UKC

I gather I'm way out of date here, but I gather that some idiot has removed the chockstone from Right Eliminate.

I'm saddened and dismayed by this. This is one of my favourite routes: I led it with just a sling on the chock, and I'd hate to think others were being denied the same opportunity. The route's been good enough for climbers in its present state for fifty years, and I'd have much rather seen it stay that way. I don't suppose I'll ever go to Curbar again without a sad glance up.

I don't even believe it will make much difference to the route: you've done the hard bit by the time you get there anyway. Just one more small part of Peak history lost, and for what? It's Dave Thomas vandalising Wall Street Crash all over again.

I'm striving to restrain myself here: I'm sure the phrase 'pig-ignorant lout with a God complex' wouldn't contribute to the debate, however neatly it might sum up the facts. I'll just ask nicely: would whoever's done this please, please put it back.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

You need to read

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=98319

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=98690

in that order (and ignore my silly mistake when I got distracted and looked up Right Unconquerable in thw wrong guidebook)

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Hey you know John. I felt like that when those damn retrobolters put bolts in Ground Effect at Kilnsey...used to be a pokey E5 6b protected by the odd nut and some bootlace threads.

I can remember when I first led it, shit me up big time. Great experience.

Now it is protected by bolts, a sanitized warm-up for the lads after work.

"They've" done it to loads of other routes as well. "They" think they own the dam crags.

I wouldn't go as far as calling them "pig-ignorant louts with a God complex" as most of "they" I actually know and I consider friends still do.

Climbings changing lad. Us trad daddies are just going to have to go with the flow, accept the inevitable.

M


Hmmmm....we could do something about it though!

Interested in a bit of direct action?

Or will we ice skate in hell with all the other apathetic gits who did nothing.

In reply to Dominion:

I had decided not to. I was rather trying to remain sad instead of angry, and I didn't think reading feeble justifications would help with that.

I was right too. However, for the record:-

1. Jim Perrin freed Shrike, not Ed Drummond.

2. I don't think the gentleman who said that it's right to remove all fixed gear, eg bolts, pegs, chockstones, quite meant what he said. I've never heard anyone suggest we should scour Stanage and Cloggy to remove the wooden wedges and rusty nuts from the railway which remain, because everyone (or so I had always assumed) just treats them as part of our history and adding to the character of the route. Or indeed, the peg on London Wall, or the bolt on the Cad.

3. The other chockstones are red herrings. They weren't there on the first ascent (see that famous picture of Joe in High Peak - at least I think that's where it is, though I may mean the Hard Years). Or at least, if they were, they weren't clipped, and since you don't climb the crack lower down anyway, they wouldn't help.

4. The gentleman who wanted to know why Mr Lee should do something so crass immediately after becoming a sports climber was being a little naive. It is precisely at this time of life that people start to find it funny to annoy traditionalists - then and when they are very, very young. Sad, but there it is.

5. Al, thanks again for this extraordinarily irritating registration nonsense. I have been meaning to give this site up for some time, and (bar this contribution) you will have helped me achieve what willpower alone couldn't.

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

Afraid this will have to be my last contribution I'm running out of email addresses to borrow, but if Mr Lee doesn't see sense I probably will go in for some direct action, yes.

In reply to trad git:

That's more like it. Less talk, more action, as it always has been.

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:


Well Mick your are not quite right there. I was Pete Gommersall who retro bolted his own route in that case. I was there and asked him not too at the time!

I do agree completely with the spirt of what you are says though.

Steve Crowe.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Agree entirely. Good to see you fighting on the right side.

In reply to John Cox: Sorry got confused between Perrin & Drummond, however the sentiment of my post remains the same.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1: John, well put. I was equally angry and only just managed to restrain myself from spewing much worse bile. There isn't much I can do in the way of direct action from Australia for the next few years but I am very angry and sad. And I sincerely look forward to the inevitable day when I meet the bloke.

I haven't done the route yet but it was high on my list and I really wanted to do it in its classic form.

Rocktalk depresses me more and more these days.

Though, if you want to get even more depressed you should check out the state (or lack of them) of ethics in Australia.

In reply to Archangel in Oz: has anyone actually checked that the ccockstone has actually gone?

In reply to John Cox:

I have a grave admission to make. I too removed something from Right Eliminate, just yesterday. Yes! a little serpent gave my girlfriend the idea of taking a large number of blackberries off the bush that clogs the initial crack. She handed one to me, and I did eat. And lo, it was good. I did it in the name of returning the crag to its original state, guv, honest.

We are now looking forward to Apple and Right Eliminate crumble for our tea tonight.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1: Well this really pisses me off now. I am no where near being able to do this route, but will be in another year of so. Now, it looks like I am going to have to fork out £60 - £70 for a friend when a week or so ago, a sling would have sufficed. Maybe it would just be cheaper to put in a new chockstone. After all, surely climbing a route in the style of the first ascentionist carries the most credit?

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Does that mean I could go and hammer the sh*te out of London Wall?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

I thought I posted on here. Maybe it was zapped. That would be a first. If so I hope it was because of the Wastw*ttery word rather than because I was uncomplementary about the impossibility of registering under the new regime. Or the oblique observation that Hell is Other People
I beg your collective pardon for this digression - after all maybe I imagined it all.

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Is it all about money Jon?

Borrow "the cam" needed and do it in "better" style than the first ascensionist.

How good would that be?

M

In reply to Jon Dittman:

Jon, I'll happily come up to Curbar to lend you Camalots 4 and 5 if you need them. Email me when you think you're ready. However, as an incentive, I would want you to pay my petrol costs if you are unable to lead cleanly to the point where you would have threaded the chock ...

In reply to Anonymous:

That should, of course, be 'uncomplimentary'.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

Having done Right Eliminate I’m sorry to here the chockstone has been removed. It gave you a target to aim for, a thank god hold to rest on and eye up the remaining crack as well as being something to thread.
A mate fell off the upper crack on his attempt and ripped the big cams from below the chockstone, the sling round the chock held stopping a ground fall.

On a slightly different note whilst seconding Post Mortem at Eagle Crag – Borrowdale (an off-width at a similar grade) about 9 years ago, I underclinged the only chockstone which popped out and went bouncing down the hill below. This was a bit of gear and a good handhold/foothold for a rest. I wonder if anyone has done it without the chockstone, especially if they had done it before, and if the route has changed for the better/worse?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:
Damn right! If we don't stop this culture of elimimnating aid and fixed protection who knows where it will end.

In reply to Serpico:

I don't know much. What I've learnt so far is that I should leave things exactly as I find them. If people consider themselves above that then things become problematic and generally upsetting for others.

??

Curly

In reply to Serpico: Right on - well said

In reply to curlymynci:

I tend to agree curly.

A slight problem comes when new routing though and while ethically one tries not to damage or alter the rock or vegetation it is almost inevitable that you will remove loose rock and probably also remove moss and plants.

But yeh, generally, why can't people leave previously climbed routes as they found them?

In reply to John Cox:


RT is the sewer not the sewage

In reply to Dave Collier:

"But yeh, generally, why can't people leave previously climbed routes as they found them?"

Because they are (pick one or more from the following list):

greedy
stupid
selfish
insensitive

In reply to Dave Collier: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind ..

In reply to Bob:
please add

on a firking massive ego trip

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Been interesting reading, being a novice in terms of crag ethics, as well as climbing - so sometimes when I post an opinion on threads like this it is just to test the waters with regard to what the general consensus of opinion is about some matters, and I'll make a judgement based on what I consider to be a morally correct way foraward based on principle, and also swayed by the way that things are generally done.

I am unlikely to get to the point where I can climb Right Eliminate, having started climbing relatively late in life compared to some of you lot, so this specific issue is unlikely to really going to bother me on a personal level.

What does bother me is the methodology of the matter in hand was gone about.

The first post announcing Simon Lee's intention was on Tuesday 31st August, and the post announcing it had been removed was on Thursday 2nd September. If the first post was to generate a valid discussion about whether it was correct to remove the chockstone (or not) and get some sort of consensus (from a relatively small sample - but then most opinion polls are from very small samples) - then the actual removal took place before any proper, considered discussion took place.

So, it seems that the first post was more a notice of intent, rather than a call for discussion. Or, as Enty suggested in the post I'm actually replying to, as an ego trip.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the way this has been done annoys me more than the fact that it has been done - for reasons stated above. But then I've also been to crags where "notable" climbs have been done, and enjoyed looking at them, and thinking of the ways in which the first ascenscionist may have done it, and the context, and equipment with which they approached it. This is partly because I'm trying to get a feel for the history of climbing - the way things used to be done, and how lucky we are (if we can afford it) to have the equipment we have nowadays.

Just some late night ramblings - please feel free to flame me, ignore me, or point out where I've made mistakes

In reply to Serpico: Interesting suggestion.

I guess if we continue ethics to far, we will have to burn all the heather top outs I have been pulling on in the Lancs Quarries for the past few years.

In reply to andyyyy:Only if they were planted by the FA to aid his/her top out.

In reply to Bob:

So where do you drawn the line between previously climbed, and previously aided?

Bottom line: JB wasn't good enough (Oooh blasphemy!) to do it without the chockstones, now there are climbers who are - with or without the use of large friends.

In reply to Serpico:


Perhaps if you change that to "JB did the climb using the equipment - footwear, protection, ropes (and without prior knowledge) - relevant to a first ascent in 1951" then you might be able to make that point.

However, if you choose the wording you used, then people might have different opinions about you, and your opinions.

In reply to Serpico:

>Bottom line: JB wasn't good enough (Oooh blasphemy!) to do it without the chockstones, now there are climbers who are - with or without the use of large friends

So, if someone solos it your reasoniong means that is the correct way to do it? Throw away all your cams, unless the FA of the route used them. Not many routes left to use them on now are there?

In reply to sutty:

Nice one, mate. Put it far better than I did!

In reply to Simon Lee:

I notice in the routes database you say "Good route with nice new bolts" about Ground Effect at Kilnsey which seems a bit strange given your holier than thou ethics?

I've never considered chock stones as unethical previously, to a non climber they are invisible so there is no "environmental" argument. To a climber they are part of history, part of what makes a route, to remove them is to deny that history. No one would carve a collie step or place a chock stone these days but they are there, they always have been and are more important in climbing than your personal hair-splitting ethics.

Improve on the original ascent? With a rack of large friends,sticky boots and chalk? Don't make me laugh!.

In reply to Enty:
I ask myself Enty. Is that really so?

Could the same be said of people who bolt squeeze jobs that eliminate on other lines?

Could the same be said about people who retrobolt routes when the very same people are on the area commitees who drew up guidelines that said "no retrobolting".

At least Simon has been honest. I see no duplicity or hypocracy.

He hasn't damaged the rock.

He said he may put the chockstone the back.

It has certainly stimulated some debate and much communication between climbers about ethics.

M

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1: John, what chock ???????

In reply to Anni: Sorry John, actualy thats me, Anni has hijacked my computer.
Al

In reply to sutty:


As usual, you are missing the point. The problem with chockstones is that they are fixed, unavoidable aid points as well as being fixed protection.

Imagine if that (your?) generation had chosen to stuff cracks with brightly coloured plastic blobs rather than lumps of grit. Would you still want them left in? Functionally that is a precise analogy.

People are only sentimental about these fixed aid points becaue they are kidding themselves that they are somehow natural, or have an excessive deference to history.

In reply to Anni:

No Al it's an evil techno-conspiracy to purge RT of its reactionary elements. First John Cox, now you. Sutty will be next ....

In reply to Dominion: 'If the first post was to generate a valid discussion about whether it was correct to remove the chockstone (or not) and get some sort of consensus'

The first post was Not to get a consensus but to establish if there was a Valid reason for not removing it. Clearly I didnt find a valid reason that persuaded me to do otherwise

In reply to Tyler:
' I've never considered chock stones as unethical previously, to a non climber they are invisible so there is no "environmental" argument. To a climber they are part of history, part of what makes a route, to remove them is to deny that history. No one would carve a collie step or place a chock stone these days but they are there, they always have been and are more important in climbing than your personal hair-splitting ethics.'

Good points, well made and to my mind the only real reasons for leaving the stone in - particularly as a history graduate. However, against that there are very few true off-widths around. Why spoil one of the best by blocking it with a chockstone?

'on a firking massive ego trip'

If I am on a massive ego trip pls keep posting demonising statements to give me the attention I crave

In reply to Simon Lee:

But what is/was your "valid" reason for removing it?

Bob

In reply to Dominion: Are you suggesting that people should only climb RE with a washing line and with plimsols?

These routes arent museum pieces and are not above improvement

In reply to Bob: At the risk of repeating myself....

Did Right Eliminate yesterday. Enjoyed it but thought that the chockstone spoilt the route. Pure off-widths in the UK are very rare. With large cams it cant be justified for protection anymore. So effectively it is a pre-placed artificial hold. It rocks so much I am sure it would be easy to take out - mind you replacing it the right way again might be a different matter. Anway I am seriously thinking of taking it out - unless there is some justification for it that I am missing

In reply to Bob: you are kidding arn't you ? try reading the 150 odd posts on the subject that have been posted so far....

In reply to Simon Lee: have you repeated the route yet ?

In reply to Simon Lee: It does seem like a totally selfish action. The reasons for removing it are subjective and from what I can understand about training for Yosemite. Personally I believe leading the route without pushing a large cam above your head would be a more enjoyable experience. Simon obviously hasn’t lost the sport climbing mentality required for traditional climbing

In reply to Simon Lee:


Your arguments are pretty subjective. And not really sufficient justification for denying other climbers the option of doing the route in its traditional style (IMHO of course). I suspect most people with access to the appropriate cams would use them but again, no reason to remove the choice. It's not exactly like retro-bolting.
I may have missed something higher on the thread, but why is a self-proclaimed 100% Sports Climber so exercised about some fairly unobtrusive in-situ aid to protecting a non-sport route anyway?
Or is it just an adventurous troll?

In reply to Simon Lee:

No, I'm suggesting that if someone wants to say that Joe Brown isn't good enough then they should try climbing some of his routes using the equipment - including footwear - style and prior knowledge (or lack of) that he did before they make that comment.

Then we can know whether they're any good, or just not good enough, too.

In reply to Rid Skwerr: Read my profile. Up till last year a 100% sport climber. Prior to that 10 years + trad. This year lots of trad including leading 30 routes at Millstone last Weds as training for the Nose.

In reply to WB: Fair point. I selfishly want to make it a better crack to climb. A lot of people selfishly agree with me. Other selfish people want to deny us the pleasure of climbing a pure off-width. Selfish is always other people.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Should have paid more attention.
Still don't agree with your plan though.

In reply to Bored: Not yet. I would love for someone to say if I climbed it clean then the whole issue was resolved.

I have work to do now but will respond to other points of view later.

In reply to Bored:

Note the fact that the word "valid" was quoted (as it is now). Just because a feature of the route spoilt one person's enjoyment, that person sees fit to alter the route to suite their idea of what the route should be. This is not a valid reason.

I haven't done Right Eliminate and neither do I know the true history of the chockstone in question. But if it was put in place by JB then it was only in the style of the times when stones were carried and used as "chokestone" which were then threaded for protection. Given the size the crack of RE I would be surprised if JB carried the stone in his pocket, which means that he pre-placed it by abseil and I don't remember him writing about this in Hard Years. I could be wrong about this last point, but remember that pre-inspection of routes was not common during the 1950's and such an approach would have led to comment.

Bob

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

What is the difference between removing this in situ gear from, say removing the bolts from the Cad, Indian Face or the Big Issue or the bolts on Lundy ? Is it the fact that Joe Brown is a British climbing icon who could do no wrong ? is it because a chockstone in some ways looks more natural (even though it really is totally alien) ?

I really am curious as to why people get so precious about removing this one pre-placed piece of gear when we are perfectly happy to see others removed (even lauding the perpetrators for doing so).

In reply to Simon Lee:

I'm a little concerned that the bile that has been (rightly)directed against you online may yet find a physical outlet; I would be very careful.

Returning the chockstone ASAP and apologising is in everybody's best interests, yours included.

Please note this is not a direct threat on my part.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Jamie B.: lol - get a grip man - if anyone is really that bothered they'll drop another stone in the crack - i don't think we'll see any vigilante attacks just yet !!

In reply to Jon Dittman: surely you'd just carry your own chockstone?

In reply to Bob:

The fact is someone placed it on abseil sometime back then, whether there is comment or not, or whether it was JB or not. Pre-inspection of grit routes prior to an FA was in fact quite common in the 1950's.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:

What has happened to the chockstone? Does Simon Lee have it on his mantelpiece? If so the police are probably not interested but you could try and get him prosecuted for criminal damage or theft?

In reply to GrahamD:


A small difference. Chockstoning was developed in the twenties, particularly by British climbers, as an alternative to whacking metal pitons into the rock. It led to our modern trad rack today, in fact the whole style of climbing mainly practiced in the UK today and misnamed ‘trad’ to distinguish it from sport climbing, as developed by the French.

“While the rest of the world nailed spectacular walls, the British climbers were patiently learning a less brutal technique of climbing more safely involving a novel method of creating a uni-directional anchor…Aid climbing was derogatorily coined "steeplejacking," and the piton was a last resort and placed only in emergencies. In the 1920s, top climbers began pioneering a pitonless craft on the numerous short crags in rural areas. The most inspiring climbs of the day were the pebble routes, using slung natural chockstones.

Fred Pigott experimented with placing and slinging natural chockstones for protection and aid on the east buttress of Cloggy in 1927. His partners, tongue in cheek, excused his deeds as acts of Providence: the rocks from below were somehow accidentally finding their way into the cracks and wedging into the constrictions! Soon pebble protection became an art form, and expert eyes searched streambeds for the right combination of rocks later to be expertly placed for security on climbs. In the late 1950s paths to the crags switched from streambeds to railroads, and climbers began using leftover machine nuts found lying by the tracks. Drilled out and slung, these soon evolved into custom-manufactured aluminum affairs known as "chocks ".”

http://www.bigwalls.net/climb/mechadv/

In reply to Witkacy:

As you say, a small difference to cause such a great divide.

Placing chockstones may have been the 'British' way of doing things but it still amounts to in situ gear just as surely.

The French have only been into wholesale bolting relatively recently and their ethics in places like Verdon were very 'British' - arguably until Ron Fawcett paid a visit ....

In reply to sutty:Soloing's certainly the purest way to do it. The chockstone wasn't a natural feature of the crack, it was used by many as aid, and it was a point of fixed protection to aim for. Cams are placed on the lead and removed afterwards. Isn't that what British trad is about placing; placing your own gear on the lead?
In reply to dominion: Glad to see that after being unable to differentiate Right Eliminate from Right Unconquerable you're now an expert on the route.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

theft from whom? criminal damage of what?

In reply to Jamie B.:


But clearly an indirect threat on the part of one of your mates

In reply to Simon Lee:

NO. Definately not. I've never in my life acted as a conduit for violence and intimidation and I'm not going to start now. I'm just pointing out that right now there are a lot of people who would like to lamp you, so do not be entirely surprised if this occurs.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Jamie B.: Thank you for warning me not to be surprised

In reply to Serpico:

Sad to see you can't tell when someone looked up the wrong route and failed to check before posting is a simple mistake, for which I've apologised.

Never claimed to be an expert. If I did so please point out where.

And this doesn't invalidate the point I made about you saying that Joe Brown isn't good enough and so you should prove your assertation by doing the route using the equipment that Joe Brown used on the FA.

I'm sure you'll have a big audience for that attempt.

Just let everyone know when you're going to do it.

Or maybe you aren't good enough to do it with his equipment.

Be interesting.

Or you could just dodge the question.

In reply to Simon Lee:



Might I suggest that since you accept that the 'part of history' argument is valid - and a viewpoint that seems to be supported strongly by numerous people - a compromise could be reached... that you climb the route as you wish to without the chockstone but then replace it so that others can make the same decision for themselves on the basis of their own subjective/selfish reasoning?

In reply to MarkM:

A programme of chockstone removal could revitalise UK new routing though. All those routes out there that have never been truly freed. And which clearly have 'room for improvement'.
Whip the chocks out and away with the renaming after a FFA.

In reply to Anonymous:
the landowner
a national park

criminal damage of a classic route

there is probably a byelaw banning the removal of stones plants etc.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:


but not litter.

In reply to MarkM: You are dangerously close to making a lot of sense. Let me get back to you.

In reply to TobyA: no i'm sure they have a seperate byelaw concerning dropped crisp packets, sandwich wrappers and empty bottles of pop.

In reply to Jon Greengrass: So if Joe Brown had put a sling around an empty bottle of pop that would be bad, but because he picked up a lump of rock and put that in the crack instead it is OK?

In reply to TobyA:

Extreme Rock: 'two chockstones of doubtful origin.'

Has anyone got more substance to back up the assertion that the chock in question (as opposed to either of the 2 Paul Mitchell removed) is, beyond doubt, artificial rather than just doubtful?
It seems to me that unless you get this sorted (perhaps by asking the first ascencionist) you don't even have the beginning of a case.
If it is indeed artificial then you can move on to the tradition/purity/aesthetics argument.
My inclination would be to stick with tradition but at least then substantive cases can be evaluated for the different options.

i think perhaps the reason people are so pissed off at this, is not actually to do with the route itself, but the fact that one man feels he has some kind of right to change routes as he feels is necessary, playing god if you like.
And it was a bloody arrogant thing to do.

In reply to MarkM:

Finally some sense on this topic - that sounds like a solution that accomodates everybody's point of view.

In reply to Jon Greengrass:

According to the stuff posted at the Roaches, it's illegal to sever a piece of the landscape, or remove a piece of the landscape that has already been severed. I seriously doubt that this is even appropriate, but it does raise ethical questions. That was quoting a national law, not just a bye-law, so it would apply anywhere; and raises an entirely different ethical question.

Not suggesting for a moment that it's appropriate though, even I'm not that daft.

In reply to Sean@work:

So it will be taken out then put back in on a regular basis by large-cam weilding off-width specialists? Are they as good at placing chockstones as cams? Would you want to take a fall onto it, as your only piece of pro perhaps, without knowing that it was firmly seated in place? My attitdue to these things is that a chockstone on a popular crag, like a dubious looking hold, 'must' be OK because thousands of people have pulled on it / weighted it before me. But if I might be the first...

In reply to John Gillott:


Of course, in normal circumstances nothing happens on RE on a 'regular basis'!

But, yes, a remove-if-you-don't-need-it policy would be deeply unwise and likely dangerous.

In reply to John Gillott:

Anybody climbing this route surely has enough common sense and experience to be able to make up their own minds what is acceptable or adequate protection.

In reply to Sean@work:

Well, first of all it is not always obvious that a chockstone is really solid. This one also rocks a little as we know. So, I'd rather rely on its longevity than anything else. Secondly, supposing I do decide to trust in my ability to judge what is and is not a reliable chockstone, it would require me to abseil down in advance to check it unless I was prepared to take the risk and set off blind.

I am still a little half-hearted in opposing the removal of the chock, as it is undoubtedly aid. But one part of my gut reaction on this is that leading it used to be a pretty necky proposition in addition to being a damn awkward struggle (I should confess at this point to seconding it years ago rather than leading it). Setting off for the 'pure offwidth' experience but with as many large cams as makes you feel comfortable seems to reduce rather than enhance the route to me.

But hey, they can't be uninvented, and after all this discussion it looks like I might be trying it again soon; in which case I dare say I will be carrying as many of the large cheating devices as the team possesses.

In reply to John Gillott:

I am somewhat surprised (well, not really) that nobody has yet posted to say "I've now done it without the chockstone and it is better/worse/different than before".

I am particularly surprised that Simon, having gone to the trouble of going to the crag and removing the chock, did not have the good grace to then put in an ascent of the route in its new form.

John, Toby - what would you say to a team attempt on the weekend? Having only narrowly succeeded on Ramshaw Green Crack last weekend (at the second attempt) I suspect I may be in for a thorough spanking, but it seems a worthy cause.

In reply to darkinbad:

Yes, a rather petty streak in my nature nearly posted a 'VOTE - have you ever actually led Right Eliminate?' thread but I restrained myself.

In reply to darkinbad: sorry to have beaten you to it. Hope that doesnt put you off. Look forward to the feedback.

In reply to Simon Lee: If you don't own a friend 8 or whatever it is, how is one supposed to climb it now at the grade?

In reply to Jon Dittman: the same way you climb any route which you don;t have the specific gear for,































very carefully