UKC Simpson statement

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

Jim said:
He was still strong as fuck anyway, that much I'm sure people aren't disputing

A few people (Damo, Mick) seemed rather put out on the other channel when I said much the same thing.
 
anyone else noticed a bit of cock at about 54 seconds in the pinky perky video?!

that mans got some balls to put that in
 
Jim said:

Because I criticised some of the playing at being psychologist type posts where people were assuming they knew that the ascents had not been made, and then went on to theorise... I said something about sticking to facts only, and that we only know that he was one of the very strongest sport climbers of the last decade, but not much more.

Damo in particular took issue with my use of the word 'know' arguing that I just believed what I'd seen in the media and didn't 'know' anything of the sort. Mick posted to back him up saying he was one of the few posters who really talked sense.

There's a valid point in there somewhere, but to imply that I'm apologising for/supporting RS and he may well have been weak as a kitten is just silly IMO.
 
We were in the school for about 4 hours that day, he did loads of hard problems on repeat, 1-5-9 campussing loads of times etc.. He got on Perky Pinky but didn't manage to do it in a oner so i spliced two sections together. You can't deny he was bastard strong. I mean Neil Mawson has climbed 8c and he's not in the same book never mind the same page in terms of strength. Malc Smith sent me a message recently, he sounded pretty dumbfounded by it all and said that Simpson was the strongest climber he'd ever seen (and he's seen a few). None of this means much as hard proof is needed but you can't deny he was strong enough.
 
Sloper said:
Doylo said:
Sloper said:
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.

You would say that

I would because unsubtantiated second hand 'hearsay' isn't credible evidence.

FFS the Bible has more credible 'hearsay' evidence.

This is probably why he doesn't get involved. People like you will never be satisfied.
 
anyone who doubts rich was strong is a fool, he was a monster on what he was good at. however, as we all know that is not pertinant to this discussion.
there are loads of strong people who can't climb and loads of very good climbers who are not strong.

to be honest i'm more disappointed with all this for people with unswerving loyalty like doylo and keith
 
Doylo said:
Sloper said:
Doylo said:
Sloper said:
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.

You would say that

I would because unsubtantiated second hand 'hearsay' isn't credible evidence.

FFS the Bible has more credible 'hearsay' evidence.

This is probably why he doesn't get involved. People like you will never be satisfied.

What utter nonsense.

If I saw a video, I would be satisfied.
If a credible witness gave direct evidence that they saw the ascents I would be satisfied.
 
a dense loner said:
to be honest i'm more disappointed with all this for people with unswerving loyalty like doylo and keith

Yes, it seems that the people who seemed to knew Rich a little better - Doylo, Ru, Alex Messenger and that - aren't so keen for blood. No reflection on the truth or not of Rich's claims, but still, in the face of other more vocal dagger-personalities, it gives one a better view of the world.
 
Doylo said:
Sloper said:
If a credible witness gave direct evidence that they saw the ascents I would be satisfied.

Who is it you think is lying then, the Hubble LA witness or me?

If you said you'd seen x ascent then I'd believe you.

As I understand it person x is saying person y told them that they'd seen a video.

I'm not saying anyone is lying what I'm saying is that the weight that can be attached to second hand hearsay is minimal.

Ru can explain more about conditional admissibility but I'd say (given the edited videos that are in circulation compared to unedited one that are not) at best the statement is weak evidence that person y had seen a video and that's all.
 
a dense loner said:
there are loads of strong people who can't climb and loads of very good climbers who are not strong.

you know, my guess is those are the exceptions, and the general rule is that there is a correlation between some feats of strength, (lack of) weight, performance on a board and outdoor performance (at least on styles that have something in common with the board)

it is very pleasing to think about oneself as an exception to this rule since, in the first place, our culture values Ulysses (mastery) more than Achilles (strenght).

furthermore on one side it is hard to think that you should really go through a boring process of training and diet if you want to maximize your performances, at least in terms of best redpoint/boulder grade (fuck on-sight performance on all styles and rock types!)
on the other side, people who embrace that process might easily get frustrated by the lack of consistency of their performances, as they did not realize in the first place that "maxing the redpoint grade" is not "getting better at climbing" in a general sense.

this generates a widespread faith that technique comes to people like a sort of holy spirit and "bam!" they perform better just because of that, and you know, they're soooooo weak...no hard work to put in, no boring hours in the gym or equally boring "training at the crag", thats pointless : just pray, worship climbing and wait for the holy spirit to descend on you.
As a side result, this faith makes it easier to accept other people's performances, since they come from an innate gift that you simply don't have...from a sort of supernatural force...
you can skip the whole process of addressing how climbing performance really matters to you, of solving the conflict between the part of you that wants to chase the grade so badly and the other who says there's a lot more in life than training for it.

and as a result, some forum users (esp. on ukc) have come to the paradoxical conclusion that "people who are strong outdoors are weak indoors. RS was strong indoors, so he could not have been strong outdoors".
Really, some posters seem to use the feats of strenghts and board performance as a proof that RS could not perform over a certain grade outdoors, and they are honestly convinced of their words (!!!)

this really seems an insult to logic, to me.
(wait, i forgot, climbing doesn't follow the laws of logic, physics of whatever...it's some sort of miracle happening. i apologize for my blasphemy to all forum readers)



PS myself as well, i think i'm such a weak bastard in the gym and a wizard on real rock.
but at least i'm honest in admitting that's 90% self-lying, 9% lack of motivation to reach my limit on boards, and maybe 1% truth :-[
 
at least the NOTW would have had some tits in it to provide a few minutes of light entertainment
 
Sloper said:
Ru can explain more about conditional admissibility but I'd say (given the edited videos that are in circulation compared to unedited one that are not) at best the statement is weak evidence that person y had seen a video and that's all.

Spare me the law bullshit (as impressive as it is i couldn't give a monkeys, are you turning into JonC, or are you the same person perhaps?). Its quite simple. I got in touch with the guy Simpson told me belayed him on LA and Hubble (without telling Simpson). He replied that he did belay him. Thats it. I can honestly see no reason why he would lie. Simspon apparently has some footage of some stuff, we'll probably never see it though so you might aswell stop harping on about it. He was strong and capable enough to climb the routes. However there is a strong case against him. Obviously he now needs to prove the rest of his claims if he wants to remain in the climbing history books and restore his reputation. I posted what i had found out because i know not everyone wants scandal to light up there lives. I know some people found his climbing and training inspiring and i hope this at least gives them some hope that they weren't completely juped.
 
All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

I don't disbelieve you when you say that you were told this.

If this person were to come out and provide an on the record comment with when etc and that RS did the routes in one then I'd be satisfied that there was good evidence to support the claims.

As for being John Cox, you're having a laugh he's a bloody new labour type.
 
ghisino what are you talking about?

also tbh i'm bored of all this lawyer speak on a bouldering site, do they have no lawyering sites for that kind of stuff?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top