UKC Simpson statement

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.
 
Johnny Brown said:
Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.
Click to expand...

I'd say it was both powerful and fingery (on that flake). But that maybe explains why I still haven't got up it :'(
 
That's true (JB), or relatively so - I'm just hazily remembering magazine articles and perhaps guidebook histories that mentioned these routes in the context of a surge in his strength and performance.
 
chummer said:
I suppose I just want that 'mush of stuff' to be as accurate as possible but I guess it can only say what is based on evidence of which there is none. So to conclude, the only conclusion you can draw is that all of his unproven ascents are to be recorded with a hefty element of doubt.
Click to expand...

Either recorded with a hefty element of doubt - ie hefty enough to make it clear that the author considers it bullshit, - or just not recorded at all. As things stand Rich's LA ascent isn't going to be recorded in the guide at all, for reasons which I've already explained to Rich himself and on this thread and elsewhere. I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of writing something about an ascent which I don't think happened in order to make clear to readers that it's considered bullshit.

I can't imagine this happening apart from in exceptional cases like RS - for e.g. a climber who's just had a couple of ascents doubted, but without RS's long record of exceptional claims lacking any evidence, would just be given the benefit of the doubt as seems to be the tradition. Like I'm trying to make clear - I feel like I've done enough research now to ensure my conscience is clear for being partly responsible for damaging RS's reputation. If he'd have stuck to bullshitting about climbing he'd have got away with his ascents being recorded, it's the 4mm/marathon and Olympic boxing team claims - which he made to my face, which have flagged him up and led to this. On a related note I don't think you can pigeon-hole bullshit as being relevant/irrelevant if it's all got to do with sporting claims. Anything to do with private life is obviously irrelevant, but his were public sporting claims.

I agree with Bonjoys list of reasons for why climbing seems to be a fertile zone for bullshitters. His ideas on how things could be done differently made me wince at first as they seemed like a step towards turning climbing into a less honorable pursuit. On reflection though they would make the climbing scene better as long as people took it upon themselves to act in the way bonjoy described, it would take something good away from climbing if it became normal for these things to be demanded by others as a matter of course.
 
The Boy's list seems a bit , sure, but the fact is need only apply in unusual circumstances. Very little climbing news comes as unsupported reports from the individual - far more often it comes from friends who were present and can't wait to spread it around. Usually this means it comes already verified - the various reports I've been involved with over the years all have - and there is no need for fact-checking to carry any undertones of doubt, just a genuine enthusiasm for the details.

The second factor is the nature of media today means being a sponsored climber requires you provide some content other than bald facts. If you want to get ahead you provide pics, videos etc upfront to connect with the wider public. Dave MacLeod doesn't put videos on his blog as proof, he does it because that's how you inspire people.

All that needs to change is how much slack is given to would-be heroes who persist in consistently avoiding either of the above. As Pete points out, its very worrying that this has only come to a head due to outlandish claims in other sports.
 
shark said:
Another example was the chockstone on Right Eliminate. Everyone banged on about (it)
Click to expand...

well to be fair some guy called Simon Lee on the other channel did

:)
 
John Gillott said:
Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?
Click to expand...

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers. ;D
 
No Bonjoy, absolutely not rocket science ( I once casually used that phrase whilst chatting with a couple I barely knew. Turned out he was an engineer on the Ariadne project.).

You're quite right: it's the diffidence about feeling entitled to ask for evidence that's the problem. That way uncertainty prevails. No-one has any business demanding to know what you've done. But if you assert something remarkable it's perfectly legitimate to do so - as you say, take the angst out of it all.

Ultimately it's the law of averages which decides. To not have evidence to give once is perfectly possible. It might happen again, even, but every time is not credible. I think the singular problem with climbing is the need to record two different activities as 'climbing' ie personal adventure and sporting achievement. One you expect hard evidence for, the other we just want to know about the escapades of the talented, pushing boundaries.

Regarding history, it'll always be a bit vexed, but it's so massively against the odds to repeatedly have no convincing evidence that a consensus will come about so long as people communicate, and that's fine and normal.

What I loathe is people clucking about like a huddle of gossipy fishwives playing at being psychologists, tossers. There's no need to be undignified or get a kick out of all that disapproval.
 
What I envisaged (and somebody had already suggested a similar thing on UKC already) was a request for info as a matter of course. It's not a demand and anyone is free to refuse for whatever reason (and the reason might be wholly understandable e.g. if you did the FA while bunking off work with your mistress).
So long as the question was always asked then the news item wouldn't have to state "Billy Poopants refused to give details", the lack of details would imply that none were given when the question was asked. As said by others, only a history of multiple mystery ascents would be cause for suspicion.
Regardless of the bullshit deterrent value, i think it's nice to have more of the back-story on ascents anyway.
 
webbo said:
John Gillott said:
Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?
Click to expand...

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers. ;D
Click to expand...

Apologies for continuing the slightly off topic stuff, but:

It's a while since I did it but all I remember of the roof pitch on Castellan is a bit of swinging around and then some shoulder barging. You don't need to be able to do one armers for that.

There's always been a strong element of hyperbole in climbing media, and I say that as someone who is probably guilty of over hyping things...on occasion. :whistle: (I was just being enthusiastic of course!)

That said, it does dismay me that certain individuals in the older generation seem determined to re-write history in their own favour. We are lucky to have people like Webbo who pop up and give an alternative truthful version of events.

Oh, and well said Bonjoy, couldn't agree more.
 
Does this mean that all my new routes are going to continue to be recorded as 'superb and stunning last great problems' Si or are you going to start being all truthful and call them all 'fillers in with some good climbing'? :p
 
I have been hoping that this Simpson affair would get sorted but it seems he's happy to get erased from climbing history. He's content with his life and has no plans to get involved. A strange standpoint in my view but there you go, he's an odd fish. For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Makes me laugh that people are doubting him. I tried to log on to U.K Climbing website when I read about the story but unfortunatly my schools sever wouldn't let me (I am in Thailand). Maybe people will stop doubting him now! Maybe he upset someone, I know he can be an arrogant little twat sometimes!!!
Click to expand...

But i guess its too little too late. Case closed.
 
Doylo said:
I have been hoping that this Simpson affair would get sorted but it seems he's happy to get erased from climbing history. He's content with his life and has no plans to get involved. A strange standpoint in my view but there you go, he's an odd fish. For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Makes me laugh that people are doubting him. I tried to log on to U.K Climbing website when I read about the story but unfortunatly my schools sever wouldn't let me (I am in Thailand). Maybe people will stop doubting him now! Maybe he upset someone, I know he can be an arrogant little twat sometimes!!!
Click to expand...

But i guess its too little too late. Case closed.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The more we can salavge from the wreckage the better. Is this Dan Tounley (sp.) ?. Can he log in to UKB ? It would be good to have first hand witness testimony. I'm sure a few Q and A's would then establish those ascents as a start.
 
I've met the guy in question. I believe he is completely credible, i think if someone asked him to lie for them he would probably kick their head in. He knows his stuff re climbing (climbs 8b+). To be honest Shark he is a bit of a (how shall i put this) livewire. I was surprised to get such such a measured response and i think you've no chance of getting him to do a question and answer session.
 
I get what you're saying Chris, but if he's working in a school he must be quite capable of measuring his words. Whether he'll agree to is a different matter perhaps?
 
mrjonathanr said:
I get what you're saying Chris, but if he's working in a school he must be quite capable of measuring his words. Whether he'll agree to is a different matter perhaps?
Click to expand...

Assuming the guy is a teacher I am more concerned with his grammar than anything else.
 

Similar threads

G
Pygmalion- How a greek myth effects british sports climbing standards
8 9 10
Replies
197
Views
55K
Johnny Brown
J
U
Pete Robins on Hard Redpointing (from the RC UK archive)
Replies
0
Views
3K
ukb
U

Latest posts

Back
Top