This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I know people are probably sick of hearing this, but as i missed it, what was it about and what was the outcome of it?
Cheers
Cheers
In reply to John Mulhern: jeez dude that is so last week, we're doing John Dunne versus Sheffield now
In reply to dark_star:
> (In reply to John Mulhern) jeez dude that is so last week, we're doing John Dunne versus Sheffield now
>
And that is sooo last millenium.
>
Ah come on guys I was away, at least give me some insight, what happened
In reply to John Mulhern:
Its all in the archives. Look for ben heasons profile and its probably on his last post
p
Its all in the archives. Look for ben heasons profile and its probably on his last post
p
In reply to John Mulhern:
Rich S said Ben H had not in fact done some of the things he's been reporting as doing in the mags. Nothing happened except for Rich S looking a bit foolish. (IMHO, though other views existed)
jcm
Rich S said Ben H had not in fact done some of the things he's been reporting as doing in the mags. Nothing happened except for Rich S looking a bit foolish. (IMHO, though other views existed)
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
But noone thinks he would've made that stuff up and he doesn't look like a possible liar. I don't think he looked foolish just because he said, firstly in person and then on the internet, what a lot of people have been saying privately for at least a year or so. And he wasn't the only knowledgeable able climber saying it. And the case was put reasonably diplomatically.
A list of query routes off the top of one of them's head was elegantly explained but apart from one new route none of the original points have been explained.
And despite the hundreds of uninformed `you shouldn't do that, it's not nice' posts it was the most interesting thread of last year, better than anything in the mags.
Then the interests of openness, honesty, truth, and an accurate picutre of climbing history came above not damaging the (relevant or irrelevant) reputations of promiment sponsored climbers or the sport, whatever that is, (or the sales figures) the mods locked it.
But noone thinks he would've made that stuff up and he doesn't look like a possible liar. I don't think he looked foolish just because he said, firstly in person and then on the internet, what a lot of people have been saying privately for at least a year or so. And he wasn't the only knowledgeable able climber saying it. And the case was put reasonably diplomatically.
A list of query routes off the top of one of them's head was elegantly explained but apart from one new route none of the original points have been explained.
And despite the hundreds of uninformed `you shouldn't do that, it's not nice' posts it was the most interesting thread of last year, better than anything in the mags.
Then the interests of openness, honesty, truth, and an accurate picutre of climbing history came above not damaging the (relevant or irrelevant) reputations of promiment sponsored climbers or the sport, whatever that is, (or the sales figures) the mods locked it.
In reply to Paz:
Really? I thought Simpson made himself look a total tw*t, and so did most of his supporters. It was all well-my-mate-was-there-and-he-says-but-I-can't-tell-you-his-name stuff. I've got no problem with people having a go on the internet, but you've got to front up and give names, times and details: they didn't, and when BH did, they ran away.
Did the mods lock it? I missed that.
jcm
Really? I thought Simpson made himself look a total tw*t, and so did most of his supporters. It was all well-my-mate-was-there-and-he-says-but-I-can't-tell-you-his-name stuff. I've got no problem with people having a go on the internet, but you've got to front up and give names, times and details: they didn't, and when BH did, they ran away.
Did the mods lock it? I missed that.
jcm
In reply to Paz:
Agreed. If I recall right did rich not request no-one further reply to the topic to de-fuse the whole thing and imply he was going to raise the issue privately and let us know the outcome? I'd be v. interested to know what the ultimate outcome of the row was.
In response to the OP, my overview would be that Rich questioned a number of specific ascents of Ben's. People sided with Rich initially, then Ben replied (at length) justifying some claims and generally defending himself. Ultimately however, he confirmed that his hardest claimed ascents were unwitnessed, which, to be fair was the whole point Rich raised in the first place.
> And despite the hundreds of uninformed `you shouldn't do that, it's not nice' posts it was the most interesting thread of last year, better than anything in the mags.
Agreed. If I recall right did rich not request no-one further reply to the topic to de-fuse the whole thing and imply he was going to raise the issue privately and let us know the outcome? I'd be v. interested to know what the ultimate outcome of the row was.
In response to the OP, my overview would be that Rich questioned a number of specific ascents of Ben's. People sided with Rich initially, then Ben replied (at length) justifying some claims and generally defending himself. Ultimately however, he confirmed that his hardest claimed ascents were unwitnessed, which, to be fair was the whole point Rich raised in the first place.
In reply to belmonkey:
It was never in doubt that the ascents in question were unwitnessed. RS went much further than that.
One small way in which he made himself look an idiot was asking who'd belayed BH on Critic's Choice, and generally suggesting BH couldn't have done it. Now CC may be E7 6c in the guidebook, but to be frank by the standards we're talking about, my granny could do it with her curlers in. It's only on BH's website to impress the ignorant, I imagine. And it's never had a belayed ascent: it's 25 feet high, there's no gear (assuming you're doing it without the bolt) and you solo off down a Diff. So on that particular matter either RS was shooting his mouth off without having the faintest idea what he was talking about, or he was just throwing mud knowing he didn't have a point.
jcm
It was never in doubt that the ascents in question were unwitnessed. RS went much further than that.
One small way in which he made himself look an idiot was asking who'd belayed BH on Critic's Choice, and generally suggesting BH couldn't have done it. Now CC may be E7 6c in the guidebook, but to be frank by the standards we're talking about, my granny could do it with her curlers in. It's only on BH's website to impress the ignorant, I imagine. And it's never had a belayed ascent: it's 25 feet high, there's no gear (assuming you're doing it without the bolt) and you solo off down a Diff. So on that particular matter either RS was shooting his mouth off without having the faintest idea what he was talking about, or he was just throwing mud knowing he didn't have a point.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Or it's E4/5 not E7.
It wasn't Rich who suggested that list of E7s including Critic's, it was Simon Moore (he was eggin it on a bit but only being curious). None of them were ever going to be under doubt.
> there's no gear (assuming you're doing it without the bolt)
Or it's E4/5 not E7.
It wasn't Rich who suggested that list of E7s including Critic's, it was Simon Moore (he was eggin it on a bit but only being curious). None of them were ever going to be under doubt.
In reply to John Mulhern: One of the 2 protagonists emailed me after the event to say that it had been sorted out quietly between them, to the satisfaction of both. And I'm saying no more than that. Basically, it's over.
In reply to John Mulhern: i dont think anyone one came out worse off. rich didnt look a fool someone had to raise the issue eventually. and bens name was cleared so it was fine in the ned
In reply to Cragdog al:
"Basically, it's over."
"bens name was cleared "
It was cleared of most of what was specifically raised in that thread. People who didn't believe other things he's said are still not going to believe them.
I'm sure he's a nice guy and that, but I don't buy this "He's a professional climber, his livelihood's at stake, so don't say anything". Precisely because you are a professional climber means you should be held accountable.
"Basically, it's over."
"bens name was cleared "
It was cleared of most of what was specifically raised in that thread. People who didn't believe other things he's said are still not going to believe them.
I'm sure he's a nice guy and that, but I don't buy this "He's a professional climber, his livelihood's at stake, so don't say anything". Precisely because you are a professional climber means you should be held accountable.
in the end though how can rich simpson look like an idiot the guy has climbed action direct
1
In reply to John Mulhern:
Dear John
Intelligence and climbing ability are not the same, otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
Norrie
> in the end though how can rich simpson look like an idiot the guy has climbed action direct
Dear John
Intelligence and climbing ability are not the same, otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
Norrie
?? okay
In reply to Norrie Muir:
So THAT is why I can't haul myself up anything harder than Severe these days.....
So THAT is why I can't haul myself up anything harder than Severe these days.....
In reply to Norrie Muir:
>otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
and people would take more notice of what you say.
>otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
>
and people would take more notice of what you say.
In reply to MaxB:
No Max.
What Norrie said was that intelligence and ability are not linked.
Therefore you could be a crap climber AND an imbecile at the same time.
No Max.
What Norrie said was that intelligence and ability are not linked.
Therefore you could be a crap climber AND an imbecile at the same time.
In reply to Paz:
That sounds a little bitchy, you seem a bit thin skinned.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
>
> >otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
> [...]
>
> and people would take more notice of what you say.
>
> >otherwise I would be able to climb 10c and solo E11's.
> [...]
>
> and people would take more notice of what you say.
That sounds a little bitchy, you seem a bit thin skinned.
In reply to John Mulhern: I might be wrong, but Im pretty sure that Rich was hinting at this whole thing in the last issue of Summit, albeit guardedly (if thats a word)
Hes obviously a great climber but I couldnt help feeling hes got a big chip on his shoulder, and the accusations proved that I think.
Still, it was an interesting thread, and i liked Bens dignified reply.
Hes obviously a great climber but I couldnt help feeling hes got a big chip on his shoulder, and the accusations proved that I think.
Still, it was an interesting thread, and i liked Bens dignified reply.
In reply to Paz:
Dear Paz
People who think for themselves may take notice of me, the brain dead think grades are paramount.
Norrie
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
> and people would take more notice of what you say.
> and people would take more notice of what you say.
Dear Paz
People who think for themselves may take notice of me, the brain dead think grades are paramount.
Norrie
In reply to John Mulhern: and I find myself agreeing with Norrie, weird.
In reply to Cragdog al:
>bens name was cleared so it was fine in the ned
No it wasn't. Simpson hasn't come out and said he was satisfied. The issue's been left hanging in the air.
In reply to Steve P:
It obviously wasn't sorted out on any terms that they wanted Joe Public to know about.
That's why I thought RS (and, even more so, his claqueurs)came over as such a jerk. He started it and then didn't follow through. Once you go public, you should do it properly.
jcm
>bens name was cleared so it was fine in the ned
No it wasn't. Simpson hasn't come out and said he was satisfied. The issue's been left hanging in the air.
In reply to Steve P:
It obviously wasn't sorted out on any terms that they wanted Joe Public to know about.
That's why I thought RS (and, even more so, his claqueurs)came over as such a jerk. He started it and then didn't follow through. Once you go public, you should do it properly.
jcm
In reply to Removed User:
Was it? sorry.
OK, grades not paramount, but highly useful. I take notice of Norrie too. But whatever anyone says is worth hearing at least as much as, for example, the grade they've climbed. Whatever they know didn't stop them from getting up it.
Was it? sorry.
OK, grades not paramount, but highly useful. I take notice of Norrie too. But whatever anyone says is worth hearing at least as much as, for example, the grade they've climbed. Whatever they know didn't stop them from getting up it.
In reply to Paz:
If you say so.
>> (he was eggin it on a bit but only being curious). None of them were ever going to be under doubt.
No?? Then WTF was the point of asking who the belayers were? I'm afraid 'only being curious' doesn't cut it. At the very least the guy was shit-stirring, and that's not an action to be proud of in the context. People were going to get the impression BH's ascents were being questioned right and left and centre, and that was obviously what SM wanted. A nasty cowardly way to carry on.
jcm
>
> It wasn't Rich who suggested that list of E7s including Critic's, it was Simon Moore
> It wasn't Rich who suggested that list of E7s including Critic's, it was Simon Moore
If you say so.
>> (he was eggin it on a bit but only being curious). None of them were ever going to be under doubt.
No?? Then WTF was the point of asking who the belayers were? I'm afraid 'only being curious' doesn't cut it. At the very least the guy was shit-stirring, and that's not an action to be proud of in the context. People were going to get the impression BH's ascents were being questioned right and left and centre, and that was obviously what SM wanted. A nasty cowardly way to carry on.
jcm
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
They both wrote extensive essays for UKClimbing.com. I read them both. Then they decided not to publish them.
That's all I know.
Mick
> (In reply to Cragdog al)
> It obviously wasn't sorted out on any terms that they wanted Joe Public to know about.
They both wrote extensive essays for UKClimbing.com. I read them both. Then they decided not to publish them.
That's all I know.
Mick
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I'd like it to be sorted out too but don't know that not following it through was his fault. There was just more passion and enthusiasm to it than organisation. At least it's in the open now.
With simon - sure he was shit stirring (but it needed stirring) and there was some element of sticking up for your mates. He did get caught out later on the thread. I think there's a little bit of a history there between the two of them, and as above, I wish they'd sort it out.
I'd like it to be sorted out too but don't know that not following it through was his fault. There was just more passion and enthusiasm to it than organisation. At least it's in the open now.
With simon - sure he was shit stirring (but it needed stirring) and there was some element of sticking up for your mates. He did get caught out later on the thread. I think there's a little bit of a history there between the two of them, and as above, I wish they'd sort it out.
In reply to Paz:
>but it needed stirring)
It did? By questioning ascents you say that actually the poster had no doubts about?
I disagree.
>don't know that not following it through was his fault
Of course it was. He or his gang questioned ascents. BH provided some evidence about them. If they did follow it up and declare themselves satisfied, they didn't say so. They should have done. They gave accounts of some events which BH came on and said were slanted. They should have replied. They asked for witnesses of events and gave no details of times and dates, which they should have done. In short, they made no effort to get at the facts and every effort to slur BH.
I don't know these people but the strong impression their efforts created was that they should go back to Sheffield and pop a few more spots.
jcm
>but it needed stirring)
It did? By questioning ascents you say that actually the poster had no doubts about?
I disagree.
>don't know that not following it through was his fault
Of course it was. He or his gang questioned ascents. BH provided some evidence about them. If they did follow it up and declare themselves satisfied, they didn't say so. They should have done. They gave accounts of some events which BH came on and said were slanted. They should have replied. They asked for witnesses of events and gave no details of times and dates, which they should have done. In short, they made no effort to get at the facts and every effort to slur BH.
I don't know these people but the strong impression their efforts created was that they should go back to Sheffield and pop a few more spots.
jcm
In reply to John Mulhern:
Note to self: never get good at this climbing lark, it will avoid all sorts of problems.
Note to self: never get good at this climbing lark, it will avoid all sorts of problems.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously
It would've been helpful of them to point out when requesting `top end ascents' that they had harder than E7 in mind. It was obvious to my mind that noone would falsely claim a route you need a belayer for. Interestingly Ben said he at best flashed these ones from the list, and only onsighted the easier (bolder) ones on his own.
Like I say they weren't that well organised. Rich and others was having an intelligent discussion about it on UKbouldering and could've got a good case together given time. Time's what they needed, asking everyone `do you mind if I say you said this on the internet'? However Mick broke it on Rocktalk, so Rich hurriedly responded on here as best he could. The UKB thread was pulled following free legal advice, I'm guessing from someone with a penchant for cigars, fine wines and sandbagging.
They should have done all that but didn't have time. They phrased their case as an open appeal for information.
It would've been helpful of them to point out when requesting `top end ascents' that they had harder than E7 in mind. It was obvious to my mind that noone would falsely claim a route you need a belayer for. Interestingly Ben said he at best flashed these ones from the list, and only onsighted the easier (bolder) ones on his own.
Like I say they weren't that well organised. Rich and others was having an intelligent discussion about it on UKbouldering and could've got a good case together given time. Time's what they needed, asking everyone `do you mind if I say you said this on the internet'? However Mick broke it on Rocktalk, so Rich hurriedly responded on here as best he could. The UKB thread was pulled following free legal advice, I'm guessing from someone with a penchant for cigars, fine wines and sandbagging.
They should have done all that but didn't have time. They phrased their case as an open appeal for information.
In reply to Paz:
If an infinite amount of monkeys have an infinite amount of typewriters and an infinite amount of time...
If an infinite amount of monkeys have an infinite amount of typewriters and an infinite amount of time...
In reply to Paz:
They've had time now and they haven't done it.
You don't slur someone's reputation like that and then not follow through.
jcm
They've had time now and they haven't done it.
You don't slur someone's reputation like that and then not follow through.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Do you think they're satisfied?
I thought the intention was for a UKC article written by the two climbers, who are supported by companies.
Which of the parties in the above sentence do you think made the decision?
"Then they decided not to publish them. "
> "If they did follow it up and declare themselves satisfied, they didn't say so."
Do you think they're satisfied?
I thought the intention was for a UKC article written by the two climbers, who are supported by companies.
Which of the parties in the above sentence do you think made the decision?
"Then they decided not to publish them. "
In reply to Paz:
>Do you think they're satisfied?
I don't know. I don't know whether they followed up the leads Ben H gave them in his reply. That's my point. I should do: not because it matters what I think or know, but because when you set out to stain someone's reputation you owe it to them to consider their rebuttal and reply, and try to bring the thing to a conclusion rather than flouncing out the way they did.
>Which of the parties in the above sentence do you think made the decision?
"Then they decided not to publish them. "
No idea. Mick said they each wrote an article, didn't he? I assume they each decided not to publish theirs.
What's your point? If you know the answer or think you do, don't play silly games, just say so.
If Simpson & Co want to respond to BH's last post, they can post any time. They haven't bothered and to me that shows them up for what they are: a bunch of teenagers who need to go home, smoke a little less dope and grow up.
jcm
>Do you think they're satisfied?
I don't know. I don't know whether they followed up the leads Ben H gave them in his reply. That's my point. I should do: not because it matters what I think or know, but because when you set out to stain someone's reputation you owe it to them to consider their rebuttal and reply, and try to bring the thing to a conclusion rather than flouncing out the way they did.
>Which of the parties in the above sentence do you think made the decision?
"Then they decided not to publish them. "
No idea. Mick said they each wrote an article, didn't he? I assume they each decided not to publish theirs.
What's your point? If you know the answer or think you do, don't play silly games, just say so.
If Simpson & Co want to respond to BH's last post, they can post any time. They haven't bothered and to me that shows them up for what they are: a bunch of teenagers who need to go home, smoke a little less dope and grow up.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yes, it was a joint decision.
> (In reply to Paz)
> No idea. Mick said they each wrote an article, didn't he? I assume they each decided not to publish theirs.
Yes, it was a joint decision.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I know which one I'd guess smokes more dope.
They both discussed it together and I guess decided that they'd both rather the whole thread went away.
I'm guessing that a) once they both realised it had gone away they both didn't want to stoke the whole thing up again by publishing their articles. That would make the whole argument seem more credible.
b) their sponsors would certainly prefer the whole thing went away.
It's hard to make my point without repeating what I've heard which would involve redoing what they tried to do, getting people's names etc., as a noone. I apologise for not being willing to do that -here-, but I applaude them for having a go and don't think Rich is just a teen "who needs to go home".
I'm sorry that it's not as easy to have a mature discussion and come to a sympathetic understanding without the majority of people crying `Liar Liar,' etc. if the conclusions aren't favourable. Why do you think Gary Gibson doesn't want to state precisely any routes he misclaimed?
I know which one I'd guess smokes more dope.
They both discussed it together and I guess decided that they'd both rather the whole thread went away.
I'm guessing that a) once they both realised it had gone away they both didn't want to stoke the whole thing up again by publishing their articles. That would make the whole argument seem more credible.
b) their sponsors would certainly prefer the whole thing went away.
It's hard to make my point without repeating what I've heard which would involve redoing what they tried to do, getting people's names etc., as a noone. I apologise for not being willing to do that -here-, but I applaude them for having a go and don't think Rich is just a teen "who needs to go home".
I'm sorry that it's not as easy to have a mature discussion and come to a sympathetic understanding without the majority of people crying `Liar Liar,' etc. if the conclusions aren't favourable. Why do you think Gary Gibson doesn't want to state precisely any routes he misclaimed?
In reply to Paz:
We never locked the thread while it was active. It has now auto-locked as every thread does when it receives no replies for 7 days.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157884
Alan
> Then the interests of openness, honesty, truth, and an accurate picutre of climbing history came above not damaging the (relevant or irrelevant) reputations of promiment sponsored climbers or the sport, whatever that is, (or the sales figures) the mods locked it.
We never locked the thread while it was active. It has now auto-locked as every thread does when it receives no replies for 7 days.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157884
Alan
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Which is why they've taken to doing it anonymously, e.g. the addition to my ad about Ben's London talk...
FFS
*Grumble, grumble, grumble...*
> You don't slur someone's reputation like that and then not follow through.
Which is why they've taken to doing it anonymously, e.g. the addition to my ad about Ben's London talk...
FFS
*Grumble, grumble, grumble...*
In reply to John Mulhern: dont know what the truth is, or if it will ever come out, but i think that we should take an innocent until proven guilty standing. this sport will always rely on honesty to an extent, and getting caught up in the claim/counter-claim atmosphere is only going to degrade it. if anyone claims routes falsely for sponsorship they are in the wrong game- go make money in the city, a lot easier than getting into arguments like this.
oh, and critic's choice (at whatever proposed grade isn't a test for a top climber: i can almost lead it! and adam mul onsight soloed it, and he's good but not world class.
oh, and critic's choice (at whatever proposed grade isn't a test for a top climber: i can almost lead it! and adam mul onsight soloed it, and he's good but not world class.
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Ta muchly - Didn't want to dignify the comment with a reply on that thread.
Ta muchly - Didn't want to dignify the comment with a reply on that thread.
In reply to Paz:
I'm sure they'd rather it went away, but it won't. Once it's said, it will be the only thing many people remember about BH. Which is why Simpson was so irresponsible. And you're doing the same trick - 'Oh, I know people who've told me; couldn't possibly tell you who, but people who really know about this kind of thing know...', etc.
GG has stated one or two, actually, but I don't understand your point. It's never going to be easy to come out and say 'Actually, I behaved appallingly.'.
jcm
I'm sure they'd rather it went away, but it won't. Once it's said, it will be the only thing many people remember about BH. Which is why Simpson was so irresponsible. And you're doing the same trick - 'Oh, I know people who've told me; couldn't possibly tell you who, but people who really know about this kind of thing know...', etc.
GG has stated one or two, actually, but I don't understand your point. It's never going to be easy to come out and say 'Actually, I behaved appallingly.'.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Heason, still floated over why he's got a harness and rope under his jacket on his onsight solo of EOTA
Heason, still floated over why he's got a harness and rope under his jacket on his onsight solo of EOTA
In reply to Jumper:
Don't be ridiculous. All the photos in the mags are staged. If it's a true photo of an event, it will say 'Climber x making the first ascent of route Y', or whatever. If there's a news story saying 'Climber X soloes Route Y', accompanied by a photo of him on it and a caption, 'Climber X on Route Y', then what that means is that Climber X has gone back to the crag, abseiled down to a convenient spot, stood around waiting for a few photos, had the rope lowered back down to him and abseiled down to the bottom.
I don't care for it much either, but I'm afraid that's totally the norm. If you didn't know it, then you've been fooled like lots of other mag readers, but it's in no way comparable to claiming something you haven't done.
But your post is convenient inasmuch as it illustrates the mischief Simpson's done: once you shout fire, people see smoke where there isn't any, and the most ordinary things become suspicious.
jcm
Don't be ridiculous. All the photos in the mags are staged. If it's a true photo of an event, it will say 'Climber x making the first ascent of route Y', or whatever. If there's a news story saying 'Climber X soloes Route Y', accompanied by a photo of him on it and a caption, 'Climber X on Route Y', then what that means is that Climber X has gone back to the crag, abseiled down to a convenient spot, stood around waiting for a few photos, had the rope lowered back down to him and abseiled down to the bottom.
I don't care for it much either, but I'm afraid that's totally the norm. If you didn't know it, then you've been fooled like lots of other mag readers, but it's in no way comparable to claiming something you haven't done.
But your post is convenient inasmuch as it illustrates the mischief Simpson's done: once you shout fire, people see smoke where there isn't any, and the most ordinary things become suspicious.
jcm
In reply to Jumper:
Though it pains me you should concede this point to John.
The classic Woodward photos on Beau Geste were staged as is John Dunne on EOTA.
Though it pains me you should concede this point to John.
The classic Woodward photos on Beau Geste were staged as is John Dunne on EOTA.
In reply to Jumper: Heason never claimed to have OS The End of The Affair in any way. He quite clearly said that the solo came a year or so after his first top-rope practiced lead. Its precisely the propogation of misinformation like this that stiffles clear debate.
On the note of "both of their sponsors preferred it if it went away" - so effectively from this statement they've both let their priciples slip in the face of a pathetic amount of cash and pics in mags the irony of which would be funny were it not so symptomatic of professional climbing.
Sam Ring
On the note of "both of their sponsors preferred it if it went away" - so effectively from this statement they've both let their priciples slip in the face of a pathetic amount of cash and pics in mags the irony of which would be funny were it not so symptomatic of professional climbing.
Sam Ring
In reply to Jumper:
I can't recall Heason ever claiming to have onsighted End of the Affair. He soloed it (ie no rope, just to be clear), and a picture appeared of him doing that in OTE, with a caption saying he did the first solo ascent, yes?
I can't recall Heason ever claiming to have onsighted End of the Affair. He soloed it (ie no rope, just to be clear), and a picture appeared of him doing that in OTE, with a caption saying he did the first solo ascent, yes?
In reply to Simon Lee:
Is that right? I thought I remembered Ian Smith describing taking them on here.
In reply to Sam Ring:
Yes, I thought BH had already headpointed EOTA before soloing it.
jcm
Is that right? I thought I remembered Ian Smith describing taking them on here.
In reply to Sam Ring:
Yes, I thought BH had already headpointed EOTA before soloing it.
jcm
In reply to Jumper:
When did Ben ever claim to have onsight soloed it?
Get your facts right first mate
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Heason, still floated over why he's got a harness and rope under his jacket on his onsight solo of EOTA
>
> Heason, still floated over why he's got a harness and rope under his jacket on his onsight solo of EOTA
When did Ben ever claim to have onsight soloed it?
Get your facts right first mate
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Fair cop then, and a bad example.
I was under the impression though that he onsight soloed KOHD, with a photo on the jug which was suspicious.But perhaps I got that wrong too?
Fair cop then, and a bad example.
I was under the impression though that he onsight soloed KOHD, with a photo on the jug which was suspicious.But perhaps I got that wrong too?
In reply to Simon Lee:
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
> The classic Woodward photos on Beau Geste were staged ...
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
In reply to Jumper:
Yes, wrong!
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Fair cop then, and a bad example.
>
> I was under the impression though that he onsight soloed KOHD, with a photo on the jug which was suspicious.But perhaps I got that wrong too?
>
> Fair cop then, and a bad example.
>
> I was under the impression though that he onsight soloed KOHD, with a photo on the jug which was suspicious.But perhaps I got that wrong too?
Yes, wrong!
In reply to Jumper:
Indeed. Never claimed to have done it onsight, and the photo was admittedly staged in the same way (as was Ben Tetler in much the same position on the cover of OTE, I believe).
jcm
Indeed. Never claimed to have done it onsight, and the photo was admittedly staged in the same way (as was Ben Tetler in much the same position on the cover of OTE, I believe).
jcm
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
The facts are very hazy when it comes to climbing Adam.
> (In reply to Jumper)
> Get your facts right first mate
The facts are very hazy when it comes to climbing Adam.
In reply to Jon Read:
That's a fantastic page Jon...cheers.
Fancy doing one on Indian Face?
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
> [...]
>
> Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
> See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
> [...]
>
> Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
> See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
That's a fantastic page Jon...cheers.
Fancy doing one on Indian Face?
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Followed by the "Extreme Rock: a buyer's guide" series?
Followed by the "Extreme Rock: a buyer's guide" series?
In reply to Jumper:
I think it was because that was for the photo shoot as too the staged KOHD photo apparently hanging from a jug. Anyway I think these are an aside as sponsers want pictures and it's common practice to stage these wearing appropriate clothing/gear and when the profesional photographer is available.
As for the whole thing these rumours were apparently around (sheffield) but nobody would confront ben. RS went about things badly in that he assumed that when so many were ready to dish the dirt in private they would stand by their comments. He was drawn after a discussion on UKB and put his name to the accusations (of others) which proved to be premature as then the 'evidence' he was suposedly collectly then all pissed off into the woodwork.
Although BH responded eloquantly he still did not address the fact that almost all of his hard ascents have been unwitnessed which is why there was doubt in the first place. IMO in this case doubt will always remain if a top climber, hopefully learning from the lessons of the past, cannot provide some evidence of the ascents on which their reputation is built.
I think a fair and interesting outcome would be for ben to provide a list of his hard ascents, their style and indicating which were witnessed. What would be great if he also shared his memories of the ascents which would hopefully cast aside some of the doubt. Such facts would hopefully at least stop various rumours based on mis-information.
I think it was because that was for the photo shoot as too the staged KOHD photo apparently hanging from a jug. Anyway I think these are an aside as sponsers want pictures and it's common practice to stage these wearing appropriate clothing/gear and when the profesional photographer is available.
As for the whole thing these rumours were apparently around (sheffield) but nobody would confront ben. RS went about things badly in that he assumed that when so many were ready to dish the dirt in private they would stand by their comments. He was drawn after a discussion on UKB and put his name to the accusations (of others) which proved to be premature as then the 'evidence' he was suposedly collectly then all pissed off into the woodwork.
Although BH responded eloquantly he still did not address the fact that almost all of his hard ascents have been unwitnessed which is why there was doubt in the first place. IMO in this case doubt will always remain if a top climber, hopefully learning from the lessons of the past, cannot provide some evidence of the ascents on which their reputation is built.
I think a fair and interesting outcome would be for ben to provide a list of his hard ascents, their style and indicating which were witnessed. What would be great if he also shared his memories of the ascents which would hopefully cast aside some of the doubt. Such facts would hopefully at least stop various rumours based on mis-information.
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Shame UKC has just made it exceed its bandwidth..... MAybe it could be done as an article on here?
> (In reply to Jon Read)
> [...]
>
> That's a fantastic page Jon...cheers.
> [...]
>
> That's a fantastic page Jon...cheers.
Shame UKC has just made it exceed its bandwidth..... MAybe it could be done as an article on here?
In reply to Jon Read:
' Keith iscorrect about the staged pic on Knocking. No witness despite claiming it on a busy sunday at Curbar, also did not know about key hold having broken off that morning, leaving an orange scar. I certainly noticed it.
I would be very interested to see any unstaged photos of ben on an E8 or harder.' (J.Pearson)
Okay I don't know all the facts, but your super quick to diss, and defend what 'may' of been a dodgy claim of ascent. Were u there?
Anyways I'm out of here, I was only asking anyway1
' Keith iscorrect about the staged pic on Knocking. No witness despite claiming it on a busy sunday at Curbar, also did not know about key hold having broken off that morning, leaving an orange scar. I certainly noticed it.
I would be very interested to see any unstaged photos of ben on an E8 or harder.' (J.Pearson)
Okay I don't know all the facts, but your super quick to diss, and defend what 'may' of been a dodgy claim of ascent. Were u there?
Anyways I'm out of here, I was only asking anyway1
In reply to Matt: Just a side note, There are lots and will continue to be lots of actual ascent photos of hard routes in the mags.
From this whole discussion it is clear to me that as long as the media and the public take word of mouth as the gospel truth, there is massive scope for people to lie and make money (yes, I know not a lot of money) from their lies.
I do not like this one bit, but unless some drastic changes are made, it seems like tat is how it will stay...
From this whole discussion it is clear to me that as long as the media and the public take word of mouth as the gospel truth, there is massive scope for people to lie and make money (yes, I know not a lot of money) from their lies.
I do not like this one bit, but unless some drastic changes are made, it seems like tat is how it will stay...
In reply to Matt:
You do know that Ben H replied on here giving that information at great length, and also has a website?
He's said he did Paralogism with some not-very-significant beta and no pre-practice, while alone at the crag, and that he did Knocking after practice with other climbers about but no specific witnesses. Nothing's going to change that; there's no addressing to be done.
Simpson's point was that his anonymous mates had been there the day BH said he'd done Knockin', had seen him practising it but hadn't seen a lead. BH also said he'd done Drummond Base the same day after practice, and these same anonymous heroes claimed they'd been past and there'd been no chalk on the route.
And, err, that's it, as far as anyone knows from public observations. Simpson and his gang had some other observations to make which did them very little credit, but that was all of substance.
You do know that Ben H replied on here giving that information at great length, and also has a website?
He's said he did Paralogism with some not-very-significant beta and no pre-practice, while alone at the crag, and that he did Knocking after practice with other climbers about but no specific witnesses. Nothing's going to change that; there's no addressing to be done.
Simpson's point was that his anonymous mates had been there the day BH said he'd done Knockin', had seen him practising it but hadn't seen a lead. BH also said he'd done Drummond Base the same day after practice, and these same anonymous heroes claimed they'd been past and there'd been no chalk on the route.
And, err, that's it, as far as anyone knows from public observations. Simpson and his gang had some other observations to make which did them very little credit, but that was all of substance.
In reply to Jumper:
James P's story about this 'broken hold' was completely different to that of other critics/commentators (Dan H, if memory serves).
You're a useful exemplar. You don't know any of the facts and aren't interested in finding them out anyway, you were only asking, you're out of here. Actually, you don't care. There was dirt, and that's all you remember. That's what Simpson's achieved and all he was ever going to achieve (whatever the truth) unless he got his act together in a much better way than he did: a more interesting question would be; what was he trying to achieve?
jcm
James P's story about this 'broken hold' was completely different to that of other critics/commentators (Dan H, if memory serves).
You're a useful exemplar. You don't know any of the facts and aren't interested in finding them out anyway, you were only asking, you're out of here. Actually, you don't care. There was dirt, and that's all you remember. That's what Simpson's achieved and all he was ever going to achieve (whatever the truth) unless he got his act together in a much better way than he did: a more interesting question would be; what was he trying to achieve?
jcm
In reply to EmilyB:
Not that much scope. People believe BH because he's got a long portfolio of bold ascents built up over a long time. If I came on here and said I've soloed EOTA, I don't think it'd make me much money.
jcm
Not that much scope. People believe BH because he's got a long portfolio of bold ascents built up over a long time. If I came on here and said I've soloed EOTA, I don't think it'd make me much money.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
A more equitable (in his view) distribution of the sponsorship pie ?
> (In reply to Jumper)
>
a more interesting question would be; what was he trying to achieve?
>
>
A more equitable (in his view) distribution of the sponsorship pie ?
In reply to Jumper [corrected for clarity]:
You wrote:
It was never reported as onsight, but as a pre-practised solo. Therefore your statement above is wrong.
Typical.
> Okay I don't know all the facts, but your [you're] super quick to diss [dismiss], and defend what 'may' of [have] been a dodgy claim of ascent. Were u [you] there?
You wrote:
> I was under the impression though that he onsight soloed KOHD, with a photo on the jug which was suspicious.But perhaps I got that wrong too?
It was never reported as onsight, but as a pre-practised solo. Therefore your statement above is wrong.
> Anyways I'm out of here, I was only asking anyway1
Typical.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Indeed. Which presumably he isn't going to achieve. I'm sure he'll now be less marketable, and Ben H will be less marketable, probably in about equal amounts. Which is a bit of a shame considering RS ought to have been surfing a bit of a wave just now.
To be fair, I doubt it was that calculated. I'm not sure RS is the sharpest pencil in the box - obviously not, in fact. There seems to be a bit of a generation thing involved as well. Yoof unable to believe anyone wouldn't want to video their achievements - man, that's so last century -, unable to believe anyone who can't pull on what they can pull on climb hard; all the usual things. Plus a bit of the old chippy sports-climber I climb much-harder-moves-how-come-I'm-not-famous thing.
And of course an inability to distinguish pub talk from evidence, and generally being young and not knowing how the world works and what's going to happen next.
All a bit sad, really.
jcm
Indeed. Which presumably he isn't going to achieve. I'm sure he'll now be less marketable, and Ben H will be less marketable, probably in about equal amounts. Which is a bit of a shame considering RS ought to have been surfing a bit of a wave just now.
To be fair, I doubt it was that calculated. I'm not sure RS is the sharpest pencil in the box - obviously not, in fact. There seems to be a bit of a generation thing involved as well. Yoof unable to believe anyone wouldn't want to video their achievements - man, that's so last century -, unable to believe anyone who can't pull on what they can pull on climb hard; all the usual things. Plus a bit of the old chippy sports-climber I climb much-harder-moves-how-come-I'm-not-famous thing.
And of course an inability to distinguish pub talk from evidence, and generally being young and not knowing how the world works and what's going to happen next.
All a bit sad, really.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Oh christ! Is BH now considered part of the old guard? I remember him asking me for advice as a young student ("Lie about everything, no one will ever know" is what I told him but that's by the by).
For those hard of thinking what I said about lying (above) was a joke and for what it's worth (nothing)I have no doubts about the veracity of Ben claims.
Oh christ! Is BH now considered part of the old guard? I remember him asking me for advice as a young student ("Lie about everything, no one will ever know" is what I told him but that's by the by).
For those hard of thinking what I said about lying (above) was a joke and for what it's worth (nothing)I have no doubts about the veracity of Ben claims.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I thought the whole point was if there was evidence for this portfolio of hard routes that you are referring to as making his further claims unquestionable?
> (In reply to EmilyB)
>
> Not that much scope. People believe BH because he's got a long portfolio of bold ascents built up over a long time. If I came on here and said I've soloed EOTA, I don't think it'd make me much money.
>
> jcm
>
> Not that much scope. People believe BH because he's got a long portfolio of bold ascents built up over a long time. If I came on here and said I've soloed EOTA, I don't think it'd make me much money.
>
> jcm
I thought the whole point was if there was evidence for this portfolio of hard routes that you are referring to as making his further claims unquestionable?
In reply to Matt:
Eh? I don't think people are going about saying well actually he never did Narcissus either, or Monopoly, or whatever. At least the teenage Sheffield 'roid crowd might be, but apart from them.
jcm
Eh? I don't think people are going about saying well actually he never did Narcissus either, or Monopoly, or whatever. At least the teenage Sheffield 'roid crowd might be, but apart from them.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The only witness account I've seen for narcissus was that he fell off on an onsight attempt. It says he went back but provides no details.
http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=99
I remeber monopoly being mentioned and I don't remember there being a witness but would be happy if you know better. However, BH has done so many E6s that I find it hard to believe these won't have several witnesses.
The only witness account I've seen for narcissus was that he fell off on an onsight attempt. It says he went back but provides no details.
http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=99
I remeber monopoly being mentioned and I don't remember there being a witness but would be happy if you know better. However, BH has done so many E6s that I find it hard to believe these won't have several witnesses.
In reply to Matt:
Well, as I said before they wanted to know who'd belayed him on numerous Pembroke E7 ascents, and he told them. I don't think anyone's into going back the best part of ten years and asking about witnesses for everything he's ever done: Monopoly and Narcissus were just examples.
jcm
Well, as I said before they wanted to know who'd belayed him on numerous Pembroke E7 ascents, and he told them. I don't think anyone's into going back the best part of ten years and asking about witnesses for everything he's ever done: Monopoly and Narcissus were just examples.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Actually John, as I remember it, one of the people who carried him off Froggatt after falling from Narcissus came onto the thread and said they saw him ("spotted" him; his ironic marks not mine) do Monopoly.
Actually John, as I remember it, one of the people who carried him off Froggatt after falling from Narcissus came onto the thread and said they saw him ("spotted" him; his ironic marks not mine) do Monopoly.
In reply to John Gillott:
not monopoly but belayed him on My Halo and spotted him on Beginners Mind. Both E7 but unsure of the style.
not monopoly but belayed him on My Halo and spotted him on Beginners Mind. Both E7 but unsure of the style.
In reply to Matt:
Oh yes, right you are. Now where did I get the spotting idea from as he doesn't mention that?
Oh yes, right you are. Now where did I get the spotting idea from as he doesn't mention that?
In reply to Matt:
I still don't understand the "has he, or hasn't he onsighted E7"
There is rather a large amount of publicity (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=126543) and widespread knowledge about him doing this little overhang called the Angel Falls...
... and doing it with folks like the Arrans! Are people seriously questioning this?
I still don't understand the "has he, or hasn't he onsighted E7"
There is rather a large amount of publicity (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=126543) and widespread knowledge about him doing this little overhang called the Angel Falls...
... and doing it with folks like the Arrans! Are people seriously questioning this?
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Publish and be damned!
Go on...
> They both wrote extensive essays for UKClimbing.com. I read them both. Then they decided not to publish them.
>
> That's all I know.
>
> Mick
>
> That's all I know.
>
> Mick
Publish and be damned!
Go on...
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Would you mind doing the same again?
Jumper:
Just what was the fc*king point in that?
> (In reply to Pythonist)
>
> Deleted.
>
> Mick
>
> Deleted.
>
> Mick
Would you mind doing the same again?
Jumper:
Just what was the fc*king point in that?
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
I guess it's rather unfair of me to say:
Yes, I want replies.
but
I don't want any negative replies / stupid trolls...
But, again, thanks.
I guess it's rather unfair of me to say:
Yes, I want replies.
but
I don't want any negative replies / stupid trolls...
But, again, thanks.
In reply to John Mulhern: Although there have been no posts on this topic for a couple of days I feel that I have to write something to shed some light on the situation. Rich and I had planned to write a concluding article before Christmas but, for various reasons, we didn't. Neither of us expected the issue to simply disappear, but this seems a good time for me to say something more.
Before Christmas Rich and I exchanged numerous emails (and a couple of phone calls), in which he questioned many of my ascents. As far as I am aware all these doubts came from other people, none were Rich’s direct thoughts. I provided him with satisfactory answers to some of the doubts and said things that forced him to question some of the other doubts.
For every doubt, I gave my answer to Rich. Some of my answers conflict with what others say. I have already publicly acknowledged that I do not have evidence for many of my hard ascents – this is not under dispute. This leaves an uncomfortable situation for some, of my word against someone else’s.
Over the past year or so Rich had heard (down the pub or at the crag etc.) a whole load of different examples of people doubting my ascents. He had heard them as ‘statements of fact’ leaving him dumbfounded as to why no-one had said anything. It seemed definite to Rich that I had lied, so he felt left with no choice.
Having since spoken to many of the people in question, as well as myself, Rich is now not so sure.
I know that Rich still has doubts about some of my ascents which is why he is reluctant to offer a public apology at this time. I can’t force or expect an apology. At this stage I see no point in chastising Rich for the way he brought this issue up. He is a young guy, passionate about climbing. Unlike many, he says what he thinks. Sometimes this can be detrimental to him and to others, as in this case.
If Rich or others still have their doubts then I feel things would be better discussed in private. I do not want to feel publicly criticized for no wrong doings, and neither do I wish to level public accusations against individuals who doubt me. It’s a well known cliché, but there are two sides to every story. I do not believe that a public forum is the best way to examine both sides.
I can’t change the way some people may think of Rich for the way he brought this issue up, just as I will probably be unable to change the opinions of some of my doubters. Some say that “bad publicity is good publicity”. In some cases this may be true; in ours this is not. Both of us have been affected negatively by all of this. I’m sure that both of us have learned a lot.
Presumably those who doubt me also know me, or at least know someone who does. Therefore they should contact me directly.
On a related topic :-
I know that one of the original points Rich was trying to make was regarding unwitnessed ascents, and how they are reported. Rich feels that if the climber doesn’t have solid proof of their (significant) ascent then it shouldn’t be reported, or should at least be reported as “unwitnessed”. Rich also feels that more effort should be made to clearly state whether a photo is of the actual ascent. Staged photos can sometimes mislead others by showing incorrect sequences – this is especially important for bold traditional climbs.
It seems that videoing ascents is becoming the norm nowadays for professional climbers, and if the future dictates that video evidence (or other “concrete proof”) is needed to verify an ascent then so be it. There are obvious plus points as well as negative ones. The issue is certainly one that needs some serious thought.
At the end of the day I believe it should be up to each and every individual editor (guidebooks, magazines, websites etc) to make their own choices, either individually or preferably somehow collectively.
Rich doesn’t want to post a comment on this forum at the moment - but says he may write a statement shortly.
My reputation has been damaged and my motivation within climbing has been temporarily affected. I didn’t start out as a sponsored climber, and adapting to being in the public eye has not always been straightforward. This episode has encouraged me to think that I need to make more of an effort to change with the times.
I hope that this satisfies the public speculation and rumours and that I can get on with doing what I love best – going climbing!
Before Christmas Rich and I exchanged numerous emails (and a couple of phone calls), in which he questioned many of my ascents. As far as I am aware all these doubts came from other people, none were Rich’s direct thoughts. I provided him with satisfactory answers to some of the doubts and said things that forced him to question some of the other doubts.
For every doubt, I gave my answer to Rich. Some of my answers conflict with what others say. I have already publicly acknowledged that I do not have evidence for many of my hard ascents – this is not under dispute. This leaves an uncomfortable situation for some, of my word against someone else’s.
Over the past year or so Rich had heard (down the pub or at the crag etc.) a whole load of different examples of people doubting my ascents. He had heard them as ‘statements of fact’ leaving him dumbfounded as to why no-one had said anything. It seemed definite to Rich that I had lied, so he felt left with no choice.
Having since spoken to many of the people in question, as well as myself, Rich is now not so sure.
I know that Rich still has doubts about some of my ascents which is why he is reluctant to offer a public apology at this time. I can’t force or expect an apology. At this stage I see no point in chastising Rich for the way he brought this issue up. He is a young guy, passionate about climbing. Unlike many, he says what he thinks. Sometimes this can be detrimental to him and to others, as in this case.
If Rich or others still have their doubts then I feel things would be better discussed in private. I do not want to feel publicly criticized for no wrong doings, and neither do I wish to level public accusations against individuals who doubt me. It’s a well known cliché, but there are two sides to every story. I do not believe that a public forum is the best way to examine both sides.
I can’t change the way some people may think of Rich for the way he brought this issue up, just as I will probably be unable to change the opinions of some of my doubters. Some say that “bad publicity is good publicity”. In some cases this may be true; in ours this is not. Both of us have been affected negatively by all of this. I’m sure that both of us have learned a lot.
Presumably those who doubt me also know me, or at least know someone who does. Therefore they should contact me directly.
On a related topic :-
I know that one of the original points Rich was trying to make was regarding unwitnessed ascents, and how they are reported. Rich feels that if the climber doesn’t have solid proof of their (significant) ascent then it shouldn’t be reported, or should at least be reported as “unwitnessed”. Rich also feels that more effort should be made to clearly state whether a photo is of the actual ascent. Staged photos can sometimes mislead others by showing incorrect sequences – this is especially important for bold traditional climbs.
It seems that videoing ascents is becoming the norm nowadays for professional climbers, and if the future dictates that video evidence (or other “concrete proof”) is needed to verify an ascent then so be it. There are obvious plus points as well as negative ones. The issue is certainly one that needs some serious thought.
At the end of the day I believe it should be up to each and every individual editor (guidebooks, magazines, websites etc) to make their own choices, either individually or preferably somehow collectively.
Rich doesn’t want to post a comment on this forum at the moment - but says he may write a statement shortly.
My reputation has been damaged and my motivation within climbing has been temporarily affected. I didn’t start out as a sponsored climber, and adapting to being in the public eye has not always been straightforward. This episode has encouraged me to think that I need to make more of an effort to change with the times.
I hope that this satisfies the public speculation and rumours and that I can get on with doing what I love best – going climbing!
I supose time will tell, at least now it seams Ben will be providing more concreate evidence for his ascents. their should be no more dispute in the future. We will now be able to see his true ability. If he is totally honest then he will have no problem continuing to report impressive ascents. If he has lied in the past, it will make it more difficult for his future, since he will not be at the level he claims to be at.
I just hope he is telling the truth. I also agree that this is better left sorted out in private, between said people.
I still feel that although Bens sob story is heartwarming, he stil provides no evidence as to why several people who dispute his claims?
Maybve a mroe factual response would have been better. But in truth, lets all just go climbing.
Thanks
In reply to climbandrun:
Blimey, just viewed my spelling. Not all of us have a job which enables access to rockfax all day long, and are forced to make quick responses at lunch.
MUST TRY HARDER
Blimey, just viewed my spelling. Not all of us have a job which enables access to rockfax all day long, and are forced to make quick responses at lunch.
MUST TRY HARDER
In reply to most:
Have no doubts that Ben has done everything he has said he has. It's just typical of the climbing community that they wish to doubt him. This idea that "you can only claim to have done it if witnessed or videoed or got at least three people to provide an aliby" is just Pathetic. Hopefully Ben can still enjoy his climbing and remain one of Britains best hard onsight progenitors without having to carry a camera to placate the "I wasn't there so you haven't done it" brigade
Have no doubts that Ben has done everything he has said he has. It's just typical of the climbing community that they wish to doubt him. This idea that "you can only claim to have done it if witnessed or videoed or got at least three people to provide an aliby" is just Pathetic. Hopefully Ben can still enjoy his climbing and remain one of Britains best hard onsight progenitors without having to carry a camera to placate the "I wasn't there so you haven't done it" brigade
In reply to Ben Heason:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us again, difficult as this must continue to be.
I can only imagine what it must be like to be in the centre of so personal a storm and you have my sympathies for that and my respect for maintaining a pretty even-handed approach to it all.
I suppose we all want a piece of climbing celebrities (if I can use the word) and that has both positive and negative connotations. I certainly wouldn’t be happy with people who don’t know me from Adam talking at great length about what I may or may not have done with little appreciation of either the area or the issues.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with future projects. Enjoy your climbing!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us again, difficult as this must continue to be.
I can only imagine what it must be like to be in the centre of so personal a storm and you have my sympathies for that and my respect for maintaining a pretty even-handed approach to it all.
I suppose we all want a piece of climbing celebrities (if I can use the word) and that has both positive and negative connotations. I certainly wouldn’t be happy with people who don’t know me from Adam talking at great length about what I may or may not have done with little appreciation of either the area or the issues.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with future projects. Enjoy your climbing!
In reply to TRNovice:
Which one? Cartwright? Wainwright? Lincoln? Long? Ant?
> (In reply to Ben Heason)
>
>
> I suppose we all want a piece of climbing celebrities (if I can use the word) and that has both positive and negative connotations. I certainly wouldn’t be happy with people who don’t know me from Adam talking at great length...
>
>
> I suppose we all want a piece of climbing celebrities (if I can use the word) and that has both positive and negative connotations. I certainly wouldn’t be happy with people who don’t know me from Adam talking at great length...
Which one? Cartwright? Wainwright? Lincoln? Long? Ant?
In reply to climbandrun:
You don't see any contradition in these two statements. You don't feel that, with regard to the first statement quoted above, you should shut up or is your opinion more important than anyone else's?
> I also agree that this is better left sorted out in private, between said people.
> I still feel that although Bens sob story is heartwarming, he stil provides no evidence as to why several people who dispute his claims?
You don't see any contradition in these two statements. You don't feel that, with regard to the first statement quoted above, you should shut up or is your opinion more important than anyone else's?
In reply to John Mulhern:
According to video evidence, Tom Cruise did some gnarly soloing at the start of MI2 - has he ever claimed it?
According to video evidence, Tom Cruise did some gnarly soloing at the start of MI2 - has he ever claimed it?
Skipping back to the earlier tipic for a minute, the Beau Geste story, I have it from a colleague of mine who will remain anonymous, a small detail to add.
My colleague, who we will call Monseiur Guy Gadois, was at the crag one weekend when Ian was taking pictures of Jonny Woodward repeating Beau Geste. M Gadois was interested in this, as he had designs on the route himself, and later went on to make an early repeat, so he hung around to watch the route being climbed. Having hung around while JW repeatedly failed in any way to do the crux, he was surprised to see a rope snake down from above, and Woodward slide down it. Having got to a point above the crux he inserted a nut, sat on it while the ab rope was removed, then led the easier section to the top. At this point M Gadois left, feeling the show was over.
Although as Gadois himself admits, perhaps later on the same day Jonny did pull some clean leads out of the bag, but he didn't see them.
Just an interesting aside to the story.
My colleague, who we will call Monseiur Guy Gadois, was at the crag one weekend when Ian was taking pictures of Jonny Woodward repeating Beau Geste. M Gadois was interested in this, as he had designs on the route himself, and later went on to make an early repeat, so he hung around to watch the route being climbed. Having hung around while JW repeatedly failed in any way to do the crux, he was surprised to see a rope snake down from above, and Woodward slide down it. Having got to a point above the crux he inserted a nut, sat on it while the ab rope was removed, then led the easier section to the top. At this point M Gadois left, feeling the show was over.
Although as Gadois himself admits, perhaps later on the same day Jonny did pull some clean leads out of the bag, but he didn't see them.
Just an interesting aside to the story.
In reply to Graham Hoey:
My thoughts exactly.
In the normal world, I assume imnnocent until proven guilty. Here there are some who fling mud without evidence and expect the "innocent" to prove their innocence. The onus is on them to prove guilt. No respect to the shadowy puppet masters dishing the dirt,
Carry on Mr Heason and ignore the envious tossers!
My thoughts exactly.
In the normal world, I assume imnnocent until proven guilty. Here there are some who fling mud without evidence and expect the "innocent" to prove their innocence. The onus is on them to prove guilt. No respect to the shadowy puppet masters dishing the dirt,
Carry on Mr Heason and ignore the envious tossers!
In reply to phatlad:
One person would do. If people don't want questions raised over their ascents, they should make sure they have someone who can verify the ascent, otherwise this nonsense is inevitable. This shouldn't create any great hardship to anyone, as most people have at least one person with them when climbing i.e. a belayer. Even if you are doing a hard solo, most people would have someone there to call an ambulance if you fall off.
I disagree with your suggestion that it is pathetic to expect evidence of significant ascents.
> (In reply to most)
>
> "you can only claim to have done it if witnessed or videoed or got at least three people to provide an aliby"
>
> "you can only claim to have done it if witnessed or videoed or got at least three people to provide an aliby"
One person would do. If people don't want questions raised over their ascents, they should make sure they have someone who can verify the ascent, otherwise this nonsense is inevitable. This shouldn't create any great hardship to anyone, as most people have at least one person with them when climbing i.e. a belayer. Even if you are doing a hard solo, most people would have someone there to call an ambulance if you fall off.
I disagree with your suggestion that it is pathetic to expect evidence of significant ascents.
In reply to grim: Cheers Grimsta. Interesting annecdote.
In reply to grim:
I have to say that when Ian Smith stated 'Jonny climbed the route a couple of times' I thought it seemed unlikely he did the route clean just for photos - even wearing a 'halo' as he appears to do on the photograph (or is it an aura).
As for video evidence - continuing Graham's theme - there is plenty of video evidence of Neil Armstrong on the moon but also a sizeable minority who thinks it was staged.
I have to say that when Ian Smith stated 'Jonny climbed the route a couple of times' I thought it seemed unlikely he did the route clean just for photos - even wearing a 'halo' as he appears to do on the photograph (or is it an aura).
As for video evidence - continuing Graham's theme - there is plenty of video evidence of Neil Armstrong on the moon but also a sizeable minority who thinks it was staged.
In reply to Simon Lee:
"there is plenty of video evidence of Neil Armstrong on the moon but also a sizeable minority who thinks it was staged."
You get nuts in all walks of life and just because they are nuts it does make it impossible theyre right, just very unlikely: there was a good thread once where MidgetsOTWU went through these knocking them down, one by one).
Back on topic: obviously these threads demonstrate there is so much gossip and expectation of bad behaviour in wider climbing circles that clear evidence would be very wise for sponsored climbers to consider before they use ascents as publicity (intentionally or otherwise). There is certainly a strong undercurrent of modesty in a lot of naive but talented younger climbers who dont fuss about very impressive ascents but may need a big change if they ever need to suit sponsors demands. Despite the threads being a big Rocktalk event they also contain far too many inane or thoughtless posts which detract heavily from a clearly serious topic. Maybe on newsworthy threads like this the moderators just need to be harsh and ask posters to think and reword posts or accept rejection (some are even better deleted).
"there is plenty of video evidence of Neil Armstrong on the moon but also a sizeable minority who thinks it was staged."
You get nuts in all walks of life and just because they are nuts it does make it impossible theyre right, just very unlikely: there was a good thread once where MidgetsOTWU went through these knocking them down, one by one).
Back on topic: obviously these threads demonstrate there is so much gossip and expectation of bad behaviour in wider climbing circles that clear evidence would be very wise for sponsored climbers to consider before they use ascents as publicity (intentionally or otherwise). There is certainly a strong undercurrent of modesty in a lot of naive but talented younger climbers who dont fuss about very impressive ascents but may need a big change if they ever need to suit sponsors demands. Despite the threads being a big Rocktalk event they also contain far too many inane or thoughtless posts which detract heavily from a clearly serious topic. Maybe on newsworthy threads like this the moderators just need to be harsh and ask posters to think and reword posts or accept rejection (some are even better deleted).
In reply to Offwidth: Portentous
In reply to John Mulhern: I'm sure someone has already posted this link but there is further comment from Ben H on UKbouldering http://ukbouldering.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=4790&postdays=0&posto...
I must make it clear that I'm not out to get Ben personally. It won't affect anyone, or my climbing. Frankly, I don't really care. However many friends he's just made, by writing emotively, again, he's not explained anything.
If some of this seems direct then it should've been said last time and I don't want to argue round in circles anymore.
Personally I just want the record to be set straight and the `rules of engagement' on these matters to be clarified in future.
This thread is a rather amusing 100 poster, in that originally I thought it was about a more academic point, hell I thought this thread was informed until it started on about staged climbing porn -again-. Regardless of whether he was right or wrong, the question of was Rich right or not to accuse Ben in public, and should people do this sort of thing in general was what I was getting at?
In reply to Ben Heason:
> for various reasons,
Do tell.
> we didn't
>
> Rich is now not so sure.
>
> Rich is now not so sure.
Is this definitive, on his behalf?
>
>Sometimes this can be detrimental to him and to others, as >in this case.
Whether it was or not is precisely of interest.
>
> would be better discussed in private.
> would be better discussed in private.
I beg to differ.
> It’s a well known cliché, but there are two sides to every > story.
Here're two more:
- "You throw enough shit, it sticks."
- "How much shit do you need, how sticky does it need to be, and how much sticky shit do you need to stick?"
I made the last one up but how we should differentiate between the two cases is a matter of greater importance. What do you think is the case here?
> I do not believe that a public forum is the best way to
> examine both sides.
> examine both sides.
I actually think there is no better way to fairly examine both sides. Ben's been generous with his words and time but he's shown he's more than capable of defending himself.
It would help if the facts were stuck to and waffleshite wasn't also posted, but there you go. With all such novice rubbish, is it any wonder that anything (in fact everything) interesting or controversial is only communicated privately between people who respect each others opinions? Or at the crag. There are certain things you can't concisely explain, that it's best just to figure out for yourself by climbing.
I'm willing to indulge people rather than move to a medium with limited space, and limited contributions and fact checking, and distracting glossy photos of people who actually had ropes coming out of their flies. The mags are not the place for this sort of thing. They're not open or unbiased enough.
Noone can expect to require proof that Ben felled a tree when nobody heard it and be reasonable. But there's more than this and especially if you're funded by the climbing world (that's all of us), then you should set the climbing record straight. Where you can easily do this but don't, then what are we to think?
I don't think it's black or white. I don't think it's as black as that, but I certainly need convincing it's all white. I'm more than willing to ignore the odd indiscretion (e.g. Gary again, I've enjoyed too many of his routes) but I think there's an extremely interesting story about the way different climbers are motivated, and operate, on climbs of contrasting styles (in every way) and an important lesson lies at the bottom of this. Deciding not to finish something after you've started something doesn't help, it does the exact opposite. I'm sorry I have to say this but as the professional, Ben's under a lot more obligation to explain himself than Rich is.
In reply to Paz: why do you really give such a shit man? whats it got to do with you?
In reply to Paz:
Maybe you should contact Ben directly and arrange to meet up and discuss this if it is so important?
Maybe you should contact Ben directly and arrange to meet up and discuss this if it is so important?
In reply to belmonkey:
It's just my opinion that it is somewhat pathetic to expect people to document their exploits all the time
It's just my opinion that it is somewhat pathetic to expect people to document their exploits all the time
In reply to Paz:
I see on your profile you claim to have climbed F7c, what evidence have you to back up this. nothing less than a video backed by sworn affidavits from 2 independent witnesses will suffice. This is important because your RT cedibility rests on the validity of such a claim.
I see on your profile you claim to have climbed F7c, what evidence have you to back up this. nothing less than a video backed by sworn affidavits from 2 independent witnesses will suffice. This is important because your RT cedibility rests on the validity of such a claim.
In reply to Paz: Paz me old mucker, why are you bothered. Its not as if it actually really matters is it? At the end of the day there are far far more important things in the world and although it might not feel like it, at the end of the day there is life outside climbing. If Ben is telling the truth then slandering him just makes you look silly, and if he isn't then he's the one that has to live with the idea that he's a lieing cheat for the rest of his life.
If you want an extreme case look at the Messner brothers - Reinhold loses his brother and then is accused of leaving him to die. For twenty years he can't prove his case until by good fortune somebody finds his body. He knew he was right, but was questioned about it for those years. What was the point?
If you want an extreme case look at the Messner brothers - Reinhold loses his brother and then is accused of leaving him to die. For twenty years he can't prove his case until by good fortune somebody finds his body. He knew he was right, but was questioned about it for those years. What was the point?
In reply to mike kann:
I mailed Ben yesterday and said much what you said, just get out and climb again and see if you can do the same grade after all the name calling to remove the doubts.
I mailed Ben yesterday and said much what you said, just get out and climb again and see if you can do the same grade after all the name calling to remove the doubts.
In reply to grim:
Your friend's version is only partly correct, I could challenge your friend's memory of the exact circumstances as he isn't quite right in all particulars but that would be pointless. I have always admitted that Johnny did not climb the route 'clean' the day we did the photos, he had made the first ascent 4 days previously in good conditions and I thought this was clear on the page Jon Read created about the route. The weather on the day of the photos was very poor, damp and cold, and, yes, he climbed it a few times with varying degrees of chicanery but on at least one of them he did climb the crux. He did not climb the route 'clean' that Sunday. Neither I nor Johnny have ever claimed that the photos were of the first ascent, all we wanted to do was to get some photos of him on his new route. The style they were done in is now frequently used, particularly on bold routes, where the ascent is done in prime conditions often without the distraction of a photographer, with any photos being done later, often with a bit of organization.
Ian Smith
> Skipping back to the earlier tipic for a minute, the Beau Geste story, I have it from a colleague of mine who will remain anonymous, a small detail to add.
>
> My colleague, who we will call Monseiur Guy Gadois, was at the crag one weekend when Ian was taking pictures of Jonny Woodward repeating Beau Geste. M Gadois was interested in this, as he had designs on the route himself, and later went on to make an early repeat, so he hung around to watch the route being climbed. Having hung around while JW repeatedly failed in any way to do the crux, he was surprised to see a rope snake down from above, and Woodward slide down it. Having got to a point above the crux he inserted a nut, sat on it while the ab rope was removed, then led the easier section to the top. At this point M Gadois left, feeling the show was over.
> Although as Gadois himself admits, perhaps later on the same day Jonny did pull some clean leads out of the bag, but he didn't see them.
>
> Just an interesting aside to the story.
>
> My colleague, who we will call Monseiur Guy Gadois, was at the crag one weekend when Ian was taking pictures of Jonny Woodward repeating Beau Geste. M Gadois was interested in this, as he had designs on the route himself, and later went on to make an early repeat, so he hung around to watch the route being climbed. Having hung around while JW repeatedly failed in any way to do the crux, he was surprised to see a rope snake down from above, and Woodward slide down it. Having got to a point above the crux he inserted a nut, sat on it while the ab rope was removed, then led the easier section to the top. At this point M Gadois left, feeling the show was over.
> Although as Gadois himself admits, perhaps later on the same day Jonny did pull some clean leads out of the bag, but he didn't see them.
>
> Just an interesting aside to the story.
Your friend's version is only partly correct, I could challenge your friend's memory of the exact circumstances as he isn't quite right in all particulars but that would be pointless. I have always admitted that Johnny did not climb the route 'clean' the day we did the photos, he had made the first ascent 4 days previously in good conditions and I thought this was clear on the page Jon Read created about the route. The weather on the day of the photos was very poor, damp and cold, and, yes, he climbed it a few times with varying degrees of chicanery but on at least one of them he did climb the crux. He did not climb the route 'clean' that Sunday. Neither I nor Johnny have ever claimed that the photos were of the first ascent, all we wanted to do was to get some photos of him on his new route. The style they were done in is now frequently used, particularly on bold routes, where the ascent is done in prime conditions often without the distraction of a photographer, with any photos being done later, often with a bit of organization.
Ian Smith
In reply to S11:
Well it wasn't clear to Jon Read if you read his post !:
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
Well it wasn't clear to Jon Read if you read his post !:
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Simon, that was from grim who said;
>Skipping back to the earlier tipic for a minute, the Beau Geste story, I have it from a colleague of mine who will remain anonymous, a small detail to add.
So a friend of a friend told him, as good as me telling you what I read then you saying it is true.
Simon, that was from grim who said;
>Skipping back to the earlier tipic for a minute, the Beau Geste story, I have it from a colleague of mine who will remain anonymous, a small detail to add.
So a friend of a friend told him, as good as me telling you what I read then you saying it is true.
In reply to sutty: Wrong Sutts :
by - Jon Read on - 14:17 Mon
In reply to Simon Lee:
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
by - Jon Read on - 14:17 Mon
In reply to Simon Lee:
> The classic Woodward photos on Beau Geste were staged ...
Well, staged as in it wasn't the first ascent, but he was actually leading it (ground-up in modern parlance), several times to boot.
See http://www.geocities.com/readza1/climbing/beaugeste/index.html for more.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Mustn't have gone back far enough, that was what I thought you were commenting on, sorry.
Mustn't have gone back far enough, that was what I thought you were commenting on, sorry.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Yes, I had assumed from Ian's writing that Woodward had lead through to the top with falls; I didn't know about an ab rope. Nonetheless, my respect for the man (Woodward) is intact.
Yes, I had assumed from Ian's writing that Woodward had lead through to the top with falls; I didn't know about an ab rope. Nonetheless, my respect for the man (Woodward) is intact.
In reply to Richard Bradley: Doh.
Oh, and just rereading this, I wanna point out that my post wasn't there to contradict the original story of the Beau Geste day, just adding onto it. I had been reading the post with interest just as gadois walked by and told me he'd been there that day, and i was just adding my knowledge onto the story. In fact, I love hearing about shennanigans, and with great climbers, I don't think it ever takes away from their achievements. I've climbed one afternoon with Jonny, pretty special.
I've always liked those pictures a lot, especially thwe ones of him going for the top with the ropes twisted about each other about to lift out the nut
I've always liked those pictures a lot, especially thwe ones of him going for the top with the ropes twisted about each other about to lift out the nut
In reply to grimer at homo:
Hiya fellow Celt,
That's the thing - some of these guys are pretty special. Saw a top climber of the 1980s do London Wall. Utterly effective - what I'd aspire to. Saw JW do it almost a decade previously (when folk were weaker). Poetry in motion. He admitted he'd done it before, not quite as poetically but, that day, with Jill Lawrence, just beautiful. A golden memory - and, possibly, an impossibility to aspire to!
All best wishes,
Mick
> I've climbed one afternoon with Jonny, pretty special.
Hiya fellow Celt,
That's the thing - some of these guys are pretty special. Saw a top climber of the 1980s do London Wall. Utterly effective - what I'd aspire to. Saw JW do it almost a decade previously (when folk were weaker). Poetry in motion. He admitted he'd done it before, not quite as poetically but, that day, with Jill Lawrence, just beautiful. A golden memory - and, possibly, an impossibility to aspire to!
All best wishes,
Mick
In reply to John Mulhern: having read both threads, I got to thinking that Simpsons main thing was that a lot of heasons "ascents" werent witnessed, and therefore didnt happen?
Assuming Im correct in the way I read that, does that mean I or anyone else can make a whole host of accusations about other people on the basis that not many people have seen them doing whatever it is they are supposed to have done?
For example, is Simpson a homosexual unless a number of people come out to confess to having watched him on the job with a woman?
odd.
Assuming Im correct in the way I read that, does that mean I or anyone else can make a whole host of accusations about other people on the basis that not many people have seen them doing whatever it is they are supposed to have done?
For example, is Simpson a homosexual unless a number of people come out to confess to having watched him on the job with a woman?
odd.
In reply to fxceltic: I think the main difference is that Mr. Simpson is not sponsered to either shag men or women, so its irrelevant. Unless he is leading some sort of sicko's life
In reply to mike kann: yeah... unfortunately though thats not quite how it read was it?
In reply to fxceltic:
> For example, is Simpson a homosexual unless a number of people come out to confess to having watched him on the job with a woman?
>
Doesn't the woman count as a witness then ?
>
In reply to mike kann:
Just to carry on that analogy. I think that the case here was that someone was claiming that they had had unwitnessed (un-video'ed and un-photographed) congress with various supermodels (which was then reported in the celeb mags) when in the past they had only been witnessed in congress with some checkout gals from Tesco.
The moral is, make sure that your passion with supermodels is recorded for posterity for all to see (and buy of course).
> (In reply to fxceltic) I think the main difference is that Mr. Simpson is not sponsered to either shag men or women, so its irrelevant. Unless he is leading some sort of sicko's life
Just to carry on that analogy. I think that the case here was that someone was claiming that they had had unwitnessed (un-video'ed and un-photographed) congress with various supermodels (which was then reported in the celeb mags) when in the past they had only been witnessed in congress with some checkout gals from Tesco.
The moral is, make sure that your passion with supermodels is recorded for posterity for all to see (and buy of course).
In reply to Alison Stockwell: yes, in this analogy I suppose the woman would be the belayer... but like the apparently absent belayers, might not want to admit to having been there.
In reply to fxceltic:
Oh well, that's a bit better than being the rockface I suppose.
> (In reply to Alison Stockwell) yes, in this analogy I suppose the woman would be the belayer...
Oh well, that's a bit better than being the rockface I suppose.
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Just to carry on the analogy further... and on the night of the party when one such congress was supposed to have taken place he was seen nowhere near the supermodel, other people were talking to her all night, and the next day when he was telling his mates about it he wasn't aware that she had a broken leg that was in plaster...
Just to carry on the analogy further... and on the night of the party when one such congress was supposed to have taken place he was seen nowhere near the supermodel, other people were talking to her all night, and the next day when he was telling his mates about it he wasn't aware that she had a broken leg that was in plaster...
In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com: PMSL! Obviously there is a very fine line between the latest bouldering vids and hardcore porn. And get your hand out from under the table...
In reply to Agent Moog:
You mean, of course, that anonymous people were saying that their anonymous mates had been talking to her all night. Like you, in fact. If you've got something to say, stand up and say it instead of this gutless smearing.
jcm
You mean, of course, that anonymous people were saying that their anonymous mates had been talking to her all night. Like you, in fact. If you've got something to say, stand up and say it instead of this gutless smearing.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>anonymous people were saying that their anonymous mates had been talking to her all night
quite right. I've got nothing to say on this issue really.
>anonymous people were saying that their anonymous mates had been talking to her all night
quite right. I've got nothing to say on this issue really.
In reply to Erik B:
I think the truth about high end ascents on our most famous rock type is important. The other side of the argument needs to be said. If anyone more knowledgeable than me took up the case I'd let them get on with it.
In reply to TRNovice:
I think this should be sorted in the open, on the record.
In reply to JRobertson:
I've got them wired mate. Even if you didn't believe either belayer feel free to drive me down to Cheddar, put the clips in, and eventually I'd definitely repeat one of them, possibly the other one (at the very least I'd probably fall off it trying) and maybe even do both in the same day. That's a challenge for both of us. The ban comes in before the end of february though, so be quick.
Ben isn't willing to repeat many of his hard solos (understandably). For me it would be enough to link them on top rope or even for him to show us what sequence he used. I don't think there's anything wrong with unwitnessed ascents but I'm interested as to why anyone would climb all of their most impressive routes in that fashion. Simply being more productive and having no mental distraction needs a bit of elaboration.
If a lot of these gives people cause to doubt his credibility and then other instances of outright contradiction occur then is that because `some of it will stick' or are they the few occasions when a liar got caught out, as liars always are. I think the onus is now on Ben to explain these instances to us all. Rich no doubt told him what they were. I don't want to specify what if I don't have to as that would drag in other people without their permission.
In reply to mike kann:
You're talking to a man who constantly needs a hair cut and sports a poor attempt at a beard - I don't care how silly people think I look. With regards you Messner example, even if he was a Nazi I didn't doubt him. On the other hand there's Cesare Maestri. There's just no f*cking way that guy could have climbed what he said he did.
I think the truth about high end ascents on our most famous rock type is important. The other side of the argument needs to be said. If anyone more knowledgeable than me took up the case I'd let them get on with it.
In reply to TRNovice:
I think this should be sorted in the open, on the record.
In reply to JRobertson:
> I see on your profile you claim to have climbed F7c, what >evidence have you to back up this.
I've got them wired mate. Even if you didn't believe either belayer feel free to drive me down to Cheddar, put the clips in, and eventually I'd definitely repeat one of them, possibly the other one (at the very least I'd probably fall off it trying) and maybe even do both in the same day. That's a challenge for both of us. The ban comes in before the end of february though, so be quick.
Ben isn't willing to repeat many of his hard solos (understandably). For me it would be enough to link them on top rope or even for him to show us what sequence he used. I don't think there's anything wrong with unwitnessed ascents but I'm interested as to why anyone would climb all of their most impressive routes in that fashion. Simply being more productive and having no mental distraction needs a bit of elaboration.
If a lot of these gives people cause to doubt his credibility and then other instances of outright contradiction occur then is that because `some of it will stick' or are they the few occasions when a liar got caught out, as liars always are. I think the onus is now on Ben to explain these instances to us all. Rich no doubt told him what they were. I don't want to specify what if I don't have to as that would drag in other people without their permission.
In reply to mike kann:
You're talking to a man who constantly needs a hair cut and sports a poor attempt at a beard - I don't care how silly people think I look. With regards you Messner example, even if he was a Nazi I didn't doubt him. On the other hand there's Cesare Maestri. There's just no f*cking way that guy could have climbed what he said he did.
In reply to Paz:
So, if this is really one of the most important things in your life right now, then as I suggested, mail Ben, ask to meet up, see what he has to say and come back and tell us all.
> (In reply to Erik B)
>
> I think the truth about high end ascents on our most famous rock type is important.
>
> I think the truth about high end ascents on our most famous rock type is important.
So, if this is really one of the most important things in your life right now, then as I suggested, mail Ben, ask to meet up, see what he has to say and come back and tell us all.
In reply to TRNovice:
Do the week long gaps in my correspondance not give you a hint that it isn't the most important thing?
Give him chance to respond here first.
Do the week long gaps in my correspondance not give you a hint that it isn't the most important thing?
Give him chance to respond here first.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...