UKC

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

and more here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/caff/gallery/author.html?name=Kevin+Thaw

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA: He's looking even more like Mark Hughes than ever

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA: phew! looks a bit thin

..
~

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

I reckon I'd have had at least an old mattress below.


And if he fell off, it wasn't really an onsight was it?

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:
I reckon we could use that in Western Grit - cracking shot Grommit! How does £20 sound?? It might even make the front cover!

All the best

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

.....n' shurely it's only E5 now Chris as the Thaw has clearly shown that the fall ain't that bad...

M

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

On the contrary, Mick, Julian Lines tested it many years ago and walked away. Now we know that one might actually break a limb, I'd say E9.

And at least we know it was on-sight, because as far as I can see from the photos our hero is totally f*cking up the top move, which is no doubt why he ended on the floor!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Interesting John.

So E9 does not mean certain injury or death.

What does it mean?

6b or 6c with no gear with the "potential" for certain death or injury?

Mick

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


LOL, thanks John, that brightened up my morning

i'd not actually noticed the fact before you pointed it out

In reply to StuartM:

I just assumed he was going to do it a different way. People are allowed to do that. It's not the way I did it (on a rope, for research purposes, you understand), but then it took me three goes, so I'd have ended up in North Staffs too.

I have to say I'm inclined more towards the downgrading argument than the converse. Presumably you wouldn't get off so lightly from, say, End of the Affair?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Well EOTA has been tested, and a bloody head was the result...

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:


Bishop Highball!!!?

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

Now you mention it, I do remember the tasteful photo. So, what are we saying? That if someone falls off an E8 and kills themselves we'll upgrade it, but if they sustain minor injuries it's probably about right for 6b/6c?

All we need is a large enough sample to make the quantitative analysis robust...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Not at all...

Dont forget its also how hard/sustained/obviousness of sequence/ not just boldness/chance of injury if you fall off.

As far as EOTA goes and OF, they are not particuarly hard, but are very delicate, not obvious what to do AND both are really ones not to fall off

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I knew you'd come round to my way of thinking Dave!

In reply to StuartM:

I am very conscious of being way out of my depth here. I'll leave it for the likes of you and Adam to fight it out. Theoretical analytical logic only gets you so far!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Err, well ive not done it yet, but want to try and flash it when the conditions are right, as do a few other people...

In reply to Adam Lincoln:
I reckon it's low end E8 for the theoretical on-sight. It is a long way to fall and a not especially inviting landing.

In reply to Adam Lincoln:

I thought OF had been downgraded by those in the know seeing as it's supposed to be a path? Plus two people have now fallen off it. Had a look at Readza's grit list for E8 and half of them are unrepeated!

In reply to Adam Lincoln: best of luck Adam - like you say its thin, tenuous and not that obvious exactly how to approach it. Top climb though (just wish i hadn't bottled it on the day i went to do it).

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

According to Jon Read, 10,000 maniacs is 8a and the fall is probs from the same height as OF which is 7a???? and New Statesman is 7c+ and looks like the fall is worse

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:

10,000 maniacs fall is a lot less than Obsession, surely?

In reply to Adam Lincoln: I asked Kevin last night, and it was an attempted on sight. Wow. He just said he saw it from the side and it all made sense, so he gave it a go. Fair enough.

In reply to Tom, UKC News Editor:
The crux of 10000 maniacs is the first move, the crux of Obsession is the last move. Then there are a few 6c moves. The top is relatively easy (and lower than Obsession Fatale). I doubt that 10000 maniacs is 8a (as Johnny says) I can't climb 8a.
Dunno about New statesman.

In reply to Nik at work:

Is 10,000 Maniacs what I think it is - the equivalent of Scritto's Republic, but one wall to the L? If so, then I'm not in a position to contradict you, but the top sure as hell doesn't look easy on the video when DH (?) is shaking like a bastard on it and some gallant figure is weaving around 40' below with his arms outstretched, trying not to trip over the mat while crying 'I've got you', or something equally improbable. Gripping.

My E9 comment re OF was a joke, obviously. But I must say I'd sooner fall off New Statesman - as long as I had prudently stationed TB or some other fine member of society on that boulder first. I suppose the trouble with OF is you can't be sure where you're going to go once you've finished bouncing, so you can't really mat it out. On the other hand, of course, at least you're not accelerating so fast.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
10,000 is a lot lot lot shorter than scritos!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yup dats the right route. Dan does make the top look very hard. But it isn't. The move he spends ages on is one of the easier moves on the route. Which is strange as he cruises the hard bit. But it is definitely gripping video, and really highlights how small mats can seem and how useless spotting can appear (not a criticism of the spotter).

Incidentally after Dan tops out he is shouting and whooping and this old couple walk past looking very confused. I think it got cut from the video but it is very funny.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Oh and I'd say closer to 30'.

In reply to Nik at work:

Yeah, I remember Dan saying that the move he sketches on is about 5b/c! If you listen carefully I think you can hear him say "1, 2, 3,..." as he commits to the move. Hilarious!

In reply to NeilK:
Yeah its mad. 5b/c sounds about right.
I've never heard the couting though - I will check it out tonight.

In reply to Nik at work:
That is COUNTING not COUTING. I mean of course I've heard the couting, who hasn't?

In reply to Nik at work: I heard that DH got low crux of 10000Maniacs wired on toprope, and thus didn't really bother working "easy" the top section, only to get a nasty surprise on the lead!!

In reply to Nik at work:

what video is it on?

In reply to daveP:
I, think although I could be wrong, that he worked the lower crux moves to get them wired. Whereas he just had a go at the top, felt it was OK so didn't bother trying that bit again, and hence the nasty suprise.
I am absolutely certain that he didn't do it in a oner before trying to lead it.

In reply to JonC:
It's on the some climbers video. Which is no longer available. If you're really interested I have a copy you could borrow.

In reply to JonC:

Cult classic A Film About Some Climbers

You can definitely hear the counting. And he definitely whoops quite a bit, tho' I don't remember the elderly couple.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
They could well have ended up on the cutting room floor - but their bemused look is priceless.