UKC

this was pointed out on another thread, and has caused a bit of questioning to be done on my behalf. and apologies if it's been done before.

(the below is an example, so don't turn it into anything it's not)

as far as most people are aware, chimera (at high rocks) hasn't been repeated. however, ian h is quoted having said:

si o conor has supposedly climbed chimera. but there is no photo evidence or witnesses. he also reputedly climbed a route at hi rox named northern raiders which he rated as harder than chimera, but does not know the exact location.

ok, so the guy claims to have repeated it - good effort.

as far as i'm aware 'chimera' was climbed originally on a toprope (please correct me if you know otherwise). it would take serious effort to boulder it out - think of all the fuss made over krait arete last year. so why no photos, or any witnesses?

surely if one was to claim to have repeated such a prominent route (moreso because it was bouldered out - i'm assuming it was otherwise the belayer would be able to confirm) one would ensure that there was a witness with a camera or something, just to make sure. or even a spotter or two.

this goes for every top-of-the-limit route. of course i'm sure there are people who climb seriously hard and yet remain out of the limelight not letting on what they've done, which is understandable. but to publicly claim such a hard route without any credible information seems, to me, a rather dubious thing to do.

i wonder if this is a regular thing to be happening within the climbing community? i know one of john dunne's routes is shrouded in controversy as to whether he did it or not, (can't think of the name - was it parthian shot? i have a terrible memory at times) but are there more of his that are viewed in a similar light?

i guess i'm just curious as to why these things go the way they do, and whether people take them as read, or delve into them a bit deeper...

(and again, please don't turn this into anything it's not)

thanks.

In reply to sharkey: As far as Chimera is concerned, it was claimed to have been done at a time when it was totally out of condition. In fact no-one really go on it until the rain-free period last year as the rhodies were cut down allowing the wall to dry a bit.

In reply to sharkey:

These look like pretty bloody big ticks...

http://www.lawestvector.org/images/ticks.jpg

...*shudder*

In reply to Fiend:
ahemm ... you get arsey enough when folks take the piss out of your 'serious' threads so don't do it to sharkey's please.

In reply to sharkey:>

Have a look at the Fred Rouhling article on climbing.com for one take on this. http://www.climbing.com/current/fredrouhling/

On the other hand, Si O'Connor does have a bit of a reputation so it's a bit hard to have a discussion about such things without making it personal. The only thing I would offer in that respect is that in discussions with other people about Si O'Connor's achievements, I've noted that the better the climber, up to guys capable of climbing near his level, the greater the reluctance amongst to make disparaging remarks about what he's done.

In reply to Carnage: i understood O'Connor's claimed ascent took place in '95. A fairly dry summer by all accounts (remember the hosepipe bans?) However i wasn't climbing enough at the time to make a comment about the condition of that wall.

What state is that bit of high rocks in now? Is moving staircase dry/moss free?

In reply to Stac Pollaidh: Someone had to. Anyway, the SO thing has been done to bits.

In reply to ally smith:

Nor was I- But my comment came from those who were.

Dunno about now- Was damp and green last time I was there - 3 or so ago.

In reply to richard bradley @ work:

it's not to do with mr o'connor - like i put (twice) it was merely an example to illustrate a point about hard lines being claimed in dubious circumstances. i went on to ask about the dunne line, but that's been missed out.

tony : thanks for that rouhling article, interesting reading. and interesting comments as well.