  Do I like filming myself - no, it feels odd and is a pain in the arse.  Do I like filming other people?  Yes - artistic licence springs to mind. Do I like taking photos?  Yep - I LOVE it, I really do - I enjoy it.

I can see Simons point, but I do think that if taken on it would kill what we do.  Worrying about whether or not I've caught something on camera, walking back and forth, deleting, checking, focusing, charging, composing.  How do you focus on climbing?  I can't.  Some people can, or have friends to do this maybe?

I do have a camera.  I have no footage.  I have strong fingers and arms, and have climbed lots of hard problems.  I've climbed hard problems with friends and strangers, and I've climbed more by myself - I enjoy that.  So, should I go back and film the ascents where there has been no witness?

In the light of this thread, I will probably go and film a few bits and bobs.  Not because I actually want to, but because I've been asked to produce proof this week.  Maybe the true roots of this thread. 

Bouldering is amazing.  The freedom, tranquility and feel of what we do.  This takes a huge amount away from why I climb for the most part.  Yes, it's nice to get in films now and again, but only when you feel like it.  That's important, not when you feel you have to.  I had a chat with an old friend today about why he films, and I think he doesn't need to for the reasons he entertains the process.

I guess if this is the way in which Wales in being gently guided, then watch this space - I better get filming.

[Paul B]

In the light of this thread, I will probably go and film a few bits and bobs.  Not because I actually want to, but because I've been asked to produce proof this week.  Maybe the true roots of this thread. 

I'd been wondering at the true roots of this thread since I first saw it.

[chummer]

All you'll have to do Chris is press 'record' instead of 'self timer'! 

[turnipturned]

What an ordeal!

[c.j.d.]

All you'll have to do Chris is press 'record' instead of 'self timer'! 

I'll try and remember that!  It's always after the fact though.

[Fultonius]

Maybe my opinion isn't valid as I'm a bit of a bouldering punter (mid 7s), but, I have in the past often pulled something out the bag bouldering when no-one was around. 2 examples spring to mind:

Le toi du cul du chien. I tried it a lot! Everyone else buggered off for a look at something else. I rested up, busted it out and they all came round the corner to see me topping out. Clearly I got hails of "ha, did you climb down there from the top and wait for us to comeback".

Another on in Font (can't remember the name) But it was my first ever Font 7a+. Tried it the year before with mates and the next year nipped round the corner when they were on Graviton and bagged it, alone. When I walked back round saying I'd done it I got a few raised eyebrows.

I've done a few others on my own too. Sometimes I perform better that way. I'm sure some top wads have the same issues.

Also. Final point on this slightly rambling post - I did my first F8a last year. The day I did it a grabbed a belay of a guy who is a Dumby regular, but not really in my circle of mates. He obviously backs me up (and I've done it again since) but, well, he "could" have quite easily been one of the elusive mystery belayers...

See if you can spot the deliberate mistake in this nice bit of proof...

[SA Chris]

is it the "minor rope dab in the middle"

[Fultonius]

As in the bit where I fell off, rested, got back on and finished the route. That was a very hasty edit. It would not be difficult to blend it together better with a bit more skill.

I agree that a historical video record would be a "nice to have" and I agree that people with dubious records may require some hard factual evidence if they're claiming big numbers.

But I can easily see that people can "pull things out the bag" and then never repeat it again...

[El Mocho]

As in the bit where I fell off, rested, got back on and finished the route. That was a very hasty edit. It would not be difficult to blend it together better with a bit more skill.

I agree that a historical video record would be a "nice to have" and I agree that people with dubious records may require some hard factual evidence if they're claiming big numbers.

But I can easily see that people can "pull things out the bag" and then never repeat it again...

The bit at 1.07 in?

[Fultonius]

Yep. Pretty obvious in this case but I wasn't trying to conceal it. People with better skills could make better fakes.

Just sayin...

[Fiend]

Is it the bit where you show the route name 3 times but the OMG 8A!! grade only once?? 

[GCW]

 

It's a bit academic anyway, since the consensus is that Sufference is at most F7c+.

[Nibile]

I think that having to film a FA, with all that comes with it - even just setting the camera and pressing Rec - could put more undesired pressure on the climber. At least that is how it is for me most times.
Apart from this personal view, one thing is to film an ascent because one likes to have the original footage another thing is having to do it to proof an ascent.
Of course everything is different for the top guys, and one ascent can warrant covers, sponsors, money etc, but this practice, to me, encourages a skeptical approach and I am not comfortable with this idea.
I prefer thinking that everything is true and then being proved wrong, than thinking that something could be fake and being proved right.
But I understand Panton's view.

[galpinos]

It's a bit academic anyway, since the consensus is that Sufference is at most F7c+.

Miaow!

[Bonjoy]

I find the bolded part interesting as I am in the middle of writing a guidebook and myself and my editor/publisher have made the conscious choice to not include FA information.  We have a history section where we talk about sgnificant contributions to bouldering development as a whole, but nothing about the FA's.

I hope this is just out of laziness, or not having the info. Any other reason strikes me as disrespectful to the ascentionists and to the historical record. Hell, why bother with the name? If the book is just to tell you the basic facts just have a numbered topo with grades. 

[slackline]

If the book is just to tell you the basic facts just have a numbered topo with grades. 

Worked well for years in Fontainebleau, in fact they didn't even bother with books and just wrote the number on the rock!

[Sasquatch]

I hope this is just out of laziness, or not having the info. Any other reason strikes me as disrespectful to the ascentionists and to the historical record. Hell, why bother with the name? If the book is just to tell you the basic facts just have a numbered topo with grades. 

Neither, I have the info, but it sorta end ups looking a bit self-aggrandizing if I do it: of about 800 problems to be in the guide I have the FA on about 500 of them.  Three other people have another 250 between them and they are detailed extensively in the history section.  The last 50 are spread amongst about 10 other people.  Do you think it better to put the names in? 

Personally, I'd rather put in the names of the person who found and cleaned it, rather than the FA.  That takes actual work and dedication, rather than just being strong.  As someone who has done a ton of FA's, I'm more interested in who did the development rather than who first climbed the problem.  This information will be listed for each boulder and area.I suppose it could be looked at as disrespecting myself, but I'll engage in a good bout of self flaggelation to atone for it

As far as names vs. topos, I actually thought about this, and names are helpful for a reference point.  Rather than saying "the v8 arete on the boulder at the upper end of fairangel valley",  you can say "Psycho Ex" and people know what it is. 

Sorry it's a bit 

[leeroy]

 

Personally, I'd rather put in the names of the person who found and cleaned it, rather than the FA.  That takes actual work and dedication, rather than just being strong.

reminds me of the whole thing with sharma and biographie, something about the bolter naming the line rather than the first ascentionist, seemed odd.

I dont know much about fa's but on the ones I have done climbing the problems took alot more effort than walking to and cleaning them. Although when cleaning is a mammoth task it does seems fair that the cleaner is mentioned.

Back on topic. As Nibile says, if youre going to benefit financially or otherwise from a particular ascent then video or solid witnesses must be expected.

[dave]

but as an example my little cheap camera will only shoot video for something like 30min at a time for some reason

Isn't there some tax reason than digital cameras sold in europe must be limited by the manufacturer to 30min clips max? I think longer than that and its classed as a video camera and hence taxed more or some shit.

The idea of the person doing the cleaning and prepping a problem being recorded instead is an interesting one, provided they don't then take years to actually do it. Might help prevent those situations where someone spends ages cleaning something and/or sorting out the landing only for it to be poached by someone a bit stronger who didn't lift a finger on the groundwork. Classically more of an issue on routes but still valid for problems on unfrequented crags/buttresses.

[Sasquatch]

reminds me of the whole thing with sharma and biographie, something about the bolter naming the line rather than the first ascentionist, seemed odd.

I dont know much about fa's but on the ones I have done climbing the problems took alot more effort than walking to and cleaning them. Although when cleaning is a mammoth task it does seems fair that the cleaner is mentioned.

This is all relative to how strong you are vs. how hard the problem is, for example it's pretty easy to climb a 7A FA if you're able to climb 8A, and it'll probably take more work to clean and find it the 7A than to climb it.  The closer the problem is to your max the more time is involved in climbing it.

Out of curiosity, Does anyone really care who put up new grade 4's and 5's?  Older ones with alot of history, I can understand, but that doesn't really exist here in Alaska. 

Back on topic. As Nibile says, if youre going to benefit financially or otherwise from a particular ascent then video or solid witnesses must be expected.

Fully agreed, although I do think track record should speak to this as well.  If you're well proven at a grade and claim another at the same grade, then I feel benefit of the doubt should be with the climber.