UKC

NEW REVIEW: Portland Guidebook from The Climbers' Club

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC Gear 01 Oct 2008
Dave Henderson gets his paws on the Climbers Club guide to Portland. He finds full colour topos, bolted routes, trad routes and comprehensive bouldering information...

Read More: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=1302
 Alex1 09 Oct 2008
In reply to UKC Gear:

Surely you can't criticize a definitive guide for including all the routes on the crag...
 Alejandro 09 Oct 2008
In reply to UKC Gear:

Are the CC still using the 'No Star' system they used a few years ago? I can obviously understand where they were coming from with that, but it annoyed the h*ll out of me!
 abarro81 09 Oct 2008
In reply to UKC Gear:
Is Mr Henderson or one of his close friends not working on a Rockfax for the south west region currently? Conflict of interest perhaps?
In reply to abarro81:

Ian Smith (CC Guidebook Sub-committee stalwart) gave me a list with three names on it one of which was Dave Henderson. I emailed Dave who agreed, then I emailed Ian with Dave's address to send him the book.

Alan

PS. JCM, my finger slipped on the 'censor' button regarding your reply when I actually wanted to click 'reply' (if you saw our admin interface you would understand that this is an easy mistake to make, and it isn't reverseable). I was about to post the same reply to you since you made the same accusation. Post again if you want since I honestly didn't mean to censor your reply, although I will, of course, only make the same reply as above.
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> (In reply to abarro81)
>
> Ian Smith (CC Guidebook Sub-committee stalwart) gave me a list with three names on it one of which was Dave Henderson. I emailed Dave who agreed, then I emailed Ian with Dave's address to send him the book.
>
> Alan

Sorry Alan, I'm now confused. Are you saying the CC gave you a list of people they wanted you to elect to review the CC guidebook?

 Michael Ryan 09 Oct 2008
In reply to abarro81:
> (In reply to UKC Gear)
> Is Mr Henderson or one of his close friends not working on a Rockfax for the south west region currently? Conflict of interest perhaps?

There is no Rockfax bias at UKClimbing.com. We treat all guidebook publishers and authors fairly.

The Climbers' Club also advertise at UKClimbing.com.

Guidebook reviews here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/list.php?type=4&brand=

As regards conflict of interest in the UK climbing community. Because it is so small it is almost unavoidable.

If you do see any at UKC please alert us.

Thanks,

Mick

 Simon Caldwell 09 Oct 2008
In reply to necromancer85:
> Surely you can't criticize a definitive guide for including all the routes on the crag...

It does seem a slightly bizarre criticism!

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> Sorry Alan, I'm now confused. Are you saying the CC gave you a list of people they wanted you to elect to review the CC guidebook?

Ian suggested three names, I suggested a couple - all five of whom could have done reviews, and all five of whom would have been totally impartial. In the end we chose Dave, who was one of Ian's selections. As it turns out the review is slightly critical of some aspects but positive on others - so hardly a stitch up, or a set up, or a fix, or an inside job.

That is the way it works since things like guidebooks only have a handful of suitable reviewers and has always been customary for the publisher to make some suggestion since they tend to have a better knowledge of who is intimate with an area. However there is nothing binding the review body to go with the suggestion.

Alan
 Matt Vigg 09 Oct 2008
In reply to Toreador:

I think his point is just, what's the point of putting all the stuff in that most people won't bother climbing, have it available on-line if people want it. Looks like another good CC guide though.
 Simon Caldwell 09 Oct 2008
In reply to Matt Vigg:
> what's the point of putting all the stuff in that most people won't bother climbing

The point is that it's supposed to be a complete guide, not a selective guide. You might just as well complain that the Rockfax book doesn't include all the routes. Either should be reviewed for what it is, rather than for not being something else.


In reply to Alan James - UKC: Got it, it's a peer review. I understand now. Thanks.
In reply to UKC Gear:

Blimey. Well, I'm impressed by Ian's naivete, but the fact remains that Dave H seems to have some issues with the CC and has never supplied an unbiased review of any of their guides that I've seen.

I mean, does 'an anonymous mate of mine told me one of the lines was wrong' strike you as fair comment in a review?

jcm
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

>That is the way it works since things like guidebooks only have a handful of suitable reviewers

Really? This is bollocks, surely. I can think of quite a large number of climbers who use Portland a lot and are not writing a rival guide. What's wrong with them?

jcm
 Al Evans 10 Oct 2008
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: The other point is that the whole ethos of CC guides are definitive, they include everything historically that has been climbed in their guidebook area, if they did not hell would freeze over and UK climbing history would be lost, if you just want a selective guide, buy Rockfax, don't criticise the CC because their guide is 'too definitive'.
John this is not aimed at you but a few posts higher up.
Al
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Really? This is bollocks, surely. I can think of quite a large number of climbers who use Portland a lot and are not writing a rival guide. What's wrong with them?

DH is not writing any guidebooks for me.

Despite your portrayal of this large pool of potential reviewers, any magazine editor will tell you that the reality of finding someone for book reviews is not as simple as you make it sound. They need sufficient local knowledge, combined with enough authority for people to take the review seriously, it also helps if they have a track record of delivery and you need to have their email address. Hence a pool of 5 or 6 is the norm, which tends to be drawn up by the two parties concerned.

Alan
 Wilbur 10 Oct 2008
In reply to UKC Gear:

Bit of a weird review. It's not very comprehensive is it?

My main gripe with the book (upon flicking through) was the downgrading of a lot of the bouldering grades, the decision of which to do so seems to have been made by one person without any consultation of people who have climbed the problems over the past few years (it's called a consensus - i thought i shld make that point seeing as it was ignored for the book) since the rockfax dorset book came out and listed the boulder problems for the first time.

It's been posted on here some time back by what i think was the first ascenionist of the problems (i could be wrong but surely it's only he/she who should be able to change the grade of the problem) that they were doing a lot of peak problems using the b grades at the time and got confused when transferring this to Portland. If you're so confused about converting grades maybe you shouldn't be mucking around with them again at this point! Oh, too late.. It all comes across as badly thought out.

i.e. on Rockfax 'the groove' V6, down to V3 in CC book. Look at comments on the database by people such as Ben Stokes (to name one). He thinks V4. I think V5. Anyway, dropping it 3 grades on a whim just seems odd to me.

Same for Pete's rib, V7 down to V4 etc etc

Anyway, my point is, the cc might be catching up in terms of graphics/topos etc for it's guidebooks but it could still learn a lot from the rockfax online voting system for grades. I personally don't believe it is right for a small local minority to dictate the grades of their local area. If they do so it unjustly reflects on the grades i.e. if you did the green traverse every week it may well start to feel like a V3 and not a V6, but this isn't actually the case and any visiting climber will discover the true grade. Hence why the RF database works so well IMO...

rant over
 John2 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Alan James - UKC: I have to say, I don't think the complaint that a definitive guide is too definitive tends to make me take the review seriously. Some evidence of the local knowledge which you mention would have made for a better review in my opinion.
 GrahamD 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Wilbur:

> ...it could still learn a lot from the rockfax online voting system for grades.

You don't vote for grades in Rockfax either (thank goodness). You tender your opinion on Rockfax, then and a few writers decide on a grade based on their knowledge and experience - possibly taking your votes into account along with a large pinch of salt. At least I hope it works this way.
 catt 10 Oct 2008
In reply to GrahamD:

But voting for a grade is tendering your opinion so they are the same thing, and if enough votes are tendered then the guide book writers should be obliged to consider the consensus.
 catt 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Wilbur:

Yes it is a bit of an odd review, it reads like it's been knocked up in quite a hurry. Apologies if this is not the case. However I do agree with his points regarding durability of the new format.

I have to agree with you that the wider consensus appears to have been ignored for several of the new CC bouldering grades. With the greatest respect for the effort put into the new guide, I'll be paying very little attention to the new V gradings.
 Al Evans 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Wilbur:
> (In reply to UKC Gear)
Anyway, my point is, the cc might be catching up in terms of graphics/topos etc for it's guidebooks but it could still learn a lot from the rockfax online voting system for grades.

Do you really think the CC don't do that, maybe not in the global way that Rockfax does, but they go to informed club members, and yes outside the club, and ask questions about controversial grades, perhaps more than any of the other major clubs writing definitive guides including the BMC do.
 Wilbur 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Al Evans:

Al, re-read my post. They clearly didn't do that for the bouldering grades.
 Al Evans 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Wilbur: I guess we are mostly climbers in the CC not boulderers, but we do our best to encompass all codes in a definitive guide
In reply to GrahamD:
> You don't vote for grades in Rockfax either (thank goodness). You tender your opinion on Rockfax, then and a few writers decide on a grade based on their knowledge and experience - possibly taking your votes into account along with a large pinch of salt. At least I hope it works this way.

You are on the right track I think, apart from the fact that we do take the online grade voting VERY seriously. No grade is changed without it being specifically considered using a number of factors and probably the uppermost factor is the online votes especially where there is a decent number of votes, however a simple 51% / 49% majority wouldn't do the trick.

Alan
 Michael Ryan 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Wilbur) I guess we are mostly climbers in the CC not boulderers

Boulderers are climbers and climbers can be boulderers.

Don't be so divisive Alan, it ain't cool.
 GrahamD 10 Oct 2008
In reply to catt:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> But voting for a grade is tendering your opinion so they are the same thing, and if enough votes are tendered then the guide book writers should be obliged to consider the consensus.

Thats the point - a majority vote from a self selected group of internet users is NOT a concensus. People confuse concensus with majority a lot.

In reply to GrahamD:
> Thats the point - a majority vote from a self selected group of internet users is NOT a concensus. People confuse concensus with majority a lot.

Yes it is a consensus of those people who voted.

Alan
 GrahamD 10 Oct 2008
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Hmmm. My dictionary says that a consensus means a general agreement - IE that all the people who vote for a different grade agree to buy into the new grade as well as those who voted for the new grade.

Taken to the extreme, if you pick a route like Divided Years, it makes no sense to base the grade on a vote (1xE10, 1XE9 and 1xE10 as far as I know). It makes much more sense to try to achieve a consensus.

Sorry - pedant hat off now - its nearly beer o'clock.
 Rob Kennard 10 Oct 2008
In reply to GrahamD: Yes, those who vote online on the Rockfax site are a self selected group, but at least it is open to anyone who registers. In the past 'the consensus' would have been an even more select group of the authors mates! Anyway, Steve openly acknowledges the Rockfax grade voting system as a source of input into his grade re-appraisals.
In response to other threads,
This is an interesting thread for me personally, since I am writing a review of the guide for dorset-climbing.com at the moment. A review should highlight the shortcomings as well as the positives. Yes there are mistakes in this book(as there were in the Rockfax guide), and it is NOT a definitive guide{gasp!}, but there are plenty of positives. Inevitably where an area is covered by both the CC and Rockfax there are going to comparisons made, but casting aspersions against the reviewer personally is a bit cheap, imho. If you think you can do a better job give it a go...
Rob
 shaggypops 17 Oct 2008
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I mean, does 'an anonymous mate of mine told me one of the lines was wrong' strike you as fair comment in a review?

No it does not....however

He did not say that

So in reality, is your made up quote fair on the reviewer?
 Dave Henderson 18 Oct 2008
Having read the comments about my review I'd just like clarify that I'm not criticising the guide itself for being definitive. As has been pointed out above, criticising a definitive guide for being definitive wouldn't be much of a criticism!

My suggestion is aimed more at the CC guidebook model (i.e. that all of their guides include all routes and are printed). Perhaps it was misplaced on the review of the Portland guide but it was relevant.

I think that given the now widespread access to the internet the CC could provide a better service to climbers by streamlining their printed guides (i.e. cutting out the chaff routes) and publishing the less popular routes and areas on the internet. As the 'printed guides' would then be smaller they could be updated and re-printed on a more regular basis. This should result in more current, up-to-date guides evolving at a faster rate. The online guides (to less popular routes/areas) would be much easier to update, cheaper to produce and would not require the re-producing of entire guidebooks.

The end result could be better CC 'printed guides' coming out more frequently and more able to compete with the private sector guides (Rockfax, GroundUp). Up-to-date information could be made available on the internet. History would get recorded on a more timely basis (not having to wait 10-15 years between guides) and it is very likely that putting some downloadable guides on the CC website would make it more popular, giving a higher profile to the CC and benefiting their image.

Ironically, I am a fan of definitive guides! I'm just not convinced that the CC printing them will prove to be sustainable in an increasingly competitive market.
 TheGeneralist 18 Oct 2008
In reply to Dave Henderson:
I'm confused about this idea that if I want to find out where a route goes, I have to look on the internet. What if, perish the thought, I'm at the crag and don't happen do have the internet with me, but I do happen to have a climbing guide to the specific area that I am at.
 shaggypops 18 Oct 2008
In reply to TheGeneralist:

That is a fair response..... i'm glad you deleted the 1st one as that was a tad childish.
In reply to TheGeneralist:
> (In reply to Dave Henderson)
> I'm confused about this idea that if I want to find out where a route goes, I have to look on the internet. What if, perish the thought, I'm at the crag and don't happen do have the internet with me, but I do happen to have a climbing guide to the specific area that I am at.

What if, perish the thought, I'm at a crag and don't have the guidebook with me, but I do have my iPhone.

In a few years time you will be more likely to have the Internet with you at the crag than the relevant guidebook. Everything Dave says is spot on - the CC would do well to shift their emphasis, however, I suspect that they are aware of this.

Alan
 TheGeneralist 18 Oct 2008
In reply to shaggypops:
> (In reply to TheGeneralist)
>
> i'm glad you deleted the 1st one as that was a tad childish.



I'm glad I deleted it too. It was badly written and over the top.
 TheGeneralist 18 Oct 2008
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> What if, perish the thought, I'm at a crag and don't have the guidebook with me, but I do have my iPhone.


That is a seperate issue. I don't base my opinion of guidebooks on how little use they are to me when I leave them at home.


Saying that the internet is better than something you don't have with you is not proof that ....
 AJM 19 Oct 2008
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Can you get mobile phone reception at a lot of the cliffs covered by guides in the UK? You certainly couldn't on Orange at Blacknor South today, and I've had similar effects at many other (mainly seacliff or seacliff style (i.e. similar to blacknor where you drop below the cliff level and don't face towards any human habitation) crags in the past. I can only imagine you would struggle down at sea level in most of North Devon/Cornwall, for example?

I also would never take a toy like an iPhone on an abseil into Swanage, whereas I would take a guidebook

Maybe at some point in the near future on convenience crags, particularly those high up facing out over towns (grit, for example), but I think for locations like seacliffs it might be a while yet?

AJM


 Simon Caldwell 20 Oct 2008
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> In a few years time you will be more likely to have the Internet with you at the crag than the relevant guidebook

Only if as has been said above, mobile coverage increases dramatically, which would probably require something new to be invented. Or maybe when 90% of our hills are covered in windfarms, a mobile phone mast could be incorporated in the site.

Also, mobile phones would need to become a lot cheaper to replace (an less attractive to steal).

I suspect what is more likely to happen if stuff becomes internet only, is that people would print a hard copy to take to the crag. And as such printouts are less robust (and more easily lost) than a book, this would be done again on the next visit.
 Ben Stokes Global Crag Moderator 20 Oct 2008
In reply to GrahamD:
> (In reply to Wilbur)

> You don't vote for grades in Rockfax either (thank goodness). You tender your opinion on Rockfax, then and a few writers decide on a grade based on their knowledge and experience - possibly taking your votes into account along with a large pinch of salt. At least I hope it works this way.


This is correct Graham. It should be noted that people tend to vote on grades only when they've been spanked on a problem or found it ridicously easy. It should also be noted that some authors use their experience of travelling to other bouldering areas when considering re-grades.
 JIMBO 25 Oct 2008
In reply to Ben Stokes: When the Neddyfields was being written I was travelling a lot to North Wales and the Lakes. The very experienced and travelled climbers there consistently said that Portland was overgraded and visiting their local bouldering spots it was clear that this was true. Fairy Steps is a good comparison with its vertical walls on small crimps, if you think the Neddyfields is hard then you will be disappointed going there.
Also it is worth remembering what V6 and V3 mean, the first being Font 7a - now if you think of Font 7a's that are vertical on small crimps and you think of things such as Le Mur de la Fosse aux Ours http://bleau.info/95.2/2.html , or À l'Impossible, Nul n'est Tenu http://bleau.info/sabots/774.html - both of which are vertical/slabby with small crimps and a million miles away from The Groove in difficulty.
V3 remember is English 6a, V6 = English 6b - The Groove has a point on which you can let go with both hands! Once you have stood up on the initial hand holds the rest is easy.
Was the down grading considered or just a whim? I'll not answer that as I think it is clear...

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...