/ NEWS: Dan & Ned - Peak District Toy Boys

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dan Varian and Ned Feehally have repeated Ron Fawcett's 1986 slab nightmare Toy Boy at Froggatt in the Peak District.

Graded E7 7a in the current guide, Dan and Ned opted for a more modern approach, bouldering the route out; ground-up, above crash-pads...

Read More: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=11&year=2008#n45427
seagull on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

1. Awesome stuff.

2. This is the way forward. Stack those pads and go ground up.

:-)
Richard Hall - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: "They by no means deserve E grades as below 10m (8m defo) everything is pretty much a boulder problem these days"

Well that is most grit.
Morgan Woods - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

just curious.....dan's blog doesn't really say what the falls (if any?) were like, clean air or sliding down the slab?
fimm on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Sorry, but what does "very morpho" mean?
mark s - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to fimm: reach dependant
ebygomm - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
> Work together people and claim all these routes masquerading as boulders

Surely that should be "boulders masquerading as routes" ?
Michael Ryan - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to fimm:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
>
> Sorry, but what does "very morpho" mean?

from morphological

biological term - the structure of animals...... or in geology the external structure of rocks/land

A morphological move is body size dependent - often found on gritstone

GrahamD - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

E.G.I'm too fat for most of them
Jus - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

How very American!
Jon_Warner - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

"E grades under 9m are a bit of a joke when pads are involved, learn how to fall off properly too."

Next stop The Promise??
fimm on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to mark s and Mick Ryan:

Thank you!
Michael Ryan - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jus:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
>
> How very American!

I think Geldard is Welsh.

220bpm on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Good effort by the youngsters, any video footage?

Like the style used, balls out styleee, but I'm not sure I'd fancy falling from 10m onto a mat.....
danm - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Jus)
> [...]
>
> I think Geldard is Welsh.

Yep, from the well known Welsh mining town of Ceoghhlly.
JDal - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to seagull:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)

> 2. This is the way forward. Stack those pads and go ground up.
>
> :-)

You mean using the pads is the way forward? I agree, it avoids the knackered hips that most of the 1980's Northumbrian lads seem to have acquired on account of ground up solo FA's and jumping off from 30 feet.

;-)
drysori - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Nice stuff.

I can't quite see how a route can be "Benchmark 7c+" and also "morpho" though ;-)
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to John_Warner: They don't seem to be that clear about the height at which a boulder problem becomes a route. Is it 8, 9, or 10m? Maybe 11? Or 12?
Morgan Woods - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

hope they find time to get their beastmaker fingerboard making machine up and running too.
seagull on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to JDal:
> (In reply to seagull)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> You mean using the pads is the way forward? I agree, it avoids the knackered hips that most of the 1980's Northumbrian lads seem to have acquired on account of ground up solo FA's and jumping off from 30 feet.
>
> ;-)

I do indeed.

gallam1 - on 06 Nov 2008
I hate to sound old-fashioned but what exactly is the difference between ground up above bouldering mats and top-roping without dogging (ie. lowering off after a fall, a practice very popular on southern sandstone incidentally)? If this is news, then there is a lot more news to report. The bouldering grades are interesting though.
Adam Long - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to gallam1:

> I hate to sound old-fashioned but what exactly is the difference between ground up above bouldering mats and top-roping without dogging

I suspect if you actually tried to ground-up a highball/ short route above mats you might soon find out. Even a load of pads is considerably less reassuring than a top-rope. Plus you don't have the artificialness of lowering off quickly without looking, which no one does for more than a couple of goes anyway.
north country boy - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to gallam1: top roping on southern sandstone is for very differnt reasons....

Its significant beacause the practice you described (top roping then lowering off and trying from ground again) doesn't occur frequently, espeically not in the Peak on these sorts of routes!

The speed in which they have both ticke these various routes is most impressive, espeically things like Slingshot, Renegade Master and ToyBoy...

Good Work guys, more of the same soon i hope!
paul mitchell - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I thought the point of elite climbing was to make things
more difficult,not easier.Surely if you can do hard stuff with pads then the
higher grade is to then do the route/highball without pads?

Mark Wilford,Colorado,was on -sighting double dyno Font 7c above horrific landings in the early 80's,no pads.Bold indeed.

Mitch

shark - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to paul mitchell: Mark Wilford,Colorado,was on -sighting double dyno Font 7c above horrific landings in the early 80's,no pads.Bold indeed



Doesn't sound as much fun though.
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Read the blog, that's a laugh. But above 4 mats? What about 6, or 8, or 10, or ...
gallam1 - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Adam L:

Even a load of pads is considerably less reassuring than a top-rope.

"E grades under 9m are a bit of a joke when pads are involved, learn how to fall off properly too." posted earlier on the thread.

In my experience the difference is a bit like the difference between top-roping a sport route and then doing it on the bolts (Buoux slabs excluded obviously). It is slightly different but it's mainly a question of acclimatisation, not ability. I'm not sure that a ground-up with mats is a better ascent than an on-sight on a top-rope for example.

These are obviously excellent technical ascents and I'm glad that Toy Boy is getting some attention at last, but quick ascents of highball Font 7c/+ etc. happen frequently. And Phil Davidson and Rob Gawthorpe were climbing highball-ish Font 7c gound up almost 30 years ago (before mats were invented).

I think that the real value of using mats for ground-up ascents of short hard gritstone is that at some stage someone used to this style of ascent will be able to do a proper on-sight solo of a grit or sandstone E8 by pretending that the mat is there. But which one and when will it happen?

abarro81 - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to aln:
What's your point?
Jus - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Jus)
> [...]
>
> I think Geldard is Welsh.

no shit?

I was refering to the liberal use of pads by Dan & Ned...

Not a critism either.
James Oswald - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
How many pads and spotters were used?
ads.ukclimbing.com
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81: About what? If you mean mats... These guys are saying it's only bouldering but say in their blog they used 4 mats. That's a bit different from someone being bold with a mat. How many mats change the thing from a route to a boulder problem?
abarro81 - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to aln:
enough that you feel like your bouldering.. To me the best thing about doing stuff as highballs instead of routes is you don't have to bother with any of the 'oh but they used pads, how many pads, how many spotters' bull, you just get as many as you can find and go out climbing.
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81: I often climb without a mat or spotters, is that bouldering?
shark - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81:how many spotters' bull, you just get as many as you can find and go out climbing

How many of them are wearing anoraks though ? Not as many as typing on here I expect. We need a definitive guide to grade equivalence. One mat equivalent to climbing without chalk, two mats for a blindfold. The BMC could produce some guidelines. What do you mean you don't give a shit ?
abarro81 - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to aln:
Huh? Again I fail to understand your point? The best thing about bouldering is there's none of this defention bull - you just go climbing, who cares how many pads or spotters you have, or if you have any at all..
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81: Tell me what "defention" means, then we can talk.
abarro81 - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to aln:
Pointing out my lack of spelling ability doesn't give you a valid point.
aln - on 06 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81: I'm often pedantic but in this case I wasn't being. I thought it was a word I didn't know.
Zoomer - on 07 Nov 2008
Awesome cranking (is this the 'right' climbing jargon used this week)by the guys, really impressed by the routes and the style, brilliant! Just slightly disappointed by the tone of 'anything under 9m doesn't deserve an E grade'. Bit of a come down after all these years of the grade being good enough and inspiring enough to mere mortals. This either sounds of massive ego or blatant media courting. I'm not in any way qualified to comment but in a 'Joe the Plumber' way, i found the article very disappointing and derogatory to past achievements and those of us who still dream. Reply away, not mega interested as this is the first time i've put up anything. Just remember why you first started climbing, before all the bollocks got in the way. Cheers!
Ram MkiV - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Zoomer:
> This either sounds of massive ego or blatant media courting.

don't think it's either to be honest. Just highlighting a new (and better) approach.
aln - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Steve Ramsden: Don't think it's that either. They're young talented and strong, and takin the piss.
Boy - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to paul mitchell: Thatís a gross simplification which if taken to itís logical conclusion would have us climbing without chalk, in nail boots, above specially constructed pits full of broken glass and dog turds.
More difficult yes, more dangerous for the sake of danger no. As has always been the case in climbing, new innovations allow more difficult things to be done in relative safety and in better style. Make no mistake, taking a fall onto pads from 8 or 10m is NOT a copout, itís pushing the limit of the safety envelope to the extreme.
Adam Long - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to gallam1:
> (In reply to Adam L)

> In my experience the difference is a bit like the difference between top-roping a sport route and then doing it on the bolts (Buoux slabs excluded obviously). It is slightly different but it's mainly a question of acclimatisation, not ability.

I can't agree with that. If its properly highball, you're not really in a position to fall off out of control. You can choose to jump off, but you won't get many goes at that before doing it again becomes deeply unattractive.

>I'm not sure that a ground-up with mats is a better ascent than an on-sight on a top-rope for example.

Bit of a wierd comparison as presumably by ground-up you mean 'with falls/ not first go'. Only one of them gets you a tick though.

> These are obviously excellent technical ascents and I'm glad that Toy Boy is getting some attention at last, but quick ascents of highball Font 7c/+ etc. happen frequently. And Phil Davidson and Rob Gawthorpe were climbing highball-ish Font 7c gound up almost 30 years ago (before mats were invented).

Well it depends what you class as highball. Stuff like Sole Power is not really highball in the same way as Toyboy or Cornelius.
philo - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to JDal:
i watched tommy smith do a heel hook last friday, things are looking up for those hips!
Richard Bradley - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: The height that a route becomes a high ball is inversely proportional to age. By 48 it is 2 foot.
gallam1 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Adam L:
> Bit of a wierd comparison as presumably by ground-up you mean 'with falls/ not first go'. Only one of them gets you a tick though.

That was what I meant and actually I don't think either of them gets you a tick (with due respect to the grade police). This is a re-hash of the debate that followed Neil Gresham's padded out ascent of Ulysses. E6 for this and e.g. E7 for Benign Lives would seem to be a bit overgraded above a bouncy castle, or a swimming pool, or whilst using Captain Kirk's anti-grav device from Star Trek 5.

If the tick means a bouldering tick, then why not just top-rope it?
Serpico on 07 Nov 2008 - 78.148.123.83 whois?
In reply to Boy:
> (In reply to paul mitchell) ...above specially constructed pits full of broken glass and dog turds.
>

I see you've been to Woodhouse Scar then...
abarro81 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to gallam1:
Yes of course it doesn't get them the e7 tick, it gets them the highball 7C+ tick.. why not top rope it? same reason people don't go top roping west side story, same reason people want to ground up careless torque, same reason all vert sport routes aren't just top roped - it still doesn't get you the tick, it's more fun to climb it without the rope, and highballs can still be damn exciting even if ending up broken is fairly unlikely.
gallam1 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81:
> Yes of course it doesn't get them the e7 tick, it gets them the highball 7C+ tick.. why not top rope it? same reason people don't go top roping west side story, same reason people want to ground up careless torque, same reason all vert sport routes aren't just top roped - it still doesn't get you the tick, it's more fun to climb it without the rope, and highballs can still be damn exciting even if ending up broken is fairly unlikely.

OK - this was the original point. Highball 7c+ ticks are not really news are they? Toy Boy has had 2 E7 ascents in 20 years. An E7 ascent of this probably is news to the UK gritstone fraternity. Can you imagine the reaction to a headline "Climber top-ropes gritstone E7 and reports that it's Font 7c+"?
JDal - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to philo:
> i watched tommy smith do a heel hook last friday, things are looking up for those hips!
Aye, they'll wear the buggers out those two. His thumb hasn't grown back though .

TimS on 07 Nov 2008 - host217-37-99-241.in-addr.btopenworld.com
In reply to gallam1:
> (In reply to Adam L)
> [...]
>
> That was what I meant and actually I don't think either of them gets you a tick (with due respect to the grade police). This is a re-hash of the debate that followed Neil Gresham's padded out ascent of Ulysses. E6 for this and ...

The whole point is that they are considering these routes as boulder problems rather than solos, meaning they are climbed ground up above pads as you would for a majority of boulder problems.

I assume the 'why not just top rope it' comment was meant as a joke, otherwise the question would be true for any climb.

IMHO this is the right step for these short grit routes, rather than ignoring that pads exist and are commonly owned.
In reply to gallam1: You need to re-asses what you consider 'NEWS'.

This is news because:

A) It's damn hard.
B) It's two interesting, young, top climbers taking an interesting approach to some grit routes.
C) It's topical at the moment.

News isn't about numbers, it's about interesting things, people, routes or styles. Sometimes numbers are a part of that.

To me, what these two guys are doing is damn interesting. Toy Boy ground-up above mats. What next? Who are these guys?

And that's why it's news.

Fair play to Dan and Ned.

Jack
gallam1 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to abarro81:
> Yes of course it doesn't get them the e7 tick, it gets them the highball 7C+ tick.. why not top rope it? same reason people don't go top roping west side story, same reason people want to ground up careless torque, same reason all vert sport routes aren't just top roped - it still doesn't get you the tick, it's more fun to climb it without the rope, and highballs can still be damn exciting even if ending up broken is fairly unlikely.

Just following on from this, are you saying that JM did not tick Slingshot as a boulder problem, or even Father Ape/Geronimo and the Gib Tor roof. At the time everyone thought these were ticked as boulder problems but were awaiting a lead/solo.
TimS on 07 Nov 2008 - host217-37-99-241.in-addr.btopenworld.com
In reply to gallam1: JM was obviously a great publicist and the technology wasn't around at the time to make these safer. They weren't ticked as boulder problems, they were ticked as having been climbed on a top rope.
abarro81 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to gallam1:
Whether you count it as ticked or not is fairly down to yourself - If I toproped a highball I certainly wouldn't take the tick, same as if I TRed a sport route I wouldn't count it. Times change, styles progress...
Adam Long - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

The main point is that this IS an improvement in style. Even with lots of mats, climbing ground-up is harder than headpointing. To me its also a far more authentic style, much more in keeping with the basic premise of the sport.
gallam1 - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I think that the point is that if this sort of thing is treated as news on UKC then a whole strand of gritstone history (short, hard, above terrible landings) risks becoming another best forgotten art. But then if we had Captain Kirk's gadget that is probably what would happen. The whole risking a broken ankle/leg/back thing would be seen as a bit silly.

And then someone would pipe up to Captain Kirk, Why not just top-rope it?
Paul B - on 07 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
>
> To me, what these two guys are doing is damn interesting. Toy Boy ground-up above mats. What next? Who are these guys?
>
> And that's why it's news.
>
> Fair play to Dan and Ned.

These guys are Waddage!

(i've been told to say I would have done <insert problem name here> by now if my beastmaker was ready!)

g taylor - on 10 Nov 2008
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: good effort lads!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.